We are most likely in a simulated universe (3 Viewers)

[ronnknee]

1. It is not the only thing standing in the way. We don't even know if it is possible at all!
2. So you accept there is a reasonble probability that humanity will destroy itself before we reach this stage of technical advancement?
3. And I've explained many times that the goals you suggest can be achieved more easily by other means.
4. Why must it be? Moore's Law will break down as components can no longer become any smaller as they approach the size of individual molecules. If processing power is fixed at a certain level, it may always be extremely expensive to simulate universes, if it is possible at all.
5. "Just no" is not an answer. There is a reasonable chance future governments would ban manipulation of self aware creatures for entertainment.
6. Another huge assumption. The idea of playing with your own universe sounds pretty amazing now. But if technology has advanced to the level you suggest, there would be a multitude of other amazing things to entertain us. Maybe those interested in simulated universes would be a small minority of geeks. Remember, there needs to alot of artificial reality created before it becomes probable that we are experiencing it.

1. Of course we don't know if it's possible. Thats the only (major) thing standing in the way.
2. Humanity wont destroy itself. We are overall becomin more civilised and the countries with power are not as bad as the fanatics.
3. Sorry, i missed the point originally, though I know now. I don't agree with you here. Finding historical any missing historical data would be easier this way and finding out what would've happened should be done to see if the right decisions were made and to not make them again. Also, the Sims is popular. I believe people would love to have fun in this simulation or acting as a god.
4. Quantum computing. All cancer solved in a second.
5. I doubt it. Were mere data.
6. See 3.

Sure. But as I pointed out, if individuals are running their own universes, how would they have time to ensure they did rewind it if there was ever a glitch?

THe program may freeze if it had a glitch.

I can't disprove it, but I see no evidence to give me a reason to believe that it is true.

There never was any evidence, and I don't believe anyone has put forward any. Its based on probability!! If there was something that was 99.999999% chance for being true, you'd believe it wouldn't you? Phew, this has taken so much time off the assignment due wednesday...

 

[AsyLum]

Did this thread just use Assassin's Creed :|

Oh no you didn't.

 

[ronnknee]

Did this thread just use Assassin's Creed :|

Oh no you didn't.

I'll get that with a PS3 as soon as the HSC is over

 

[ronnknee]

1. Ok so there is a major barrier standing in the way.
2. The fanatics have access to WMD's. There are hundreds of nuclear warheads unaccounted for since the collapse of the Soviet Unions. Technological advances are making it cheaper and easier for terrorists to produce WMD's. Many unstable governments such as North Korea already have WMD's. And that's without even mentioning Climate Change or natural phenomena such as asertoids that could wipe out humanity.
3. Ok, agree to disagree here.
4. You haven't really explained what you mean at all. Saying "Quantum Computing" doesn't prove anything.
5. What difference does it matter if we are mere data or if we have physical bodies. If we experience everything the same for all intents and purposes we are real and it is cruel to toy with us and subject us to unnecessary pain for our own ends.

Or it might not.

So you acknoledge that there is no evidence, but still assert there is a 99.9999% chance it is true? Even though (see point 1) you acknowledge it may not even be possible at all.

2. This is a whole new topic thats way too llong to get into now, but its fair to say again to agree to disagree.
4. Quatum computin is extremely complex but the crux of the idea is that its power is far greater than usual computin, and all the possibilities needed to find out cures for cancer could be found out in less than a second once because of the massive capabilities.
5. Yeah to us it'd be cruel, but imagine if people in the Sims understood feelings like us. All they know and feel is data. They were born out of data, everything they are is because of data, which we create. From the creators point of view, it wouldn't matter, at least to me it wouldn't, and I wouldn't care if my sims felt pain because its fake, though i know to them its as real as hell but there fake as well.

What I'm saying with ur 2nd paragraph is that the program could go on for a billion years with an igorant family, but is likely to eventually be found out and reversed. Therefore we wouldn't know.

To your last paragraph. I never said this had a 99% chance, i was using an example to show u that u can still believe without evidence. I know it may not be possible, but if it IS, then i think thered be a very high chance of it being true. Your confused with what probability i was dealing with. After I make that assumption, there is a high probability.

I hope that deals with everything, but I shouldnt say never, especially knowing the fierceness of peolpe in this thread.

 

[Chris.]

who gives a shit, just wait till you die to find out

 

[angmor]

think about it...if this simulated reality were real, would the 'programmers' really have wanted us (if we were simulated) to be able to think about issues like this and discuss the possibility among ourselves that we are simulated?

I dont think they would want this....the fact that we have free will makes it highly unlikely that this universe is a programming playground for another being.

 

[Graney]

think about it...if this simulated reality were real, would the 'programmers' really have wanted us (if we were simulated) to be able to think about issues like this and discuss the possibility among ourselves that we are simulated?

That's just what the programmers want you to believe.

 

[Gerald10]

So whose programming the programmers?

 

[Ennaybur]

Dom I seriously can't believe that you're being serious, or you have so little imagination. Why would someone want to build a simulation? For a fucktonne of reasons I can think of, let alone what the 'real' reason would be... which would be so divorced from our version of reality (should we be in a simulation).

If we can even think of some reasons that are plausible, and we have absolutely no concept of what the real world is, I think your argument against it on 'practical' grounds is pretty weak.

All this talk of 'oh well we'd know' seems not to grasp the idea that whoever has created this is phenomenally powerful, and how susceptible our brains are.


edit: and thanks to kfunk for clearing up the ockham's razor response.

 

[Ennaybur]

Don't post/read the thread then.

 

[Riet]

The idea of using it as a history simulator is impossible. It'd have to be set up exactly as the world was at a particular time, which is ridiculous for the same reason you can't go back in time and assume the future to unfold the same way. The act of observing (and setting up the simulation) with future knowledge would interfere with the simulation. As they say, history is told by the victor, so any simulation is going to be effected by what the creator thought was the case.

 

[boris]

think about it...if this simulated reality were real, would the 'programmers' really have wanted us (if we were simulated) to be able to think about issues like this and discuss the possibility among ourselves that we are simulated?

I dont think they would want this....the fact that we have free will makes it highly unlikely that this universe is a programming playground for another being.

Why wouldn't they have wanted us to?
Why is a simulated universe and free thought mutually exlusive??

It's like saying, well if God does exist, why does he allow us to question him.
What's the point? Why wouldn't he allow us to question his existence is a better question. If ultimately he is in control (as with a simulated universe) it really doesn't matter what we think or do, ultimately we can't destroy or defeat him, can we?

 

[A High Way Man]

The idea of using it as a history simulator is impossible. It'd have to be set up exactly as the world was at a particular time, which is ridiculous for the same reason you can't go back in time and assume the future to unfold the same way. The act of observing (and setting up the simulation) with future knowledge would interfere with the simulation. As they say, history is told by the victor, so any simulation is going to be effected by what the creator thought was the case.

In the history simulator they would only want the initial conditions to be accurate, because the point of the simulator is to test particular outcomes of different 'points of divergence' from the creators ('real') reality.

Even then, I think that this 'tool' wouldn't be used by 'future' historians because it's not objective for the reasons you pointed out. It would be like a hobby, like if I wanted to create a WW2 simulation I would go get clips of soldiers fighting in WW2 and make a simulation based around this isolated piece of footage. The sim would be heaps dodgy, but the artificial humans/humans couldn't discern this. It's like this part in Plato's Allegory of the Cave - these guys have been tied up and have been staring at shadows cast by a fire behind them all their lives since birth. It's the only 'reality' they've ever known.

 

[Riet]

My point is it'd only work on a very small scale, for creating history, because getting the initial conditions right is impossible. It would be fucking cool being able to make a war movie or whatever by creating what is essentially a photorealistic machinima, though.

 

[ronnknee]

This post summarises my opinions on this idiotic thought experiment.

If your not fussed about the nature of your existence then that's fine, though that is rare for humans not to be curious about our existence.

 

[ronnknee]

Ok, suppose they do want to create one. You still have a lot of work ahead of you to prove that it is even possible, that it is affordable and that its use is widespread before we can accept a proposition like "we are most likely in a simulated universe."

Remember, once we dispense with the need for evidence we can make all sorts of outlandish claims. I can say that it is inevitable the world will be destroyed before we reach that stage of technical advancement. Why would someone want to destroy the world? For a fucktonne of reasons Ruby. Oh and we have the technology to do it now. Therefore it must happen and any suggestion we could develop simulated reality is null and void.

It comes down to possibilites for me. If it is possible to reach such an advanced stage, then its possible to make many. I tried not to bring the multiverse into this, but i guess i have to. I'll make it simpler this way.

For one advanced universe there are many fake ones. Therefore out of the many universes with intelligent life like us, there are a great number of fake ones and if one real one is destroyed, then its a nearly neglible impact. I think the chance of our world being destroyed is virtually nil, people solve problems time and time again.

If your still not convinced, then time will yield results and we can argue this again whenever that may be. I'd bet heaps of money some sort of quantm computer will be created sometime in our lifetimes. I know a lot of theory behind it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they popped up in 10 years time. Its just got a few major barriers. Barriers are often broken down soon enough, with technology speeding away.

 

[ronnknee]

Regardless we can't figure it out in this condition. If you did figure it out what would you do? Nothing.

No way. Look at page 2. It has heaps of things people would do if they knew.

 

[ronnknee]

Hey if we weren't in a simulated universe, why are some of the most fundamental equations so simple. If something isn't energy, its mass and e=mc2. And it could be another reason why all the universal constants are just suited for life.

There also seems to be constraints to ever applying time dilation and length contraction as to reasonably use them, we'd have to go so fast. The equations are inconviently exponential. We also can't go back in time, how convienient for the programmer to not stuff up the simulation. It all fits!

 

[Enteebee]

For those of you actually interested, here's the paper that I think has spawned a lot of the online discussions here:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

 

[dumarab]

mate, it's possible. But we'll never know