simulation theory

[Simo98]

But if it isn't a scientific hypothesis, then there are already plenty of ways to investigate it: Theology, philosophy, even literature such as science fiction. A science fiction story (or any fiction literature) is a sort of simulation, setting up an artificial scenario and then investigating its behavior.

That's the general idea I believe. Although allegedly an experiment has been devised to test the hypothesis via some form of scientific metric, I haven't see the proposed experiment so I have no idea how they'd plan to do it, but if someone has come up with a scientific approach then I'd be interested to see what it is.

Interesting point on fiction. I'd never really thought of it that way.

Always?

Mines not. I totally subscribe to the infinite. That's why I can can easily dismiss the "simulation" hypothesis.

Ok... So you are some sort of super consciousness who perceives the universe in it's entirety, in a way that is completely unfathomable to the human mind?

I guess you could be, which would explain why you can easily dismiss this simulation concept, you intrinsically know all the ins and outs of the universe simply due to the nature of your being, and are somehow able to verify all of your perceptions as undeniably true.

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but I'll need you to give me some sort of indication you're not just extremely deluded first




There is no way to "prove" that the universe is a simulation that we know of. It is just philosophical speculation, and to believe in it is no different to believing in a deity. To acknowledge the possibility however, is in my opinion simply being open minded.

If somebody has come up with a scientifically sound experiment to determine the nature of the universe, I'm interested to see what they've got.

 

[skychief]

Ok... So you are some sort of super consciousness who perceives the universe in it's entirety, in a way that is completely unfathomable to the human mind?

Huh?? super conciousness?? Really??

Is that your question?

 

[12bass]

I don't really understand the point of discussing theories that are not falsifiable. Sure it's fun and all that, but it's not science... more like literature or "philosophy".

Even if I'm in social science (political science) and have had numerous philosphy and political thought classes you can be damn sure I won't do nothing but positive political science.

Is social science falsifiable? Political science? Of the sciences, physics seems to one of the few domains where clearly falsifiable claims can be made. See Karl Popper for more on the principle of falsification and why social sciences fail.

Also, far from common opinion, philosophy is far from frivolous. In fact, philosophy deals with the deepest, and most difficult questions imaginable. What is truth? What justifies knowledge claims? Does science provide an objective view of reality? What is justice? Is there meaning in an apparently meaningless Universe? In completing my M.A. I focused on questions relating to the philosophy of science, a branch of philosophy which entails a meta-analysis of science and its methods.

There is no way to "prove" that the universe is a simulation that we know of. It is just philosophical speculation, and to believe in it is no different to believing in a deity. To acknowledge the possibility however, is in my opinion simply being open minded.

If somebody has come up with a scientifically sound experiment to determine the nature of the universe, I'm interested to see what they've got.

Hmmm... I'd say that the simulation notion is more plausible than the alternative suggested above... at least in the sense that it is more compatible with the available evidence. That said, I'm not suggesting it is true either... just trying to evaluate the idea. But if it is true, is there any way that we could determine that fact? Perhaps there is some wisdom is assuming that reality is more or less as science tells us unless we have good reason to think otherwise....

 

[Simo98]

Hmmm... I'd say that the simulation notion is more plausible than the alternative suggested above... at least in the sense that it is more compatible with the available evidence. That said, I'm not suggesting it is true either... just trying to evaluate the idea.

I'd also say it appears more likely to be true, however I think that conclusion comes more from my own personal bias/opinions/experiences than it does from any sort of objective study or empirical evidence.

But if it is true, is there any way that we could determine that fact? Perhaps there is some wisdom is assuming that reality is more or less as science tells us unless we have good reason to think otherwise....

I don't think there is really any way of telling for sure, although I'd be happy to be shown otherwise. I like to think there is a balance between assuming that what you see is what you get and living with it, whilst keeping the mind open to other possibilities and explanations and acknowledging that things are not always as they seem.

 

[12bass]

One of the problems with the simulation hypothesis is that we're left with accepting the existence of another higher level of reality which is "really real", yet one which we're unable to access from our simulated bubble. Or perhaps reality is a just an infinite series of nested simulations running inside simulations inside simulations... giving new meaning the the term 'virtual machine'. ;-)

 

[MarkMgibson]

There was a good movie made about this called "The Thirteenth Floor" (sorry if it's been mentioned, I didn't read the whole thread).

Personally I prefer the good old-fashioned scams - like man landing on the moon. Radiation would have fried those astronauts like crispy bacon. But hey, it was on television, so of course it's real.

 

[skychief]

heres a brief synopsis by the Oxford professor (Nick Bostrom) who is the guy who'll be designing the SA (Simulation Argument) test:

The simulation argument purports to show, given some plausible assumptions, that at
least one of three propositions is true.
2
**Roughly stated, these propositions are: (1) almost
all civilizations at our current level of development go extinct before reaching
technological maturity; (2) there is a strong convergence among technologically mature
civilizations such that almost all of them lose interest in creating ancestor‐simulations; (3)
almost all people with our sorts of experiences live in computer simulations.**I also argue
(#) that conditional on (3) you should assign a very high credence to the proposition that
you live in a computer simulation.**However, pace Brueckner, I do not argue that we
should believe that we are in simulation.
3
**In fact, I believe that we are probably not
simulated.**The simulation argument purports to show only that, as well as (#), at least
one of (1)*‐*(3) is true; but it does not tell us which one.

Note what he says in statement #3.

Interesting, no?