God's RPG?

[Erichermit]

So all this talk about "respecting NPCs" and whatnot has led to me think.. Just how real are we? What if god created the universe as a.. creative hobby, similar to the way we make games. Being god, he would of course create something much higher than the NPC's or whatever we make in our game, Humans and the such. Could we just be a hobby, something for fun? I bet he first with the dinosaurs it's like when we make our first project but later decide against it. Imagine: "Hm.. I don't like this idea as much, I got this other great one about Humans!" *Deletes via Meteor*

(Well, I suppose this KIIINDDD of fits in the category of Symposium, but I feel like it's not serious enough to grace the other REAL discussions in that place..)

 

[kaze950]

Nobody really knows. I mean, it's impossible to understand from the human mind. If I had infinite knowledge, wisdom, and power, I don't know what'd I'd do. Since the human mind is one of sin, it is impossible for us to think like God.

But, maybe God did just create us because he was bored. Maybe Angels were like a prototype, and he thought "Nah, they don't need the wings"

 

[arcthemonkey]

Symposium material it is, indeed.

On the topic of us not technically existing, that goes in with a theory I devised as I went through upper division college chemistry.

Truth is, I don't believe matter exists at all.

Basically, as we've gone along, all we've ever discovered is space. When we discovered atoms, we only really discovered the space between atoms, which we thought were solid, but were wrong because, of course, we later discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons - or did we? No, we discovered the space between them. Then comes quarks, gluons, strings - We didn't discover new matter at all people - we discovered space.

From every perspective, when you touch a keyboard key, you don't touch anything at all. The particles that make of your finger never actually touch the particles that make up the keyboard - this isn't theory, it's fact. If the atoms that make up your finger ever got close enough to another atom that their energy level intersected, the results would be catostrophic.

I don't think this pattern will ever change. The smaller we go, the more space we discover. Because of this, I surmise that no scientist will ever discover "matter," especially since it hasn't happened yet. What is matter made out of? It's made out of space.

I read an article about some French or Russian scientist, that explained his theory (that was similar to mine). HE believed that the smallest building block of all matter was composed of two revolving particles that, and here's the important part, don't exist. That's right - at the bottom of everything, is nothing.

So if all my keyboard is, and all my hand is, is a series of inexplicable repulsions, what's there? Nothing. Matter doesn't exist.

Now, call me an unreasonable christian, but this proved God to me more than ever. I began thinking that we must exist as a construct in some intelligent mind that transcends the universe and physics, but not in a FFX "Dream of the Fayth" sort of way, but, as I said, that nothing exists outside of the will that brought it into being.

I suppose you could say I'm a christian who believes that God imagined us, and we exist in his mind.

Controversial? I dunno. But nobody can prove that matter exists - we've never seen it.

 

[Erichermit]

You have given me some real things to think about with matter not existing. But then, according to your theory, what makes Matter different than say.. the emptiness of outer space?

 

[arcthemonkey]

Nothing. What I'm saying is that we only "exist" in the third person, essentially. That we are merely the perception of a perhaps undefined outer will.

Even from a first person perspective, everything we know is 100% perception. When I look at an object, I percieve that my eyes see it, and when I reach out to it to confirm, I piercieve that my fingers touch it. But is it really there?

I honestly, don't believe so. Not in so many words. I percieve it's there, but in that case, what am I? Where do my perceptions come from? I think of it as sort of a immaterial cloud of consciousness within the "mind" of an trans-universal entity. DesCartes said, "I think, therefore I am." I disagree.

"He thinks, therefore I am."

Remember, all that modern science knows about the physical universe is that it is the product of repulsion and attraction. I cannot occupy the same space as you, because our bodies repulse each other. However, modern science can't explain where that repulsion comes from. You may think, "It comes from atomic charges!" Okay, but what gives an electron a positive charge, and a proton a negative charge. Protons spit out positrons to become neutrons. How does that work? Gluons, of course. We've theorized and postulated into the sub-sub-sub-sub atomic level, and as I said before, we have discovered nothing but space, and more attraction and repulsion. What is the source of the attraction and repulsion? I don't think it will ever be found.

So if the fact that light bounces off of you to make you visible, and the fact that I can't stand inside of you makes you solid, are not at all the result of physical contact on any level, but are simply the result of magnetic forces that can't be explained. There is, in fact, not even any evidence that we exist, besides our senses, which are, demonstratably, entirely subjective. The only reason any of us have to believe any of us exist is because we can see, hear, smell, and touch each other - all 100% matters of perception. Even following that mindset, the light I employ to percieve you with my eyes never touches you, yet is repelled, the particles I use to percieve your smell never contact my scent centers, the waves that act on my eardrum to percieve your sound never touches my ear drum, and the contact I use to percieve your touch never actually contacted me.

So what is the difference between us and empty space?

Nothing. There's absolutely nothing there.

 

[Monk]

That's kinda like solipsism, except mirrored instead of opposite.

 

[arcthemonkey]

I'm familiar with solipsism, but I don't know what you mean by "mirrored" and "opposite" in that context.

I'd call myself more of an "Idealist Pantheist", if I had to label it.

 

[ccoa]

Haven't I played that game already?

Oh, yeah. Star Ocean 3.

If we're created as a hobby, it's not a hobby the creator takes very seriously, and it seems he/she/it has since lost interest.

 

[arcthemonkey]

For the record, I never said it was God's hobby (of course, I know you weren't addressing me... at least, I don't think so.)

I also wanted to clarify that I meant Panentheist, not Pantheist, although I do sort of combine the two. I get those two mixed up sometimes. For the life of me, I can't figure out how :P

 

[paslechoix]

It would be possible i agree. Anything is possible. The Movie Matrix made me realize it.

How can anyone prove that life does not work like this : You are born sleeping, the dream is your life, when you die you wake up. You can't prove, there is no way to prove it. Same with 5th dimension, you cannot know if there is a world were atoms do not exist and everything is uniform.

So about your perception thing, we are just a bunch of atoms and our thoughs are a kind of eletrical energy (i forgot exactly...).

Same thing as :
"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.

What truth?

There is no spoon."

1000 trillion different perspectives of the world, same answer :

We can't know.

 

[arcthemonkey]

And you see, I would totally be in line with the, "There is no spoon" concept, but in a way, that's depending on existance being relative only to the observer. Now, that may seem at odds with what I'm saying, but as I said before, while I think that existance is the product of perception, I believe it's driven by a involved, but transcendant observer, and also because my perception isn't the only one at play.

I can't simply re-percieve the spoon as being bent, because that would require everyone else to percieve it the same way. Now, if one was persistantly percieving such situations differently than others, chaos insues. I percieve the spoon as being bent, but Joe Schmoe sees it as being straight. Who's right? Really, neither of us can be.

That's why an external all-perciever becomes necessary in my mind. While Idealism says that the universe is the product of my mind, basically, my spin is that it's the product of a inspecific panetheistic god (And me, being as christian, call Him God). That is, the spoon is bent if God percieves that I percieve it as bent. How's that for a tricky concept for you?

 

[madmax_vii]

if god had an RPG, we'd probably be all screwed as people blow shit up, nature's deterioration is ruining the earth and machines start taking over peoples lives.....Hey wait, that's happening already.

 

[Andy6000]

So clever. Though that'd be less of an RPG and more like God trying to play SimCity and doing bad like everyone does for their first couple playthroughs 'oh damnit my people are complaining the world is too polluted! Agh not enough money and people want taxes lowered, what the hell!'

Also yeah this made me think of that weak plot twist from Star Ocean 3. I love the game, but god why did they have to put that in there, the practically abandoned the plot they built up for this? A mildly interesting 'I wonder what if...?' theory?

Personally, I'd like to think that we define eachother through our perceptions, if a man affects nothing, then he doesn't exist. If some dude lived on Mars, and he survived by eating rocks, his existence is some rocks missing out of their natural place, since he didn't do anything else or make an impact.

The tree falling in the forest happened, because later some guy finds a tree fallen over, the event happened, there was just no 'present tense' existence of it from our perceptions. Though there probably was if you decide to count the various woodland fauna's perceptions. :>

In the end I just don't worry about it, life's fun, shouldn't ruin it by worrying about crap that you can't figure out.

 

[arcthemonkey]

That's Idealism, Andy!

The concept that if there were no minds to percieve the universe, the universe wouldn't exist.

 

[Monk]

I'm familiar with solipsism, but I don't know what you mean by "mirrored" and "opposite" in that context.

I'd call myself more of an "Idealist Pantheist", if I had to label it.

Well, solipsism is the belief that nothing but the self exists (or at least can be verified to exist) - the "I think, therefore I am" statement that you mentioned. The opposite of that would be (I guess there would be two depending on how you look at it), that everything you see really exists or that everything exists except you (which would be pretty weird). So your view isn't really solipsism, but it isn't the opposite of solipsism either - it's sort of a mirrored view of it in that the self doesn't exist, for lack of a better way of putting it. It's like if we say Y is the opposite of X and the mirror of X is -X.

 

[paslechoix]

That's Idealism, Andy!

The concept that if there were no minds to percieve the universe, the universe wouldn't exist.

Well, even if there is not intelligent being, the fact that the atoms collide, change, make planets and all that would still exist, only there is no one to perceive it, so no calling of universe, nothing to define it but i think its still there.

 

[StuntmanBank314]

Haven't I played that game already?

Oh, yeah. Star Ocean 3.

If we're created as a hobby, it's not a hobby the creator takes very seriously, and it seems he/she/it has since lost interest.

And from that I conclude that....the human race is a RMXP game.....one of the ones that dont get finished.....

 

[Rain]

If we're created as a hobby, it's not a hobby the creator takes very seriously, and it seems he/she/it has since lost interest.

Aint that the truth :P



I think we are all being controlled in the Sims 5 and the one we call 'god', well his name is actually will wright :p

 

[Erichermit]

Well, even if there is not intelligent being, the fact that the atoms collide, change, make planets and all that would still exist, only there is no one to perceive it, so no calling of universe, nothing to define it but i think its still there.

I have to agree with you here. Just because there is nothing to perceive the universe as existing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However.. Without anything to perceive it.. It has no purpose.

 

[Roman Candle]

Arc, if you want to say that space is matter you'll have to redefine at least one of them. In order for anything to exist, something has to be different from something else. Even if space interacts with itself to produce the relationship which we call matter, the universe would still be uniform unless space was non-continuous. So you end up with two fundemental substances, (at least), Space A and Space B.

Descartes may have been wrong when he said "cogito ergo sum", but it is truely impossible to say that nothing exists. The strongest statement that can be made in the face of global skepticism is more like "res sunt" - "Things are". As Russel put it, all that Descartes showed was "There are thoughts". That doesn't mean that Descartes exists in the form that he 'thinks' he does, ie as 'res cogitans', the 'Thinking Thing'. But our perceptions are directly knowable and have definite existance.


I would call myself a paranoid Kantist. As he pointed out, we are unable to understand the universe in any terms other than space and time. But we have no guarantee that space and time are the basic mechanics the universe is based on. As such we may never be able to develop a model of the universe which perfectly describes it. However, I do believe that existence relative, and that to exist is not to be perceived but to be measured or otherwise changed. Each viewpoint has it's own reality, and they are all equally real.