Do we live in a computer simulation?

HeX · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:28

randal24 said:
If it's a total simulation, how does it explain sentience?

Unless we're actually people floating around in pink goo with tubes up our bottoms?

What is sentience? Your brain is nothing more than electric pulses, why could those pulses not be simulated?

Science as it stands right now can't explain sentience, or why throwing a lot of random inert elements together somehow creates autonomous self aware beings.

elmarko · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:31

SkodaMart said:
Ask a Police officer who was the first on the scene at an horrific fatal road crash if he thinks it is a computer simulation.

Why would I?.

Are you saying that bad things would be impossible to simulate?.

Is this how some peoples mind works? (or doesn't in this case).

HeX · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:33

SkodaMart said:
Ask a Police officer who was the first on the scene at an horrific fatal road crash if he thinks it is a computer simulation.

Ask a Police officer who was the first on the scene at an horrific fatal road crash if he thinks that's an interestingly intricate way of combining oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, calcium, sodium and several other elements.

What is your point exactly? :confused:

Rainmaker · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:36

SkodaMart said:
Ask a Police officer who was the first on the scene at an horrific fatal road crash if he thinks it is a computer simulation.

Oh I dunno, the old bill never seem too happy when I go on a rampage in GTA, either.

manic111 · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:39

randal24 said:
If it's a total simulation, how does it explain sentience?

Unless we're actually people floating around in pink goo with tubes up our bottoms?

When you are in a really engaging dream, how do you distinguish that from reality?

Eliot · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:48

Rainmaker said:
It's not what you think, it was a thought experiment popularised by an academic philosopher. Check out the academic site here, and some more info here.

No im sorry, it is, and the heading " Not so crackpot" is exactly that. Crackpot.

Now then lets do this properly....

IF we can't simulate larger than a atoms nucleus, So not even a atom, Lets call it a 1/3rd

How long do you think moores law would have to continue doubling the power of computers for in order to simulate an ENTIRE UNIVERSE, Inculding all of its free space and vacuum.

Answer:
A very very long time.
You can't simulate real life and be engaged in it.
A simulation cannot be self aware it is only for the viewer.

The issue behind the whole idea it is a fundemental misunderstanding of what a simulation is.
Subjects in a simulation arent self aware. Thats ridiculous.

yer_averagejoe · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:49

manic111 · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:50

Eliot said:
No im sorry, it is, and the heading " Not so crackpot" is exactly that. Crackpot.

Now then lets do this properly....

IF we can't simulate larger than a atoms nucleus, So not even a atom, Lets call it a 1/3rd

How long do you think moores law would have to continue doubling the power of computers for in order to simulate an ENTIRE UNIVERSE, Inculding all of its free space and vacuum.

Answer:
A very very long time.

That's still not really the point. It's a thought experiment. It is not impossible that we are living in a computer simulation. What does it mean if we are? And could it ever be tested?

Or do you live your life entirely in the real and never even consider hypotheticals?

Oxide™ · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:53

Maybe I'm one of the few who also ponders this upon occasions and finds it an interesting theory

The 'coders' would have to be far far more advaced than us (maybe they are the 'greys' who lost their souls due to being too technological?? theorising here) and they've created this program to try and simulate where in their history they failed? Earth is just a very very small part of the whole program, what is important to us is absolutely meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Sometimes I think I should do something completely out of the blue that wasn't scripted - go off the grid per se. Maybe just jump off a bridge or kick my boss - something totally out of character. But what stops me? These coders must be good because they have developed 'consciousness'.

The code is also dynamic to the individual and if you think about something enough and ask the universe (coders) for it, it just might become reality - how many times have you really wanted something and life around you adjusted to make it happen? I can think of plenty. Perhaps deja vu is a bug in the code?

Just thoughts I guess but still an interesting idea on how/why did we get here etc

Rainmaker · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:55

Eliot said:
No im sorry, it is, and the heading " Not so crackpot" is exactly that. Crackpot.

Now then lets do this properly....

IF we can't simulate larger than a atoms nucleus, So not even a atom, Lets call it a 1/3rd

How long do you think moores law would have to continue doubling the power of computers for in order to simulate an ENTIRE UNIVERSE, Inculding all of its free space and vacuum.

Answer:
A very very long time.

But you would have no idea if the year was actually 2837839, and 2012 (from our current perspective) was just in line with the simulation. How do you know Moore's law applies in the 'real world' and/or future? Maybe quantum computing busts that wide open? Even 100 years ago (from our perspective) our 'modern' techniques would have been 'impossible', 'ridiculous' and even 'dark magic'. Jump forwards a few millennia and you seriously suggest technology would be an issue?

Again, you've missed the entire point of the thought exercise. :confused:

Subliminal Aura · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:58

Nightglow said:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2012...lation-uw-researchers-say-idea-can-be-tested/

Will test the theory.... I'm off to take a bath and have prepared a paper cone.

Will report back later

HeX · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:58

Eliot said:
No im sorry, it is, and the heading " Not so crackpot" is exactly that. Crackpot.

Now then lets do this properly....

IF we can't simulate larger than a atoms nucleus, So not even a atom, Lets call it a 1/3rd

How long do you think moores law would have to continue doubling the power of computers for in order to simulate an ENTIRE UNIVERSE, Inculding all of its free space and vacuum.

Answer:
A very very long time.

Again, what is your point?

Do you have any reference to how old the 'real' Universe is? Or for that matter how old our Universe is? If this is a simulated Universe then nothing can be taken at face value as you are within the system. This entire Universe could have been created 'as is' at this very state only moments ago, but from our perspective it's been around for Billions of years.

I'm glad that with your omnipotent knowledge of all things you can safely assure everyone that there is no possible way the 'real' Universe could ever be Trillions of years old, or even follows the same laws of physics as our 'simulated' universe.

Might as well stop all pursuit of knowledge right now Eliot says it's not true.

Tazzfalcon · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:59

manic111 said:
What does it mean if we are?

It means absolutely nothing. It doesn't challenge the meaningfullness of our existence in any way.

It might be true. Even if it were, the simulation itself is still part of 'reality', just a bigger one we aren't privvy too.

It's funny that people get so wound up about this topic. Chill, it doesn't matter either way! :cool:

anything I don't mind · 13 Dec 2012 at 10:59

If we live in a computer simulation i want an upgrade. Where is v2, i need updates ffs.

Skidder · 13 Dec 2012 at 11:02

If it is the modelling of hangovers is very detailed today.

manic111 · 13 Dec 2012 at 11:09

Tazzfalcon said:
It means absolutely nothing. It doesn't challenge the meaningfullness of our existence in any way.

It might be true. Even if it were, the simulation itself is still part of 'reality', just a bigger one we aren't privvy too.

It's funny that people get so wound up about this topic. Chill, it doesn't matter either way!

Yeah I agree that it doesn't matter in everyday life as, incidentally, did Descartes, who was the most famous positor of this problem. But when you do happen to take the time to consider the nature of the world and what underpins your belief systems, it's pretty interesting.

Lots of things don't matter in everyday life, but that doesn't make them worthless.

trojan698 · 13 Dec 2012 at 11:11

Also, consider that information is a form of stored energy, along with mass. eg. the internet weighs 50g.

It could just be a very impressive computer simulation yes. We could all be made up characters in a Gods lucid dream.

ONLY TO ALL DIE ON 21ST OF DECEMBER 2012 WHEN HE WAKES UP!!!!!!!

Eliot · 13 Dec 2012 at 11:14

Because like i said.
Subjects in a simulation arent self aware.
You are simulating what may happen for sure, but that doesnt mean it is "REAL" for what is being simulated
You cant simulate something to the extent that the simulation is actually observing what is happening.
That is ridiculous as a concept.

trojan698 · 13 Dec 2012 at 11:16

OldCoals said:
When I went to the loo this morning there was definitely a glitch in the matrix.

I was drinking in my flat with a mate the other week and he saw a black cat. I don't own a black cat. Maybe I'm Neo, COOL. Or maybe he is, he saw the cat. Nah he's a douche, I'm definately Neo.

trojan698 · 13 Dec 2012 at 11:17

Eliot said:
Because like i said.
Subjects in a simulation arent self aware.
You cant simulate something to the extent that the simulation is actually observing what is happening.
That is ridiculous as a concept.

You can create souls that believe they have free will. simulated free will.

And then write a book, that most people ignore, that tells of things that will happen.