simulation theory

[MEKer]

Originally Posted by skychief

But in a true simulated world an entity within the simulation would not be permitted to change or alter (or TERMINATE ) the realities of other entities within said simulation.

So if an individual in this our world/reality has the capability of killing someone (or many people), then our world/reality cannot be a simulation.

Negatron, Sky Troop. Permission could be programmed. Basic computer games should have told you that.

I think we actually may be nothing more than the "fun, moving illustration" on the back of a cereal box, electronically enhanced to amuse children while they eat breakfast. Maybe? Or not.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by skychief

But in a true simulated world an entity within the simulation would not be permitted to change or alter (or TERMINATE ) the realities of other entities within said simulation.

So if an individual in this our world/reality has the capability of killing someone (or many people), then our world/reality cannot be a simulation.

Why not? Whatever gives you that idea?


We are talking about simulating consciousness, simulating the entire universe withing a computer, of course the entities within the videogame would be capable of making their own decisions, at least as capable as we are of making our own decisions. The universe we live in is based on a bunch of equations and predictable reactions occurring over time, given enough resources it's far from impossible to simulate the same situation.

Whether they are technically conscious or not would be difficult to determine, as we don't know exactly what consciousness is, however the entities themselves would believe they are, just as we believe we are. Whether or not the consciousness is simulated or not is completely irrelevant.

Artificial intelligence is presumably possible at some point. Artificial intelligence of virtual entities within a simulated reality would be much easier to achieve.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by Ziltoid

Nietzsche doesn't agree.

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

Ha, you could say that the sky is blue, the grass is green, and cats have whiskers, and Hume would still disagree with you.

I think aborgman is really the reincarnation of David Hume.

[skychief]

Okay,,let's go back to OP's original question:

"could we be living in a simulation setup by a super computer in the future?"

There is only ONE correct answer to this question. Either we are or we're not. Theres no grey area here.

Im not saying that sometime in the distant future it won't be possible for a computer to synthesise a "simulation Universe" containing self-conscious entities within the simulation. At the present humans are far from that achievement, but in the future, who knows? I suppose it might be possible.

Im only stating that this universe/reality in which we (all humans/animals/plants which are living) occupy is not a simulation.

This is the correct answer to OP's question. (imo) I admit, its only a theory, but a very sound one, as it cannot be disproved.

I would love to hear any plausible argument.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by skychief

Im not saying that sometime in the distant future it won't be possible for a computer to synthesise a "simulation Universe" containing self-conscious entities within the simulation. At the present humans are far from that achievement, but in the future, who knows? I suppose it might be possible.

Thats just it... how do you know? What makes you certain that we're not currently acting out that very simulation?

Im only stating that this universe/reality in which we (all humans/animals/plants which are living) occupy is not a simulation.

Again, how do you know this? What if our Universe is contained within a supercomputer, a programmed simulation, and we're meant to act as we do and be observed?

[jeffbonny]

Does a finite digital reality necessarily have to have been consciously created to any particular purpose? What if it simply evolved? I'm not so sure the video game analogy is very useful past a rudimentary visualization.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

Does a finite digital reality necessarily have to have been consciously created to any particular purpose? What if it simply evolved? I'm not so sure the video game analogy is very useful past a rudimentary visualization.

We could just be an endless loop waiting to be rebooted.

[jeffbonny]

Originally Posted by fdeck

We could just be an endless loop waiting to be rebooted.

Although it might explain my clockwork addiction to caffeine I don't think an endless loop fits with the theory of an evolved system. Doesn't evolution rely on actions and occurrences that are profitable to the system?

[JimB52]

The real question is:

What is the best simulation setup by a super computer in the future for metal?


.

[skychief]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Thats just it... how do you know? What makes you certain that we're not currently acting out that very simulation?



Again, how do you know this? What if our Universe is contained within a supercomputer, a programmed simulation, and we're meant to act as we do and be observed?

I just know. Ya, thats a lame answer.

You're gonna have to trust me on this.

A computer is just a machine which processes data... ones and zeros. Thats all. A "supercomputer" may be able process a gazillion times more data a gazillion times faster, but in the end, its all just ones and zeros. Data. The world we live in/on isnt data. Its not a simulation...Its the real deal.

The only way i can think of to argue against a grand simulation conspiracy would require flirting with some fundamental religious principles which, of course, is not allowed on TalkBass, so I wont go there.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by skychief

This is the correct answer to OP's question. (imo) I admit, its only a theory, but a very sound one, as it cannot be disproved.

If it can't be proved or disproved, then it's not a theory.

While Occam's Razor certainly isn't a law of nature, it's a useful rule of thumb for scientific methodology. It suggests favoring the simplest theory that fits the facts, and the simplest explanation of reality is to take reality at face value.

An advanced civilization that could create a faithful simulation of our universe might not even choose to do it with a digital computer if a more efficient machine could be built. In fact, anything more than a trivial simulation using present day silicon technology would require a computer bigger than the universe, which would be dysfunctional due to speed of light and thermal limitations. The simplest possible machine capable of simulating our universe is our universe.

It's not a science problem, but as skychief alludes, there are numerous theologies with sophisticated and self consistent answers to the fundamental essence of reality, including those where our world is under observation by a more advanced intelligence. Why bother science with this?

[FilterFunk]

Originally Posted by fdeck

It's not a science problem, but as skychief alludes, there are numerous theologies with sophisticated and self consistent answers to the fundamental essence of reality, including those where our world is under observation by a more advanced intelligence. Why bother science with this?

Best answer yet.

[Ziltoid]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

Ha, you could say that the sky is blue, the grass is green, and cats have whiskers, and Hume would still disagree with you.

I think aborgman is really the reincarnation of David Hume.

I looked like a maniac laughing at my computer screen, thank you!

[12bass]

Originally Posted by fdeck

If it can't be proved or disproved, then it's not a theory.

While Occam's Razor certainly isn't a law of nature, it's a useful rule of thumb for scientific methodology. It suggests favoring the simplest theory that fits the facts, and the simplest explanation of reality is to take reality at face value.

An advanced civilization that could create a faithful simulation of our universe might not even choose to do it with a digital computer if a more efficient machine could be built. In fact, anything more than a trivial simulation using present day silicon technology would require a computer bigger than the universe, which would be dysfunctional due to speed of light and thermal limitations. The simplest possible machine capable of simulating our universe is our universe.

It's not a science problem, but as skychief alludes, there are numerous theologies with sophisticated and self consistent answers to the fundamental essence of reality, including those where our world is under observation by a more advanced intelligence. Why bother science with this?

Well... the problem with the above is that it assumes the the laws of physics found within the simulation are the actual laws of physics which govern the machine which is running the simulation (assuming such a thing exists). But what good reason is there to make such a supposition? Perhaps the real laws of physics are nothing like what we think they are, because we're stuck inside the simulation.

[Munjibunga]

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.

Thankew.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by fdeck

If it can't be proved or disproved, then it's not a theory.

While Occam's Razor certainly isn't a law of nature, it's a useful rule of thumb for scientific methodology. It suggests favoring the simplest theory that fits the facts, and the simplest explanation of reality is to take reality at face value.

An advanced civilization that could create a faithful simulation of our universe might not even choose to do it with a digital computer if a more efficient machine could be built. In fact, anything more than a trivial simulation using present day silicon technology would require a computer bigger than the universe, which would be dysfunctional due to speed of light and thermal limitations. The simplest possible machine capable of simulating our universe is our universe.

It's not a science problem, but as skychief alludes, there are numerous theologies with sophisticated and self consistent answers to the fundamental essence of reality, including those where our world is under observation by a more advanced intelligence. Why bother science with this?

From an engineer's perspective, the world is real for all practical purposes.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by 12bass

Well... the problem with the above is that it assumes the the laws of physics found within the simulation are the actual laws of physics which govern the machine which is running the simulation (assuming such a thing exists). But what good reason is there to make such a supposition? Perhaps the real laws of physics are nothing like what we think they are, because we're stuck inside the simulation.

We're back to the Matrix and the tangent that Mouse goes on about whether or not the simulated oatmeal they eat in the matrix was really what it actually tasted like in the real world.

At the end of the day, whether we are in a "simulation" is not a falsifiable question...at least with any current epistemological tools we have at our disposal. Therefore, it's really a moot point other than as a fun philosophical excercise. Therefore, the best course of action at this point is to take the laws of physics at face value.

[seventhson]

We are just the byproducts of a chemistry experiment run by a curious teenager of a more advanced civilization to see how to mint plutonium.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by skychief

Okay,,let's go back to OP's original question:

"could we be living in a simulation setup by a super computer in the future?"

There is only ONE correct answer to this question. Either we are or we're not. Theres no grey area here.

Im not saying that sometime in the distant future it won't be possible for a computer to synthesise a "simulation Universe" containing self-conscious entities within the simulation. At the present humans are far from that achievement, but in the future, who knows? I suppose it might be possible.

I think you are misunderstanding the hypothesis on a fundamental level.

If it is possible, or ever will be possible, which we can acknowledge that it likely is, then we can also make the assumption that it has already been done. Even within our own universe it is more than likely that at some point sentient species have developed technology to a point where they are able to do it, and if it ever has occurred in all of space and time and any possible reality that has ever existed and ever will exist, then this universe could be that simulation.

If the possibility is there, which from all we know about the universe it is, then we are quite possibly the result of that possibility, and the universe in which said simulation is running, assuming they are simulating a universe with similar rules and concepts as our own, could also be a simulation itself, and so on to infinity.

There is one correct answer, but that answer cannot be determined in any way as far as I can tell. If we ever do create a simulated universe in any capacity and show that it is possible, then statistically I believe we can also confirm that our own universe is also a simulation in some capacity. To believe that we are the only "Real" reality would seem a little naive given that context.

Originally Posted by skychief

Im only stating that this universe/reality in which we (all humans/animals/plants which are living) occupy is not a simulation.

This is the correct answer to OP's question. (imo) I admit, its only a theory, but a very sound one, as it cannot be disproved.

I would love to hear any plausible argument.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Originally Posted by fdeck

An advanced civilization that could create a faithful simulation of our universe might not even choose to do it with a digital computer if a more efficient machine could be built. In fact, anything more than a trivial simulation using present day silicon technology would require a computer bigger than the universe, which would be dysfunctional due to speed of light and thermal limitations.

Assuming that the universe in which said simulation is run is subject to the same physical laws, limitations etc. that our own is.

But if we could simulate the universe, the first thing I'd do is change the value of something as fundamental as the speed of light, hit go, see a big bang and then observe.

Originally Posted by fdeck

The simplest possible machine capable of simulating our universe is our universe.

Considering the progress with quantum computing, this does seem quite possible.

You are right, this isn't a scientific theory, it's a philosophical hypothesis, however it is a hypothesis that has it's roots in statistics and technology, and so naturally the scientific minded are drawn to it.

No theory can be proved, nor disproved, proof does not exist outside of the field of mathematics. Evidence can be gathered to support a theory so much that is becomes accepted as truth, but it's still not "proof".

I believe that there is no physical evidence to suggest we exist within a simulated reality as of yet, the assumption that we are is based purely on statistics and the idea that it "might" be possible, although the fact that we can simulate reality in very small chunks indicates that it likely will be possible given the resources and technological advancements. The day we do successfully simulate what appears to be consciousness is the day I begin to believe we live in a simulated reality, and even more so when the conscious beings within the simulated reality simulate their own universe. Of course, we might be the first ones to run a simulation of that capacity, but statistically speaking it's highly unlikely.

Until such time, I'd rather just remain open minded to the fact that it is a definite possibility.

Originally Posted by skychief

A computer is just a machine which processes data... ones and zeros. Thats all. A "supercomputer" may be able process a gazillion times more data a gazillion times faster, but in the end, its all just ones and zeros. Data. The world we live in/on isnt data. Its not a simulation...Its the real deal.

In keeping with The Matrix references in this thread so far:

Originally Posted by Morpheus

What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by 12bass

Well... the problem with the above is that it assumes the the laws of physics found within the simulation are the actual laws of physics which govern the machine which is running the simulation (assuming such a thing exists). But what good reason is there to make such a supposition? Perhaps the real laws of physics are nothing like what we think they are, because we're stuck inside the simulation.

Exactly. If we did have the ability to simulate the universe, we'd run thousands of them testing all sorts of different situations and possibilities just to see what happens. We just happen to be in one of them where things are the way they are.

In another one, a single variable was slightly changed and the primary planet in this solar system is inhabited by dinosaurs living in a Victorian era society.

Well, that's probably not the best example, but I think it would be ****ing awesome.