What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation?

@Benj96

The simulation theory might be true. In the sense that we live in a world that is not physical. Parmenides stated that space is a void, void is nothingness, and thus cannot exist. That would mean physical objects cannot exist, and so it would mean we live in a simulation.

Thanks!

Yes, but I mean no offense. It's just used to refer to a condition. Which word would you use?

What you are saying makes sense.

Somethings are understood, yet are hard to define or explain. I think "belief" is one of those things.

If we could just make someone believe, then we would be able to implement it in our school systems. We would be able to eliminate intellectual disability completely.

I think prayers have only to do with the supernatural. I mean, it's considered prayer when we are requesting help from a supernatural being.

21. Speed learning pill
22. Enhanced memory pill

If you're saying if God is not good then God does not exist, that doesn't make sense to me.

It's like the following scenario. Suppose someone says that you shouldn't worry about your car getting in an accident, because there is a person who always protects people from it. If you get in an accident, then it's logical to assume that there isn't a person who will always protect you from it.

This is not an argument that God doesn't exist. This is an argument that God is not good.

You're right, I was only talking about the God of Abrahamic religions, where goodness is a trait of God.

Out of all the arguments I have come across, this one makes the most sense.

Yes, but they have been used to argue against the existence of God. Which is what this thread is about.

Tom, I agree that most of them are very hard to comprehend. Because they eventually lead to a question where you are saying can God do and not do something simultaneously, which can be hard to comprehend.

The one that is easy to comprehend is the last one, about God letting evil happen.

@fishfry,

I made a few changes after your post.

I am not sure the universe is everything. I think there are lots of things that are non-material but cannot be considered part of a universe or inside the universe.

A timeless world could not exist for more than zero seconds.

It's almost like magicians built the computer that can operate magically without the hardware. But, the hardware was created just to make it not seem magical or weird, and more scientific.

@god must be an atheist, they wouldn't be exactly the same, they would be unconscious beings.

Fish fry, by "magic" I mean that suppose you take a potato and rub it and it turns into a Lamborghini. Modern day computers are just like that.

Suppose you were to categorize a potato that turns into a Lamborghini when rubbed. I am pretty sure you would categorize it as magic or magical technology.

Drunk people lose consciousness all the time, but their body remains active and operates by itself. Another great example of the body being active and operating by itself without consciousness is sleep walking.

Time can "exist" for zero seconds just like a container can be empty. You speak of potential, not existence.

Sorry, I meant to say that each unit of time "can" and only exists for zero seconds.

That would result in many contradictions. If time did not exist, nothing could exist temporarily or forever. So everything, including nothingness cannot exist or not exist.

I am not sure what's the purpose/point of life, but I think that there is no greater purpose/point to life than being happy, and having dignity.

I have actually, it was a male genitalia. It was a boy laying down with both his hands behind his head, and his penis erect.

Hey Jack,

I took a picture of my wall, and tried my best to highlight the faces I see in it.

I just wanted to share that information.

Thanks, it was very easy to find.

Thanks.

Thanks for the link.



I will list more once I come across them.

You’ll have to explain further the point of this thread?

A discussion about the definition of "might", "possibly", "chance" "maybe" or "possibility". I am going to go ahead and guess that Amergin's answer is correct.

It means that we don't know whether they will or they wont buy ice cream.

Basically what I am saying is that Zeno has made a mistake when concluding that time does not exist and motion is impossible. Suppose, you have three apples. You take one, throw it in the basket, then the second one, then the third one. Now, suppose Zeno comes up and says that it is impossible for three apples to be in that basket, because for there to be three apples in the basket, first there must be one and a half, then 0.75, then 0.375, then 0.1875, and so on and so on. It's true, if you divide three apples in half, you would get one and a half, if you divide that, you would get 0.75, and so and so on. But, that is not the way the apples went into the basket. It went in one at a time.

Time being the quantity of moments, and a fraction of moments cannot be possible, means that the increase amount of time is one moment at a time.

The shortest unit of time perhaps being the 'Planck time' .. some 10**-43 seconds if I recall correctly.

Time is a moment. There is no such a thing as a fraction of a moment. Suppose someone claims that there is. Suppose they say, that there is a moment, then half a moment, then a full moment. He is saying, we have one moment + half a moment + half a moment = two moments. But in actuality, we have a moment, then this moment we call half a moment, then this moment he called a full moment. So that means, there were three moments. So, a fraction of a moment cannot exist. The smallest number of moments is one.

What is "time"? What is a "moment"?

It is very hard to define time or moment.

"infinite time between any two moments" is impossible?

Suppose we have moment called A and a moment called B. There are infinite moments between them. For moment A to become non-existent and a different moment called B to become existent, infinite moments have to become existent and non-existent one after another.

I am basically saying something circular is never the same as something non-circular.
— elucid

I would like to see your justification. Why would that be the case?

If it is not true, it means that something circular is sometimes or always the same as something non-circular. We know it is not always true, we obviously can see that.

A circular object being the same as a square one would mean that it is circular and not-circular object at the same time.

"You can't square a circle" isn't simple about the shapes/definitions of the shapes of squares and circles.

I am not talking about squaring a circle. I am basically saying something circular is never the same as something non-circular. Thus, something circular is something that is never non-circular. Thus, something circular always remains circular. I am just using something circular in this example, I am not saying it is true only for circular objects. I am saying that the following statement applies to every property of everything.

For sake of clarity, I would like to say what I have been trying to say in a different way.

A circle is never the same as a square. Thus, a circle is never a square. Otherwise, it is either sometimes or always the same as a square. Thus, sometimes or always a square. This principle applies to all things.

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

Why did you start another thread about this? You're the one who started the first thread a few days ago.

That thread is about a different subject. The other thread is about two objects occupying the same space simultaneously.

By "Objects", I mean physical objects. By "Cannot", I mean impossible. By "Why", I mean the reason behind that belief. I am guessing the reason behind that belief is seeing objects crash into each other or lightly bump into each other and instead of occupying the same space, they move away from each other, break or just prevent each other's movement.

Space doesn't bend, spacetime curves around a mass. This means that a clock located within the proximity of a mass will run slower than a clock located away from the mass. It also means that any matter or energy traveling in the proximity of that mass will be influenced by this curvature and its path will bend. We call that curvature gravity.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I must have misunderstood people talking about space curving.

There isn't any corner either: the corner's moved with the space. Or: the space moving is the corner moving.

That is what I was thinking, but I am not quite what Einstein was saying when talking about space bending.