LDS Freedom Forum

[email protected] wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 5:21 pm

gkearney wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 6:56 am

mahalanobis wrote: ↑January 27th, 2020, 5:55 am

ori wrote: ↑January 26th, 2020, 9:32 pm sim·u·la·tion
/ˌsimyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: simulation; plural noun: simulations
imitation of a situation or process.
"simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"
the action of pretending; deception.
"clever simulation that's good enough to trick you"
the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study.
"the method was tested by computer simulation"


—————————————

Doubt God would need to use a computer, at least not like anything we would call a computer. Also, “simulation” suggests unreality. Sounds like something Satan would teach , to me. He would want us to think out life isn’t real, or subject to any consequences.

So I’m going to push back on the idea. Hard. Elon Musk thinks we live in a simulation. But he is an engineering genius, not a religious leader or philosopher. I think he’s just completely wrong.

Before you dismiss me, I do understand the delayed choice experiment, and other quantum experiments, etc. And I can’t explain them. But simulation or many-worlds theory, I just can’t buy. They both seem like sophistry, doctrines of the world, and spirituality dangerous to me.

To a person possessed by the idea that nothing is real, right and wrong will blur. Mass murder becomes a means to an end (to them). Everything is a "construct" that is just getting in the way.

We've seen this in the "massively online multiplayer" video games. Especially the ones that are "open world" games. A guy can labor all day mining and building a shelter, then somebody else comes along, befriends the guy, only to stab him in the back and steal his gold. But it's not considered a sin because it's "just a game". Similar observations can be made with the Grand Theft Auto games where people have no hesitation to murder and steal.

I agree, it is this kind of thinking that leads to the murderous genocide of Hitler, Stalin and other bloodstained dictators. All they have to do is to convince people, and it seems frightfully easy to do so, that such as person is "just a jew, gypsy, homosexual" or what have you, no need to concern yourself with them. Hitler and his henchmen were able to lead the well educated and cultured people of Germany down a path of mass murder all too easily. Read the pages of Der Stürmer to see how it was done.

Think that it can't happen now, guess again. Pol Pot killed millions of Cambodians because they did not meet his standard of political correctness. America systematically killed Native Americans, lynched Negros, interned our own citizens of Japanese decent and even now put children in cages at the border. It is far to easy to get people to think of them as the "others".

The veneer of civilization is very thin and dismissing this life as nothing more that a simulation will give licence for the most vile sorts of actions against those "others". Why not kill them, it just a "simulation" after all?

A couple misconceptions here though. Just because something is a "simulation", or "virtual", or "digital" does not mean that it's not real or not reality. And it certainly doesn't mean these types of environments don't affect our "real" world.

Take the IT world of servers, hosts, networks and their associated hardware software, protocols ect. I mean technically all you're doing with electronics of any kind is manipulating or controlling the flow of electrons at the atomic level. If you cut open a CAT6 cable 1s and 0s don't fall out. If you break your XBOX open you won't find your favorite characters from Star Wars or Call of Duty. Yet this virtual world which doesn't really "exist" in any physical sense affects our day to day "real world" lives constantly. Can you imagine how our world would be affected if suddenly we lost all connections to the digital world thats developed over the last 1 - 1/2 centuries?

Again, I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming that just because something is digital, virtual, or a simulation that it isn't real and that actions within that realm don't have consequences outside if it. Now others may make that mistake, a grave mistake, but that wouldn't change the nature of whether this world is a simulation or not.

ori wrote: ↑January 31st, 2020, 4:14 pm Definitions, definitions. Simulation means a computer model, a pretend act, or an imitation. That's literally what it means. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

These definitions don't apply to what we are living. At all. But if one wants to make a different definition, by changing the meaning of the word "simulation", then I may come to agree that we are living in a "simulation", by one's custom definition. But by almost all actual usages of the word, we are not living in a simulation IMO.

Do you really think this life is a computer model? Running on a computer? Really!? Elon Musk thinks so, but for many people on this forum who subscribe to basic ideas such as eternal nature of the soul, gaining a resurrected body we will *never* lose, the existence of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God, and the BoM being the word of God, I would imagine the following logic applies:
1) God is omnipotent. So he has no use for a computer, let alone a model on a computer. So there goes definition #1. But if you think God has a computer... and he managed to put us into it.... Strange, and I disagree, but .... I don't think anyone here is saying that God has a computer that He managed to squeeze us into. Is someone saying this could be a possibility? layer8, do you think that even though God is omniscient and omnipotent, he could have a mechanical/electrical device that he squeezed us into?
2) The results of this life have real meaning and are pretty permanent, as the Book of Mormon says. So there goes definition #2 and #3. If you disagree with this then I understand why you would think this life could be a simulation. But no one here is saying that the results of this life doesn't have real meaning.

If you want to define a simulation as "a probationary state" or "a time to prepare to meet God" (Alma 12:24) then I agree with you. Yes, it's a probationary period. If you were to define it as not real, in the sense that it's kind of an artificially created situation that is not really reflective of the life outside this one, then yes, I may agree to an extent.

It seems that most people on this thread seem to agree on one main point: That the results of this life DO matter. This is one of the things that I think makes it so that the word "simulation" doesn't fit, but depending on one's definition of simulation, I could see how others may think it could still fit.

"Simulation" doesn't mean "on a computer". That's not the definition. No one is saying that all digital transactions don't have real life consequences, or affect real life. So layer8, not sure who you're talking to. You're basically claiming that there are people here who are saying that anything on the computer "isn't real". No one is saying that. At least not that I see. So, you claim misunderstanding but I don't think there is misunderstanding. (Oh, sorry, you used the word "misconception". Again, I don't think anyone here is "misconcepting" it.)

One of the definitions of the word "simulation" is about computer models. A computer MODEL is a model done on a computer. A model is a simplification of reality, or a construct set up for understanding something more complex. Primary use of the word "simulation" today includes a computer model used for studying something. It does NOT include transactions (like funds being transferred from one account to another) being unreal. (No one ever said, "I need to wait until VISA finishes their simulation of my funds being transferred.") Computer simulations BY DEFINITION don't have real world effects. When a computer program has a real world effect, it is no longer called a simulation. A model imitates reality, so we can learn something. I could maybe agree with some arguments about how this life is only an imitation of real existence. But we're just here for God (or aliens) to study? And we exist only in the model, and never outside of it? Not really something that fits in our theology. These are both things that are suggested by the term "simulation".

TLDR I think all this hullaballo, at least out of the people in this thread, is really about their conception of the word "simulation" and what it means. To me it means "fake" or "imitation" or "simplified model for study by the beings outside the model, with the results of the model having no real world consequences". I don't think this life falls under any of those categories. It seems that some here have different ideas for what "simulation" could mean. Like "test", as in "this life is a test". If you phrase it that way, then I agree with you, life is a test, ie simulation.

But the way I think Elon Musk means it, is that there is some being with an actual physical device running our existence as 1s and 0s, and when that device breaks, or is rebooted, then all of us go "poof" and are gone forever. And this is a definition that I disagree with. I also think most people here would disagree with that as well. (That is, the idea that we are actually 1's and 0's and will go "poof" and disappear if some cosmic device gets dropped into a cosmic pool.)

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:02 am

ori wrote: ↑January 31st, 2020, 4:14 pm Definitions, definitions. Simulation means a computer model, a pretend act, or an imitation. That's literally what it means. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

These definitions don't apply to what we are living. At all. But if one wants to make a different definition, by changing the meaning of the word "simulation", then I may come to agree that we are living in a "simulation", by one's custom definition. But by almost all actual usages of the word, we are not living in a simulation IMO.

Do you really think this life is a computer model? Running on a computer? Really!? Elon Musk thinks so, but for many people on this forum who subscribe to basic ideas such as eternal nature of the soul, gaining a resurrected body we will *never* lose, the existence of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God, and the BoM being the word of God, I would imagine the following logic applies:
1) God is omnipotent. So he has no use for a computer, let alone a model on a computer. So there goes definition #1. But if you think God has a computer... and he managed to put us into it.... Strange, and I disagree, but .... I don't think anyone here is saying that God has a computer that He managed to squeeze us into. Is someone saying this could be a possibility? layer8, do you think that even though God is omniscient and omnipotent, he could have a mechanical/electrical device that he squeezed us into?
2) The results of this life have real meaning and are pretty permanent, as the Book of Mormon says. So there goes definition #2 and #3. If you disagree with this then I understand why you would think this life could be a simulation. But no one here is saying that the results of this life doesn't have real meaning.

If you want to define a simulation as "a probationary state" or "a time to prepare to meet God" (Alma 12:24) then I agree with you. Yes, it's a probationary period. If you were to define it as not real, in the sense that it's kind of an artificially created situation that is not really reflective of the life outside this one, then yes, I may agree to an extent.

It seems that most people on this thread seem to agree on one main point: That the results of this life DO matter. This is one of the things that I think makes it so that the word "simulation" doesn't fit, but depending on one's definition of simulation, I could see how others may think it could still fit.

"Simulation" doesn't mean "on a computer". That's not the definition. No one is saying that all digital transactions don't have real life consequences, or affect real life. So layer8, not sure who you're talking to. You're basically claiming that there are people here who are saying that anything on the computer "isn't real". No one is saying that. At least not that I see. So, you claim misunderstanding but I don't think there is misunderstanding. (Oh, sorry, you used the word "misconception". Again, I don't think anyone here is "misconcepting" it.)

One of the definitions of the word "simulation" is about computer models. A computer MODEL is a model done on a computer. A model is a simplification of reality, or a construct set up for understanding something more complex. Primary use of the word "simulation" today includes a computer model used for studying something. It does NOT include transactions (like funds being transferred from one account to another) being unreal. (No one ever said, "I need to wait until VISA finishes their simulation of my funds being transferred.") Computer simulations BY DEFINITION don't have real world effects. When a computer program has a real world effect, it is no longer called a simulation. A model imitates reality, so we can learn something. I could maybe agree with some arguments about how this life is only an imitation of real existence. But we're just here for God (or aliens) to study? And we exist only in the model, and never outside of it? Not really something that fits in our theology. These are both things that are suggested by the term "simulation".

TLDR I think all this hullaballo, at least out of the people in this thread, is really about their conception of the word "simulation" and what it means. To me it means "fake" or "imitation" or "simplified model for study by the beings outside the model, with the results of the model having no real world consequences". I don't think this life falls under any of those categories. It seems that some here have different ideas for what "simulation" could mean. Like "test", as in "this life is a test". If you phrase it that way, then I agree with you, life is a test, ie simulation.

But the way I think Elon Musk means it, is that there is some being with an actual physical device running our existence as 1s and 0s, and when that device breaks, or is rebooted, then all of us go "poof" and are gone forever. And this is a definition that I disagree with. I also think most people here would disagree with that as well. (That is, the idea that we are actually 1's and 0's and will go "poof" and disappear if some cosmic device gets dropped into a cosmic pool.)

Do I think our world is being run by our modern definition of a "computer" that runs Windows 10 on a solid state hard drive that needs security patches every week? No, I do not.

A computer can be something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Or this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

It's just a device that processes mathmatical equations. Something our universe is filled with, some say it's not just filled with mathematical properties, its essentially ONLY mathematical properties:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6AGHryWBuQ

You know the computers that we use today (theoretical quantum computers aside) are all based on binary mathematics which is probably simplest form of mathematics out there represented by 1s and 0s. 1 being on 0 being off. On is the opposite of off, something is the opposite of nothing, good is the opposite of evil. Everything in our universe has it's opposite, its a binary universe. Lehi and Nephi undertood this:


11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

"12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the bjustice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Our Chinese freinds understood this concept too and have a symbol we all recognize which represents it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:21 am

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:02 am

ori wrote: ↑January 31st, 2020, 4:14 pm Definitions, definitions. Simulation means a computer model, a pretend act, or an imitation. That's literally what it means. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

These definitions don't apply to what we are living. At all. But if one wants to make a different definition, by changing the meaning of the word "simulation", then I may come to agree that we are living in a "simulation", by one's custom definition. But by almost all actual usages of the word, we are not living in a simulation IMO.

Do you really think this life is a computer model? Running on a computer? Really!? Elon Musk thinks so, but for many people on this forum who subscribe to basic ideas such as eternal nature of the soul, gaining a resurrected body we will *never* lose, the existence of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God, and the BoM being the word of God, I would imagine the following logic applies:
1) God is omnipotent. So he has no use for a computer, let alone a model on a computer. So there goes definition #1. But if you think God has a computer... and he managed to put us into it.... Strange, and I disagree, but .... I don't think anyone here is saying that God has a computer that He managed to squeeze us into. Is someone saying this could be a possibility? layer8, do you think that even though God is omniscient and omnipotent, he could have a mechanical/electrical device that he squeezed us into?
2) The results of this life have real meaning and are pretty permanent, as the Book of Mormon says. So there goes definition #2 and #3. If you disagree with this then I understand why you would think this life could be a simulation. But no one here is saying that the results of this life doesn't have real meaning.

If you want to define a simulation as "a probationary state" or "a time to prepare to meet God" (Alma 12:24) then I agree with you. Yes, it's a probationary period. If you were to define it as not real, in the sense that it's kind of an artificially created situation that is not really reflective of the life outside this one, then yes, I may agree to an extent.

It seems that most people on this thread seem to agree on one main point: That the results of this life DO matter. This is one of the things that I think makes it so that the word "simulation" doesn't fit, but depending on one's definition of simulation, I could see how others may think it could still fit.

"Simulation" doesn't mean "on a computer". That's not the definition. No one is saying that all digital transactions don't have real life consequences, or affect real life. So layer8, not sure who you're talking to. You're basically claiming that there are people here who are saying that anything on the computer "isn't real". No one is saying that. At least not that I see. So, you claim misunderstanding but I don't think there is misunderstanding. (Oh, sorry, you used the word "misconception". Again, I don't think anyone here is "misconcepting" it.)

One of the definitions of the word "simulation" is about computer models. A computer MODEL is a model done on a computer. A model is a simplification of reality, or a construct set up for understanding something more complex. Primary use of the word "simulation" today includes a computer model used for studying something. It does NOT include transactions (like funds being transferred from one account to another) being unreal. (No one ever said, "I need to wait until VISA finishes their simulation of my funds being transferred.") Computer simulations BY DEFINITION don't have real world effects. When a computer program has a real world effect, it is no longer called a simulation. A model imitates reality, so we can learn something. I could maybe agree with some arguments about how this life is only an imitation of real existence. But we're just here for God (or aliens) to study? And we exist only in the model, and never outside of it? Not really something that fits in our theology. These are both things that are suggested by the term "simulation".

TLDR I think all this hullaballo, at least out of the people in this thread, is really about their conception of the word "simulation" and what it means. To me it means "fake" or "imitation" or "simplified model for study by the beings outside the model, with the results of the model having no real world consequences". I don't think this life falls under any of those categories. It seems that some here have different ideas for what "simulation" could mean. Like "test", as in "this life is a test". If you phrase it that way, then I agree with you, life is a test, ie simulation.

But the way I think Elon Musk means it, is that there is some being with an actual physical device running our existence as 1s and 0s, and when that device breaks, or is rebooted, then all of us go "poof" and are gone forever. And this is a definition that I disagree with. I also think most people here would disagree with that as well. (That is, the idea that we are actually 1's and 0's and will go "poof" and disappear if some cosmic device gets dropped into a cosmic pool.)

Do I think our world is being run by our modern definition of a "computer" that runs Windows 10 on a solid state hard drive that needs security patches every week? No, I do not.

A computer can be something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Or this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

It's just a device that processes mathmatical equations. Something our universe is filled with, some say it's not just filled with mathematical properties, its essentially ONLY mathematical properties:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6AGHryWBuQ

You know the computers that we use today (theoretical quantum computers aside) are all based on binary mathematics which is probably simplest form of mathematics out there represented by 1s and 0s. 1 being on 0 being off. On is the opposite of off, something is the opposite of nothing, good is the opposite of evil. Everything in our universe has it's opposite, its a binary universe. Lehi and Nephi undertood this:


11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

"12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the bjustice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Our Chinese freinds understood this concept too and have a symbol we all recognize which represents it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

All the "math" that we see in the universe is our model that we've created to explain it all to ourselves. All models are wrong, but some are useful anyways. Our physics models are all wrong. QFT is grossly inaccurate when estimating the vacuum energy, other models put the mass of the universe waaay off. There are lists of these problems that scientists are trying to reconcile. All the math and equations are just tools, not the universe itself.

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:35 am

mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:21 am

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:02 am

ori wrote: ↑January 31st, 2020, 4:14 pm Definitions, definitions. Simulation means a computer model, a pretend act, or an imitation. That's literally what it means. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

These definitions don't apply to what we are living. At all. But if one wants to make a different definition, by changing the meaning of the word "simulation", then I may come to agree that we are living in a "simulation", by one's custom definition. But by almost all actual usages of the word, we are not living in a simulation IMO.

Do you really think this life is a computer model? Running on a computer? Really!? Elon Musk thinks so, but for many people on this forum who subscribe to basic ideas such as eternal nature of the soul, gaining a resurrected body we will *never* lose, the existence of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God, and the BoM being the word of God, I would imagine the following logic applies:
1) God is omnipotent. So he has no use for a computer, let alone a model on a computer. So there goes definition #1. But if you think God has a computer... and he managed to put us into it.... Strange, and I disagree, but .... I don't think anyone here is saying that God has a computer that He managed to squeeze us into. Is someone saying this could be a possibility? layer8, do you think that even though God is omniscient and omnipotent, he could have a mechanical/electrical device that he squeezed us into?
2) The results of this life have real meaning and are pretty permanent, as the Book of Mormon says. So there goes definition #2 and #3. If you disagree with this then I understand why you would think this life could be a simulation. But no one here is saying that the results of this life doesn't have real meaning.

If you want to define a simulation as "a probationary state" or "a time to prepare to meet God" (Alma 12:24) then I agree with you. Yes, it's a probationary period. If you were to define it as not real, in the sense that it's kind of an artificially created situation that is not really reflective of the life outside this one, then yes, I may agree to an extent.

It seems that most people on this thread seem to agree on one main point: That the results of this life DO matter. This is one of the things that I think makes it so that the word "simulation" doesn't fit, but depending on one's definition of simulation, I could see how others may think it could still fit.

"Simulation" doesn't mean "on a computer". That's not the definition. No one is saying that all digital transactions don't have real life consequences, or affect real life. So layer8, not sure who you're talking to. You're basically claiming that there are people here who are saying that anything on the computer "isn't real". No one is saying that. At least not that I see. So, you claim misunderstanding but I don't think there is misunderstanding. (Oh, sorry, you used the word "misconception". Again, I don't think anyone here is "misconcepting" it.)

One of the definitions of the word "simulation" is about computer models. A computer MODEL is a model done on a computer. A model is a simplification of reality, or a construct set up for understanding something more complex. Primary use of the word "simulation" today includes a computer model used for studying something. It does NOT include transactions (like funds being transferred from one account to another) being unreal. (No one ever said, "I need to wait until VISA finishes their simulation of my funds being transferred.") Computer simulations BY DEFINITION don't have real world effects. When a computer program has a real world effect, it is no longer called a simulation. A model imitates reality, so we can learn something. I could maybe agree with some arguments about how this life is only an imitation of real existence. But we're just here for God (or aliens) to study? And we exist only in the model, and never outside of it? Not really something that fits in our theology. These are both things that are suggested by the term "simulation".

TLDR I think all this hullaballo, at least out of the people in this thread, is really about their conception of the word "simulation" and what it means. To me it means "fake" or "imitation" or "simplified model for study by the beings outside the model, with the results of the model having no real world consequences". I don't think this life falls under any of those categories. It seems that some here have different ideas for what "simulation" could mean. Like "test", as in "this life is a test". If you phrase it that way, then I agree with you, life is a test, ie simulation.

But the way I think Elon Musk means it, is that there is some being with an actual physical device running our existence as 1s and 0s, and when that device breaks, or is rebooted, then all of us go "poof" and are gone forever. And this is a definition that I disagree with. I also think most people here would disagree with that as well. (That is, the idea that we are actually 1's and 0's and will go "poof" and disappear if some cosmic device gets dropped into a cosmic pool.)

Do I think our world is being run by our modern definition of a "computer" that runs Windows 10 on a solid state hard drive that needs security patches every week? No, I do not.

A computer can be something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Or this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

It's just a device that processes mathmatical equations. Something our universe is filled with, some say it's not just filled with mathematical properties, its essentially ONLY mathematical properties:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6AGHryWBuQ

You know the computers that we use today (theoretical quantum computers aside) are all based on binary mathematics which is probably simplest form of mathematics out there represented by 1s and 0s. 1 being on 0 being off. On is the opposite of off, something is the opposite of nothing, good is the opposite of evil. Everything in our universe has it's opposite, its a binary universe. Lehi and Nephi undertood this:


11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

"12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the bjustice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Our Chinese freinds understood this concept too and have a symbol we all recognize which represents it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

All the "math" that we see in the universe is our model that we've created to explain it all to ourselves. All models are wrong, but some are useful anyways. Our physics models are all wrong. QFT is grossly inaccurate when estimating the vacuum energy, other models put the mass of the universe waaay off. There are lists of these problems that scientists are trying to reconcile. All the math and equations are just tools, not the universe itself.

If our universe is just math, and we’re in some device that processes math, what’s to say that that device is also just in a math universe, and so on ad infinitum?

The fact is, universe simulation theory, many worlds theory etc are just metaphysics. Which has no basis in science. That is, there is no real evidence for either. So they stand on VERY shaky ground. To me, all metaphysics stands in the realm of “the philosophies of men”, which may or may not be true, but are more than likely not true.

The existence of God is also not in the realm of science, and definitely not hard science. I know some would disagree, but then I challenge anyone to do a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

The existence of God is not something we can run repeatable experiments on, but there is still hard evidence of it. Joseph Smith’s vision is just one example. But there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for either many worlds theory or universe simulation theory.

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:35 am If our universe is just math, and we’re in some device that processes math, what’s to say that that device is also just in a math universe, and so on ad infinitum?

The fact is, universe simulation theory, many worlds theory etc are just metaphysics. Which has no basis in science. That is, there is no real evidence for either. So they stand on VERY shaky ground. To me, all metaphysics stands in the realm of “the philosophies of men”, which may or may not be true, but are more than likely not true.

The existence of God is also not in the realm of science, and definitely not hard science. I know some would disagree, but then I challenge anyone to do a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

The existence of God is not something we can run repeatable experiments on, but there is still hard evidence of it. Joseph Smith’s vision is just one example. But there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for either many worlds theory or universe simulation theory.

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:31 am I try to keep God theory and virtual reality theory separated. I choose to have faith in God theory...

The further question is are we in a condition of evolutionary stasis because we are in a low energy environment or do we continue to grow and evolve. All religions teach that man is evolving. Or at least some of us are or will evolve.

...What if I took the chance that I was being played and refused to enter into my new maximum security prison? What if I am wrong? My story is giving me no choice. How can I risk the fate of millions just to save myself? Even though I have one foot planted firmly in solipsism meaning that the millions of people supposedly relying on my actions as the DS do not really exist.

However, I choose to have faith in the God theory instead because there is the possibility that the virtual reality theory is the deception and it is from the devil...

• "Now this interconnection, relationship, or this adaptation of all things to each particular one, and of each one to all the rest, brings it about that every simple substance has relations which express all the others and that it is consequently a perpetual living mirror of the universe....
  If the representation were distinct as to the details of the entire universe, each monad would be a Deity. It is not in the object represented that the monads are limited, but in the modification of their knowledge of the object. In a confused way they reach out to infinity or to the whole, but are limited and differentiated in the degree of their distinct perceptions."

Thinker wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 4:44 pm

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:31 am I try to keep God theory and virtual reality theory separated. I choose to have faith in God theory...

The further question is are we in a condition of evolutionary stasis because we are in a low energy environment or do we continue to grow and evolve. All religions teach that man is evolving. Or at least some of us are or will evolve.

...What if I took the chance that I was being played and refused to enter into my new maximum security prison? What if I am wrong? My story is giving me no choice. How can I risk the fate of millions just to save myself? Even though I have one foot planted firmly in solipsism meaning that the millions of people supposedly relying on my actions as the DS do not really exist.

However, I choose to have faith in the God theory instead because there is the possibility that the virtual reality theory is the deception and it is from the devil...

Deep thoughts!
What do you mean about your story, and others depending on you?
It does seem, if this “simulation/imitation/remote controlled” theory was taken further, that it would be satanic in the sense of denying free agency. We do have free agency - though I admit it may be within a “deterministic” window of possibility. And we cannot exercise our free agency to deny it.

When I was little, I worried that this whole life was a big joke on me - that everyone else was in on it, but I was clueless. Kind of like the film, “Truman Show.” This theory reminds me of that.

I do acknowledge that each of us cannot help but think subjectively - nobody sees everything as it really is. Yet, consciousness is fundamental - axiomatic - a given. This universe, I believe and there’s evidence to prove - is conscious-based. Gottfried Leibniz explained how the essence of matter - that is, what is the smallest, undividable essence of matter - is based on perception. He called these indivisible units, “monads.” And although unique and far from arrival at potential, there is a sense of harmony because all are from the same source, Leibniz explained:

• "Now this interconnection, relationship, or this adaptation of all things to each particular one, and of each one to all the rest, brings it about that every simple substance has relations which express all the others and that it is consequently a perpetual living mirror of the universe....
  If the representation were distinct as to the details of the entire universe, each monad would be a Deity. It is not in the object represented that the monads are limited, but in the modification of their knowledge of the object. In a confused way they reach out to infinity or to the whole, but are limited and differentiated in the degree of their distinct perceptions."

Reality (all perspectives) is made up of all monads and according to Leibniz, God perceives from all perspectives at once. In a more practical example, there is no EEG or other tool to know exactly what someone is thinking - thought is not physical, yet it has real influence.

This strange theory that all is a delusion, is both partly right and wrong. All we perceive is subjective, biased... yet through our 5 senses and laws like cause and effect, we can know that the external world is not 100% in our imaginations.

My understanding of this theory may need correcting, but it seems based on mathematical probability not on reality. It’s as if someone spent their entire waking life working on math and jumped to the mistaken conclusion that there was nothing else. Just because there are billions more invented characters in books, doesn’t make the reader invented. Someone who’s studied this more than me, explained that if this was a simulation - (“an imitation of a situation or process”), then the energy distribution of cosmic rays wouldn’t be symmetrical as they are.

Even if this theory was taken more based on the idea that all matter is made up of space more than a solid chair (eg), it doesn’t negate the fact that I’m sitting on a chair. Acknowledging the probability that life is not how I thought it was, doesn’t make it all imagined. It’s just that the nature of reality is now realized to include more than was previously acknowledged. From parables like the Adam & Eve story, it’s suggested that the purpose of life is to leave states of ignorant bliss, to incorporate more knowledge - this is part of being born again & again...

Most of us have known for a while, that God/Truth is beyond, or outside our awareness. Every now and then, I get glimpses of God - “I AM THAT I AM” - that consciousness beyond and awareness of the superficial consciousness.

You and the Savior discussed your life many times before your birth
God expects you to help gather Israel, the living and the dead
You and the Savior planned for the work you do to prepare for his coming
I bless you to increase your faith to become mighty and strong
You belong to a great and important family
You have the Savior's promise that His angels will be around you to protect and aid you
Those angels will be people you know
their eternal blessings may well depend upon your accomplishments
He will give you the very words

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 6:32 pm I'm confused now. What are you talking about? What is the "DS"?

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 6:32 pm I'm confused now. What are you talking about? What is the "DS"?

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 1:01 pm

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:35 am

mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:21 am

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:02 am

Do I think our world is being run by our modern definition of a "computer" that runs Windows 10 on a solid state hard drive that needs security patches every week? No, I do not.

A computer can be something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Or this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

It's just a device that processes mathmatical equations. Something our universe is filled with, some say it's not just filled with mathematical properties, its essentially ONLY mathematical properties:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6AGHryWBuQ

You know the computers that we use today (theoretical quantum computers aside) are all based on binary mathematics which is probably simplest form of mathematics out there represented by 1s and 0s. 1 being on 0 being off. On is the opposite of off, something is the opposite of nothing, good is the opposite of evil. Everything in our universe has it's opposite, its a binary universe. Lehi and Nephi undertood this:


11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

"12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the bjustice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Our Chinese freinds understood this concept too and have a symbol we all recognize which represents it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

All the "math" that we see in the universe is our model that we've created to explain it all to ourselves. All models are wrong, but some are useful anyways. Our physics models are all wrong. QFT is grossly inaccurate when estimating the vacuum energy, other models put the mass of the universe waaay off. There are lists of these problems that scientists are trying to reconcile. All the math and equations are just tools, not the universe itself.

If our universe is just math, and we’re in some device that processes math, what’s to say that that device is also just in a math universe, and so on ad infinitum?

The fact is, universe simulation theory, many worlds theory etc are just metaphysics. Which has no basis in science. That is, there is no real evidence for either. So they stand on VERY shaky ground. To me, all metaphysics stands in the realm of “the philosophies of men”, which may or may not be true, but are more than likely not true.

The existence of God is also not in the realm of science, and definitely not hard science. I know some would disagree, but then I challenge anyone to do a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

The existence of God is not something we can run repeatable experiments on, but there is still hard evidence of it. Joseph Smith’s vision is just one example. But there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for either many worlds theory or universe simulation theory.

How can you start out so logical and end up with such illogic? What proof is there that Joseph Smith's vision was real. And which version of his original vision -- 1830, 1838, 1842 -- do you say is hard evidence? And given the subject of this thread you can't even postulate that his vision was from God and not the matrix computer. Yes, you discounted that possibility but you did not rule it out. My mind is baffled by such incongruent declarations.

Thinker wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 3:55 pm

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:35 am If our universe is just math, and we’re in some device that processes math, what’s to say that that device is also just in a math universe, and so on ad infinitum?

The fact is, universe simulation theory, many worlds theory etc are just metaphysics. Which has no basis in science. That is, there is no real evidence for either. So they stand on VERY shaky ground. To me, all metaphysics stands in the realm of “the philosophies of men”, which may or may not be true, but are more than likely not true.

The existence of God is also not in the realm of science, and definitely not hard science. I know some would disagree, but then I challenge anyone to do a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

The existence of God is not something we can run repeatable experiments on, but there is still hard evidence of it. Joseph Smith’s vision is just one example. But there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for either many worlds theory or universe simulation theory.

You’ve made some good points - especially implying there are more truths than just mathematics. Yet, you contradict yourself, or may unknowingly present your own biased “evidence” while discounting other evidence. Eg: God is defined +800 ways in the bible alone. Some of those definitions can be repeatedly experimented on, to prove God. Eg: “God is light.” Light has been studied and is proven.

Metaphysical means “beyond the physical.” Consciousness is an undeniable proof of metaphysical reality. You can not use your consciousness to deny it. “I think therefore I am” (- Descartes). Here are a couple scientific examples of metaphysical proof:
1) Double split experiment where the observation or lack of, changed the behavior of particles,
2) Placebo effect - which is the 1st standard by which medication effectiveness is measured

Though I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, I also am aware of some corruption he was involved with and that his vision was retold in several, quite different ways - so that seems more like philosophies of men mingled with truth. It certainly is not “hard science” and actually involves things that are now known to be lacking in integrity. I don’t dismiss the vision nor JS because of the flaws, but I am also not ignoring the realization of imperfections.

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 1:01 pm

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:35 am

mahalanobis wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:21 am

[email protected] wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:02 am

Do I think our world is being run by our modern definition of a "computer" that runs Windows 10 on a solid state hard drive that needs security patches every week? No, I do not.

A computer can be something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Or this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

It's just a device that processes mathmatical equations. Something our universe is filled with, some say it's not just filled with mathematical properties, its essentially ONLY mathematical properties:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6AGHryWBuQ

You know the computers that we use today (theoretical quantum computers aside) are all based on binary mathematics which is probably simplest form of mathematics out there represented by 1s and 0s. 1 being on 0 being off. On is the opposite of off, something is the opposite of nothing, good is the opposite of evil. Everything in our universe has it's opposite, its a binary universe. Lehi and Nephi undertood this:


11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

"12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the bjustice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Our Chinese freinds understood this concept too and have a symbol we all recognize which represents it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

All the "math" that we see in the universe is our model that we've created to explain it all to ourselves. All models are wrong, but some are useful anyways. Our physics models are all wrong. QFT is grossly inaccurate when estimating the vacuum energy, other models put the mass of the universe waaay off. There are lists of these problems that scientists are trying to reconcile. All the math and equations are just tools, not the universe itself.

If our universe is just math, and we’re in some device that processes math, what’s to say that that device is also just in a math universe, and so on ad infinitum?

The fact is, universe simulation theory, many worlds theory etc are just metaphysics. Which has no basis in science. That is, there is no real evidence for either. So they stand on VERY shaky ground. To me, all metaphysics stands in the realm of “the philosophies of men”, which may or may not be true, but are more than likely not true.

The existence of God is also not in the realm of science, and definitely not hard science. I know some would disagree, but then I challenge anyone to do a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

The existence of God is not something we can run repeatable experiments on, but there is still hard evidence of it. Joseph Smith’s vision is just one example. But there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for either many worlds theory or universe simulation theory.

How can you start out so logical and end up with such illogic? What proof is there that Joseph Smith's vision was real. And which version of his original vision -- 1830, 1838, 1842 -- do you say is hard evidence? And given the subject of this thread you can't even postulate that his vision was from God and not the matrix computer. Yes, you discounted that possibility but you did not rule it out. My mind is baffled by such incongruent declarations.

Thinker wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 3:55 pm

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:35 am If our universe is just math, and we’re in some device that processes math, what’s to say that that device is also just in a math universe, and so on ad infinitum?

The fact is, universe simulation theory, many worlds theory etc are just metaphysics. Which has no basis in science. That is, there is no real evidence for either. So they stand on VERY shaky ground. To me, all metaphysics stands in the realm of “the philosophies of men”, which may or may not be true, but are more than likely not true.

The existence of God is also not in the realm of science, and definitely not hard science. I know some would disagree, but then I challenge anyone to do a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

The existence of God is not something we can run repeatable experiments on, but there is still hard evidence of it. Joseph Smith’s vision is just one example. But there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for either many worlds theory or universe simulation theory.

You’ve made some good points - especially implying there are more truths than just mathematics. Yet, you contradict yourself, or may unknowingly present your own biased “evidence” while discounting other evidence. Eg: God is defined +800 ways in the bible alone. Some of those definitions can be repeatedly experimented on, to prove God. Eg: “God is light.” Light has been studied and is proven.

Metaphysical means “beyond the physical.” Consciousness is an undeniable proof of metaphysical reality. You can not use your consciousness to deny it. “I think therefore I am” (- Descartes). Here are a couple scientific examples of metaphysical proof:
1) Double split experiment where the observation or lack of, changed the behavior of particles,
2) Placebo effect - which is the 1st standard by which medication effectiveness is measured

Though I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, I also am aware of some corruption he was involved with and that his vision was retold in several, quite different ways - so that seems more like philosophies of men mingled with truth. It certainly is not “hard science” and actually involves things that are now known to be lacking in integrity. I don’t dismiss the vision nor JS because of the flaws, but I am also not ignoring the realization of imperfections.

Thinker wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 3:55 pm

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:35 am If our universe is just math, and we’re in some device that processes math, what’s to say that that device is also just in a math universe, and so on ad infinitum?

The fact is, universe simulation theory, many worlds theory etc are just metaphysics. Which has no basis in science. That is, there is no real evidence for either. So they stand on VERY shaky ground. To me, all metaphysics stands in the realm of “the philosophies of men”, which may or may not be true, but are more than likely not true.

The existence of God is also not in the realm of science, and definitely not hard science. I know some would disagree, but then I challenge anyone to do a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

The existence of God is not something we can run repeatable experiments on, but there is still hard evidence of it. Joseph Smith’s vision is just one example. But there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for either many worlds theory or universe simulation theory.

You’ve made some good points - especially implying there are more truths than just mathematics. Yet, you contradict yourself, or may unknowingly present your own biased “evidence” while discounting other evidence. Eg: God is defined +800 ways in the bible alone. Some of those definitions can be repeatedly experimented on, to prove God. Eg: “God is light.” Light has been studied and is proven.

Metaphysical means “beyond the physical.” Consciousness is an undeniable proof of metaphysical reality. You can not use your consciousness to deny it. “I think therefore I am” (- Descartes). Here are a couple scientific examples of metaphysical proof:
1) Double split experiment where the observation or lack of, changed the behavior of particles,
2) Placebo effect - which is the 1st standard by which medication effectiveness is measured

Though I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, I also am aware of some corruption he was involved with and that his vision was retold in several, quite different ways - so that seems more like philosophies of men mingled with truth. It certainly is not “hard science” and actually involves things that are now known to be lacking in integrity. I don’t dismiss the vision nor JS because of the flaws, but I am also not ignoring the realization of imperfections.

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 6:21 pm

Thinker wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 4:44 pm

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:31 am I try to keep God theory and virtual reality theory separated. I choose to have faith in God theory...

The further question is are we in a condition of evolutionary stasis because we are in a low energy environment or do we continue to grow and evolve. All religions teach that man is evolving. Or at least some of us are or will evolve.

...What if I took the chance that I was being played and refused to enter into my new maximum security prison? What if I am wrong? My story is giving me no choice. How can I risk the fate of millions just to save myself? Even though I have one foot planted firmly in solipsism meaning that the millions of people supposedly relying on my actions as the DS do not really exist.

However, I choose to have faith in the God theory instead because there is the possibility that the virtual reality theory is the deception and it is from the devil...

Deep thoughts!
What do you mean about your story, and others depending on you?
It does seem, if this “simulation/imitation/remote controlled” theory was taken further, that it would be satanic in the sense of denying free agency. We do have free agency - though I admit it may be within a “deterministic” window of possibility. And we cannot exercise our free agency to deny it.

When I was little, I worried that this whole life was a big joke on me - that everyone else was in on it, but I was clueless. Kind of like the film, “Truman Show.” This theory reminds me of that.

I do acknowledge that each of us cannot help but think subjectively - nobody sees everything as it really is. Yet, consciousness is fundamental - axiomatic - a given. This universe, I believe and there’s evidence to prove - is conscious-based. Gottfried Leibniz explained how the essence of matter - that is, what is the smallest, undividable essence of matter - is based on perception. He called these indivisible units, “monads.” And although unique and far from arrival at potential, there is a sense of harmony because all are from the same source, Leibniz explained:

• "Now this interconnection, relationship, or this adaptation of all things to each particular one, and of each one to all the rest, brings it about that every simple substance has relations which express all the others and that it is consequently a perpetual living mirror of the universe....
  If the representation were distinct as to the details of the entire universe, each monad would be a Deity. It is not in the object represented that the monads are limited, but in the modification of their knowledge of the object. In a confused way they reach out to infinity or to the whole, but are limited and differentiated in the degree of their distinct perceptions."

Reality (all perspectives) is made up of all monads and according to Leibniz, God perceives from all perspectives at once. In a more practical example, there is no EEG or other tool to know exactly what someone is thinking - thought is not physical, yet it has real influence.

This strange theory that all is a delusion, is both partly right and wrong. All we perceive is subjective, biased... yet through our 5 senses and laws like cause and effect, we can know that the external world is not 100% in our imaginations.

My understanding of this theory may need correcting, but it seems based on mathematical probability not on reality. It’s as if someone spent their entire waking life working on math and jumped to the mistaken conclusion that there was nothing else. Just because there are billions more invented characters in books, doesn’t make the reader invented. Someone who’s studied this more than me, explained that if this was a simulation - (“an imitation of a situation or process”), then the energy distribution of cosmic rays wouldn’t be symmetrical as they are.

Even if this theory was taken more based on the idea that all matter is made up of space more than a solid chair (eg), it doesn’t negate the fact that I’m sitting on a chair. Acknowledging the probability that life is not how I thought it was, doesn’t make it all imagined. It’s just that the nature of reality is now realized to include more than was previously acknowledged. From parables like the Adam & Eve story, it’s suggested that the purpose of life is to leave states of ignorant bliss, to incorporate more knowledge - this is part of being born again & again...

Most of us have known for a while, that God/Truth is beyond, or outside our awareness. Every now and then, I get glimpses of God - “I AM THAT I AM” - that consciousness beyond and awareness of the superficial consciousness.

Many people have life stories that if true set them apart in some way. It is definitely a phenomenon. Just ask Alaris about all the people that claim to be the DS. He has not given a number but I get the impression that it is in the dozens. I did an internet search once to find how many persons think that they are the Archangel Michael. There are quite a few. However, without exception their stories are weak and full of bad logic. Nothing compares to my story. I have related tidbits of my story in these forums in many places. Here is where I shared the most pertinent pieces.viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51962 If anyone reads my story do not make the mistake Alaris and others made. They were convinced that I was making a claim. I'm not claiming anything. I am just relating the facts of my story and was hoping to get some analysis. The fact that so many insisted that I was making a claim to be the DS is the analysis. Here are some quotes from my PB.

You and the Savior discussed your life many times before your birth
God expects you to help gather Israel, the living and the dead
You and the Savior planned for the work you do to prepare for his coming
I bless you to increase your faith to become mighty and strong
You belong to a great and important family
You have the Savior's promise that His angels will be around you to protect and aid you
Those angels will be people you know
their eternal blessings may well depend upon your accomplishments
He will give you the very words

Even my PB indicates, without explicitly saying it, that I am the DS.

• ”And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17:20-21

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 8:17 pm

Thinker wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 3:55 pm

ori wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:35 am If our universe is just math, and we’re in some device that processes math, what’s to say that that device is also just in a math universe, and so on ad infinitum?

The fact is, universe simulation theory, many worlds theory etc are just metaphysics. Which has no basis in science. That is, there is no real evidence for either. So they stand on VERY shaky ground. To me, all metaphysics stands in the realm of “the philosophies of men”, which may or may not be true, but are more than likely not true.

The existence of God is also not in the realm of science, and definitely not hard science. I know some would disagree, but then I challenge anyone to do a repeatable experiment that proves the existence of God.

The existence of God is not something we can run repeatable experiments on, but there is still hard evidence of it. Joseph Smith’s vision is just one example. But there is absolutely ZERO hard evidence for either many worlds theory or universe simulation theory.

You’ve made some good points - especially implying there are more truths than just mathematics. Yet, you contradict yourself, or may unknowingly present your own biased “evidence” while discounting other evidence. Eg: God is defined +800 ways in the bible alone. Some of those definitions can be repeatedly experimented on, to prove God. Eg: “God is light.” Light has been studied and is proven.

Metaphysical means “beyond the physical.” Consciousness is an undeniable proof of metaphysical reality. You can not use your consciousness to deny it. “I think therefore I am” (- Descartes). Here are a couple scientific examples of metaphysical proof:
1) Double split experiment where the observation or lack of, changed the behavior of particles,
2) Placebo effect - which is the 1st standard by which medication effectiveness is measured

Though I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, I also am aware of some corruption he was involved with and that his vision was retold in several, quite different ways - so that seems more like philosophies of men mingled with truth. It certainly is not “hard science” and actually involves things that are now known to be lacking in integrity. I don’t dismiss the vision nor JS because of the flaws, but I am also not ignoring the realization of imperfections.

When I referenced metaphysics, I was referring to something much more along the lines of these quotes from Wikipedia:
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship[1] between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality."
"Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions:[4]

What is there?
What is it like?
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility."

Thinker wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 10:07 pm

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 6:21 pm

Thinker wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 4:44 pm

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 1st, 2020, 11:31 am I try to keep God theory and virtual reality theory separated. I choose to have faith in God theory...

The further question is are we in a condition of evolutionary stasis because we are in a low energy environment or do we continue to grow and evolve. All religions teach that man is evolving. Or at least some of us are or will evolve.

...What if I took the chance that I was being played and refused to enter into my new maximum security prison? What if I am wrong? My story is giving me no choice. How can I risk the fate of millions just to save myself? Even though I have one foot planted firmly in solipsism meaning that the millions of people supposedly relying on my actions as the DS do not really exist.

However, I choose to have faith in the God theory instead because there is the possibility that the virtual reality theory is the deception and it is from the devil...

Deep thoughts!
What do you mean about your story, and others depending on you?
It does seem, if this “simulation/imitation/remote controlled” theory was taken further, that it would be satanic in the sense of denying free agency. We do have free agency - though I admit it may be within a “deterministic” window of possibility. And we cannot exercise our free agency to deny it.

When I was little, I worried that this whole life was a big joke on me - that everyone else was in on it, but I was clueless. Kind of like the film, “Truman Show.” This theory reminds me of that.

I do acknowledge that each of us cannot help but think subjectively - nobody sees everything as it really is. Yet, consciousness is fundamental - axiomatic - a given. This universe, I believe and there’s evidence to prove - is conscious-based. Gottfried Leibniz explained how the essence of matter - that is, what is the smallest, undividable essence of matter - is based on perception. He called these indivisible units, “monads.” And although unique and far from arrival at potential, there is a sense of harmony because all are from the same source, Leibniz explained:

• "Now this interconnection, relationship, or this adaptation of all things to each particular one, and of each one to all the rest, brings it about that every simple substance has relations which express all the others and that it is consequently a perpetual living mirror of the universe....
  If the representation were distinct as to the details of the entire universe, each monad would be a Deity. It is not in the object represented that the monads are limited, but in the modification of their knowledge of the object. In a confused way they reach out to infinity or to the whole, but are limited and differentiated in the degree of their distinct perceptions."

Reality (all perspectives) is made up of all monads and according to Leibniz, God perceives from all perspectives at once. In a more practical example, there is no EEG or other tool to know exactly what someone is thinking - thought is not physical, yet it has real influence.

This strange theory that all is a delusion, is both partly right and wrong. All we perceive is subjective, biased... yet through our 5 senses and laws like cause and effect, we can know that the external world is not 100% in our imaginations.

My understanding of this theory may need correcting, but it seems based on mathematical probability not on reality. It’s as if someone spent their entire waking life working on math and jumped to the mistaken conclusion that there was nothing else. Just because there are billions more invented characters in books, doesn’t make the reader invented. Someone who’s studied this more than me, explained that if this was a simulation - (“an imitation of a situation or process”), then the energy distribution of cosmic rays wouldn’t be symmetrical as they are.

Even if this theory was taken more based on the idea that all matter is made up of space more than a solid chair (eg), it doesn’t negate the fact that I’m sitting on a chair. Acknowledging the probability that life is not how I thought it was, doesn’t make it all imagined. It’s just that the nature of reality is now realized to include more than was previously acknowledged. From parables like the Adam & Eve story, it’s suggested that the purpose of life is to leave states of ignorant bliss, to incorporate more knowledge - this is part of being born again & again...

Most of us have known for a while, that God/Truth is beyond, or outside our awareness. Every now and then, I get glimpses of God - “I AM THAT I AM” - that consciousness beyond and awareness of the superficial consciousness.

Many people have life stories that if true set them apart in some way. It is definitely a phenomenon. Just ask Alaris about all the people that claim to be the DS. He has not given a number but I get the impression that it is in the dozens. I did an internet search once to find how many persons think that they are the Archangel Michael. There are quite a few. However, without exception their stories are weak and full of bad logic. Nothing compares to my story. I have related tidbits of my story in these forums in many places. Here is where I shared the most pertinent pieces.viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51962 If anyone reads my story do not make the mistake Alaris and others made. They were convinced that I was making a claim. I'm not claiming anything. I am just relating the facts of my story and was hoping to get some analysis. The fact that so many insisted that I was making a claim to be the DS is the analysis. Here are some quotes from my PB.

You and the Savior discussed your life many times before your birth
God expects you to help gather Israel, the living and the dead
You and the Savior planned for the work you do to prepare for his coming
I bless you to increase your faith to become mighty and strong
You belong to a great and important family
You have the Savior's promise that His angels will be around you to protect and aid you
Those angels will be people you know
their eternal blessings may well depend upon your accomplishments
He will give you the very words

Even my PB indicates, without explicitly saying it, that I am the DS.

At times when I’ve read your comments, I’ve been impressed about your good heart and you’re openness to share - a sincerity I don’t often find in the church. Thank you for sharing precious experiences from your life. No doubt you are a strong spirit and have important work to do in this life.

There’s a lot I have yet to learn and could very well be mistaken in what I have learned so far - actually I know I am in some ways (cognitive distortion habits still working on). Still, I don’t believe Christ ever taught heavens reward fallacy and all that’s associated with end times, 2nd coming etc. I believe this teaching is anti-Christ in the most dangerous way - going contrary to Christ’s teachings and example & what I know experientially. It’s dangerous because it’s like telling a captive in chains that they are not in chains so they don’t free themselves. And thus the spiritual battle goes on without many who would otherwise be great spiritual warriors.

• ”And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17:20-21

Although I don’t like the ending note, the following gives some idea of what I mean.
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bibl ... ming.shtml

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2020, 12:47 am Thank you for the kind words. I also appreciate and look for your post.

...He was referring to everything within sight. He was not predicting 70 AD. And he was not referring to his generation. He said the generation that sees all the signs that he had mentioned would not pass away. And he was not predicting 70 AD because he said he did not know when it would happen. And what he did not know was when the world would end. So when he sends his angels to gather the elect it is at the end of the world. Just please believe the Bible and not man's teaching about the Bible.

Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Psalm 75:2 When I shall receive the congregation I will judge uprightly.

Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

Why doesn't anyone believe this?
...That is one of the reasons that I have one foot firmly planted in solipsism. If the people in my VR are just 'computer' generated automatons then they really do not have the eyes to see, do they.

• ”And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17:20-21

Thinker wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2020, 8:54 am

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2020, 12:47 am Thank you for the kind words. I also appreciate and look for your post.

...He was referring to everything within sight. He was not predicting 70 AD. And he was not referring to his generation. He said the generation that sees all the signs that he had mentioned would not pass away. And he was not predicting 70 AD because he said he did not know when it would happen. And what he did not know was when the world would end. So when he sends his angels to gather the elect it is at the end of the world. Just please believe the Bible and not man's teaching about the Bible.

Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Psalm 75:2 When I shall receive the congregation I will judge uprightly.

Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

Why doesn't anyone believe this?
...That is one of the reasons that I have one foot firmly planted in solipsism. If the people in my VR are just 'computer' generated automatons then they really do not have the eyes to see, do they.

Thank you also.
Note that he was specifying the kingdom of God is NOT in sight - “cometh NOT with observation”:

• ”And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17:20-21

That scripture ^ changed how I saw a lot, not just because Christ said it, but because I regularly experience it so I know it to be true. The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within - that’s how we feel and understand God.

”1248, 1306, 1689, 1792, 1836, 1844, 1914, 1936, 1960, 1974, 1981, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1994, 2011.

Do you have any idea what these dates have in common?
They all represent the times in which people predicted that the second coming of Christ would occur.
According to a 2006 survey by Pew Research Forum, 79% of Christians in the USA say they believe the return of Christ will happen someday.”
https://frankviola.org/2013/07/01/secondcoming/

Why don’t people believe truth? Often because they’ve heard the same lie thousands of times - and along with a big group who also believes it. The pressure is just too much for most - especially if they don’t prioritize truth. But I think we all have fallen for that - we’re human and tend to prioritize praises of others above truth - or it could be simple misunderstandings.

”It’s hard to imagine Evangelicals saying that Jesus and his apostles were wrong about one of the most important doctrines of the church but that’s exactly what many believe about the return of Christ.

Peter, James, John, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, the angel who spoke to John in Revelation, and even Jesus all thought and the apostles wrote that Jesus would return in their lifetime – not two thousand years later. Were they mistaken? Jesus thought, and taught, that John the Apostle would still be alive when He returned. Was He mistaken?

Let’s hear it in their words:
JESUS SAID HE WOULD RETURN IN THEIR LIFETIME:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” – Mt. 16:27,28

Regarding the scriptures you quoted:
*Job was referring to death & resurrection.
*Psalms: God will judge us all.
*Psalms 75:3: It does say all inhabitants of the earth will be disolved, however, I don’t see this as a prediction as much as David’s fear of his own death - which is echoed throughout Psalms. Some suggest he was referring to the immediate land and people. Back then, that was pretty much all they knew.

I don’t expect you to change your mind about this. And again, I admit that I could be mistaken. Maybe it comes down to asking ourselves, “How does this belief help and harm?”

Michael Sherwin wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2020, 9:36 am Matthew 16:27&28 is a prophecy about the DS. First the DS comes to this earth as the messenger of Malachi 3. The DS is also the man child of Revelation 12 that is caught up. Then the DS returns.

Malachi 3:18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

And here he is returning.

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ (anointed one, the DS); and he shall reign for ever and ever.

AI2.0 wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2017, 9:16 am The Davidic Servant, As I understand it, is the Messiah Ben David. I seem to recall his name is David and he's of the tribe of Judah and a leader for the Jews. He's not going to be coming in and setting the LDS church straight, he's going to be helping the Jews before the Second Coming.

• Revelation 2:9
  “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

• Revelation 3:9
  “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”