It's really interesting to think about the theological implications of simulationism. If the world were really structured as described in the article (which is not the point he was making, I'm just having fun), then one has to wonder what the purpose of having simulated, self-contained intelligences would be. I like to think about the implications of a specific purpose and I have a favorite.
Suppose one was trying to train up a batch of true AIs that were generous, moral, loving, responsible, principled, etc. (think Santa, Jesus, or Fred Rogers). I would submit that the task would be much better suited to some combination of genetic programming and machine learning i.e. generate a bunch of AIs with varying characteristics and let them learn for a while and see how they do at the stated task. I think it would make a lot of sense for a simulation scientist to want to have a bunch of these around, they could do some really cool stuff for you and you wouldn't have to worry too much about IRB approval since they would be certified moral by the previous test.
What kind of test would make sense? It would have to be one with difficult moral choices, one with an opportunity for failure. One without unnecessary pain and stress, but one that allows the AIs to make moral mistakes and be held responsible for them. If the true AIs are interacting, and it makes sense that they probably would have to, then naturally the duds could make life a little miserable for the good ones, you'd want to minimize that as much as you could without restricting the ability of all AIs to choose freely among available opportunities given to them. On top of that you might put them in a hostile environment that requires work and effort for survival to see if they have what it takes to get stuff done.
Now if that doesn't sound like life I don't know what does. I that context hell doesn't really make a lot of sense (would you really punish bad AIs forever or just put them in charge of non-morally challenging and easy jobs? (my first thought was the coffee pot, but maybe putting a misbehaving AI in charge of that is not such a good idea) and "heaven" becomes more of a "gets to do cool, interesting stuff" than "chill out playing harp". From my experience many religious people tend to punt on what actually an afterlife would be for, other than it would be nice to reward us for being good. The answer to "Why can't the simulation master give the nice heaven to everybody?" is pretty clear in this context. She can't because that would be really bad for whatever task she needed moral AI for, which, if it affected a bunch of other true AIs has huge moral implications. So sorry, no offence, but based on your test results you don't get to do the cool stuff.
Then in that view, "God" doesn't really care about each of us more than a programmer cares about the thousands of solutions that are created and destroyed while the program is running to reach a single best.
Somehow, I don't think most religious people (with exceptions like Deists) will feel comfortable with that possibility ;)
I think true AIs would be no more or less deserving of the love of their creator than the real people. Now maybe the programmer running the genetic training algorithm has no love for the AIs and then you're right, it wouldn't really fit. But what if the programmer did love then? What if, in fact, the programmer was a true AI herself, having gone through a similar experience and was proven moral, loving, and capable enough to do this job. How hard would it be for her to love them? Yes, turtles all the way down and all that but what about turtles most of the way down? Seems like a reasonable way to train more AIs.
What I admire most about the author is the honest search for Truth. It is a rare individual that can approach this problem while relinquishing their biases. I can't count myself among their ranks. It seems the majority of people, believers and non-believers alike, tend to come to a decision about God after about an afternoon of thinking about it, at most.
And really, what philosophical question posed to us could be more important than the question of God? It seems that every human should spend some significant amount of time deciding where they fall on this problem before they do...well...anything else.
What does it matter if the answer cannot be known? If the question cannot be answered than "spending a significant amount of time deciding" is just waste.
What if the answer can be known? Several people in the world and throughout history claim to _know_ the answer through physical experiences. They are easy to dismiss as crazy, but what IF they've discovered HOW to search? Some things just can't be measured by physical apparatus (like love for example).
Certainly not! Lack of understanding of the complete universe is why we don't know if God exists or not. We don't _now_ know how to define and measure love in the lab, so there are likewise probably other things that also cannot be measured and detected physically (at least at the present time).
Personally, not only do I not fall on this problem in any way, as I question the actual validity of it;
Firstly, there can't be a single "Question of God", since there's no single coherent definition of "God."
Secondly, if we define God as an entity which is ultimately undetectable and unfalsifiable, does the question of its existence really mean anything? It may be an interesting thought problem, but trying to answer it leads nowhere.
"Like most people, questions about the existence of God and all things spiritual plague me frequently. I want to believe in such things, especially when it comes to continuity of my consciousness. I don’t like the idea of disappearing when I die."
One way to address this is to deal with these thoughts rather than entering a philosophical rat hole of trying to simulate our existence and find an analogy to the computer. Once you accept that an outside meta-influence is possible then you don't have to worry about all this "is there a God or not?" If God exists then God has powers that make Him imperceptible; if God doesn't exist then He's imperceptible. You can't tell the difference.
Oh well.
Better to live a life of good deeds and actions then worry about what's next.
Great point up to the last sentance which, whether you intended to or not, draws a line between the worlds major religions and quasi-endorses those on one side.
> If God exists then God has powers that make Him imperceptible; if God doesn't exist then He's imperceptible. You can't tell the difference.
This is the omnipotence paradox[1]. I often help friends and relatives understand why my religion (or lack thereof, actually) is `Tooth Fairy Agnosticism' by asking them whether or not God can create a stone that He can't lift.
> Better to live a life of good deeds and actions then worry about what's next.
I agree. This is how I try to live my life, but it's hard to stop worrying when you have severe thanatophobia[2] like I do.
> This is the omnipotence paradox[1]. I often help friends and relatives understand why my religion (or lack thereof, actually) is `Tooth Fairy Agnosticism' by asking them whether or not God can create a stone that He can't lift.
Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church. Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag.
Did you happen to overhear any of them getting an answer? I'd love to read about how some church-going parents (guardians?) explain the omnipotence paradox to youngsters. In my experience, at least, I find that Jews treat the matter gracefully while managing to `uphold the faith', if you will.
> Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag.
You don't know many Tooth Fairy Agnostics, do you?
Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not. This argument is a cavil, not a sound philosophical argument. Consider the set of natural numbers. You (given enough time and patience and brainspace) may have the ability to count up to any specified natural number. That does not imply you have the ability to count all natural numbers. Once you start dealing with infinities, your intuition goes out the window.
The natural numbers can be algorithmically generated. Consider streams in Computer Science, for example. But note that the existence of streams does not imply the existence of an actual infinity in the computer's memory, only an algorithm to reach any finite member of the infinite set.
As mentioned elsewhere. If God is the first cause of the physical universe, then his existence is necessary (in the philosophical sense) and therefore changeless (in the philosophical sense) and therefore eternal (as his existence is necessary - and he exists entirely apart from time).
Once you start to enter into a discussion of infinite things like omnipotence, omniscience, necessary existence, etc, you enter the realm of infinite cardinalities, transfinite induction, the axiom of choice, Hilbert's Hotel, Russel's paradox, and so on. Philosophers have understood the issues regarding God's natural attributes for thousands of years, but only in the last 100 or so years have we had the mathematics to start saying things about infinities that are not nonsensical.
Consider that, as a human being, you are only aware of the present. You remember the past, and you have no knowledge of the future. Now imagine a being who is as aware of the past as He is of the present. This is one who calls himself "I am". He says, "before Abraham was, I am". Or, he calls himself the "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End". We aren't talking about a being with changing state and an awareness only of the present, as you or I. We have to be very careful with our intuition when examining such a subject.
Only the most rigorous and methodical mathematical argument can hope to establish anything positive or negative about such an entity.
> Omnipotence means God has limitless power (or better, his power cannot be improved), not that he can do anything, whether logically impossible or not.
I'd like to write a well-thought-out reply, but I'm a little confused. How is `power' defined (for God, that is)?
If all that exists is God and his creation, then it is enough to state that God determines his own will (i.e. has free will) and that he has all power with relation to his creation. No force, whether moral, physical, spiritual or temporal has the ability to oppose God and ultimately prevail. Thus he has no limits on his power. It is limitless.
This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihilo. He has all the power there is. "For from Him and to Him and through him are all things"... forever. In fact, nothing that has power has so without it being given by Him. All power derives from God.
As God is changeless, his power necessarily cannot be improved.
I'll be honest and say that I do not know of any argument which proves in a direct way that a God who created the physical universe must be able to do any thing which is possible. Of course, that does not imply that there is not such an argument, nor that I do not believe it to be so.
I think that the necessary existence of God implies that there exists no being greater than God.
As I already said, the notion of a first cause is absurd, it's an idea that has no basis in reality or evidence to support that such a thing is. Just because you can think a thought doesn't mean reality must reflect it.
If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't.
If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God.
If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.
Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing.
You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause.
I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. By any definition of contingent that I know of, something with a beginning has contingent existence.
Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). Good luck with that theory. You had better hope that a universe doesn't happen without a cause under your bed. Now you live in a universe where miracles can happen without any reason whatsoever. They just are.
It actually sounds like in your world anything can happen any time for no reason. This begins to look very different from the universe I appear to live in.
> Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing.
No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing.
> You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing.
No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much.
> It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause.
I did no such thing.
> I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning.
False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know.
> Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes).
No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is known to exist undeniably.
I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything.
You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes (singularities), that universes of the size of our own are almost infinitely less probable than much smaller universes, that our universe does not look to be headed for a "big crunch", etc.
You also say, "You are the one that believes things happen without a cause". So now are you trying to tell me that you believe things cannot happen without a cause and that I am the only one asserting that?
If so, then do you not see that an infinite number of prior causes (e.g. your cyclical universe theory) leads to an actual infinity of prior events and that we never get to this point because there are an infinite number of events that must precede it? (This is but one of many absurdities implied by such a presupposition.)
The only escape from your argument is to suppose that there is a first cause which is uncaused, outside of the physical universe whose existence is necessary but which is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe.
If you do not accept that, then your position seems to be that our universe does not have a reason for its existence (a cause) and that it does not need one (you seem to have claimed that, regardless, quite apart from my deduction from your claims). I claim only that things which do not have a beginning need no cause. And I claim that it logically follows that such things are changeless. If not, you have to accept the existence of an actual infinity, something which leads to a multitude of mathematical contradictions (look up Hilbert's Hotel).
You can't argue with a deductive argument by saying that it is wrong but we just haven't figured out any workable alternative yet but that we are working on it. You have to either refute the premises or demonstrate a self contradiction in the argument. Without that, the argument stands.
You are welcome to your opinion that you are suspicious of the premises.
You haven't made a deductive argument yet. In fact you've made no argument at all. If you think you have, please do point it out, as I've seen nothing but a series of questions trying to pin down what I think and not a one making an actual argument as to what you think and why it must be. Other than your original statement which was an assertion, not an argument for why it must be true.
Your tactic appears to be an attempt to bait me into making an argument that you can dismantle without actually making your own case hoping that I don't notice you haven't actually made your case. I'm not biting. I don't need to explain the presence of the universe to say that claiming gods did it isn't logical nor do I need to provide a counter argument. If you believe gods did it, you must make that case; you haven't.
> If God is the first cause of the physical universe, then his existence is necessary (in the philosophical sense) and therefore changeless (in the philosophical sense) and therefore eternal (as his existence is necessary - and he exists entirely apart from time).
What nonsense. The whole notion of a first cause itself is nonsense let alone the first cause being something as complex as an intelligent being when the very reason you'd propose a first cause to begin with would be that you couldn't accept that something always existed.
The "Omnipotence paradox" and its many variations are not a real paradox:
These all reduce down to "Greater Than Infinity" line of thinking. Clearly the actual premise is flawed, thus creating the so called "Paradox".
An Example (The Well Story):
A child finds a man near an old well. He observes the old man throwing stones down the well.
The child asks the old man how long it will take the stones to reach the bottom of the well. He Replies "It will take 4 blinks of an eye".
The next day the child finds the same old man at another well. He asks the same question. However this well is unlike the other, it is a bottom less well.
The child asks "How long will it take for the stones to reach the bottom of this well?"
The old man replies "child, this is a bottomless well. It is not that it will never reach the bottom. IT HAS NO bottom! Your question is wrong because your understanding of the well is wrong".
Say I live in a set, set_1, that has some property p_1. I can think about other sets, like my own, say, set_n, with similar properties for those, say, p_n. I am confined to set_1 so I can only speculate about what goes on in the other sets, if, indeed, there be any other sets. I speculate that all these sets, s, reside in some big super-set, S, with it's own p-like property, P. But this does not have to follow. I could have an infinite series of sets s, with their own unique p properties, but a super-set to which they belong does not itself have to have its own super-p property. It might, but it might not.
This is my problem with "Simulationism". It assumes such a "super P" property for the "super-set containing all universes". This property of course is time. The entire universe could be describable by a bit-string (Tegmark, et al) but that does not mean it has to "run" on anything, any more than a super-set S of s worlds each with property p has to have its own "super-property" P. I think it is a common misconception but not easy to clear up for people who don't have a technical background.
> Despite my desire to accept religious teachings, I am constantly prevented by a simple fact: no one has found any physical evidence of something like a soul, or any mechanism which might enable a persistent consciousness beyond our current brain.
For a minute, forget about "persisting beyond death".
Consider consciousness, is there any conceptual model at all of how it arises purely out of the known physical laws?
I can imagine building a computer with strong-AI and I see no reason - what so ever - to assume that it may possess any form of consciousness. Given all that we know about how the physical world works, and how computers work, there's no reason to assume that some particular software configuration will give rise to subjective consciousness within a computer.
The closest thing to a definition would be something that experiences Qualia, but then you'd ask me to define Qualia, and at this point I can't give an objective non-circular definition.
It's clear to me that my own consciousness is dramatically influenced by my physical environment. After all, anything that physically interacts with my brain will affect my consciousness in some way. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that would imply it is a physical phenomenon, no?
I don't understand how your model hopes to capture any of the essential features of God as known to academic philosophers. You mention Godel incompleteness, but this only applies to sets of axioms which can be generated algorithmically. Furthermore, pure logic reveals that a transcendental first cause must be eternal, changeless (without the universe), non-physical, most likely having a mind with free will, etc. Your model fails to capture any of these essential features. In fact, I agree with the poster who says that you should reason about God, rather than try to model Him. Naturally my reason leads me to different inescapable conclusions than his.
* Naturally my reason leads me to different inescapable conclusions than his.*
Which should be a big honking, flashing neon sign that you're both arguing without any facts to back you up, ie you're both just making stuff up. You might as well argue about whether Santa has white or black fur as the trim on his coat, for all of the utility that you will get out of such arguments.
The author is missing a key element in his model of life, one which significantly affects the outcome of the thought experiment: his simple loops are independent, they have no shared state. Real existence is not so clean---living beings are constantly being altered by their environment, and conversely altering it. It would be impossible to simply 'save the state' of a living being without saving the state of the entire universe in which it resides (the virtual machine). This makes reincarnation (or at least the very simple model presented in the article) impossible.
One can claim that humans are more like shared-nothing message passing processes, which can alter and be altered by their "surroundings" without sharing state per-se.
Shared state/memory seems more like a representation of the Borg ;)
56 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 90.9 ms ] threadhttp://www.simulation-argument.com/
Suppose one was trying to train up a batch of true AIs that were generous, moral, loving, responsible, principled, etc. (think Santa, Jesus, or Fred Rogers). I would submit that the task would be much better suited to some combination of genetic programming and machine learning i.e. generate a bunch of AIs with varying characteristics and let them learn for a while and see how they do at the stated task. I think it would make a lot of sense for a simulation scientist to want to have a bunch of these around, they could do some really cool stuff for you and you wouldn't have to worry too much about IRB approval since they would be certified moral by the previous test.
What kind of test would make sense? It would have to be one with difficult moral choices, one with an opportunity for failure. One without unnecessary pain and stress, but one that allows the AIs to make moral mistakes and be held responsible for them. If the true AIs are interacting, and it makes sense that they probably would have to, then naturally the duds could make life a little miserable for the good ones, you'd want to minimize that as much as you could without restricting the ability of all AIs to choose freely among available opportunities given to them. On top of that you might put them in a hostile environment that requires work and effort for survival to see if they have what it takes to get stuff done.
Now if that doesn't sound like life I don't know what does. I that context hell doesn't really make a lot of sense (would you really punish bad AIs forever or just put them in charge of non-morally challenging and easy jobs? (my first thought was the coffee pot, but maybe putting a misbehaving AI in charge of that is not such a good idea) and "heaven" becomes more of a "gets to do cool, interesting stuff" than "chill out playing harp". From my experience many religious people tend to punt on what actually an afterlife would be for, other than it would be nice to reward us for being good. The answer to "Why can't the simulation master give the nice heaven to everybody?" is pretty clear in this context. She can't because that would be really bad for whatever task she needed moral AI for, which, if it affected a bunch of other true AIs has huge moral implications. So sorry, no offence, but based on your test results you don't get to do the cool stuff.
Somehow, I don't think most religious people (with exceptions like Deists) will feel comfortable with that possibility ;)
Greg Egan, Crystal Nights: http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/
And really, what philosophical question posed to us could be more important than the question of God? It seems that every human should spend some significant amount of time deciding where they fall on this problem before they do...well...anything else.
Firstly, there can't be a single "Question of God", since there's no single coherent definition of "God."
Secondly, if we define God as an entity which is ultimately undetectable and unfalsifiable, does the question of its existence really mean anything? It may be an interesting thought problem, but trying to answer it leads nowhere.
One way to address this is to deal with these thoughts rather than entering a philosophical rat hole of trying to simulate our existence and find an analogy to the computer. Once you accept that an outside meta-influence is possible then you don't have to worry about all this "is there a God or not?" If God exists then God has powers that make Him imperceptible; if God doesn't exist then He's imperceptible. You can't tell the difference.
Oh well.
Better to live a life of good deeds and actions then worry about what's next.
This is the omnipotence paradox[1]. I often help friends and relatives understand why my religion (or lack thereof, actually) is `Tooth Fairy Agnosticism' by asking them whether or not God can create a stone that He can't lift.
> Better to live a life of good deeds and actions then worry about what's next.
I agree. This is how I try to live my life, but it's hard to stop worrying when you have severe thanatophobia[2] like I do.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatophobia
Lol, I've heard little kids ask that at church. Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag.
Did you happen to overhear any of them getting an answer? I'd love to read about how some church-going parents (guardians?) explain the omnipotence paradox to youngsters. In my experience, at least, I find that Jews treat the matter gracefully while managing to `uphold the faith', if you will.
> Never heard an adult seriously ask that though, usually just as a gag.
You don't know many Tooth Fairy Agnostics, do you?
The natural numbers can be algorithmically generated. Consider streams in Computer Science, for example. But note that the existence of streams does not imply the existence of an actual infinity in the computer's memory, only an algorithm to reach any finite member of the infinite set.
As mentioned elsewhere. If God is the first cause of the physical universe, then his existence is necessary (in the philosophical sense) and therefore changeless (in the philosophical sense) and therefore eternal (as his existence is necessary - and he exists entirely apart from time).
Once you start to enter into a discussion of infinite things like omnipotence, omniscience, necessary existence, etc, you enter the realm of infinite cardinalities, transfinite induction, the axiom of choice, Hilbert's Hotel, Russel's paradox, and so on. Philosophers have understood the issues regarding God's natural attributes for thousands of years, but only in the last 100 or so years have we had the mathematics to start saying things about infinities that are not nonsensical.
Consider that, as a human being, you are only aware of the present. You remember the past, and you have no knowledge of the future. Now imagine a being who is as aware of the past as He is of the present. This is one who calls himself "I am". He says, "before Abraham was, I am". Or, he calls himself the "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End". We aren't talking about a being with changing state and an awareness only of the present, as you or I. We have to be very careful with our intuition when examining such a subject.
Only the most rigorous and methodical mathematical argument can hope to establish anything positive or negative about such an entity.
I'd like to write a well-thought-out reply, but I'm a little confused. How is `power' defined (for God, that is)?
This all stands to reason if God created time and space and matter ex nihilo. He has all the power there is. "For from Him and to Him and through him are all things"... forever. In fact, nothing that has power has so without it being given by Him. All power derives from God.
As God is changeless, his power necessarily cannot be improved.
I'll be honest and say that I do not know of any argument which proves in a direct way that a God who created the physical universe must be able to do any thing which is possible. Of course, that does not imply that there is not such an argument, nor that I do not believe it to be so.
I think that the necessary existence of God implies that there exists no being greater than God.
There is no necessary existence of God nor can any logical argument establish it so.
If you insist the universe had to come from something, then you can't solve the problem by inventing a god that doesn't.
If you can accept that a god is eternal, then you must accept that the universe itself can be as well thus excluding any need to invent God.
If you insist that God can be eternal but the universe can't be, or that the universe requires a creator but God doesn't, well... then you're just not being rational and there is not point in having a rational discussion.
I do not see what is absurd about the statement "nothing begets nothing".
By the way, you attacked the premise, not the logic of the argument, which is not what you claimed in the first instance.
The universe didn't come from anywhere, the universe is.
Ok, the premise of your argument is flawed in that the very question is not logical.
You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the existence of the universe is not contingent, which implies its existence is necessary. It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause.
I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. By any definition of contingent that I know of, something with a beginning has contingent existence.
Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). Good luck with that theory. You had better hope that a universe doesn't happen without a cause under your bed. Now you live in a universe where miracles can happen without any reason whatsoever. They just are.
It actually sounds like in your world anything can happen any time for no reason. This begins to look very different from the universe I appear to live in.
No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing.
> You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing.
No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much.
> It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause.
I did no such thing.
> I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning.
False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know.
> Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes).
No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is known to exist undeniably.
You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes (singularities), that universes of the size of our own are almost infinitely less probable than much smaller universes, that our universe does not look to be headed for a "big crunch", etc.
You also say, "You are the one that believes things happen without a cause". So now are you trying to tell me that you believe things cannot happen without a cause and that I am the only one asserting that?
If so, then do you not see that an infinite number of prior causes (e.g. your cyclical universe theory) leads to an actual infinity of prior events and that we never get to this point because there are an infinite number of events that must precede it? (This is but one of many absurdities implied by such a presupposition.)
The only escape from your argument is to suppose that there is a first cause which is uncaused, outside of the physical universe whose existence is necessary but which is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe.
If you do not accept that, then your position seems to be that our universe does not have a reason for its existence (a cause) and that it does not need one (you seem to have claimed that, regardless, quite apart from my deduction from your claims). I claim only that things which do not have a beginning need no cause. And I claim that it logically follows that such things are changeless. If not, you have to accept the existence of an actual infinity, something which leads to a multitude of mathematical contradictions (look up Hilbert's Hotel).
You can't argue with a deductive argument by saying that it is wrong but we just haven't figured out any workable alternative yet but that we are working on it. You have to either refute the premises or demonstrate a self contradiction in the argument. Without that, the argument stands.
You are welcome to your opinion that you are suspicious of the premises.
Your tactic appears to be an attempt to bait me into making an argument that you can dismantle without actually making your own case hoping that I don't notice you haven't actually made your case. I'm not biting. I don't need to explain the presence of the universe to say that claiming gods did it isn't logical nor do I need to provide a counter argument. If you believe gods did it, you must make that case; you haven't.
What nonsense. The whole notion of a first cause itself is nonsense let alone the first cause being something as complex as an intelligent being when the very reason you'd propose a first cause to begin with would be that you couldn't accept that something always existed.
These all reduce down to "Greater Than Infinity" line of thinking. Clearly the actual premise is flawed, thus creating the so called "Paradox".
An Example (The Well Story):
A child finds a man near an old well. He observes the old man throwing stones down the well.
The child asks the old man how long it will take the stones to reach the bottom of the well. He Replies "It will take 4 blinks of an eye".
The next day the child finds the same old man at another well. He asks the same question. However this well is unlike the other, it is a bottom less well.
The child asks "How long will it take for the stones to reach the bottom of this well?"
The old man replies "child, this is a bottomless well. It is not that it will never reach the bottom. IT HAS NO bottom! Your question is wrong because your understanding of the well is wrong".
This is my problem with "Simulationism". It assumes such a "super P" property for the "super-set containing all universes". This property of course is time. The entire universe could be describable by a bit-string (Tegmark, et al) but that does not mean it has to "run" on anything, any more than a super-set S of s worlds each with property p has to have its own "super-property" P. I think it is a common misconception but not easy to clear up for people who don't have a technical background.
For a minute, forget about "persisting beyond death".
Consider consciousness, is there any conceptual model at all of how it arises purely out of the known physical laws?
I can imagine building a computer with strong-AI and I see no reason - what so ever - to assume that it may possess any form of consciousness. Given all that we know about how the physical world works, and how computers work, there's no reason to assume that some particular software configuration will give rise to subjective consciousness within a computer.
As Dijkstra said, "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
The closest thing to a definition would be something that experiences Qualia, but then you'd ask me to define Qualia, and at this point I can't give an objective non-circular definition.
David Chalmers does a good job of explaining it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
What does that even mean outside of the physical universe?
Which should be a big honking, flashing neon sign that you're both arguing without any facts to back you up, ie you're both just making stuff up. You might as well argue about whether Santa has white or black fur as the trim on his coat, for all of the utility that you will get out of such arguments.
Shared state/memory seems more like a representation of the Borg ;)