DrW wrote: Regardless of whether this universe is a simulation or not, the laws of physics apply in every region of the universe that we can observe and on every scale accessible to observation - from sub-atomic dimensions (10^-35) meters to astronomical dimensions (10^ 25 to 10^10^10^120) meters.
These laws of physics put a strict limit on the speed at which useful information can propagate. While the consequences of quantum entanglement (non-locality) can emerge instantaneously upon observation, it has been demonstrated that entanglement cannot be used to transmit useful information (so called quantum no communication theorem - consistent with Bell's inequality).
Assuming that the laws of physics do, in fact, apply in this universe, and superluminal communication is forbidden, then rapid communication with the Mormon God (who dwells a few light years away near Kolob) is just not possible.
Likewise, rapid (near contemporaneous) communication with a God that is "outside of space and time", as is confessed by the traditional Christian Nicene Creed, is simply not possible, again according to the laws of physics, or if you will, the rules of the simulation.
This same kind of constraint by the laws of physics that apply to the universe (physical or ideal / simulated) applies to many of the miracles and magical powers believed in as part and parcel of Christianity.
Just because a conscious mind imagines or believes it, does not make it so, even in a simulation.
to conversation midstream, Mikwut and Dr W,
I finally had time to get through the utube .sim theory 2016. That is the one under discussion I believe (much of this discussion is so oblique to the subject I do wonder if I watched the right one.
I am reasonable sure its intentions were theistic. The last individual Davis is a well known theist interested in these subjects. What I saw was a presentation of traditional theism such as presented by Aquinas represented in modern language. I was not sold on belief but it did allow reflection on Aquinas picture of the universe from a little bit of a different angel . It presented some of Aquinas's ideas which I find hard to swallow in ways which may make me more open minded about them.
In a sense I thought I was watching a restatement of the traditional proofs of God. Now as Aquinas noted these do not demonstrate the particulars of a Christian God, atonement resurrection new birth. Those things are additions by revelation.
What I am puzzled by Dr W is how you see the Christian God not just as undemonstated but as disproven. You see the Christian God ,understood as infinite, omnipresent, outside of space and time. as being unable to reach us. Such a God would be the source point equal distant from every point. At that location he is closer to your mind than your nose and mouth are. He would have no difficulty following your actions or communicating.
Of course I understand you do not believe that that Christian God is real. You are more inclined to see a deist God. I suspect that is more a result of the lack of an observed pattern of intervention from God than by any proof that such a God is not possible.
Seriously, go hang out with the presuppositionalists, the heirs of Greg Bahnsen. They like to talk circles as long as someone else pays the bills. If they were paid by the word instead of by the accomplishment they would be rich indeed. Or you can argue about holons with Ken Wilber. None of it will be worth a pinch of pupshit to future generations. 