21–30 of 62 posts
Come on: (1) We still have to use humans for motion capture in order to make 3d realistic. (2) We still haven't come up with an IA to chat with. (3) We still haven't figure out what's the smallest unit in the matter, if matter is a thing.
Well I don't believe we are in a computer simulation per say but I think there are certain properties that certainly make it seem like we are. For example, I believe that conciousness can transcend to anything. We could just be some collective consciousness. When we are born we have no memory of our previous life. When we die we have no memory of our current one. So this suggest to me that it is entirely possible tha…
That's a religious argument unconnected to the question of whether our universe is simulated or not.
> When we are born we have no memory of our previous life.
This presumes there is such a thing as previous lives to begin with, something for which no scientific evidence exists. Barring that, the problem becomes the same as the question "why does a computer program I just wrote have no memory of its previous existence?".
> So this suggest to me that it is entirely possible that we are continually living in different bodies
Step back a moment from this logical jump and try to imagine how someone without your spiritual background might parse this conclusion. It comes from out of nowhere, some might even say it's the opposite of what one would expect to follow an observation like "When we die we have no memory of our current one.".
> That they feel affection and love just like humans. This tells me that our conciousness is overrated.
These observations about animals are not new, in fact most pet owners are likely to see this as a trivial truism.
> so if our concousness lives through different bodies over time
Another non sequitur. This observation doesn't follow from your chain of arguments, it follows from a premise you started out with.
> then it is entirely possible that the current reality we live is also a transient state of being
Everything is transient, our existence is as ephemeral as the configuration of our environment - this fact does not in itself mean anything. It sounds like you're reserving a special place for humans or intelligent life in general, but in actual fact the universe doesn't care about the existence of life one way or the other. The presumption that consciousness is a basic physical force constitutes a fundamental category error, it runs counter to everything we know about physics.
In any case, this has no bearing on whether the universe is simulated or not: the basic building blocks of reality do not make special exceptions for brains. There is absolutely no expected difference between a mind running within a computer-like system and a mind running on the "real" universe, whatever that may be.
No: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1220 Or if we are, the universe simulating us has completely different physics from the one we live in, which have to be fully specified before the "argument" becomes remotely plausible.
ah yes, and science is always free of such contradiction. the author invests so much energy laughing at the simulation theory, only to conclude that he cannot disprove it? considering how much the author apparently hates philosophy, he managed to write a rather philosophical article.
"Or if we are, the universe simulating us has completely different physics from the one we live in"
i kind of feel like, with all due respect, no shit? why explore such profound philosophy within the constraints of science as we know it today?
I think I am the only one who think humans will never manage to build something that complex. Come on: (1) We still have to use humans for motion capture in order to make 3d realistic. (2) We still haven't come up with an IA to chat with. (3) We still haven't figure out what's the smallest unit in the matter, if matter is a thing.
The universe is impossibly large, but it's not fundamentally complex. All complexity is emergent, not built in. The universe may very well run on a few very simple rules of data transformation, like a collection of cellular automata.
I don't think any physicist would argue in favor of the universe's complexity in connection with the simulation idea. In my opinion a better implausibility argument could instead be constructed from the enormous size and the apparent wastefulness of calculating every single simulation tick (which may well be equal to Planck time).
I think I am the only one who think humans will never manage to build something that complex. Come on: (1) We still have to use humans for motion capture in order to make 3d realistic. (2) We still haven't come up with an IA to chat with. (3) We still haven't figure out what's the smallest unit in the matter, if matter is a thing.
1. I'm not sure this is the case anymore but it certainly makes things easier. Regardless, why do you think 3d motion can't improve?
2. We have some but nothing that is a true AI. Many AI experts think a true AI, most likely modeled after the human brain once better understood, is going to happen in the next 50-100 years [from last I read, I am certainly no expert]. Why do you think this can't happen when most seem to think it eventually will?
3. Every year science makes progress to test, image and discover things that are very small. Right now string theory is a possibility that strings may be smaller than atoms. Why do you think this cannot or will not be either proven or disproven, ever?
I doubt anybody would bother programming Chia Pets in a simulation, so I'm going with no.
like a switch in your dreams that doesn't turn the lights on or off.
No: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1220 Or if we are, the universe simulating us has completely different physics from the one we live in, which have to be fully specified before the "argument" becomes remotely plausible.
Think of it is lazy evaluation. The rules are all known, but they are not evaluated until needed. If we have one single person, how hard would it be to simulate every single input to that one person? You wouldn't need to simulate an entire universe to do that.
Going back to what the author had to say, you wouldn't have to simulate the state of every atom at every time. You only need to simulate when it is measured. Interestingly, this syncs up with what we know about the quantum world where measurement causes the state of the wave function to collapse.
Additionally, the author seems to assume the universe exists outside of himself. He seems to trust the measurements and insights of scientific facts I doubt that he has confirmed via his own observation. Even if he did confirm all of them, this still doesn't prove the universe exists outside of what he directly observes with his own senses.
By analogy, imagine you are a character in a video game. The video game doesn't render the entire universe of the game. Only the portion of the game the character is in at that moment. From the character's point of view, the laws are consistent. The character could even try to postulate some universal laws. Try to determine the size of their universe.
I am not saying the philosophers are right or wrong. I'm just saying there is a lot more to the philosophy than the article covers.
We could be living in a multi-verse world. That's partly what the LHC experiments are trying to discern. If there are infinitely many universes then I think it would make it less likely we're in a simulation even if we are able to create our own simulation.
I'm genuinely curious and we must have some silent geniuses downvoting that comment. Instead of downvoting him, please, do go on.
No: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1220 Or if we are, the universe simulating us has completely different physics from the one we live in, which have to be fully specified before the "argument" becomes remotely plausible.
Well I don't believe we are in a computer simulation per say but I think there are certain properties that certainly make it seem like we are. For example, I believe that conciousness can transcend to anything. We could just be some collective consciousness. When we are born we have no memory of our previous life. When we die we have no memory of our current one. So this suggest to me that it is entirely possible tha…
I really like this comment. There is a deepness in our lives that everyone can feel, a love that transcends everything. Such a thing can't be simulated.