simulation theory

[Musiclogic]

It's always amazing when imagination like this is put forth and carried along.....LMFAO. Is the act of understanding human existance become so far beyond the intellect of todays society that everything has to be a regurgitation of old science fiction stories?

[FilterFunk]

Originally Posted by Downunderwonder

This is where The Matrix screenplay fell down bigtime. Our bodies consume food and convert it into low level heat that can't easily be recycled. If it were so recycled it would provide less energy than the food had in it.

I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I think part of the premise is that the energy somehow comes from the processing power and electrical activity of the human brain, not necessarily from the body heat. I'm no scientist/engineer/whatever, but that's how I interpreted it.

[LiquidMidnight]

Large plot holes in sci-fi robot movies?! Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the whole plot of Terminator Salvation doesn't make sense, because technically, Skynet shouldn't have known who the hell John Connor (or Kyle Reese for that matter) was at that point in the chronology.

[oniman7]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

There is nothing scientific in this theory.
It's a philosophical hypothesis, revisited from Descartes's propositions.
Only philosophists study it, there is nothing to prove or demonstrate.
I'd like people and newspapers to differenciate between cosmology and superstition.

Almost exactly what I was going to say. It's probably being published because people think it means something so they pass it around

[Ziltoid]

Originally Posted by oniman7

Almost exactly what I was going to say. It's probably being published because people think it means something so they pass it around

Sokal was the best.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

Large plot holes in sci-fi robot movies?! Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the whole plot of Terminator Salvation doesn't make sense, because technically, Skynet shouldn't have known who the hell John Connor (or Kyle Reese for that matter) was at that point in the chronology.

And yet they're set to do at least one more Terminator movie (if not more)

[1958Bassman]

Originally Posted by Icey101

have you heard of this?

Its an interesting theory, something like the matrix, could we be living in a simulation setup by a super computer in the future? Is the super computer using our bodies for energy and therefore providing a simulation for us to live in? Is the never ending universe which we fail to really understand, just part of a program?

Now there are scientist's testing theory

http://www.inquisitr.com/437451/our-...st-new-theory/

I'm not sure random acts would be possible.

[fdeck]

Occam's Razor fail.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by Jim Nazium

I'm familiar with that argument, and it makes some sense, but here's the problem I have with it: would a simulation of a conscious being actually be conscious? It's not at all clear to me that it would. We're conscious, so to me that argues for a "real" universe.

That would be a dead giveaway, if we had any idea what consciousness was or how it happens. However if we are simulated pieces of code who think we have consciousness and behave in exactly the same way that conscious beings do (based off of studies done in the future real universe on actual conscious beings, or potentially simulated conscious beings) then we'd really have no reason to believe our consciousness is not real, based on the fact that we've never seen or experienced anything outside of it.

Presumably consciousness is some part of the human brain, and so only really a complex electro-chemical process, based on laws and rules that could be simulated in a computer environment.

Originally Posted by Jim Nazium

OTOH, there's an XKCD comic on this subject (of course) which points out that a simulated universe would probably have some features designed to make computation easier. For example, a minimum temperature, a maximum speed, discrete chunks of light and energy ...

I believe that is one of the main ideas behind trying to test the hypothesis. Analyse the universe for limitations that would be inherit in a computer simulation. Although the computer running the simulation could quite possibly be so powerful that no such limitations are really in place, there would have to be some point where it cuts corners however. Unless of course we are programmed to be incapable of noticing said limitations, in which case they could be right in front of us.

Then again, the computer itself could be a self conscious entity within its own right (and essentially some sort of universal consciousness, in our universe that is), capable of growing in size and power and altering the universe to remove said limitations as the computer itself becomes capable of using its own resources more efficiently. This would lend an explanation to an ever expanding universe.

Originally Posted by Musiclogic

It's always amazing when imagination like this is put forth and carried along.....LMFAO. Is the act of understanding human existance become so far beyond the intellect of todays society that everything has to be a regurgitation of old science fiction stories?

I think it's more a case of science fiction regurgitation hundred year old philosophical thinking. Quite reminiscent of Zhuangzi's "butterfly dream" from around 400 BCE

In Buddhist philosophy, the world we see and experience is "Maya", an illusion we are born into.

The thinking has been applied to computers for as long as they have existed to my knowledge.

Originally Posted by 1958Bassman

I'm not sure random acts would be possible.

As far as we can tell, they're not. The universe is based on a set of concrete rules so that things always occur in the same predictable way. Things like choice and free will are really unexplained phenomena, and I'd say I'm a supporter of the idea that they're an illusion within the human mind.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by Simo98

Things like choice and free will are really unexplained phenomena, and I'd say I'm a supporter of the idea that they're an illusion within the human mind.

I consider myself a "soft determinist," meaning that I believe in choice, but nobody has complete agency. All of our choices are limited in some way or fashion. If you're interested in a complex social theorist, check out Anthony Gidden's stucturation theory. It's a complicated theory, but in essence, it states that social structure is a human construction, but when we create that structure, it binds our agency. Very interesting theory, and he really bridges that gap between constructionists like Weber and structuralists like Durkeim.

Originally Posted by Jmatt

And yet they're set to do at least one more Terminator movie (if not more)

I actually like the movie if you ignore that huge gaping plot hole. I've always been really interested in the "Future War" aspect of the Terminator franchise, and I think a lot of the elements McG introduced into the mythos are really interesting.

It's just that Skynet shouldn't know who the hell Jonn Connor is yet! You don't even need a major discussion on quantum time travel to understand that point, so I don't understand how the writers screwed that up! I can forgive the human battery mcguffin being farfetched for the Matrix, but the how Salavation thing is just bad writing. Well, then again, T2 introduced the "No fate but what we make" tagline, and then T3 crapped all over that by stating Judgment Day was inevitable - ironic with this free will discussion.

[Bloodhammer]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

There is nothing scientific in this theory.
It's a philosophical hypothesis, revisited from Descartes's propositions.
Only philosophists study it, there is nothing to prove or demonstrate.
I'd like people and newspapers to differenciate between cosmology and superstition.

So just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Simo98

Presumably consciousness is some part of the human brain, and so only really a complex electro-chemical process...

This is the only view of consciousness worth taking seriously.

[6jase5]

They are using "lattice quantum chromodynamics" to test if this is really happening.....sure, that's the same thing the lady selling the juicer in Costco said made her blender worth the $500.

[jeffbonny]

Originally Posted by fdeck

This is the only view of consciousness worth taking seriously.

So you don't see AI or any kind of transhumanism as even remotely feasible?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Anyone else think this simulation theory sounds an awful lot like most religions?

Though on saying that, some quantum mechanical theories are fairly out there and could be pretty cool. M theory, String theory etc.

String theory is pretty sweet, basically everything is made up of 1 dimensional 'strings'. Would at least give some actors the excuse of it being natural...

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Icey101

have you heard of this?

Its an interesting theory, something like the matrix, could we be living in a simulation setup by a super computer in the future? Is the super computer using our bodies for energy and therefore providing a simulation for us to live in? Is the never ending universe which we fail to really understand, just part of a program?

Now there are scientist's testing theory

http://www.inquisitr.com/437451/our-...st-new-theory/

If we are, indeed, living in a computer simulation, but our consciousness is never aware of it, does it really matter? Is the simulation any less real if its the totality of our experience? Is there a way out of the "simulation"? Is the so called world outside of the simulation any better than the inside?

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

IMHO, would be to phrase it as if we are actually AI created by a higher being (say a 'real' person/scientist) to simulate a human life given a set of variables.

Aren't we though? Perhaps the creator of the universe just wanted a little look at things from the other side...

[skychief]

I can disprove this wonky theory in five words:


I THINK, THEREFORE I AM. - R. Descartes

[Ziltoid]

Originally Posted by skychief

I can disprove this wonky theory in five words:


I THINK, THEREFORE I AM. - R. Descartes

Nietzsche doesn't agree.

Edit: Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Williams, Hume, Gassendi, Lichtenberg...

[DwaynieAD]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

If we are, indeed, living in a computer simulation, but our consciousness is never aware of it, does it really matter? Is the simulation any less real if its the totality of our experience? Is there a way out of the "simulation"? Is the so called world outside of the simulation any better than the inside?



Aren't we though? Perhaps the creator of the universe just wanted a little look at things from the other side...

I wanna be plugged back into the matrix, ignorance is bliss.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by skychief

I can disprove this wonky theory in five words:


I THINK, THEREFORE I AM. - R. Descartes

That really disproves nothing.
You are programmed to think that you are thinking (simulation or otherwise).