Reminds me of the movie "The Thirteenth Floor"

I would like to see those links, but they do not link correctly.

New scientist

Wired

Found them. What struck me as most relevant about either of the articles is from the Wired article that basically says, in the penultimate paragraph, that this finding doesn't necessarily mean anything because 1) there may be physical laws or phenomena that we do not yet understand governing the behaviour and 2) we know how a lattice works in our computer simulations - we do not know how a lattice might work if one were to physically exist, why should it act like anything we know?

However, it is a real possibility.

If the Universe is a computer simulation, that means it was intelligently designed.

...by a programmer, not a god....and 'intelligently' is subjective. If there's a designer of all, that designer is NOT all that intelligent, consider the billions of failures they've 'made'.

That's speculation, but it would mean intelligent design is a scientific theory. You're seemingly okay with the Universe being designed by a programmer, but not God, although the programmer would be a god to us in every practical way.

holographic universe,not new but always interesting.
*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 9:29pm PDT - promote requested by enoch.

I don't understand this desire to try and "one up" scientific thought, as if the concept of a demiurge were religion's alone. It's not for man to decide what is truth and what is not, it is for us to discover only that which we may mechanically use, whether through ystem theories, mathematic constructs, or physically engineered structures.

Science may be harmonious but only if it is honest and seeks only that which is not fueled by attachment to being. Any reward, whether in heaven or on earth is a materialistic concept which separates us from the body of human experience. Rather than naturally progress within our own capabilities, we obsess over grand concepts of our narcissistic, non transitory being and the entity of of a God. Meanwhile, our minds suffer at the leaps and bounds that imagination inflicts upon our honest beings. Behavior modification for the sake of a concept you would seek to elevate over the hard earned work of the scientific process.

Again, I don't understand why you pounce on these sudden epiphany driven straws lying amidst a rigorously disciplined field as the sciences. You have straws with no tangible truth, only the ability to prove that, yes, you are a pattern detecting being. I can find a 1000 faces of a 1000 gods in a spackled piece of drywall, don't mean any one of them is real or if any were, that it's the god that I've put a name to.

Now for a lesson in system analysis: determining whether the pattern you've detected within a metaphysical concept is congruent with reality as we know it, or have you detected a false positive. Also known as the proof between a Christian God and every other concept of the concept of God, through all its faces back to its ultimate being: Infinity. The Infinity could be ANYTHING.

Actually, it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Did you even read that link? Artificial intelligence is still an intelligence and, typically, is programmed by an outside entity.

I swear, sometimes it seems like people here argue just for the sake of arguing.

Your entire theory of the universe is speculation....including your theory on what I'm OK with. Certainly your theory on deities and the after life...complete and total speculation based on belief, not fact.
I find this video's hypothesis terrible. Because a measured physical property is near what they say they expect it might be if we artificially created the universe implies they know what the constraints of a mythical artificial simulated universe are (that's impossible, if it's an artificial creation, there are no constraints other than those programmed in, and they could be ANYTHING if the programmer is writing the laws of the universe/physics).

Therefore, I am NOT OK with the HYPOTHESIS that the universe is a computer program or designed by a designer (other than the 'designer' that is the laws of physics). I find it a silly blind guess about something we can't possibly know about without creating one ourselves, and even then we'll only know about the one way we did it, not the possible ways it could happen.

A programmer would certainly not be a god to me, but I'm not prone to deifying that which I don't understand. It MAY be a mysterious being (or not), that doesn't make it god anymore than I'm god to my dog. Because some dogs are gullible enough to believe their master might be a god does not make him/her one. The same goes for unknown properties of the universe. Some people may believe the unknown is somehow proof of the divine, that simply does not make it true, or even reasonable.

Oh christ... do I really have to explain this?

@shinyblurry said "...that means it was intelligently designed."

I was specifically refuting that argument.

"intelligent design" means that something was designed on purpose by a designer, i.e. I want a plane, so I sit down and design the aerodynamics, propulsion, control surfaces, etc so that at the end, I have a means to fly from A to B. If the plane doesn't fly, as a designer, I need to work on it until it does.

A genetic algorithm is not "intelligently designed". The system itself creates the end product, often with no fixed goal or purpose. The designer does not have an input.

So, it's entirely possible that the universe is a computer simulation where a fixed set of constraints were set up at compile time and then left to run.

No specific end goal or purpose, merely to see emergent behaviours, which actually gels pretty well with what we know about the formation of the universe and life.

If you'd like to learn more, I recommend reading Artifical Life by Steven Levy as a good primer on the subject.

On the other hand, if you just want to make snide remarks, I suggest you stick to a topic you actually have a fucking clue about.

Did you read it? I bet not, because it describes systems of laws and rules that can allow programs/problem solutions to create themselves based on evolutionary models, starting from a randomly generated population of possible solutions, not the programming of an AI.
Yes, someone must 'program' those rules into a computer, but there's no need to program an AI (nor is there a need for someone to program those laws into reality, they simply are... the universe did not start out as an empty hard drive), this programs and re-programs itself based on the rules to find the optimal solution to the problem given. That's solution evolution, not AI.
The methodology comes from the field of AI, as it's a good way for an AI to find the best solution to a problem, it is not, however, an AI itself, nor is it relegated only to the field of AI.

Don't feel like your explanation fell flat just because they can't understand it. Their lack of understanding is by design (but not an intelligent one).

You specifically are discussing an artificial intelligence. Why is it artificial? BECAUSE SOMEONE FUCKING CREATED IT. It didn't manifest on it's own or it would be a natural intelligence. So, if I create an AI to create an algorithm, then by default the algorithm is the root product of an intelligent designer.

BTW, your shitty example of a plane design does not even take into account your own example. If it did, it would be a programmer creating an AI to design a plane of some type. The programmer would no longer have input, but he would be the creator of the system that did.

So you can toss out all the fucking examples and insults you like, but you and your little tag along friend are dead wrong.

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

I direct your attention to the first sentence. In the field of AI, in other words, an artificially created intelligence. Now even if you go to the the idea Turing had that a computer could learn and adapt itself to the point of AI, it is a device that had to be created by an outside designer at some point. It didn't just manifest, it was created and reached AI level, then it could at that point begin to try to 'imitate' natural selection.

It has become clear to me over our last couple of discussions that you are incredibly reluctant to think outside of the box YOU have created for yourself. You believe what you believe and damn the torpedoes with the rest.

Re-read the article (if you read it at all). He was specifically discussing a tool used in/by AI, not AI itself. The AI doesn't create the algorithm, it uses it. It is also not a tool relegated solely to AI, other fields can use the algorithm/method to search for the best solutions to their problems without AI involved. It's trial and error, taking the best solutions, combining them randomly, trial and error again, take the best again, combine them randomly again.....no AI needed.
So because he didn't mix his examples, you deny both off hand? Wow. Interesting tactic, but misguided and adolescent IMO.
So you can get as fucking angry and dismissive as you like, you still don't seem able to grasp the simple point he made clearly, repeatedly, so there's no possibility of you not being dead wrong about it.

Yes, that's what it is and how it's used in the field of AI. It is not only used in AI. Kind of like math is used in the field of AI, but can be used outside it as well. That is the point you continue to not grasp.
It's becoming clear to me that you simply can't fathom you're wrong, and can't understand a simple sentence if it contradicts what you believe, or what you want it to mean.
If you really paid attention and grasped what I say, you would think the opposite, that I can't live inside the box that normal people live in, but you can't see beyond your initial thought to understand a simple concept...and you decided I'm an uneducated idiot the instant I contradicted you the first time, and you'll believe that no matter the evidence to the contrary.
You have fun with that. It's seeming to not be working out well for you though.

You don't understand genetic algorithms and you don't understand what intelligent design is, so I'm really not bothered explaining it to you.... again.

What both of you seem completely unable to grasp is that to have the AI, you have to have a creator. Not a deity, but you have to have something create the AI. The point you are arguing is that there is no such thing as a creator because that would mean that there is 'something' intelligent that can create things.

As far as my intelligence vs yours, I never claimed to be smarter than you. But it is clear to me that both of you will utterly refuse any possibility of intelligent design simply because it goes against your convictions.

The fact is you can complain, call me stupid, refuse to accept anything that counters your opinions, or any other number of methods to make yourselves feel better. I'm personally done with both of you because it seems clear that any time someone posts a video with one of your trigger subjects, you knee-jerk into posting whatever you can to try to prove them wrong whether they are or not.

The fact remains, to even have something to do your algorithms you must have something create it. You can disseminate and try to muddle the picture, but that is the basic fact. An AI doesn't create it self from thin air, whether you want it to or not.

What you still fail to grasp, although it's been repeated ad nauseam, is no one talked about an AI, it was simply in the article about genetic algorithms, which show clearly that no creator or intelligent design is required for solutions, only a working evolutionary process applied to the problem.
You're stuck on AI, which was simply one (but far from the only) place you find genetic algorithms used.
Only YOU are talking about AI, no one else. You grabbed onto it, not understanding what was being said to you, and you continue to do the same, wheather willfully or out of confusion I can't say.

Many things are intelligently designed by creators...for instance, some bird and ant nests (proving 'intelligent design' does not require what we would call 'intelligence'). The universe does not appear to be one of those things, but I grant there is about a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance it is, not 0%, just no facts or data yet point to intelligent design in anything we've discovered about the real universe and it's laws. OK?

I might call you stupid because you can't (or willingly won't, I'm unsure) understand a simple, repeatedly repeated point, that we aren't talking about AI, we're talking about genetic algorithms. I did not call you stupid yet....but I'm tempted.
You just can't get it...come on man, get it....please....just get it.
Do you like fish sticks?

There's a big misunderstanding....let me try to explain.

The problem: flotsam has washed into a lagoon, causing damage to the reef inside.
The rule: no more than 2 pieces of flotsam can fit through the lagoon opening at once.
The 'genetic algorithm': waves wash the flotsam around, sometimes one piece may flow out, sometimes two may flow out, making the 'solution' better, sometimes 3 try to flow out and none leave, sometimes 4 try to flow out and none leave....
Solution: one or two at a time, waves will eventually wash the flotsam out.

No design, no intelligence, no set up, no hand in the process, no AI, yet this IS the process of 'genetic algorithm' in action (in a completely overly simplistic, barely evolutionary form).
Do you understand what I mean now? If not, forget it, you won't ever get it.

@ChaosEngine @newtboy

If the Universe was in fact programmed, it was intelligently designed. Therefore, intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. Intelligent design is not simply limited to biology, but it is applied (obviously) to practically every scientific discipline, from chemistry to astrophysics. The natural laws are studied, in much the same way as the cosmic rays are being studied, to detect design features.

So, if you believe that DNA was created as a result of a general condition of the laws of the Universe and was not specifically planned, that does nothing to disprove intelligent design. We can simply look at how the laws are finely tuned to allow for life, or if you think that is the result of the general condition of the laws of the multiverse, then we can look at their fine tuning, and so on.

Shiny,
Yes, intelligent design is a valid theory, but 'Intelligent Design' is not. You know the difference, right?
So far, the only evidence I've ever seen or heard about of 'intelligent design' in biology is in the manipulated biology we humans have designed.
Intelligent design applies to anything WE design, it is not inherent to either chemistry or astrophysics themselves, nor is it a term used in either field.
No, it's not possible to completely DISPROVE the hypothesis, but you must look for it through religion colored glasses to see even the most tenuous evidence of it, without that filter, it's not visible anywhere. It's also not possible for you to prove that golden monkeys don't fly from my anus when you aren't looking, but masquerade perfectly as turds when looked at directly, but you would not believe me if I said that's what happens, even if I had a book that said so, right?
The laws of physics are not "finely tuned" (already implying an 'unseen hand') to allow for life, it's more like life evolved to exist in the conditions present. There's no 'fine tuning' going on, life that couldn't exist in the conditions found doesn't exist, life that could may or may not.

Because you start from a point of "god exists and designed all" and search for things that even loosely fit that hypothesis by looking through religion tinted glasses, you find it. Because I don't have that filter to see the universe through, and do not accept 'unknown mystery' or coincidence as proof of 'god' and/or his hand, they will always be invisible and indeed un-necessary and so not believed in by me, just like my brothers invisible friend.


As I've said many a time, if god exists, he's certainly going to amazingly great lengths to remain unknown, unseen, unfelt, unheard, and un-needed by me and billions of others, and misunderstood by even more.

Because unbelievable hypothesis require indisputable proof, you must know it's impossible for YOU to convince me. Even if 'god' popped into my living room and took me on a sightseeing tour of the universe, I would still say "he" could be an advanced alien, not a deity, and require proof of divinity rather than technology or simple advanced knowledge or ability. If "He" is omnipotent, he knows that, understands that, and only 'he' is capable of proving that, or even knowing how it might be proven....but has failed to do so to date one tiny whit. I'll wait for him to pop in and prove it to me. Until then, thanks kindly for your 'soul saving' effort just the same, but it's never going to succeed. I do appreciate it's done with good intentions...but you do know what they say about good intentions, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&redirect=no

Newtboy, I know that I am wearing glasses. The problem is that you don't think you're wearing any. I see everything through the lens of the word of God, you see it through the lens of humanistic naturalism. We both have what is called a worldview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

Your worldview is grounded on your belief in certain axioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

A belief such as the scientific method being the best way to understand the natural world is an axiom. The problem with that belief is that you cannot prove that using the scientific method. It isn't a self-evident truth, it is based on unprovable assumptions. That is the fundamental issue which creates what is called the problem of induction which "calls into question..all empirical claims made by the scientific method"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

If you don't think you have a worldview, or don't know what the axioms of your worldview are, then I am sorry to break this to you but you sir are the one walking around completely blind. You believe your filter is wide when it is actually very narrow.

It's easy to think that you're getting a good overall picture when actually you have simply selected sources of information which agree with your underlying assumptions about what you already believe. You are then simply living in an echo chamber.

You also forget that I used to be an agnostic and I understand that point of view. It's not my failure to understand the atheist and the agnostic, it is that I understand them all too well. I rejected that point of view when I found out there was a God. When you find out there is a God your entire worldview will shatter and fall into itsy bitsy little pieces, and you'll marvel that could be so ignorant as to miss the complete obvious:

Which is that It's completely obvious that the Universe was created and is maintained by an all powerful Creator, it isn't something anyone has to strain to look for. The majesty of Gods creation is constantly surrounding us, and our very existence at this moment is proof positive of that fact.

The theory of Intelligent Design looks for design features in the "code" of the Universe. For a good overview for the application of Intelligent Design to many other fields of science, check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM&list=PLC805D4953D9DEC66

The difference being my lenses are designed to show reality, and can self correct when a flaw is discovered. Religion glasses are fixed lenses that distort what you see intentionally.
You can't prove it only because you can't examine everything you can apply the scientific method to, but every time it's been applied to a problem/question, it has been the best method tried to answer the question, no matter what other methods are tried.
Please, explain the 'assumptions' you speak of. The assumption that reality is real, and what we measure is also real? I'm happy to make that assumption, and will admit that it is one, but a base one must assume if you wish to have a chance of understanding the real world. If you don't believe reality is real, you have little place in science, as it only attempts to explain reality.
The 'problem of induction' sure seems a misunderstanding of science, which does NOT say the laws of physics are immutable, or that a series of measurements PROVES a pattern that will continue. The laws of physics were different at and near the big bang, and patterns change. Science knows this, and accounts for it, in fact, science discovered it.
Of course I have a world view, but it is not rigid as your is. I can assimilate new information to modify my world view as it becomes available, you can not, you must modify the information to fit your view.
When my 'sources of information' are data from random experiments and studies of phenomena, they are NOT selected because they agree with my assumptions, they just happen to agree with them (usually) because I had good teachers that give me a good base to make assumptions from, and when I see the assumption is wrong, I toss it. It happens...just not about religion.
You don't listen to me seriously, because you're mind is made up, I don't listen to you seriously because you're a fallible human and can't possibly know the things you claim to 'know', nor can you prove the unprovable, and trying is a total waste of time.
Tell god to get off his ass and show me then, and we can stop all this BS...until he proves the unprovable to me, it will remain unproven.
Your awe at reality is not proof of anything except your awe, no matter how much you wish it to be proof of god. My awe at beauty is simply awe, nothing more.
I'm not looking at your last video link, I've spent WAY too much time on this already, for nothing. You can't admit you even might be wrong, and can't ever prove you're even partially right (I've explained why)...so Good night.

The problem of induction has been a well known issue for hundreds of years. The gist of it is, we cannot rationally justify inductive reasoning. The significance of that is that virtually all of our knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is arrived at by inductive reasoning. Here is a good overview of the problem:

https://faculty.unlv.edu/beisecker/Courses/Phi-101/Induction.htm

So, when you say your worldview is designed to show reality, do you have any rational basis for your claim? Even an insane person will make the same claim that you have, so how do you know that you are not one of those? The problem of induction reveals that underlying any knowledge claim there is a series of unprovable assumptions, and that everything, even rationality itself, is subject to change. If you are just a blip on a computer screen somewhere, the whole thing is kind of moot isn't it?

You see my worldview as rigid because you don't appear to believe in absolute truth. Have you ever pondered that the claim "there is no absolute truth" is actually an absolute truth claim? The whole idea of relative truth eats itself at a certain level, but those who believe in only relative truth don't follow the evidence where leads. Aren't you willing to take these ideas to their logical conclusions, newtboy? You're the stubborn type, but not the intellectually incurious type.

I only know what I know because of what God has revealed to me, otherwise I wouldn't know anything. I would say the same thing as most of you do, that "I don't know" is the most rational position to take. That's the position I took before; I have been convinced of the truth because God, through His love and supreme mercy, revealed Himself to me. I don't deserve it, believe that much. It's not because I am so special, it is because of His grace.

What I absolutely believe newtboy, is that He doesn't love you any less than He does me. He didn't truly reveal Himself to me until I was in my 30s. I don't know what He has shown you, but I know He has shown you something. Perhaps you won't put it together until later in life, and there is a reason for that too, although I couldn't tell you what that is. I just know that He loves you the same and is faithful to show you the same kind of revelation that He has to me. If you are truly open to that, if you would want to know the truth regardless of your personal preferences to the contrary, then you won't fail to find out what I've found out; that there is meaning and purpose to life, because you were created on purpose for a reason:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

As I said, assuming reality is real is an assumption we all must make to be sane....it is an ASSUMPTION, but a necessary one without which we live in a fluid fantasy. That is rational enough for me, as the alternative means everything is fantasy and meaningless anyway, so being mistaken about it would mean nothing...to no one, leaving 'belief' in reality the only rational choice.
I see your world view as rigid because it's based in a rigid, unchanging document, while mine is based on examination and re-examination of 'reality'.
No, I don't believe in absolute "truth". I believe in :

RULE#5-"TRUTH" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person. You don't need to know the 'TRUTH" in order to not lie.

I get that it's confusing for me to say -'there are absolutely no absolutes', but there you go, I said it. Kind of like how I'm intolerant of intolerance. ;-)
I take the position...'I don't know, but it seems most likely by far that.....'...about everything. Being a scientist means you never 'know' anything for certain...as that denies you the ability to change your position when you're 'knowledge' is shown to be incorrect. Certitude is for theology, not science.
Only 'he' knows what 'proof' would be, and he has not shown it. I don't know how many times I must repeat that. Beauty is not proof, awe is not proof, mystery is not proof, words are not proof, other people's belief is not proof. Only proof is proof, and I'm waiting, but not holding my breath. Ball's in 'his' invisible court.
Yes, I am open to knowing the 'truth' (if you must put it that way), and I am also open to accepting I have been wrong, but only if I'm convinced, not just because someone said so.
If we are created for good works, something went terribly wrong somewhere. ;-)

Moving this video to chicchorea's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.