Jump to content

Our Universe is a grand simulation created by an intelligent designer


Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

So, I read this article today. The guy who wrote it comes across as a bit of a whack-job, to be honest. But the underlying idea is interesting. It's one I've heard before but not looked into in any great depth. So, two things. 1) What do you think of the article itself 2) What do you think of the idea that the universe is a computer simulation, putting aside any spiritual stuff 3) Can you recommend any further reading I should do, or specific people I should be reading about, in regards to this.


Click the link, because it's long: http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe...ent_design.html


Here's what it means in layman's terms


Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.


Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.


Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.


Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?


Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."


The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.


For the record, my personal belief is that the Creator set all the physical constants in the universe and then initiated the so-called "Big Bang" and let things play out from there. I do not believe our Creator "tinkers" with the universe at a micro level on a day-to-day basis. But I do believe there very well may have been individuals throughout history who found ways to "bend the rules" of the Matrix ever so slightly and thereby perform the very kind of miracles we see described in ancient texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, I think he must be nuts because I've never heard of anyone using 1920 x 1440 screen resolution. Really though, it sounds a bit like what Einstein said, though perhaps from a slightly different angle:


"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."


Einstein also rejected the idea of a God that was interested in micro managing people's lives. After playing a lot of Football Manager 2013, I can totally relate to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I had a quick look at the paper. I think it goes without saying that I didn't understand any of the science but I'm fairly confident in my conclusion that this is total bollocks.


Even if the observation is true (it isn't) then why does it necessarily prove intelligent design? Seems a bit of a leap there.


Re: further reading - read some Descartes*, watch the Matrix, ignore it all because it's about as convincing as Keanu's acting.



* actually do this if you want to know more because it will strip back the "trying to dazzle you with science" bit of this to to the basic argument, and you can discover how dumb it is for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...