The simulation hypothesis.

[FnG]magnolia

[FnG]magnolia

[FnG]magnolia

Caporegime
Joined
29 Aug 2007
Posts
28,674
Location
Auckland
Hello forum users.

The Matrix was a documentary first released in 1984 but oh no, was it? The central conceit centers on Hollywood escort Vivian Ward and wealthy businessman Edward Lewis. Vivian is hired to be Edward's escort for several business and social functions, and their relationship develops during her week-long stay with him. The film's title Pretty Woman is based on the 1964 song "Oh, Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison. The original screenplay was titled “3,000,” and was written by then-struggling screenwriter J. F. Lawton the idea of a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside the Matrix, a simulated reality that intelligent machines have created to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source.[7] When computer programmer Thomas Anderson, under the hacker alias "Neo", uncovers the truth, he joins a rebellion against the machines along with other people who have been freed from the Matrix.

The simulation hypothesis proposes that what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation in which humans themselves are constructs.[1][2] There has been much debate over this topic, ranging from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing.

The simulation hypothesis, as formulated by Nick Bostrom,[3] is part of a long tradition of skeptical scenarios. It was presented by Bostrom as not merely a philosophical speculation, but an empirical claim with quantifiable probabilities. The hypothesis has received criticism from some physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder who has called it pseudoscience,[4] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", and that "late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory".[5][6] Versions of the hypothesis have also been featured in science fiction, appearing as a central plot device in many stories and films, such as The Matrix.[7] (I just posted that wiki, goddammit)

What a piece of work is man!
How noble in reason!
How infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable!
in action how like an angel!
in apprehension, how like a god!
the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

Or is it all just late night pub discussion? Empty your thoughts in the bowl.
 
You OK?

Simulation theory is just another version of 'God' imo.

People can't accept we came from very little becuase they can't comprehend just how long it took for humans to be formed.
 
Last edited:
Is time continuous or discrete? If it’s continuous then if it is a simulation it’s not anything like the computer simulations we have in our world.
 
Right this moment I am flipping the bird at everyone, but because you are not here to observe the action, is it actually a flipping or not? Schrodinger's mutherflipping.

Mason- said:
Is time continuous or discrete? If it’s continuous then if it is a simulation it’s not anything like the computer simulations we have in our world.
Click to expand...

Time is a human construct, it has to measure across the universe, next to a supermassive object (like yo momma!) it slows down but it's relative to the observer. The biggest "evidence" of simulation theory is that the speed of light is defined exactly. It cannot increase in speed even though the fabric of the universe is expanding faster than light, so what's keeping the speed of light a fixed figure? Someone up there has enabled a frame cap on C and we must find out who.
 
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia said:
Hello forum users.

The Matrix was a documentary first released in 1984 but oh no, was it? The central conceit centers on Hollywood escort Vivian Ward and wealthy businessman Edward Lewis. Vivian is hired to be Edward's escort for several business and social functions, and their relationship develops during her week-long stay with him. The film's title Pretty Woman is based on the 1964 song "Oh, Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison. The original screenplay was titled “3,000,” and was written by then-struggling screenwriter J. F. Lawton the idea of a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside the Matrix, a simulated reality that intelligent machines have created to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source.[7] When computer programmer Thomas Anderson, under the hacker alias "Neo", uncovers the truth, he joins a rebellion against the machines along with other people who have been freed from the Matrix.

The simulation hypothesis proposes that what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation in which humans themselves are constructs.[1][2] There has been much debate over this topic, ranging from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing.

The simulation hypothesis, as formulated by Nick Bostrom,[3] is part of a long tradition of skeptical scenarios. It was presented by Bostrom as not merely a philosophical speculation, but an empirical claim with quantifiable probabilities. The hypothesis has received criticism from some physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder who has called it pseudoscience,[4] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", and that "late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory".[5][6] Versions of the hypothesis have also been featured in science fiction, appearing as a central plot device in many stories and films, such as The Matrix.[7] (I just posted that wiki, goddammit)

What a piece of work is man!
How noble in reason!
How infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable!
in action how like an angel!
in apprehension, how like a god!
the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

Or is it all just late night pub discussion? Empty your thoughts in the bowl.
Click to expand...
If you seriously want the simple explanation.........



It was a good film
 
We are on the path to this, surely. Look at how much more realistic simulations have become in the last few decades. Computer graphics continue to tend towards photorealism. The question is, has it already happened without our awareness?
 
FoxEye said:
Why do people say this? Time is very likely to be universally understood by all intelligent life. You don't need to be human to observe the passage of time. Even machines can do it :p
Click to expand...
I agree, if humans are the only thing that can comprehend existence then everything is a human construct…

Regardless of whether it’s a human construct (whatever that means!) or not I still think the question of whether the universe is discrete or continuous is baffling, matter, space, time:

Are there infinite positions you can be in, or is there a fundamental unit of distance in each axis by which you make a 3D grid of all the possible positions (same applies to all dimensions)?

Infinite moments in time, or a fundamental ‘tick’/‘clock cycle’ which is the smallest period of time between events? At an infinite resolution?

Is matter made up of a fundamental (discrete) building block or are things always made up of other things? Atoms -> protons/electrons/neutrons -> whatever the things are called that they’re made up of -> after that? -> after that? Where does it end? Does it have an end? It has some interesting implications, if there are discrete pieces of matter then a ‘perfect circle/sphere’ is not possible, if matter is continuous, it is.

The time one to me is the one that is most indicative of whether we are in a simulation. All computer simulations we know of ‘tick’ as a point of synchronization, and a point to compute what happens at the next tick. If we work out that time is continuous and there isn’t a fundamental tick, then, at least, if we are in a simulation it is nothing like the ones we currently know.

I suspect if you can answer one of the questions about mass/time/space that the same answer will apply to all. They are either all discrete or all continuous.


Time to sleep.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
Why do people say this? Time is very likely to be universally understood by all intelligent life. You don't need to be human to observe the passage of time. Even machines can do it :p
Click to expand...
Because time is different all across the universe. 24hrs means nothing on a planet orbiting another star out there somewhere, an hour isn't the same hour we know. Gravity varies all over space and as such so does "time", the only constant is light and all measures of time have been relative to our perception of time here on Earth. So yeah, because time is only relative to the observer, it doesn't mean much out there in the vastness of space because your hours, minutes days and years etc won't be the same measure in another star system. Our values of time probably don't even match any other planet anywhere out there anyway as it's purely down to the effect of gravity in that host star system.

Also currently the only constant that we know of that could be used as an alternative to time measurement is in quantum mechanics. Two particles can reflect the same state in two different parts of the universe instantly regardless of distance. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance and to this day nobody knows how this works, it just does. Maybe one day we will understand it and hey look, a cosmic measure of timekeeping can come about.
 
The way I see it - there doesn't appear to be anything preventing us building a fully immersive simulation of our own - sure it will take big advances in biology and technology - but there doesn't seem to be anything preventing us ultimately being able to do it. If it is possible to do, then the chances are it has already been done.

It is impossible really to quantify but I'd say the chances are much heavier weighted towards this reality being a simulation than not.
 
mrk said:
Because time is different all across the universe. 24hrs means nothing on a planet orbiting another star out there somewhere, an hour isn't the same hour we know. Gravity varies all over space and as such so does "time", the only constant is light and all measures of time have been relative to our perception of time here on Earth. So yeah, because time is only relative to the observer, it doesn't mean much out there in the vastness of space because your hours, minutes days and years etc won't be the same measure in another star system. Our values of time probably don't even match any other planet anywhere out there anyway as it's purely down to the effect of gravity in that host star system.

Also currently the only constant that we know of that could be used as an alternative to time measurement is in quantum mechanics. Two particles can reflect the same state in two different parts of the universe instantly regardless of distance. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance and to this day nobody knows how this works, it just does. Maybe one day we will understand it and hey look, a cosmic measure of timekeeping can come about.
Click to expand...
But you (and others) have said, "Time is a human construct." You didn't say, "Our units of time are a human construct."

Nobody says, "Distance is a human construct", yet our units of distance are likely to very different to units of distance used by aliens (should they exist).

It just seems to be something people say that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The concept of time is likely to be universally understood.
 
Oh great, next mags will be on about p(doom) and maximising paper clips...

FoxEye said:
Why do people say this? Time is very likely to be universally understood by all intelligent life. You don't need to be human to observe the passage of time. Even machines can do it :p
Click to expand...

Probably, yes.

mrk said:
Because time is different all across the universe. 24hrs means nothing on a planet orbiting another star out there somewhere, an hour isn't the same hour we know. Gravity varies all over space and as such so does "time", the only constant is light and all measures of time have been relative to our perception of time here on Earth. So yeah, because time is only relative to the observer, it doesn't mean much out there...
Click to expand...

I think the units of measure of time are being conflated with time itself a bit here. Foxeye is saying that time itself is likely to be universally understood, it's the particular measurements of time - 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour etc.. that is a human construct.

The concept of time can still be understood, that it can vary doesn't prevent that from being true. It varies significantly at extremes - at extreme velocity and in strong gravitational fields.

"the only constant is light" is not correct - for a start, there's the gravitational constant and there's the elementary charge (of a single proton or electron) and there are others too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom