Do we live in a computer simulation
-
In one of his Culture books called 'Matter' a character argues that we are not in a simulation because any entity advanced enough to able to host such a convincing simulation is likely to have an advanced moral ethic and could not be so immoral as to engineer so much suffering.
Every society has to have at least one sadist...
-
This made my head hurt... Do we live in a computer simulation[^]
Hmm... We may have to reformat and reinstall this simulation. The simulated people have started to realize that they're simulations. Strange. They do so many stupid things and yet they're still able to figure out it's not real.
-
That is just regurgitation of a common and old philosophical view. And result is that it just doesn't matter if it is or isn't. Because we can't prove it one way or the other. So we might as well just assume (believe) it to be false.
jschell wrote:
So we might as well just assume (believe) it to be false
Or assume it is true and call the One or ones who run it, a deity. And religion is born.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
This made my head hurt... Do we live in a computer simulation[^]
There's some circumstantial evidence we do live in a simulation: The universe behaves differently when we observe it, than when we don't. For example, when shooting a single subatomic particle at two slits, it appears to go through BOTH of them simultaneously. (The evidence is that the "single" particles form an interference pattern that you'd expect from two particles or waves.) But when you place sensors nearby to observe this curious phenomenon, the interference pattern STOPS, as if our simulation is providing more detail because we're looking at it. The analogy is to computer graphics/virtual reality, where objects that are currently in the distance aren't rendered in as much detail as objects we're observing nearby. Objects not in the viewport aren't even rendered, for efficiency.
"Microsoft -- Adding unnecessary complexity to your work since 1987!"
-
This made my head hurt... Do we live in a computer simulation[^]
So, basically, if you assume we live in a computer simulation, and you assume it uses the same techniques to simulate the universe as we use today, then you can prove we're living in a simulation by observing the known quantitization artifacts of that simulation technique. There's one basic flaw in that line of reasoning.. the assumption that we've invented the end-all way to simulate the universe. Take that away, and assume a different, as-yet-uninvented way to model the universe is being used, then there's no known quantitization effects to be observed. Given scientific history to date, where we've used different ways to model the universe as we've gained deeper understanding, then there's a very high probability (I'd call it a flat out certainty) that some as-yet-uninvented modeling technique would be used. I'll even go so far to say that if a different modeling technique was being used, and the quantitization effects mentioned in the article can be observed, then that's really, really close to proof that we're not living in a simulation.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
This made my head hurt... Do we live in a computer simulation[^]
What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
That is just regurgitation of a common and old philosophical view. And result is that it just doesn't matter if it is or isn't. Because we can't prove it one way or the other. So we might as well just assume (believe) it to be false.
The answer is out there, and it's looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
It made me laugh;
He also held that "the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation."
That's a spaghetti-monster :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
Sounds like a spaghetti monster, but that sentence is phrased kind of backward. The idea is that IF we are likely to become posthuman, and run simulations of ourselves, then the humans in those simulations are likely to do the same, and so on, until there is a large number of simulations. In that case, the probability of us being the very first simulators is very small, so we are almost certainly living in one of the simulations. So I think the point of the above statement is that you can't believe we are likely to become posthumans capable of simulating ourselves, unless you also believe we are almost certainly in a simulation. Not saying there is any evidence either way, but neither is the quoted statement. It's not really a speghetti monster, more of a statement of the constraints of belief in such a speghetti monster.
-
Sounds like a spaghetti monster, but that sentence is phrased kind of backward. The idea is that IF we are likely to become posthuman, and run simulations of ourselves, then the humans in those simulations are likely to do the same, and so on, until there is a large number of simulations. In that case, the probability of us being the very first simulators is very small, so we are almost certainly living in one of the simulations. So I think the point of the above statement is that you can't believe we are likely to become posthumans capable of simulating ourselves, unless you also believe we are almost certainly in a simulation. Not saying there is any evidence either way, but neither is the quoted statement. It's not really a speghetti monster, more of a statement of the constraints of belief in such a speghetti monster.
Like the Spaghetti-monster, it requires one to take an assumption as a starting-point. It's built on "what ifs". What if these supposed "posthumans" are apes? Like the movie "Planet of.."? They'd eventually be able to run simulations, wouldn't they? What about the first bacteria? First one-celled life was immortal. Wouldn't it be more simple to deduce that they're the ones running simulations? Where does the idea of "symmetry" in the simulations come from, if not the human psyche and it's arrogance? It reminds me of a compile-error in code; the classes are built on a circular reference.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
-
This made my head hurt... Do we live in a computer simulation[^]
Unfortunately if we really live in a simulation, we won't be able to prove it, no matter how much math and physics you throw at the problem, the fundamental problem is that we only have our simulated universe as a reference point, so any calculation or physic law we have discovered is tied to the particular paramaters of this simulation.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
Like the Spaghetti-monster, it requires one to take an assumption as a starting-point. It's built on "what ifs". What if these supposed "posthumans" are apes? Like the movie "Planet of.."? They'd eventually be able to run simulations, wouldn't they? What about the first bacteria? First one-celled life was immortal. Wouldn't it be more simple to deduce that they're the ones running simulations? Where does the idea of "symmetry" in the simulations come from, if not the human psyche and it's arrogance? It reminds me of a compile-error in code; the classes are built on a circular reference.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
You may have replied before I added my edit:
Quote:
Not saying there is any evidence either way, but neither is the quoted statement. It's not really a speghetti monster, more of a statement of the constraints of belief in such a speghetti monster.
-
This made my head hurt... Do we live in a computer simulation[^]
If we are living in a computer simulation that is being run by our descendants, what am I doing here? Logic dictates that since I do not have children, I do not have descendants and therefore would not be in a simulation being run by descendants. It would be one thing for those who gave their life in war to defend their country to exist as they are remembered as heroes, but for someone like myself who has not made a significant contribution to this life, my existence would not have been recorded and therefore would be illogical to exist in such a simulation. My conclusion therefore is that we do not live in a simulation. Scott A. Tovey
-
There's some circumstantial evidence we do live in a simulation: The universe behaves differently when we observe it, than when we don't. For example, when shooting a single subatomic particle at two slits, it appears to go through BOTH of them simultaneously. (The evidence is that the "single" particles form an interference pattern that you'd expect from two particles or waves.) But when you place sensors nearby to observe this curious phenomenon, the interference pattern STOPS, as if our simulation is providing more detail because we're looking at it. The analogy is to computer graphics/virtual reality, where objects that are currently in the distance aren't rendered in as much detail as objects we're observing nearby. Objects not in the viewport aren't even rendered, for efficiency.
"Microsoft -- Adding unnecessary complexity to your work since 1987!"
"But when you place sensors nearby to observe this curious phenomenon, the interference pattern STOPS, as if our simulation is providing more detail because we're looking at it." Or it could be that when the sensors are in place to observe the phenomenon, those sensors exert enough change in the environment to cause the phenomenon to stop. This can be inferred due to the trajectory of a bullet when shot. A bullet's trajectory will change depending on wind currents. More wind, verses less wind. The influence of the wind on the bullet would be comparable to the influence of the sensor's magnetism on the particle. Even if there is the most minimal amount, it remains substantial enough to affect the trajectory of the sub atomic particle. Are you suggesting that scientists with their years of education and experience have not considered this to be the cause of the difference in outcomes? Scott A. Tovey
-
jschell wrote:
So we might as well just assume (believe) it to be false.
Why not assume it to be true?
-
In one of his Culture books called 'Matter' a character argues that we are not in a simulation because any entity advanced enough to able to host such a convincing simulation is likely to have an advanced moral ethic and could not be so immoral as to engineer so much suffering.
Bill Seddon wrote:
argues that we are not in a simulation because any entity advanced enough to able to host such a convincing simulation is likely to have an advanced moral ethic and could not be so immoral as to engineer so much suffering
Which of course is a meaningless argument. Intelligence has nothing to do with morality. And ability certainly doesn't. And "suffering" is a moral choice not an absolute. Not to mention of course that there are quite a few moral argument one could make that completely removes any suffering for example that we do not feel it or that because we are a simulation it does not matter. Additionally one could also argue that studying the suffering is exactly the point.
-
jschell wrote:
So we might as well just assume (believe) it to be false
Or assume it is true and call the One or ones who run it, a deity. And religion is born.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
I've always said if there is a god then he is a software developer who had to hard code a couple of exceptions after his original model wouldn't let life develop in his test runs.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
Most of the time our syntax is correct, but our logic is always flawed. God must have used the old waterfall development methodology. :^)
-
In one of his Culture books called 'Matter' a character argues that we are not in a simulation because any entity advanced enough to able to host such a convincing simulation is likely to have an advanced moral ethic and could not be so immoral as to engineer so much suffering.
This is an argument that atheists give. It comes from a lack of understanding of suffering. Suffering sucks for anyone going through it, but unfortunately it is one of those necessary evils just as is war and poverty. Those who suffer are being tested (we've all heard that one) but what we have not been told is that the suffering is a test for those around the one suffering as well. The one suffering is tested as to whether they will maintain faith and compassion on others. That's the end of their test and the vast majority that suffer pass this test. Those who are not suffering, but are aware of the one suffering, whether that suffering is going through an illness, long term unemployment or life long poverty are also being tested. They are being tested on their compassion for those who suffer. Will they have mercy and help those suffering? Or will they harden their hearts towards those in need and help them out of their suffering? Unfortunately, the majority of those who have never suffered fail this test. The purpose of suffering is to remind us that we are not gods. We are not infinite. Nor do we have complete control over our lives and but for the grace of God, there go I. Sad to say, there are a whole lot of people who claim that a man can always help himself and therefore should never be given help. The worst of these lot are the ones that attend their religious institution week to week and not only teach otherwise, but are taught otherwise. Yes, as evil as suffering is, suffering has it's place in an imperfect world. Take care.
Scott A. Tovey
-
This is an argument that atheists give. It comes from a lack of understanding of suffering. Suffering sucks for anyone going through it, but unfortunately it is one of those necessary evils just as is war and poverty. Those who suffer are being tested (we've all heard that one) but what we have not been told is that the suffering is a test for those around the one suffering as well. The one suffering is tested as to whether they will maintain faith and compassion on others. That's the end of their test and the vast majority that suffer pass this test. Those who are not suffering, but are aware of the one suffering, whether that suffering is going through an illness, long term unemployment or life long poverty are also being tested. They are being tested on their compassion for those who suffer. Will they have mercy and help those suffering? Or will they harden their hearts towards those in need and help them out of their suffering? Unfortunately, the majority of those who have never suffered fail this test. The purpose of suffering is to remind us that we are not gods. We are not infinite. Nor do we have complete control over our lives and but for the grace of God, there go I. Sad to say, there are a whole lot of people who claim that a man can always help himself and therefore should never be given help. The worst of these lot are the ones that attend their religious institution week to week and not only teach otherwise, but are taught otherwise. Yes, as evil as suffering is, suffering has it's place in an imperfect world. Take care.
Scott A. Tovey
satovey wrote:
This is an argument that atheists give. It comes from a lack of understanding of suffering.
No and No. It is similar - not the same. And it does not come from not understanding suffering but rather from not understanding the rationalization for suffering. The two are not the same.
satovey wrote:
Yes, as evil as suffering is, suffering has it's place in an imperfect world.
Yes you have summerized one argument that attempts to explain suffering away under one specific type of deity where one is also claiming compassion (where compassion must equate to lack of suffering.) Thare are other explanations and easier ones. For example since God is unknowable the reaons are very likely unknowable as well.
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
And religion is born.
No. That is not the definition of religion. One could however create a religion based around that concept. But that doesn't negate other concepts.
jschell wrote:
No. That is not the definition of religion.
I wasn't trying to define it. What I meant was exactly what you said in the second paragraph. Religion can appear as a result of anything or any idea. Be it God, theories or bacon :)
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia