Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there are infinitely many universes then I think it would make it less likely we're in a simulation I'm not sure how this logically follows...why would this make it less likely?
Say there are 100 universes. Suppose each universe has 1 in 100 chance of making simulations and if they do they make 100. Your chances then of living in a simulation are ~50%. It's much different than assuming a single universe in which case the advent of simulations almost assures that you're living in one (assuming the author's line of reasoning). Edit: in summary the pace at which new universes arise could rival…
Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
41–50 of 62 posts
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#42The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with The Invisible Dragon in my Garage to be of profound scientific value. It's worth taking into…
>The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones, and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications I agree the Matrix argument has significant plot holes, but given that there are an infinite set of conditions in which something analogous to The Matrix could exist that are probably outside the scope of current human understanding,…
Well, there could be a message embedded into some basic universal structure, left there in case any intelligent life forms might come across it. But other than that, I don't see how any arbitrary phenomenon happening in the universe could possibly tip the scale of plausibility in either direction. Discoveries of computation-like processes have indeed been (ab-)used for that purpose in the past, but people forget that there is no reason to believe this couldn't happen in a natural universe.
> I see no reason to assume we couldn't "escape" the simulation and enter the next-level-up
There would be absolutely no difference in "escaping" an artificial universe or a real universe. In both cases, the exact same problems apply. Artificiality in this context doesn't really mean anything.
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#43Well 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…
> For example, I believe that conciousness can transcend to anything. 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…
to me, if we were to believe that our our idea of ourselves is actually not unique, that we are just a very large variation of the basic properties of consciousness (something we can't really quite put a finger on), then it can be said that we are in a simulation, for the same reason, you dream, you daydream.
Our brain frequently runs simulations during these period of rest and animals do as well. Why is it that we can be so convinced of our dreams as if it were real? Why is it that they by themselves have no real beginning or an end, sort of like our own existence? What if your life is just an episode of a dream? Who's running the simulations? Why is it not just one continuous flowing state? Why does it need to be disparate and seemingly discontinuous?
My view is that this is actually the most efficient state a simulation can reach. If it was one giant cesspool of initial variables in one bubble it would be pretty obvious for the inhabitants of the simulation to figure out the walls quickly and before long question what's outside of it. The same reason that we can realize we are dreaming and experience lucid dreaming. But, we can't for the love of god find this wall in our own reality because our brain through years of evolution by previous consciousness, have been designed to find safety in numbers, fight or flight reflexes, gather or horde scarce goods. Only when our innate animal like instincts are squelched can we experience reality in it's rawest and purest form, something buddhist tibetian monks often frequent, a higher form of understanding where they are able to feel the whole range of human experiences without actually doing them because they realize that it's actually our own consciousness that trap us into realities that we create for ourselves.
Knowing that we can and create simulations of our own through dreaming, out of will, help of substances or even meditation, it shows that at the outer level our reality can be fluid and can take many different shapes or forms.
In the end, our own intelligence, our ability to find patterns out of chaos, traps us into thinking that something that doesn't follow a rigid set of rules or lack of data automatically mean that they don't exist, when in fact, such narrow mindedness can only come from the choice to view reality and oneself with the same set of practices used in laboratory or whatever environment where such mentality has been useful.
I will say that even the latter situation is actually a simulation of it's own, but much much worse kind, it's created and rigorously maintained by other consciousnesses aimed at supressing all other views.
Quantumn theory suggests that we live in our own simulation create by us, religious texts also suggests the same thing, you shape your own reality but at the end of the day, it's lacking the same solid walls as the one you create, it must be that the most efficient simulation is also one where every possible permutation is achievable, that our collective human race is literally a race towards achieving some enlightened status as a whole, that through experiencing life in the myriad of lives, that our collective consciousness will improve and become efficient, that it outlives all things biological, it continues beyond even our own planet, maybe we are truly one with the universe and everything it represents, we are simply the creation, not of an external super intelligent aliens, not future versions of us running Matrix 2.0 for shits and giggles but because it simply is the way it is designed, the same way we discover math in our own reality, and how it reveals answers, it must be that we are the simulation, not the simulatees or simulators.
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't remember who authored the following, but I thought it was amusing enough years ago to toss it into my interesting-quotes.txt: I recall reading a science fiction story that involved the first human spaceship to reach the edge of the universe. When they tried to go through they bounced off, it was impenatrable. Then we cut to 2 higher dimensional beings, and one says, "On that run it took life only 14.7 gigayea…
:D That's a very funny story! When I imagine an intelligent life form simulating the universe, it might as well be a simple creature just pushing little stones from cell to cell across a coordinate system drawn into the sand of an impossibly huge plain, using a few very simple rules about where stones move on every single cell. And when the creature gets to the last stone in the grid, it starts the same thing again f…
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#45Well 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 pretty much reached this same conclusion :S I'm constantly tormented how I'm not conscious about 7 billion people's mind but I am of mine. Why it happened till now? Can it be happening infinitely? Like if you play a video, then you pause it for billions of years, then play it again. If we were able to watch the video cutting the part where it was paused, it would look like it was never paused in the first place. Ma…
Looking at all the people on earth, do we as a whole represent some ulterior ocean of consciousness that has passed the test of time and evolution as the dominant species on this planet, and our offsprings may continue to improve and build our ocean of conciousness so that one day it may be rid of filth and waste, nothing but pristine, clean, transparent body of water?
Could it be that our consciousness, our mind, can exist beyond our own species? Even our own planet and beyond? That we are all one in this race and struggle, that the pluses and minuses, at the end of the day all balance out and we are left with nothing permeable but something that is ephemeral?
What if everyone earth stopped what they are doing and just did nothing, just began letting go of our daily activities and stresses, just let go of our firm grasp of what our version of reality is, what would we see? What would everyone eventually see what it is that we are fighting for, what is it about our existence that requires so much searching, when in fact our ancestors have already stopped doing some time ago, eventually being kick started again time to time in a period of spiritual famine?
I only have questions, just like our scientific modeling of our reality and universe raises unanswerable questions. Is it wrong to marry the view of what actually is, has been to what needs to be according to a civilization that begun relatively short time ago? Is it fair or even wise to search for answers with precision that will fail with the same level of accuracy for those that practice this method?
I just can't believe I'm uttering these things without drugs. I think even then I wasn't able to reach this level of depth.
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#46Well 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…
Or that the biological imperative that we share is common across all animals. The fact that drugs were found by said animal implies trial and error. But then again, what constitutes a drug? In a world where drugs that induce sensation of the level of say cocaine were absent, some other milder drug would apply as a suitable substitute to relieving stress. But really, I can't fathom how you connect collective conscious…
further down this road, we have access to whatever was written about us, we of course have no recollection or unable to see or understand what our predecessors have felt other than reading about it, but the bigger picture is that our internet has gotten bigger, our offsprings will inherit even a larger version of it and so on.
the individual experience has no memory because it can't, but it inherits the greater consciousness, the greater collection of wisdom and knowledges of generations and generations before it.
whether this means we transcend through multiple lives like hindus or buddhists will argue or whether you go to hell or meet 72 virgins, is useless.
our collective consciousness is a result of myriad of simulations conducted by ourselves and on this planet, in this universe, we do not live in some Matrix 2.0, our species as a whole has been able to evolve and reach our state through our entire human existence, our very lives are simulations that provide input to the collective, good ones, bad ones, towards a state where we are so efficient, so intelligent, so enlightened that further improvement is impossible OR series of events create catastrophic extinction of our biological representation and new ones emerge on this planet or another where the whole process will begin again.
man I'm so scared by all this shit.
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, I believe that conciousness can transcend to anything. 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…
I really don't think a logical, academic review of what I think the reality is of much use when in fact the very subject of what we are discussing is so strange and hard to fathom in our heads but I'll play. to me, if we were to believe that our our idea of ourselves is actually not unique, that we are just a very large variation of the basic properties of consciousness (something we can't really quite put a finger o…
If the line of reasoning precludes itself from factual considerations, there might be very little point in discussing it other than perhaps for entertainment. Because if we're consigning ourselves to exchanging arbitrary stuff we simply made up, this becomes a collaborative fiction thread. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I do feel we should mark it as such. But even in fiction there are rules - readers expect a certain amount of logical consistency.
> our idea of ourselves is actually not unique, that we are just a very large variation of the basic properties of consciousness (something we can't really quite put a finger on), then it can be said that we are in a simulation, for the same reason, you dream
Just because these statements appear in the same sentence doesn't mean they're connected. If I understood correctly, you're asserting that: a) the human experience is not unique, neither on the individual nor on the species level and b) this experience is a variation of the basic properties of consciousness even though nobody has any idea what that even means and therefore c) it follows that we are living in a simulation in which d) we're all daydreaming. It's not difficult to see at which junctions your audience loses the ability to follow along.
> Only when our innate animal like instincts are squelched can we experience reality in it's rawest and purest form, something buddhist tibetian monks often frequent
It's true we can't much trust our senses and unaided intuitions at all. That's why we have very cool sensors and mathematical models. You can't meditate your way to scientific discovery.
> such narrow mindedness can only come from the choice to view reality and oneself with the same set of practices used in laboratory or whatever environment where such mentality has been useful
This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what goes on in a laboratory. The scientific process is not a mechanism designed to confirm arbitrary postulates.
> Quantumn theory suggests that we live in our own simulation create by us
Here the onus would be on you to show how you came to that conclusion.
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#48(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof) I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I…
>It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering Well .. is it though? What if everything is so blissful and boring in the future that people intentionally torture themselves for decades at a time by experiencing "Earth-sim" so that they can build character / enjoy the utopia they've created? Or maybe this simul…
Please do provide some reasons why raping a day-old newborn infant wouldn't be considered unethical.
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#49(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof) I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I…
By this same argument, wouldn't having children be unethical? (I believe it is by the way)
Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)
#50The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with The Invisible Dragon in my Garage to be of profound scientific value. It's worth taking into…
> but it's still just a thought experiment about something
> which cannot be falsified.
Well, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_t... ( http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-... )