Do We Live In a Simulation
Quote: billryanIf you decide you live in a simulation, it means everyone you loved and everyone who loved you isn't real. Your wife, kids, lovers, bars, nonsensical theories, experiances- none of it real. How depraved does someone have to be to hope that is true?
link to original post
Sounds like a religious point. I’m not sure there is much philosophically different at the end of the day if we are (a) a bunch of atoms jiggling around in various ways we find meaningful, (b) quantum wave superpositions we find meaningful or (c) information bits fluctuating in ways we find meaningful.
Quote: billryan
I'm not sure how anyone can reconcile these two statements .
link to original post
EvenBob often argues multiple sides of an issue, oftentimes contradicting himself. That way he can always point to something he said in the past and be "right" no matter what.
Quote: unJonQuote: billryanIf you decide you live in a simulation, it means everyone you loved and everyone who loved you isn't real. Your wife, kids, lovers, bars, nonsensical theories, experiances- none of it real. How depraved does someone have to be to hope that is true?
link to original post
Sounds like a religious point. I’m not sure there is much philosophically different at the end of the day if we are (a) a bunch of atoms jiggling around in various ways we find meaningful, (b) quantum wave superpositions we find meaningful or (c) information bits fluctuating in ways we find meaningful.
link to original post
The first two would be independent beings. The third would not. IMO. Yours might be different.
Anyway, at some point, you have to stop arguing and let the other person be wrong. This seems like one of those intersections.
Among other things, it offers the beginning of an explanation as to why the speed of light is the absolute limit for velocity in the universe; why a light-emitting object that is moving very fast -near the speed of light - still emits light at the same speed (in a vacuum) as an incandescent stationary object in a vacuum. Why no object can move as fast in a vacuum as the vacuum speed of light. This is Special Relativity, as first conceived and explained by Albert Einstein and has been proven absolutely to be correct. But no one -neither Einstein nor any other person - has ever explained why an ultimate speed exists and why photons behave in such an unprecedented way.
There are a couple of mainline scientific theories of great importance that are currently considered to be fundamentally unproveable:
- the multiverse theory
- string theory, or M-theory (M for membrane)
When I hear new ideas I try to keep an open mind, and I take time (usually years) to think and ask questions. Personally, I am not impressed by immediate expressions of contempt.
Quote: gordonm888I read the Scientific American article and I was surprised; I am keeping an open mind to the idea.
Among other things, it offers the beginning of an explanation as to why the speed of light is the absolute limit for velocity in the universe; why a light-emitting object that is moving very fast -near the speed of light - still emits light at the same speed (in a vacuum) as an incandescent stationary object in a vacuum. Why no object can move as fast in a vacuum as the vacuum speed of light. This is Special Relativity, as first conceived and explained by Albert Einstein and has been proven absolutely to be correct. But no one -neither Einstein nor any other person - has ever explained why an ultimate speed exists and why photons behave in such an unprecedented way.
There are a couple of mainline scientific theories of great importance that are currently considered to be fundamentally unproveable:
- the multiverse theory
- string theory, or M-theory (M for membrane)
When I hear new ideas I try to keep an open mind, and I take time (usually years) to think and ask questions. Personally, I am not impressed by immediate expressions of contempt.
link to original post
You do realize the SA article was their annual April Fools joke, yes?
Quote: billryanIf you decide you live in a simulation, it means everyone you loved and everyone who loved you isn't real. Your wife, kids, lovers, bars, nonsensical theories, experiances- none of it real. How depraved does someone have to be to hope that is true?
link to original post
No one is comfortable with the idea that the universe is a simulation and that we may not really have as much free will as we would like to think we do.
But one of the questions that the article raises is why consciousness even exists in an otherwise purely physical universe. It makes an argument that in a simulation there may be virtual entities that are given attributes of consciousness so that the programmer can observe the simulation through the reactions of the entities. Thus, it is argued that consciousness has a role in a simulation, a value to the programmer. On the other hand, the miracle of consciousness would appear to be a highly unlikely and unnecessary phenomenon in a physical universe governed solely by Maxwell's Equations and string theory.
I would characterize these as ideas and circumstantial evidence, which is certainly not compelling proof. You may have immediately decided that this is very weak beer and most certainly utter nonsense; I admit that I am still thinking about it.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: billryanIf you decide you live in a simulation, it means everyone you loved and everyone who loved you isn't real. Your wife, kids, lovers, bars, nonsensical theories, experiances- none of it real. How depraved does someone have to be to hope that is true?
link to original post
No one is comfortable with the idea that the universe is a simulation and that we may not really have as much free will as we would like to think we do.
But one of the questions that the article raises is why consciousness even exists in an otherwise purely physical universe. It makes an argument that in a simulation there may be virtual entities that are given attributes of consciousness so that the programmer can observe the simulation through the reactions of the entities. Thus, it is argued that consciousness has a role in a simulation, a value to the programmer. On the other hand, the miracle of consciousness would appear to be a highly unlikely and unnecessary phenomenon in a physical universe governed by Maxwell's Equations and string theory.
I would characterize these as ideas and circumstantial evidence, which is certainly not compelling proof. You may have immediately decided that this is very weak beer and most certainly utter nonsense; I admit that I am still thinking about it.
link to original post
That’s just moving the goalpost as presumably the “programmer” in your hypothetical has consciousness in some non simulation (at least when you back it out far enough).
Quote: unJonQuote: gordonm888Quote: billryanIf you decide you live in a simulation, it means everyone you loved and everyone who loved you isn't real. Your wife, kids, lovers, bars, nonsensical theories, experiances- none of it real. How depraved does someone have to be to hope that is true?
link to original post
No one is comfortable with the idea that the universe is a simulation and that we may not really have as much free will as we would like to think we do.
But one of the questions that the article raises is why consciousness even exists in an otherwise purely physical universe. It makes an argument that in a simulation there may be virtual entities that are given attributes of consciousness so that the programmer can observe the simulation through the reactions of the entities. Thus, it is argued that consciousness has a role in a simulation, a value to the programmer. On the other hand, the miracle of consciousness would appear to be a highly unlikely and unnecessary phenomenon in a physical universe governed by Maxwell's Equations and string theory.
I would characterize these as ideas and circumstantial evidence, which is certainly not compelling proof. You may have immediately decided that this is very weak beer and most certainly utter nonsense; I admit that I am still thinking about it.
link to original post
That’s just moving the goalpost as presumably the “programmer” in your hypothetical has consciousness in some non simulation (at least when you back it out far enough).
link to original post
I agree, sort of "It's turtles all the way down." I thought it was one of the weaker arguments made in the article. However, we really seem powerless to imagine some higher form of reality above our universe, much less what its groundrules and limitations are. But the question "What are the characteristics of a simulation (as we understand and define simulations) and does our universe have the same characteristics?" is interesting chewing gum.
Quote: billryanIf you decide you live in a simulation, it means everyone you loved and everyone who loved you isn't real. Your wife, kids, lovers, bars, nonsensical theories, experiances- none of it real. How depraved does someone have to be to hope that is true?
link to original post
Larry King said it best when he had Neil deGrasse Tyson who's a big proponent of simulation on his program. He explained the whole thing to Larry King and at the end Larry asked something like, if we're in a simulation or not what difference does it make. And Neil Tyson said, none I guess. He's right, reality is reality and this is our reality. Just because it might not be the only one, or it might be a reality that we're not totally sure of the origin, it's still our reality and nothing's different just because we know it might be a simulation. Your statement indicates that you really have no idea what reality is.
Quote: gordonm888I read the Scientific American article and I was surprised; I am keeping an open mind to the idea.
link to original post
I still haven't read the April 1st article, all I did is skim it and the points I read seem to be in correlation with other articles that I've read and what I know about the simulation theory. When I find time I'll read it and try and discover why everybody thinks it's a prank. I know they haven't read it they just think it's April 1st so the whole thing is a lie. Well I know for a fact it's not because for what I saw of it was on target.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: billryanIf you decide you live in a simulation, it means everyone you loved and everyone who loved you isn't real. Your wife, kids, lovers, bars, nonsensical theories, experiances- none of it real. How depraved does someone have to be to hope that is true?
link to original post
Larry King said it best when he had Neil deGrasse Tyson who's a big proponent of simulation on his program. He explained the whole thing to Larry King and at the end Larry asked something like, if we're in a simulation or not what difference does it make. And Neil Tyson said, none I guess. He's right, reality is reality and this is our reality. Just because it might not be the only one, or it might be a reality that we're not totally sure of the origin, it's still our reality and nothing's different just because we know it might be a simulation. Your statement indicates that you really have no idea what reality is.
link to original post
I actually have to agree with EB on this. Even if our world is not "real," it doesn't matter, because WE think it is and we can't do anything about it anyway. If everything turns out to be a simulation, that doesn't take away my decades of friends and family and experiences. My existence doesn't change one bit.
- All true facts about the universe have at least SOME evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be true.
Quote: billryan
A UFO in Arizona would attract many more eyes than one in NYC.
With that said, I suspect there is a relationship between alien abduction and ketamine therapy.
I would assume it has more to do with the areas the air force would most likely be testing experimental aircraft.
Quote: TigerWu
I actually have to agree with EB on this. Even if our world is not "real," it doesn't matter, because WE think it is and we can't do anything about it anyway. If everything turns out to be a simulation, that doesn't take away my decades of friends and family and experiences. My existence doesn't change one bit.
link to original post
What is reality, really. A fish in the ocean has a totally different reality than we do, the ocean is its entire life, it's entire existence. It's something we can't even fathom but it's a reality different from ours. You might say it's part of our reality, but then what isn't part of it. Maybe we are part of a greater reality, there's no way of knowing. For me the simulation makes sense because it explains so many things. It explains all the research they've been doing with past lives and all these little kids they find that have provable memories of somebody else. It explains ghosts, it explains most paranormal activity. It explains people who are born needing to spend their entire lives in a mental health facility. Or people that are born blind or deaf or have deformities. These can be explained as glitches in the algorithm if this is a simulation and that makes perfect sense. The way people explain it now makes no sense whatsoever. Whenever I see somebody that's blind from birth I've always thought, that's this time. Next time you won't be blind, next time you'll be just like everybody else. That's always felt right to me. Or the droves of people that commit suicide, like they instinctively know they can leave this place and everything will be fine.
Quote: thefinalsixAgree. And I'll even go a step further to say that since the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis doesn't have any impact whatsoever on our observations, facts, or conclusions, it is demonstrably false. Consider the following deductive argument:
- All true facts about the universe have at least SOME evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be true.
link to original post
There's a hundred different ways to hypothesize about simulation theory being false. But none of them can be proved in either direction. You have to pick something that's comfortable for you, that'll let you live in this reality and not have it be a burden. Simulation makes sense to me, to somebody else that might be pure nonsense. I have a suspicion that if you're head and tail into this reality this is going to all sound like nonsense. If you bought into the idea that the reality you experience every day is the one and only and you have no control over it at all there's not going to be any room for speculation.
What is "Reality?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX9qSaGXFyg
Quote: EvenBob
There's a hundred different ways to hypothesize about simulation theory being false. But none of them can be proved in either direction. You have to pick something that's comfortable for you, that'll let you live in this reality and not have it be a burden. Simulation makes sense to me, to somebody else that might be pure nonsense. I have a suspicion that if you're head and tail into this reality this is going to all sound like nonsense. If you bought into the idea that the reality you experience every day is the one and only and you have no control over it at all there's not going to be any room for speculation.
If "none of them can be proved in either direction", then can you tell me where MY deductive proof goes wrong? Not really trying to convince you, just curious what you think.
Quote: thefinalsixQuote: EvenBob
There's a hundred different ways to hypothesize about simulation theory being false. But none of them can be proved in either direction. You have to pick something that's comfortable for you, that'll let you live in this reality and not have it be a burden. Simulation makes sense to me, to somebody else that might be pure nonsense. I have a suspicion that if you're head and tail into this reality this is going to all sound like nonsense. If you bought into the idea that the reality you experience every day is the one and only and you have no control over it at all there's not going to be any room for speculation.
If "none of them can be proved in either direction", then can you tell me where MY deductive proof goes wrong? Not really trying to convince you, just curious what you think.
link to original post
It's faulty reasoning. First of all you say 'true facts' which you cannot do. A fact by its very nature is always true or it would not be a fact, and by saying true facts you're implying that some facts might be false. If all the facts are not known, specifically any facts about the simulation, then all you can have is an opinion. That's the point of calling it a theory, if a theory was supported by facts it wouldn't be a theory anymore.
Quote: EvenBob
It's faulty reasoning. First of all you say 'true facts' which you cannot do. A fact by its very nature is always true or it would not be a fact, and by saying true facts you're implying that some facts might be false. If all the facts are not known, specifically any facts about the simulation, then all you can have is an opinion. That's the point of calling it a theory, if a theory was supported by facts it wouldn't be a theory anymore.
I agree on the "true facts" thing. It's really just redundant and removing it doesn't substantively change the argument. I will also note that your account of the word theory is at odds with how it is used in the scientific community, though I don't think that's relevant to my argument.
So okay, what if I said:
- All facts about the universe have at least some evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be fact.
Doesn't this logically illustrate that the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis can't possibly be true? If it were that would be a contradiction. (It would be true, but not a fact, which as you've pointed out is a contradiction in terms).
Note that the argument does not depend on what is known or unknown. When I say "evidence", all I mean is that the fact has some effect in reality that can be observed. Whether that is known to any humans/intelligent beings or not is not relevant.
Quote: EvenBob
It's faulty reasoning. First of all you say 'true facts' which you cannot do. A fact by its very nature is always true or it would not be a fact, and by saying true facts you're implying that some facts might be false. If all the facts are not known, specifically any facts about the simulation, then all you can have is an opinion. That's the point of calling it a theory, if a theory was supported by facts it wouldn't be a theory anymore.
I believe the only true fact is that we will never have any other facts. We can never prove anything until we know everything.
Quote: DRich
I believe the only true fact is that we will never have any other facts. We can never prove anything until we know everything.
Can you prove that? ;)
Quote: thefinalsixQuote: EvenBob
It's faulty reasoning. First of all you say 'true facts' which you cannot do. A fact by its very nature is always true or it would not be a fact, and by saying true facts you're implying that some facts might be false. If all the facts are not known, specifically any facts about the simulation, then all you can have is an opinion. That's the point of calling it a theory, if a theory was supported by facts it wouldn't be a theory anymore.
I agree on the "true facts" thing. It's really just redundant and removing it doesn't substantively change the argument. I will also note that your account of the word theory is at odds with how it is used in the scientific community, though I don't think that's relevant to my argument.
So okay, what if I said:
- All facts about the universe have at least some evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be fact.
Doesn't this logically illustrate that the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis can't possibly be true? If it were that would be a contradiction. (It would be true, but not a fact, which as you've pointed out is a contradiction in terms).
Note that the argument does not depend on what is known or unknown. When I say "evidence", all I mean is that the fact has some effect in reality that can be observed. Whether that is known to any humans/intelligent beings or not is not relevant.
link to original post
Your logic is flawed. Point 2 implies all the evidence is ‘findable’ by us puny humans. There can be boatloads of evidence that we just haven’t found yet. If I would have told you 100 years ago we’d be able to plant a flag on the moon you’d tell me there is no evidence to support it
None of my above means I believe we are living in a simulation…. but…. I’ve thought about it many times over my 63 years.
I may have relayed this story. I’m a basketball shooter. Today had a streak of 15/16 from top of the key.
A year or two ago was playing with some kids and after a particularly good shooting game I went to a spot, maybe 30 feet from the basket, and asked the kids to bet on whether I’d make the shot. I feel I should make it at most 1/3 of the time. I made the shot. They fed me the ball and I made a few more. Somewhere around 5th or 6th shot I put one up that I was sure was off to the left. But it went in. I had a weird feeling, like even though I didn’t put up a good shot it was ‘scripted’ to go in. I ended up shooting until I missed but was in like a trance then. I made 10 ridiculously long shots in a row before missing. Like it was pre-determined in the ‘Simulation’.
I’ve had similar feelings occasionally. I chalk it up to us humans thinking too much….
Quote: SOOPOO
Your logic is flawed. Point 2 implies all the evidence is ‘findable’ by us puny humans. There can be boatloads of evidence that we just haven’t found yet. If I would have told you 100 years ago we’d be able to plant a flag on the moon you’d tell me there is no evidence to support it
I don't see how Point 2 implies that. Suppose "Living in a Simulation" is true and humans are not capable of understanding this or the effects of this. BUT, if that's the case then there must at least be some logical (to some conscious being) way of observing reality so as to say "this is the effect of Living in a Simulation". For if there is no such way, then "Living in a Simulation" has no observable (by any conscious being) effect on the universe. Then, by the deductive argument provided, it must be false.
Yes, just because, say, a crab can't understand that the Earth revolves around the Sun, doesn't mean that's not the case. Any particular conscious being can be wrong. But the fact remains that there must be SOME measurable effect somewhere by something if some fact is to be true. For if that's not the case, then, well, reality disagrees with your notion of 'fact', since it shows no measurable effect of that thing being the case.
Quote: thefinalsixQuote: EvenBob
It's faulty reasoning. First of all you say 'true facts' which you cannot do. A fact by its very nature is always true or it would not be a fact, and by saying true facts you're implying that some facts might be false. If all the facts are not known, specifically any facts about the simulation, then all you can have is an opinion. That's the point of calling it a theory, if a theory was supported by facts it wouldn't be a theory anymore.
I agree on the "true facts" thing. It's really just redundant and removing it doesn't substantively change the argument. I will also note that your account of the word theory is at odds with how it is used in the scientific community, though I don't think that's relevant to my argument.
So okay, what if I said:
- All facts about the universe have at least some evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be fact.
Doesn't this logically illustrate that the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis can't possibly be true? If it were that would be a contradiction. (It would be true, but not a fact, which as you've pointed out is a contradiction in terms).
Note that the argument does not depend on what is known or unknown. When I say "evidence", all I mean is that the fact has some effect in reality that can be observed. Whether that is known to any humans/intelligent beings or not is not relevant.
link to original post
Simulation Theory is just as true as any religion is true. There are no facts that back up any religion, yet people believe it wholeheartedly. Having no facts does not disprove the existence of something it just means you haven't looked hard enough.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: thefinalsixQuote: EvenBob
It's faulty reasoning. First of all you say 'true facts' which you cannot do. A fact by its very nature is always true or it would not be a fact, and by saying true facts you're implying that some facts might be false. If all the facts are not known, specifically any facts about the simulation, then all you can have is an opinion. That's the point of calling it a theory, if a theory was supported by facts it wouldn't be a theory anymore.
I agree on the "true facts" thing. It's really just redundant and removing it doesn't substantively change the argument. I will also note that your account of the word theory is at odds with how it is used in the scientific community, though I don't think that's relevant to my argument.
So okay, what if I said:
- All facts about the universe have at least some evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be fact.
Doesn't this logically illustrate that the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis can't possibly be true? If it were that would be a contradiction. (It would be true, but not a fact, which as you've pointed out is a contradiction in terms).
Note that the argument does not depend on what is known or unknown. When I say "evidence", all I mean is that the fact has some effect in reality that can be observed. Whether that is known to any humans/intelligent beings or not is not relevant.
link to original post
Simulation Theory is just as true as any religion is true. There are no facts that back up any religion, yet people believe it wholeheartedly. Having no facts does not disprove the existence of something it just means you haven't looked hard enough.
link to original post
It's true that having no facts to support something does not disprove its existence. But, if it's logically impossible for there to even BE facts to support it, then yes that would disprove it (and that is the argument I've been trying to make).
I also happen to be an atheist so make of that what you will.
Quote: thefinalsixQuote: EvenBob
It's faulty reasoning. First of all you say 'true facts' which you cannot do. A fact by its very nature is always true or it would not be a fact, and by saying true facts you're implying that some facts might be false. If all the facts are not known, specifically any facts about the simulation, then all you can have is an opinion. That's the point of calling it a theory, if a theory was supported by facts it wouldn't be a theory anymore.
I agree on the "true facts" thing. It's really just redundant and removing it doesn't substantively change the argument. I will also note that your account of the word theory is at odds with how it is used in the scientific community, though I don't think that's relevant to my argument.
So okay, what if I said:
- All facts about the universe have at least some evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be fact.
Doesn't this logically illustrate that the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis can't possibly be true? If it were that would be a contradiction. (It would be true, but not a fact, which as you've pointed out is a contradiction in terms).
Note that the argument does not depend on what is known or unknown. When I say "evidence", all I mean is that the fact has some effect in reality that can be observed. Whether that is known to any humans/intelligent beings or not is not relevant.
link to original post
2) is subtly different from 1) such that 3) does not necessarily follow.
Quote: thefinalsix
It's true that having no facts to support something does not disprove its existence. But, if it's logically impossible for there to even BE facts to support it, then yes that would disprove it (and that is the argument I've been trying to make).
I also happen to be an atheist so make of that what you will.
link to original post
It's only logical because your confirmation bias wants it to be. It's not logical or illogical. And I'm at least as big an atheist as you might be. I even had a 5-year conversation on the other forum with an actual Catholic priest that involved thousands of posts and PMs with me arguing atheism. My best friend who died two years ago was a fellow atheist who was also an ex-catholic priest. So I am about as atheist as you can get. Studying comparative religion for your whole life kind of gets you there. And simulation Theory has nothing to do with religion and has everything to do with reality. I first got interested in what reality is way back in 1972 when I read a book called The Nature of Personal Reality by Jane Roberts. This is from the introduction to the book.
What it's essentially saying is that we create our own reality. It's quite complicated but that's basically it, that we are not victims of reality we're creating the reality as we go along. And Simulation Theory fits right in with this. Many people are aware that if they can visualize something that they want to happen it eventually comes to pass usually sooner than later. This would mean that we live in a reality of our own creation that is not governed by random chance. It very well could mean a reality of our own creation inside a simulation.
Quote: thefinalsixAgree. And I'll even go a step further to say that since the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis doesn't have any impact whatsoever on our observations, facts, or conclusions, it is demonstrably false. Consider the following deductive argument:
- All true facts about the universe have at least SOME evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be true.
link to original post
These are not true statements. And you may be confusing proof and evidence.
1. Not everything about the universe is required to be provable. I have previously cited two theories that have many advocates, but are unprovable: (1) the multiverse and (2) string theory/M_theory
2. There is indeed circumstantial evidence that the universe is a simulation, but the evidence does not amount to proof.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: thefinalsixAgree. And I'll even go a step further to say that since the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis doesn't have any impact whatsoever on our observations, facts, or conclusions, it is demonstrably false. Consider the following deductive argument:
- All true facts about the universe have at least SOME evidence supporting them.
- The "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis, by its own admission, cannot be supported by evidence.
- Therefore, the "Living in a Simulation" hypothesis cannot be true.
link to original post
These are not true statements. And you may be confusing proof and evidence.
1. Not everything about the universe is required to be provable. I have previously cited two theories that have many advocates, but are unprovable: (1) the multiverse and (2) string theory/M_theory
2. There is indeed circumstantial evidence that the universe is a simulation, but the evidence does not amount to proof.
link to original post
Hmm, circumstantial evidence has its own levels of reliability. You come home and smell cigar smoke, and you know your wife doesn't smoke cigars, you might reasonably make some different conclusions. (old joke). The more circumstantial evidence you have the better. But each element also has to have as few possible more reasonable possibilities. So, you could claim to have 100 pieces of circumstantial evidence that are worth less than 5 really solid ones about another possibility.
Ah, too early in the morning. I will think about what's for breakfast now.
Quote: EvenBobI first came across this concept five or six years ago when I heard Elon Musk talking about it, that the world and everything in it is a computer simulation from a higher form of intelligence that we can't comprehend. I thought it was boloney at the time but I keep coming across more and more evidence that this might be the case. So many little things that make total sense if this is a simulation. This is not a religious discussion, the G word will never be mentioned. This has nothing to do with a religion. But it does explain a lot of the conclusions that religions came to. Like the Hindus say that the world isn't real it's just an illusion. And what about all this research they've been doing on reincarnation for the last 50 years and the hundreds and hundreds of people science has found that have verified memories of past lives. It's almost like their body dies in the simulation and their consciousness comes back as another character in the same simulation. But it's modern science itself it is kind of convincing me that this might be true. Here's an article from 3 years ago in Scientific American that is well worth reading.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/
link to original post
I finally read the whole article from April 1st in Scientific American. I also read some disclaimers from the author and from other people who read the article. Apparently it's written more as satire, by taking what we don't know as real evidence and treating it like it's facts. So there's nothing in the article that's not true, it's how the authors treating it that was the April Fool's joke. Things like we can now believe everything Elon Musk says. Apparently the article bothered a lot of people because it was not a joke, it was just a subtle satire and they didn't know how to take it. So you can still read it as factual, but the author was being a little too clever and it went over a lot of people's heads.
Quote: EvenBobYep, the braces again. This thing really bothers me because I 100% remember she had braces. Don't watch the video as much as read the comments, the comments are where the story is.
link to original post
One Theory I'm reading about the missing braces is that it's evidence there are parallel simulation realities. Who knows how many. And in that other reality she never had braces but for some reason some glitch has switched them. It might be happening all the time with really small things but it's things that most people wouldn't notice and this just happens to be something that millions of people saw. In 1979 I saw lots of movies because one of my customers in the bar was the promotions director for the company that owned all the movie theaters in Santa Barbara and he used to come in and give me movie passes for a couple drinks. He would give me four passes worth about $12 and I would give him two drinks that cost me under a dollar. And I always had at least a dozen movie passes in my wallet so I used to see every new movie that came to town. And I remember seeing this one in the afternoon with a friend of mine in 1979 and she was wearing braces. I've been hearing about the parallel universe thing and reading about it in science fiction forever. I think the only reason we're hearing about things like this is the increase in communication we've had in the last 50 years. This kind of thing has probably been going on forever but we just never noticed it. This video was made 7 years ago so it's not like this is something new. And they've had all these years to find out what really happened and nobody has.
-or-
Do you think the simulation would be predetermined? That is, like a movie script, are all the people merely players? In the same way that Moonraker always plays out exactly the same every time I watch it.
Quote: GialmereDo you think there would be free will in such a simulation? That is, like an online RPG, can people do whatever they want within the confines of that reality?
-or-
Do you think the simulation would be predetermined? That is, like a movie script, are all the people merely players? In the same way that Moonraker always plays out exactly the same every time I watch it.
link to original post
Lots of really smart people believe we don't have free will anyway. We just think we do, we operate within some very limited physical and psychological restraints and we call that 'free'.
It's also a fact and it's been recorded for thousands of years that mothers of soldiers have known countless times the instant their son dies in battle. It's only been recently since World War II that these have been documented because they kept track of the time a lot of these men died. And so many mothers would say they woke up out of a sound sleep the instant their son died and they knew he was gone. Why does this happen, why is there this connection. If this was a simulation we live in that could explain it. You physically grew inside your mother and a part of you including your consciousness is a part of her. Who knows, something to think about.
"A simulation is a representation of something, not the real thing; an imitation."
That's exactly what fiction is whether it's in a movie or a TV show or in a book. It's a simulation of reality, and it's so different from the reality that we know that it entertains us. We immerse ourselves in simulations, even going back to the days where there were storytellers who embellished on everything. How is it such a far leap from that to the idea that we might be living in a simulation ourselves. Simulation is so much a part of our lives that we surround ourselves with it and we might very well be living in it.
What I don’t understand is what the point would be.
Even for a civilization thousands or millions of years more advanced than us the time & energy cost of setting up these simulations would still presumably be very high.
I would hope that such advanced civilizations would have much better things to do then spend time & resources running “ancestor simulations”
Quote: BrickapotamusI understand why people who think we are living in a simulation think that.
What I don’t understand is what the point would be.
Even for a civilization thousands or millions of years more advanced than us the time & energy cost of setting up these simulations would still presumably be very high.
I would hope that such advanced civilizations would have much better things to do then spend time & resources running “ancestor simulations”
link to original post
Whereas we use 150 terawatt hours a year on crypto (enough to power Argentina).
Quote: BrickapotamusI understand why people who think we are living in a simulation think that.
What I don’t understand is what the point would be.
Even for a civilization thousands or millions of years more advanced than us the time & energy cost of setting up these simulations would still presumably be very high.
link to original post
But you can't possibly know that because you're basing everything you think on where we are in technology. Do you think in the year 1800 anybody thought we would ever be able to get merchandise shipped from Europe to the United States in a couple of hours. Of course not all they knew was ships and that everything took weeks. That's where we are, all we see is limitations. We have no idea how advanced an advanced civilization would really be.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: BrickapotamusI understand why people who think we are living in a simulation think that.
What I don’t understand is what the point would be.
Even for a civilization thousands or millions of years more advanced than us the time & energy cost of setting up these simulations would still presumably be very high.
link to original post
But you can't possibly know that because you're basing everything you think on where we are in technology. Do you think in the year 1800 anybody thought we would ever be able to get merchandise shipped from Europe to the United States in a couple of hours. Of course not all they knew was ships and that everything took weeks. That's where we are, all we see is limitations. We have no idea how advanced an advanced civilization would really be.
link to original post
I understand that a highly advanced civilization would probably be able to do things that are inconceivable to us now, but again what would be the point?
Spending any amount of time & energy to find out what it was like working at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Skokie, Illinois does not seem rational to me, even if they develop a way to make the time & energy cost very low by our standards.
Quote: Brickapotamus
I understand that a highly advanced civilization would probably be able to do things that are inconceivable to us now, but again what would be the point?
link to original post
What's the point of life as you understand it. What's the point of this reality as you understand it. We have no idea what the point is so how could we have any idea what the point would be of a simulation to some advanced society.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: Brickapotamus
I understand that a highly advanced civilization would probably be able to do things that are inconceivable to us now, but again what would be the point?
link to original post
What's the point of life as you understand it. What's the point of this reality as you understand it. We have no idea what the point is so how could we have any idea what the point would be of a simulation to some advanced society.
link to original post
True, but when as far as we know we are the only advanced society around (and our prospects for lasting into the distant future don’t look great currently) making the leap that the odds are that we live in a simulation because presumably in the future there will be a lot of advanced societies that would be both capable & interested in simulating what we are doing right now is quite a stretch don’t you think?
Possible? Sure anything’s possible.
Probable? Doubtful. I’ll take the under on that bet.
Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: EvenBobQuote: Brickapotamus
I understand that a highly advanced civilization would probably be able to do things that are inconceivable to us now, but again what would be the point?
link to original post
What's the point of life as you understand it. What's the point of this reality as you understand it. We have no idea what the point is so how could we have any idea what the point would be of a simulation to some advanced society.
link to original post
True, but when as far as we know we are the only advanced society around (and our prospects for lasting into the distant future don’t look great currently) making the leap that the odds are that we live in a simulation because presumably in the future there will be a lot of advanced societies that would be both capable & interested in simulating what we are doing right now is quite a stretch don’t you think?
Possible? Sure anything’s possible.
Probable? Doubtful. I’ll take the under on that bet.
link to original post
You assume that if this is a simulation whatever is causing it is in the same time constraints we are in. They could possibly exist outside of time and there woild far more to this than we could possibly imagine.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: BrickapotamusQuote: EvenBobQuote: Brickapotamus
I understand that a highly advanced civilization would probably be able to do things that are inconceivable to us now, but again what would be the point?
link to original post
What's the point of life as you understand it. What's the point of this reality as you understand it. We have no idea what the point is so how could we have any idea what the point would be of a simulation to some advanced society.
link to original post
True, but when as far as we know we are the only advanced society around (and our prospects for lasting into the distant future don’t look great currently) making the leap that the odds are that we live in a simulation because presumably in the future there will be a lot of advanced societies that would be both capable & interested in simulating what we are doing right now is quite a stretch don’t you think?
Possible? Sure anything’s possible.
Probable? Doubtful. I’ll take the under on that bet.
link to original post
You assume that if this is a simulation whatever is causing it is in the same time constraints we are in. They could possibly exist outside of time and there woild far more to this than we could possibly imagine.
link to original post
But how does that make it likely?
You may be missing my point. I’m not saying it is not possible. It is an interesting theory.
My argument is with the idea that we are almost certainly living in one. There is no evidence that we “are almost certainly living in one.”
