Gods in our own right!

A universe is relative. It could be of any size and could be of any shape. It could even be created as a small room with no light, no windows and no doors. Just a room. I cant see how we would not be able to create a universe of some or any sort. I dont think it is a thin premise. I think it is quite strong, you have not put foward any good reason as to why this could not be done in the future. All we need is the computing power! Hopefully quantum computing will bring us closer.Just remember our universe is programed down to the 100th decimal place! If this changed at all even by 0.1 to the power of 100 the planets and universe as we know it would not have been able to form. Very convenient I think. Yes that is obvious we could create an infinite loop but from where we stand it would be impossiable to know. It would be like trying to guess what the country "Xaxxs" is like. You dont know if it exists, nobody has ever been there and there are no photos or information about it.But what we can do is try and use logic and thats what I have tried to do. Its not fool proof but we can try and draw logical conclusions by looking at our would today the technology avilable and taking an educated guess as to where we are heading. And I think a sim outcome/future is quite possible.

I'm not the one making the claim, you are! It's up to you to show how creation of other universes is not only possible but probable. It would also be nice for you to explain why you assume our universe would be a created one and not the original. This is just a version of the fallacious 'anthropocentric-design' argument. In a nutshell, it states that because we're here shows that we were meant to be here.This argument is usually put forward by people who also marvel at how rivers always tend to flow through cities! So far you've only made a number of base-less assertions. A good starting point might be for you to explain why you believe our universe is "programed down to the 100th decimal place". We can then take it from there.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Are you suggesting that it is possible to simulate the universe, which has an infinite number of variables?

This is not correct. This is something you have been told but it is not true.

What are you objecting to? He said "as we know it" which is a pretty correct statement.
Edit: if you are objecting only to the first sentence, you might be right.(but just "might", there is also that possibility that you might be wrong).Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi, WaveDancer. So, the fact that we do not have this option is rather good evidence for my argument, isn't it?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

No, the whole thing is wrong. There are alternate values for some physical "constants" that can produce a universe in which life could form. It turns out things can be rather different.

Life could possibly arise in some form or another(although that's nothing but speculation, with no proof) but yet he said "life as we know it". Are you claiming that if we change the 4 fundamental forces, life will arise in the same way and form it did here on Earth? Because if you, that's just pure nonsense.

Hi, Agobot. You're right, of course. But, WD's statement, in context, confuses cause and effect, and that's the problem with it.Here is WD's original quote: My bolding.WaveDancer is using the intricate nature of the universe as evidence of intelligent design (albeit intelligent design of the non-theistic type) on the basis that the conditions on the earth are suspiciously suitable for life of our type.He is arguing that the coincidence is too great for it to be accidental: the universe is so perfectly suitable for us, that it must have been created for us. But, it's like saying that the cup was designed around the shape of the water, when really the water just takes on the shape of the cup.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Obviously the form of life would depend on the nature of the changes made and the resulting universe. However, "as we know it" has a lot of room in it. Does it mean exactly like us; if so it is unlikely with a changed universe. Does it mean smart like us that is a whole different story.If you think it is important that it be exactly like us and you are impressed with how well the universe fits us then you are committing the puddle-in-the-hole (PITH) fallacy.

I am not claiming this, I am simply stating that his claim that life is possible only under the current configuration of the 4 fundamental forces holds as much water as yours that life is possible in different settings of the 4 forces. Both are equally untestable and so it all comes down to someone's speculations vs your speculation. Clearly someone of you both is right, but we have no way to know that. Yet.

Hi, Agobot. But WaveDancer is claiming this. That's what the objection is.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

[qs]Both are equally untestable and so it all comes down to someone's speculations vs your speculation. Clearly someone of you both is right, but we have no way to know that. Yet.[/.qs]This is not true either. Both can be tested in the same way.The various equations governing cosmology are varied a little to see what results. Typically changing something like G is done and shown to produce a universe in which stars don't last long enough for the few billion years we have had as an example.They often don't allow for as much variation as would be allowed if you didn't demand an exactly Earth type environment. That produces one kind of error.Also, these calculations have been shown to be too limited because they vary only one "constant" at a time. It is possible to vary more than one and produce "workable" universes. This shows that the original idea was flawed in it's approach.

As I said the reason I believe there will be other universes is because I think we as a group will be able in the future to create them in side things that today we would best describe as computers. (I doubt very much they will have any resemblance to the computers of today)I think we will produce the technology needed to do this as I see no reason as to why technology will not continue to go forward indefinitely whether at a slower or faster pace then today.Remember we have billions of years ahead of us! And look how much the world has changed in teh last 200 years. None of us can imagine what it will be like 200 years from now.

Who said we dont? We will only know for sure at the minute of our own death. If it ever comes to that.If this universe is simulated as far as you know you maybe the only entity in it! Or it maybe just you and me! Or just a small group of 5 or 10 people! Sure there are billions of people in the world but who is to say they are conscious? They might be just part of the furniture and part of your overall expirence.The only person you know for sure is conscious is you!This is a very interesting look at consciousness and the simulator scenario. It goes for a bit over an hour but I found it worth the time.Bloggingheads.tv