[Deleted]

[Guest]

[Deleted]

Edited March 30, 2018 by Guest

[anatess2]

I have very simple answers to your question.  By the way, just for background... I'm a programmer.  My teen years were spent debating on the side of Apple on the Mac vs PC "war".

Let's assume that in the near future there are 1,000,000 people on Mars, and there happens to be a few dozen church members as well. How does the church function as an interplanetary unit? Is there any reason that humans will not become a multi-planetary species? If so, does that necessarily entail that the Second Coming will happen before this goal? How does the Second Coming / millennium work if there are two planets with humans on them?

The Church will function in the same way it has always functioned.  It doesn't matter where man is because the Temple is where the people are not the other way around.  The organization of the Church into Stakes is a divine design that is very good at expansion.  Yes, it might be that we go back to the ruggedness of the pioneer days when it would take months to get a General Conference message to reach the other Saints in far lands, but that never stopped the gospel from being spread where man can be found.

The Second Coming will work the exact same way it is taught to work.  There's nothing in the teaching that limits the Second Coming to only planet Earth.  Rather, the Second Coming is applicable to all humankind wherever they are found.

It is possible that in our lifetimes a technology will be developed that allows two human beings to share information directly from brain to brain or brain to computer. Though nobody knows what this means, it could be possible to change your brain chemistry to avoid unwanted thoughts or desires. It would also be possible to share thoughts/memories directly with another human being. First question: would the LDS Church/God be against members receiving a "neuralink?" Would it be against free agency to change your natural-man desires to no longer desire "bad" things? Would it be sinful to experience the memories of someone else sinning? Would it be wrong to erase your memory of a sin before asking forgiveness from God?

This would be the exact same thing as the Church's stance on the World of Wisdom and psychotropic medication.  I can summarize it with this tidbit from Elder Nelson who is a physician:

The noble attributes of reason, integrity, and dignity, which distinguish men and women from all other forms of life, are often the first to be attacked by drugs and alcohol. . . .We are free to take drugs or not, But once we choose to use a habit-forming drug, we are bound to the consequences of the choice. Addiction surrenders later freedom to choose. Through chemical means, one can literally become disconnected from his or her own will!

 

 

[NightSG]

Interplanetary colonization; what part of omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent do you think doesn't apply to all the worlds He created?  Or are you concerned that we'll miss all those worlds without number, and somehow end up on one created by His cousin Earl?

Neuralink; I really think effective and even remotely safe implementation of this will take more time than humanity has left.  You think malware on your PC is bad, imagine getting it in your brain.

[NightSG]

Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see a fully airgapped, open source implementation of Neuralink that could provide raw knowledge and allow experiences that the user can't otherwise get, (sunsets for the blind, music for the deaf or common sense for Californians, for example) but if it can directly manipulate feelings (beyond instantaneous reactions) or memories, it will require an impractical amount of supervision and incur huge liabilities that I can't see any company wanting to risk outside of a lab they fully control.

[NeuroTypical]

Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but why is this even a question?  Is there some "Earth and only earth" movement in LDS circles?

The whole technology in our bodies thing seems to stem from good old Revelation 13:

Quote

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.  And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

You start talking about implanting technology (especially in the head or hand), or moving to a cashless society, or especially implanting a credit card chip thing in our heads, and some folks start yelling about how da debbil is behind it all. 

(Honestly, reading Rev 13, it seems so vague to me that I can't tell what it's talking about.  It's good reading though - gets the blood pumping.)

Edited May 19, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

I'm with the others. I think Musk is a certifiable genius, and I can't see how any of his technology initiatives can be construed as bad. His atheism is his problem and his choice, and doesn't concern me. As for those who think that Musk's genius might muck up and frustrate God's plans -- I don't think there is any reasonable response to such an unreasonable viewpoint.

[eddified]

This is tangential, yet somewhat related. Musk has some pretty strange beliefs. He believes we are probably living inside a simulation: https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11837874/elon-musk-says-odds-living-in-simulation

He also thinks that A.I. could be a very real threat to humans in the future: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x

For the record, I answered "no" to the 3 questions in the poll above.

[NightSG]

5 minutes ago, eddified said:

He also thinks that A.I. could be a very real threat to humans in the future: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x

Skynet will deal with him soon.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, eddified said:

This is tangential, yet somewhat related. Musk has some pretty strange beliefs. He believes we are probably living inside a simulation: https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11837874/elon-musk-says-odds-living-in-simulation

He also thinks that A.I. could be a very real threat to humans in the future: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-musk-billion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x

For the record, I answered "no" to the 3 questions in the poll above.

Not sure if Musk literally believes we live in a simulation. However, the statistical argument is compelling.

Let's say there is a one-in-a-trillion chance that some entity can create a (recreatable) simulation of reality at the level that we experience it. Given the one-in-a-trillion chance of such a creation happening, why might the entity (or entities) that created the simulation stop at only one? When we learned to create virtual computers, we created a lot of them, such that there are vastly more virtual machines that have ever existed (or that currently exist) than there have been actual, physical computers.

Using this reasoning, it's easy to see that such a VR simulation might be propounded any number of times. Any number. Like, maybe, Graham's number. At which point it becomes all but certain that we live in a simulation, no matter how small the chance that such a simulation can be created. Because for any finite number N, there are an infinite number of larger numbers. So any probability of 1-in-N of making a virtual universe like ours results in the overwhelming likelihood that we are one of those virtual universes.\

I'm sure any competent stats guy/gal can phrase that succinctly. Something like, for any given finite integer N, the set M of integers greater than N is non-finite, and thus |M|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>N. So the probability measured by (|M|)(N) is basically assured. I know I'm not doing this right, but that is because I'm not a stats guy or a mathematician. If someone who knows what s/he is talking about can phrase this properly, I'd be most grateful.

[eddified]

@Vort That might be a good argument mathematically (statistically?) speaking, but it seems like a pretty ridiculous argument otherwise. Math isn't all there is to it...

Edited May 19, 2017 by eddified

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, eddified said:

@Vort That might be a good argument mathematically (statistically?) speaking, but it seems like a pretty ridiculous argument otherwise. Math isn't all there is to it...

What else is there to it, that you see? How do you think the argument fails? (Other than my poor presentation of it.)

[NeuroTypical]

BTW, this exact question is as far as I was able to get in philosophy.  

Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", and that made sense.   He figured there could be a 'great deceiver' just presenting false images and sensations to us (or maybe just me). And that made sense.    

Somehow, I still don't understand how, he got from there, to a proof of the existence of God, and from there to a proof that we can believe our senses, when we're being rational.  I just couldn't follow his philosophical reasoning, and every philosopher who came after him just sort of assumed he was right.  So I got a C in that philosophy class, and switched my major to finance.  Third smartest decision I ever made.

Then the matrix came out and I was so dang validated it wasn't even funny.  Now I hear the genius Musk is saying the same thing?  Noot-Noot!

(By the way, my testimony hinges on my belief that God has directed me to the correct pill)

[eddified]

@Vort and @NeuroTypical, are you saying you *actually* believe we have a very high chance of existing inside a simulation? If not, why not?

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, eddified said:

@Vort and @NeuroTypical, are you saying you *actually* believe we have a very high chance of existing inside a simulation? If not, why not?

I am not, but I am curious about what you said. You think there's more to it than just math. What, exactly? And aside from my substandard presentation of the argument, how does it fail on its merits?

[eddified]

I just meant the argument that we are in a simulation falls flat when considering religious and philosophical reasons. 

[Vort]

47 minutes ago, eddified said:

I just meant the argument that we are in a simulation falls flat when considering religious and philosophical reasons. 

I'm curious to know why you think this. I do not see why our religious truths necessarily mandate that our mortal life not be a "simulation" of some sort. We already consider mortality to be a kind of "test", which puts a decidedly artificial slant on the whole issue.

[The Folk Prophet]

Our living in a simulation is less provable than the existence of God as creator. Neither can be proved to others (pending God or the simulation creator(s) so choosing to reveal themselves). Except God's spirit bearing witness to us of His truths and existence IS God revealing Himself to us. So...there you go. Of course one could argue that the witness of the Spirit is part of the simulation...so.... But one could also argue all sorts of crazy crap if one so wished. To what avail?

Edited July 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm curious to know why you think this. I do not see why our religious truths necessarily mandate that our mortal life not be a "simulation" of some sort. We already consider mortality to be a kind of "test", which puts a decidedly artificial slant on the whole issue.

I'd had the same thought. From a certain point of view, mortality as we understand it in the LDS view, is, indeed, a simulation. Except that's not the right word ultimately. But it could be the right word if one chose to see/explain it that way.

[Vort]

Joseph Smith's teachings that "the elements are eternal" is the most convincing teaching I can think of to argue against the universe-as-simulation scenario. I don't see much difference between mortality-as-reality and mortality-as-simulation. If mortality is the non-eternal, non-permanent state, then it might as well be a simulation of some sort.

I don't see any particular relevance in the idea. I see no deep insights arising from it. But it's a fun idea to toy with, and I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't see any particular relevance in the idea. I see no deep insights arising from it. But it's a fun idea to toy with, and I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand.

The first two sentences above are my response to the third.

[zil]

If it's a simulation (we aren't actually physically here), how do you explain the doctrine of resurrection - how do you resurrect something we never had (physical body)?  That seems to me to be the best argument against this being a simulation.  (Unless you want to suggest our eternal existence will be a simulation and our simulated self will be "resurrected"....)

The most fun argument in favor of it being a simulation is the possibility that maybe I'm actually a programming error.  That would explain a whole lot...

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The first two sentences above are my response to the third.

This is a metaphysical discussion. What you appear to be saying, in effect, is that metaphysical questions can and should be dismissed out of hand. Not sure I agree. "Meta" discussions are inherently messy, but that doesn't mean they don't have value.

If you mean only that the narrow case of "reality" vs. "perfect simulation of reality" is a moot question of no enduring interest, because from our POV, they are absolutely identical -- well, in that case, I probably agree with you.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

If it's a simulation (we aren't actually physically here), how do you explain the doctrine of resurrection - how do you resurrect something we never had (physical body)?  That seems to me to be the best argument against this being a simulation.  (Unless you want to suggest our eternal existence will be a simulation and our simulated self will be "resurrected"....)

The most fun argument in favor of it being a simulation is the possibility that maybe I'm actually a programming error.  That would explain a whole lot...

If I cared to argue for the "simulation" case, I might simply posit that we are resurrected to "reality", which is reflected in our "sim" for the benefit of the sim participants.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

If I cared to argue for the "simulation" case, I might simply posit that we are resurrected to "reality", which is reflected in our "sim" for the benefit of the sim participants.

Someone should make a movie...

[eddified]

By definition a simulation isn't real. It can always be re-run. In this sense, simulations don't have consequences. I'm not familiar with a simulation that can't be re-run. But we're taught that this life is our only chance. And there are very real consequences to it. So in my view it is nothing at all like a simulation.

I also don't find value in metaphysics. They're just fairy tales for adults. They might have value to others, but not to me.