Do you think it’s possible to believe in simulation theory and the church?

[Tyme]

I believe both are true. That the creator of the simulation(god) has sent many religions to earth. That the church is one of those. Thereby making it true, Jospeh Smith jr a prophet and we have revelation through modern day prophets. That God guides his creations to different religions. With the church being what I was guided to.

[Fether]

Sure

I don’t believe it but as long as it doesn’t conflict with anything else we believe, go right ahead.

Just don’t teach it 

[JohnsonJones]

Yes. 

There are things in the church that could support both sides of the discussion on that.

[Tyme]

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yes. 

There are things in the church that could support both sides of the discussion on that.

That’s be interesting to read if you feel like sharing.

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Tyme said:

That’s be interesting to read if you feel like sharing.

If I have time later, it could be a long post.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

2 hours ago, Tyme said:

I believe both are true. That the creator of the simulation(god) has sent many religions to earth. That the church is one of those. Thereby making it true, Jospeh Smith jr a prophet and we have revelation through modern day prophets. That God guides his creations to different religions. With the church being what I was guided to.

nope, that is not what we teach

[Tyme]

15 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

nope, that is not what we teach

 Can you explain how simulation theory doesn’t jive with LDS doctrine?

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

1 minute ago, Tyme said:

 Can you explain how simulation theory doesn’t jive with LDS doctrine?

I can but have no desire to spend more time on it. Read the scriptures.

[Tyme]

3 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I can but have no desire to spend more time on it. Read the scriptures.

I’ve read the scriptures... There is nothing that would make simulation and church not compatible.

[dogwater]

A simulated atonement wouldn't seem to satisy the laws of Justice and Mercy, to me at least.

But it does make an interesting thing of priesthood authority and file permissions.

 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 11/16/2018 at 1:03 PM, Tyme said:

I’ve read the scriptures... There is nothing that would make simulation and church not compatible.

It really comes down to whether you believe the prophets and the doctrine or if you are going to go on overthinking reality with silly theories. It is also a matter of opinion when it comes to a theory like this.

[Tyme]

12 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

It really comes down to whether you believe the prophets and the doctrine or if you are going to go on overthinking reality with silly theories. It is also a matter of opinion when it comes to a theory like this.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

[pam]

On 11/16/2018 at 12:40 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

nope, that is not what we teach

That is definitely not what we teach.  Anyone that does teach that within the Church is teaching false doctrine.  

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, pam said:

That is definitely not what we teach.  Anyone that does teach that within the Church is teaching false doctrine.  

Drat! I was asked to teach the third hour tomorrow and you ruined it for me.  

[zil]

Welcome, @dogwater!

[Anddenex]

On 11/16/2018 at 1:03 PM, Tyme said:

I’ve read the scriptures... There is nothing that would make simulation and church not compatible.

Except that God is the father of our Spirits before this earth and God is not a simulated God. In fact, with simulation we do not actually exist. Our bodies are not flesh and blood, and we will not be resurrected with a body of flesh and bone. As simulations are not "flesh and blood" and simulations are not "flesh and blood."

Now, if you want to believe in simulation theory, then that is your choice; however, with simulation there is "no sin" -- as we are simulated beings. Christ is the way, the truth, and life, and there is only one truth that brings a person toward salvation.

This life then becomes an illusion, a false reality, by which there is actually no God, and if no God (no Heavenly Father), we are not. Just a master developer who developed our bodies through code, which isn't life, it is just pixels and code.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Anddenex

[JohnsonJones]

I think there are ways that one could believe both ways.  This get's into some deeper ideas of LDS thought, which are not exactly doctrinal.

In favor of a simulated world...

1. We know that the world was created twice.  Once in a spiritual medium and once with the physical medium.  This is similar to the blueprint idea, except that this was more a specific framework similar to what one may do as a computer programmer where they first build the engine or basic components and then add into it the additional items to flesh it out.

2.  There are discrepancies between science and religion, especially Christianity  for those who believe in a literal Bible where the Earth was created in six days (seventh he rested).  An easy explanation is that this is the context in which a simulation is built.  You have things which appear to the senses (scientifically) to be older than what they are as that is what they are simulated to be, however in truth, it is simply as old as the simulation is running.

3.  The rules to the universe are specific to OUR universe.  Rather than being universal (joke there) they are specific to our timing.  There are other dimensions, some right in the same existence as we are, that have different laws.  In this light, we have a similar thought where we have the physical earth being the exact same place a the spirit world, just different dimensions thereof.  In that same light we could see a synonymous Celestial world (and perhaps terrestrial and telestial) all taking place in the same world, but with different dimensions thereof which can only interact with specific authority.

4.  In light of the idea above, we could view that this life or existence is a test.  It is one where everything is temporary.  It is to see WHAT we really are going to be like and do when given the permanent status.  This does not make it any less "REAL" for us in it's consequences, but that the things we need specifically for us in this test or to learn from this test have been engineered specifically for us while we are here.  In some discussions, we believe that we have been placed here for a specific purpose and to be tested.  That we are also here to learn.  That what we did previously directly affects what, who, and how we are in this life.  A simulation is FAR easier to tailor exactly to what one needs to learn and to be tested with than something that is not specifically tailored to it.

5.  I worked on receiving my pilots license at one time and renewing it a few years back let me work with a simulator.  The simulator was actually pretty realistic as to controls, foot petals and other things.  It actually looked like a real cockpit with it's controls (though if you looked behind you, it was obvious you were in a room).  It reacted much in the same way a real airplane would react.  If you crashed, though, you would not actually die (though you would be simulated dead).  I worked with the simulator to help learn drills, checklists and other items.

We know that death is a temporary thing for us.  We WILL be reunited with our bodies in the resurrection.  In this way, it is very much like a simulation where we can learn scriptures, spiritual laws, and other items. 

6.  If we believe that there is a Greater spiritual being out there that cares for us and can change things up as they desire, this goes very much into the idea that something is simulated.  While in the cockpit, a trainer could actually add something into the scenario or change some factors if they so desired.  This could cause gauges to fail, or emergency situations to do which would be unsafe to try to practice in the air. 

In the air when I was really flying, we would "simulate" emergencies.  This would give us practice.  It was STILL very REAL (and a mistake could definitely kill us, but part of the experience WAS simulated so that if or when a real situation like that occurred we would be prepared).

The idea that someone out there can actually CHANGE the situation implies that there is, at least to some degree, some sort of simulation going on where the rules of the game (the program, the laws put in place) can actually be changed.  That there is someone out there that can change the rules (like a simulation) and do not have to adhere to them.

7.  Some of us believe that in the pre-existence we were able to create things.  We had the actual power and authority to create and make, and as such helped to build and create this World under the direction of the Lord. 

If we had such power...where did it go?  We have a belief that such power does NOT get taken away just because or just like that, and this is ONE reason why the adversary has some of the ability and power he possesses today.  What happened to this power?  Is it possible that we actually STILL have this power if it was granted to us previously?  If so, this would speak specifically of simulation.  In this, we still have all the power that we used to, but in this simulation we do not.

Similar to a computer game where you have specific things you can utilize, but many times cannot do what you can do in real life, the same could be applicable to our life here.  In the same respect, just like in a computer game where you are able to do things you may not in real life, the same applies to this life here.

8.  The idea of this world and life being a simulation is born out of the Christian movement (ironically) and in some ways (at least from what I can understand as I have not seen these myself) takes some of the ideology of the matrix movies, but applies them to a larger parable in relation to Christianity.  Thus, the idea of a simulations world is born out of the idea that there is a greater power out there that can manipulate the rules and laws to their liking to simulate whatever situation they wish.

 

Of course, there are ideas which can support the exact opposite, that we are NOT in a simulation at all.  I can't list them all, but there are many out there.  I'll list a few that I think of off the top of my head.

1.  It doesn't say this (that this life is a simulation) or imply it anywhere in the scriptures (that I know of).  Instead it implies multiple times that this is a very REAL existence where we came to gain bodies which are the SAME bodies that we will regain in the resurrection (though I'd prefer to look far more handsome if possible in the resurrection...not sure if that's going to happen). 

2.  It implies that in the eternities things do NOT change.  Things stay static.  They stay as they are.  It is impossible for things that are eternal to change.  The ONLY place they can change is in a mortal existence or the mortal frame.  Thus, only in a reality where things are able to change can change actually occur. 

Hence, with mortality, we can actually change the conditions of an eternity.  In mortality things have a beginning and an end, however we can institute things that have NO beginning and NO end by making them eternal.

Hence, when you are sealed to a spouse for all eternity, if it should hold beyond this mortality, that would indicate that you have been sealed with no beginning and NO end.  You have ALWAYS been sealed within that eternity. 

In a simulation things are always temporary or a temporary status (one argument in favor of it being a simulation), however if an item is PERMANENT and remains permanent, it implies that it could NOT be a simulation as it affects a reality in far too permanent a manner.  Thus, because we believe that things we perform via ordinance in this life can affect eternity and become eternal, it indicates that what we do here is real.  It affects MORE than just this world and thus the laws that apply to this world also can apply to other existences beyond it and vice versa.

3.  We believe that this existence is a real existence rather than a practice one.  That we are gaining real items for our existence beyond and that coming here is more than just a test (like a university test) but one that we receive real things (such as a family) that have bonds that exist not just in this life, but everywhere in existence. 

4.  AS such, we also believe that an atonement was needed.  Because we sin, and that sin is real and not simulated, it affects the eternal life beyond this one.  Thus, an atonement was necessary to help us overcome sin.

 

So, I think there are strong arguments in both directions and both sides could see one or the other.  I think in the end, we have very real ramifications on what we do here, regardless of whether something is simulated or not, and those choices and decisions we make here will effect what life will be like for us in the hereafter.

Edited November 19, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 5:52 PM, Anddenex said:

Except that God is the father of our Spirits before this earth and God is not a simulated God. In fact, with simulation we do not actually exist. Our bodies are not flesh and blood, and we will not be resurrected with a body of flesh and bone. As simulations are not "flesh and blood" and simulations are not "flesh and blood."

Now, if you want to believe in simulation theory, then that is your choice; however, with simulation there is "no sin" -- as we are simulated beings. Christ is the way, the truth, and life, and there is only one truth that brings a person toward salvation.

This life then becomes an illusion, a false reality, by which there is actually no God, and if no God (no Heavenly Father), we are not. Just a master developer who developed our bodies through code, which isn't life, it is just pixels and code.

That's actually NOT what the simulationistic theory purports.  It can be ONE aspect or one idea of how it works, but other ideas would be more similar to something in real life.  For example, wargames in the military could be considered simulations.  The people and weapons actually exist.  The area actually exists, and most of the items actually exist.  However, it may be a simulation of a situation, or even a simulation of a prior engagement to test out things.  People are actually judged to be dead and put in time out, and people are considered victors and other objectives are placed there.

The difference is that there will not be permanent death.  It is either a test or a learning experience.  Any death is not real, it is a temporary judgement for purposes of the simulation.  Accidents CAN occur though (and sometimes people have died in these simulations).

A simulation does not necessarily exclude that there are very real elements in the simulation itself, just that certain aspects of it are simulated and because of this, the situation can be manipulated to bring about the desired results (for a test or learning experience).

Other simulations are very real in and of themselves.  If we manipulate an ant colony to see the results of a social experiment in regards to what may happen in OUR society, what we are doing to the ants is VERY real.  The ants do not realize that certain situations or scenarios are engineered and in some cases simulated.  It could be that what they think is the great feeding ground is a simulated area where we put food for them to see if they will favor one area over another...but the actual feeding ground is to simulate something they would experience in the wild, but in a controlled setting which we can control.  In that way it is very real for the ants, and very real in life, but also very much a simulation.

[Guest MormonGator]

My thoughts on simulation theory: 

"Look, I can come up with a theory that says we were all created five minutes ago with wrinkles in our faces, food in our stomachs, memories of things that never happened-and people would believe it"-freshmen philosophy professor. 
 

Edited November 19, 2018 by MormonGator

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 11/17/2018 at 10:36 AM, dogwater said:

A simulated atonement wouldn't seem to satisy the laws of Justice and Mercy, to me at least.

But it does make an interesting thing of priesthood authority and file permissions.

 

But, it is only simulated sin, justice and mercy. 😂

[Anddenex]

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

That's actually NOT what the simulationistic theory purports.  It can be ONE aspect or one idea of how it works, but other ideas would be more similar to something in real life.  For example, wargames in the military could be considered simulations.  The people and weapons actually exist.  The area actually exists, and most of the items actually exist.  However, it may be a simulation of a situation, or even a simulation of a prior engagement to test out things.  People are actually judged to be dead and put in time out, and people are considered victors and other objectives are placed there.

The difference is that there will not be permanent death.  It is either a test or a learning experience.  Any death is not real, it is a temporary judgement for purposes of the simulation.  Accidents CAN occur though (and sometimes people have died in these simulations).

A simulation does not necessarily exclude that there are very real elements in the simulation itself, just that certain aspects of it are simulated and because of this, the situation can be manipulated to bring about the desired results (for a test or learning experience).

Other simulations are very real in and of themselves.  If we manipulate an ant colony to see the results of a social experiment in regards to what may happen in OUR society, what we are doing to the ants is VERY real.  The ants do not realize that certain situations or scenarios are engineered and in some cases simulated.  It could be that what they think is the great feeding ground is a simulated area where we put food for them to see if they will favor one area over another...but the actual feeding ground is to simulate something they would experience in the wild, but in a controlled setting which we can control.  In that way it is very real for the ants, and very real in life, but also very much a simulation.

We may be reading different thoughts and information on the theory that we live in a simulated environment. Each time I read simulation theory, and it purports, it revolves around "computer simulation." In a computer simulation NOTHING is real. We are simply the by-product of inline code. Or as this article from Nick Bostrom, "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation," specifies, "It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones." (emphasis added) The theory itself revolves around computer gaming, virtual reality, and other robotics.

In light of what I have read, I am not sure the opening of your response, "That's actually NOT what the simulationistic theory purports." We are not REAL, which is what I specified. We then aren't technically enduring anything, we are just simulated PVP players.

Simulated theory and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are not compatible -- at all. What we are doing to ants, or any other animal is "VERY" real because what we have done is real, not simulated. If simulated, we are going by code made laws, nothing eternal, nothing real. It is simply what our "master programmer" coded that we accept, or do not accept in our given computed reality. Whereas in another given reality, gravity might actually make you fly. Our reality can be anything via simulated theory.

Simulation in and of itself as you describe, sure. The concept of simulation theory revolves around computation -- computer animation -- which isn't the same thing you are describing with wargames and the ant experiment. As this articles specifies, "All reality is actually an artificial simulation, most likely one run by an advanced supercomputer." The whole idea of "artificial simulation" surrounds the following, "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural."

If I were to make an artificial simulation of an ant hill, and then artificially smash the ant hill, nothing is real, and nothing is real to the ants. They are a by-product of my code, and in my code I could make ants fly. I could even create "dragon-ants" that breathe fire, destroy their ant hill, and code them to breathe fire whenever this occurs. BUT it wouldn't matter in the end, they aren't REAL. It doesn't fit with "things as they really are."

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Anddenex

[Vort]

In response to the thread title:

Quote

Do you think it’s possible to believe in simulation theory and the church?

Sure, if by "simulation theory" you mean living in a virtual environment. If you create a virtual machine and don't give it any way to determine whether it is virtual or actual silicon and wires, it will work exactly the same either way (assuming you made the VM correctly). The same is true with our mortal lives: Whether the elements are "real" or "virtual" is irrelevant.

But for the record, they're real.

In response to the OP:

On 11/16/2018 at 9:25 AM, Tyme said:

I believe both are true. That the creator of the simulation(god) has sent many religions to earth. That the church is one of those. Thereby making it true, Jospeh Smith jr a prophet and we have revelation through modern day prophets. That God guides his creations to different religions. With the church being what I was guided to.

This is nonsense. LDS theology itself prevents this from being possible, asserting as it does that it is the unique true Church and kingdom of God.

[Traveler]

On 11/16/2018 at 10:25 AM, Tyme said:

I believe both are true. That the creator of the simulation(god) has sent many religions to earth. That the church is one of those. Thereby making it true, Jospeh Smith jr a prophet and we have revelation through modern day prophets. That God guides his creations to different religions. With the church being what I was guided to.

Just as there is one "true" and "living" G-d - likewise there is one "true" and "living" religion.  If there is not one "true" and "living" religion (kingdom) there is no G-d (king).  The more we make the church and religion an aberration - the more we distance ourselves from the G-d of TRUTH and become subject to a g-d of lies.

 

The Traveler