Our Reality Was Possibly Caused by a Being That Can Be Defined As God

Thank you for your response, V5RED.To your first comment - "I will start my rebuttal by seeing what happens if I accept all of your premises at face value."You don't need to accept premises 1 through 5 at face value since I'm providing the sources for these claims. Unless you meant something else.In any case, I'll continue.So unfortunately, I was afraid this would happen. I am limited to only 10,000 characters in each round, and that was simply not enough to fully explain everything. I was hoping it would suffice to explain the rest here, but it seems after your response that I need to perhaps explain some fundamental/elementary concepts in Quantum Physics in order to get you to a better intellectual understanding.Premise one starts with Local Realism because Local Realism refutes the very idea of our universe being a projection of data. If Local Realism were to be proven true, then other theories go out the window. When all we had was Newtonian Physics, the physical laws were very predictable, and we didn't question the 'realness' of our reality.Quantum Physics effectively destroyed that notion.Without P1, I don't have an argument.Premise two owes it's relevance to the violation of the Leggett Garg Inequality ( https://en.wikipedia.org...). This violation brings the Quantum world to the Classical world. Of course we don't experience this because of decoherence. ( https://en.wikipedia.org...;)This refutes the notion that "Quantum 'weirdness' only applies at the Quantum level". ( http://physicsworld.com...)Premise three should not have been a premise. Not sure why I made it a premise, It truly is just an independant statement. As for following from P1 & P2 to P4 & 5, that seems difficult because 5 is relevant, but the only solution seems to make it a sub-premise from 4. I'm obviously not a master at argument-making. Believe it or not, I am no fan of structured arguments like this.So I would say, to make more sense of this argument, P4 & P5 are the same premise.Premise four means to say that the universe is made of information. Premise five means to say that that information is a projection of distant data.Premise six concludes that what is processing said data can be one of two possibilities.1.) The information is being simulated in a highly advanced computer by our future ancestors. Nick Bostrom makes this argument which is surprisingly taken seriously by a number of people. ( http://www.simulation-argument.com...)2.) A mindThere may be other possibilities, but they may not make sense. We only know of two things that process information; our brains and computers (in various forms). I find the first possibility (that we are being simulated by future ancestors) to be problematic because of the massive amounts of qubits that would need to be flawlessly processed. The number of qubits to process every milisecond would be so massive that the computer would need to logically be larg enough to process every qubit. This means that the computer would literally be as large, or larger than our universe since every qubit would actually be processed by another qubit.Another contention I have with the first possibility is the Indecernibility of Identicals (Leibniz's Law - https://en.wikipedia.org...). If we are being processed by out future ancestors, then they are one in the same. Their world is no different than ours. This creates logical impossibilities and is unecessary to postulate.Now, before I get to the second possibility, I want to go ahead and clear up an assumption that you've made:"The most reasonable explanation would seem to be that a sufficiently advanced race has made a self-aware computer program, not that this is all existing in some magic being's mind."So let me make this clear. I don't assume anything "magical" about this concept at all. I literally am giving this thing no credence to any other characteristics that distinquish it from you or I except it's ability to access all four of our dimensions at will.You also have a quote on that notion as well:"I mean technically your definition of god fits me since I am conscious, process platonic information, and have access to 4 dimensions."This is incorrect. You only have access to three dimensions at will. The forth dimension, 'time', is something you are bound to. You cannot go back and forth through time (naturally). What I am sugesting here is that this being could be within a fifth dimension.Carl Sagan explains this pretty well: Neil Degrasse explains as well:https://youtu.be...So, under my definition, you are not god. Someone who can access all four of our dimensions at will is techically "omnipresent" in the sense of our perspective. So, if you were to be able to be in such a dimension, you would certainly be comparable to a god.The problem, however, with this contention of yours is that I am only laying the foundation for the possibility for the existence of such a being. That is the point of this debate. On to another of your counter-points:"That the universe can be translated to computer information does not mean that it is actually just computer information."Of course not. And this is where I had to unfortunately cut things short in my argument in order to make the 10,000 character requirement.What the other person doesn't seem to understand about James Gates' Adinkras is that they 1.) describe our entire universe and 2.) Are not just "codes". They are Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code that were invented by Richard Hamming ( https://en.wikipedia.org...) This code, called 'Hamming Code' ( https://en.wikipedia.org...) is a bit different than just information. This is what makes saying "The universe is made of information" a different offer than that of analogy."The article you posted about Adinkras is a long and confusing piece, but the author of that piece does not state that he thinks we literally are computer code, rather he states that if theoretical physicists wanted to see if we lived in a matrix, it would be reasonable to see if our universe could be described by computer code since that would be necessary for this matrix to exist. This evidence neither demonstrates that we live in a matrix nor that it is possible that we live in a matrix."Why, after reading my entire argument, would you make the claim that I am using purely James Gates' Adinkras to conclude that we live in a Matrix? I am also quite aware that James Gates does not conclude this with his discovery. He's actually quite the transparent person and responds to emails quite frequently. I've emailed him back and forth about this for the last year (He prefers to go by 'Jim' if you're going to email him).He has actually stated that the idea we live in a "Matrix" is a possibility given this information. I, however, do not argue that we live in the Matrix."I see no proof that the universe is a hologram or that it is even possible that it is a hologram. Your own sources say that there is no evidence that it is possible."It doesn't turn me around from research every time I hear a Physicist disagree with one or another concept. It honestly shouldn't you either. I take what everyone says with a grain of salt. Many scientists would rather us do our own research of their work and make the best inference we can from the data instead of just taking their word for it every time since many scientists disagree on topics such as this. So we have the Fermilab that is testing the concept of a simulated universe:http://www.fnal.gov...http://www.scribd.com...This confirms that this concept is testable.This is Silas R. Beane from the Fermilab explaining how we can test for such a thing:Then we have the behavior of the universe itself that seems to be limited to the behaviors of a computer program - explained by Computer Scientist Brian Whitworth (Page 15): http://arxiv.org...His eleven facts are also compelling evidence for this concept.I'm not convinced of the idea myself because we don't have conclusive evidence that we are living in some sort of virtual reality. However, with the evidence against Local Realism and the experimental data that shows there is something mental about our reality, the idea that we are living in a simulation can be considered. I just find this data to show that it's more like a dream, rather than a simulation."I have actually seen arguments like this before, and every time these kind of arguments are introduced to actual physicists, they are thoroughly dismantled. In every case I have seen where a physicist does this dismantling, it comes down to the person making the argument not really understanding the physics and the fact that these bits of science are being misconstrued or cherry picked to prove a point which is not how science works."Citation needed here. In fact, you haven't been citing many sources/counter-sources at all, unfortunately. I appreciate that you're actually taking the time to read through mine and attempt to understand and counter them yourself. However, I am left with more-or-less just elaborating without recieving proper refutation. "Scientists follow evidence to its natural conclusion. They do not start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence/make evidence fit that conclusion."Unfounded assumption. I was very atheistic about this information. There was certainly no desire to come to such a conclusion on my part. I much prefer to actually be physically real and not in someone/something's head (or computer).