Can I ask a related question? Is there a physical model available that allows for immortality (eternally stable structure) in a cyclic model of the universe only (limited space with finite time between cycles)?

MWI and other parallel universe models seem to allow for suitable ways of replication and escape - but I never found anything related for a cyclic model. There is talk of surviving the Heat death (superconductor based computers) and Big Crunch/Big bang (using suitable black holes, etc..) - but there is one specific problem I haven't seen addressed: Particle decay.

If everything else works as planned and a future stable structure is created - in a cyclic model - Is there any way to prevent it from catastrophically desintegrating through particle decay (which is bound to happen in enough finite time)?

Wouldn't it be rational to assume, that what/whoever designed the simulation, would do so for for the same reason that we know all inteligent life complies to: Survival/reproduction and maximizing its pleasure / minimizing pain?

I see two problems with this:

1. Alien minds are alien, and
2. that really doesn't seem to exhaust the motives of intelligent life. It would seem to recommend wireheading to us.

Wouldn't it be rational to assume, that what/whoever designed the simulation, would do so for for the same reason that we know all inteligent life complies to: Survival/reproduction and maximizing its pleasure / minimizing pain?

A priori assumptions arent the best ones, but it seems to me that would be a valid starting point that leads to 2 conclusions:

a) the designer is drastically handicapped with its resources and our very limited simulation is the only one running (therefore the question - why is it exactly like it is - why this design at all if we're talking in several "episodes")

b) the designer is can run all the simulations he wants simultaneusly and ours isn't special in any particular way besides being a functional tool (of many) providing the above max p/p to the designer

if we assume a) then the limitations/errors of the simulation would be more severe in every way, making it easier to detect what the author lists. Also, our one simulation would have to be an optimal compromise to achieve the very limited, but still max. p/p for the designer - we could talk about variety of sorts - but only variety with clear and optimal purpose would count. What is so special then in our known configuration of the physical constants? It would seem that a strong anthropic principle would apply - only a universe with inteligent (even simulated) life and physical constants similar to our own would be required for an evolutionary way for this life to evolve - or think it has evolved. I would quess that the world outside our simulation is subject of similar ways of physic and evolution as is known, in a simplified way, in our simulation - by this same anthropic principle.

If b) is the case and we're only one simualtion of many - that would assume that there are no severe restrictions on resources and computational power of the designer. Our simulation would therefore be a lot more detailed with less room (if any) to find errors or any of the kind of proof that we're living in a simulation. Parallel processing the same simulation with diferent, but relevant permutations asside - what could we tell about other simulations running in paralell with ours? That they are very different to our simulation. Since resources arent a problem - variety for max. p/p is the key. The designer could arbitrarily create simulations that are not long-term sustainable, but allow for scripts and vistas impossible to experience in a simulation similar to our own. He could use the resources to explore all relevant (or potentially relevant) possible world simulations and allocate resurces to constantly find new ones. All computationally accessible and relevant worlds would be running in parallel (because there is no need for an "experience cap"). The only limit would be that of an act utalitarian - to run those scenarios, that in the long run bring out the most pleasure.

The level of detail of the simulation is the key - if its very limited - so is the world outside it and our simulation is the best compromise (best possible world) to run - a fact that could be analysed quite intensely.

if it's very detailed (but we still managed to prove we're in a simulation), then we're only a very small drop of paint in a very big picture. But I would guess in this case that our detailed simulation would allow for additional subsimulations, that we could create ourselves. The same could be true for a), but with much greater limitations (requiring limited moemory/experiences and/or plesure loops - very limited ways of maximizing our own pleasure)

Yep, looks like rubbish. Sorry.

In general, looking to justify your existing beliefs doesn't work. Say this to yourself: "If God exists, I want to believe that God exists. If God doesn't exist, I want to believe that God doesn't exist."

Hello.

I've only been checking this site for a short while and after reading all these interesting thoughts I posted something myself.

I'm interested in objective, rational thoughts about the ultimate reality of our existence (and Existence itself) and coming from a religious family - I also try to rationalize the notions I have about God.

I see that modal realism and Plantingas ontological argument don't go down well in here and I concur - by themselves they are underwhelmingly weak.

But what if You combine these two views, based one assumption alone - that Existence (whatever exactly it entails) has to be past eternal.

It's not an irrational belief - it's even possible by some theories. I posted something in that line (shouldn't be hard to find - there aren't many posts about God here) and I would very much appreciate any valid comments.

It's a simple theory, but I would very much appreciate some feedback. I have no idea if I'm talking rubbish or if it does make for a coherent logic.

Thanks in advance.

Saladin from Slovenia.