Elite not the most advanced simulator?

[Para Handy]

Interesting to see that the "Matrix" theory - that we actually exist within a sophisticated simulation - gets some love in the Guardian (UK mainstream newspaper):

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix

(Two tech billionaires funding the search for Neo?)




[alien]

 

[Ziljan]

This kind of theory is as silly as the panspermia theory. It's a complex set of superfluous assumptions that only manages to push the problem of cosmology and the origin of life back one step, or an infinite steps if you follow the "logic" down the rabbit hole.

This is why scientists like Occam's razor.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

It's an interesting theory for sure. As is the Holographic Universe theory. Both of these would in many ways would be compatible with each other...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

This kind of theory is as silly as the panspermia theory. It's a complex set of superfluous assumptions that only manages to push the problem of cosmology and the origin of back one step, or an infinite steps if you follow the "logic" down the rabbit hole.

This is why scientists like Occam's razor.

They only push the problems of cosmology back - if one uses the theory of "simulation" as an excuse to not explain what is currently unknown. The people studying this idea would be foolish to think it an "answer to everything". In the extreme case that it was true, then it raises more questions than it answers.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Everything is just a figment of my imagination. I'm not surprised some part of me would tear this from my works of literature and discuss it in my imaginary "public".

 

[Vasious]

Descartes was there first

 

[Simpleye]

Here's a five thousand year old concept
http://iskconeducationalservices.org/HoH/concepts/105.htm
Namaste

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

Right,I'm having tomorrow off then!

Lets say we find the evidence and manage to break out into another reality,how could we be sure that wasn't a simulation?

Using the same logical argument it would have to be an infinite number of virtual reality's.

Whats the point in creating a universe if a bunch of clever monkeys can figure it out?

 

[Han_Zen]

Descartes was there first

Even Plato was sort of onboard with this idea.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

If "reality" is indeed a simulation, they should really fire the programmer responsible for the AI. He is clearly incompetent...

Graphichs are ok, but gameplay is meh.

 

[Ziljan]

They only push the problems of cosmology back - if one uses the theory of "simulation" as an excuse to not explain what is currently unknown. .

But that's exactly what they're doing. If you read the article the proponents are trying to use this to explain why quantum mechanics is quantum (eg not continuous) and at the same time ignoring the fact that it's stochastic and yet assuming the underlying reality is a deterministic calculation. Yet this implies the simulator would require a quantum computer to even calculate something as complex as the wave function of the entire universe. Ergo, it merely pushes the problem of quantum mechanics back exactly one step. "Kicks the can down road" as the saying goes.

Further implying that it is "likely" means that they assume the opposite of what they claim: that we are the reason for existence. Contrary to Copernicus, they are actually putting intelligent design back at the center of the universe. And by extension they're elevating humananity back to the center of the universe as well. Well, future nested universes in any case.

Theories should be evaluated on their usefulness. This one is a bit like string theory: Untestable and therefore useless.

 

[Hellhawk666]

...
Further implying that it is "likely" means that they assume the opposite of what they claim: that we are the reason for existence. Contrary to Copernicus, they are actually putting intelligent design back at the center of the universe. And by extension they're elevating humananity back to the center of the universe as well. Well, future nested universes in any case.

Theories should be evaluated on their usefulness. This one is a bit like string theory: Untestable and therefore useless.

Exactly. This type of speculative theorizing is just a more palatable substitute for superstition or religion in a rational civilization. As long as no one takes it seriously it's harmless.

 

[BillD]

This kind of theory is as silly as the panspermia theory. It's a complex set of superfluous assumptions that only manages to push the problem of cosmology and the origin of life back one step, or an infinite steps if you follow the "logic" down the rabbit hole.

This is why scientists like Occam's razor.

Yeah I find this almost as silly as the "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it still make a sound?". I find this to be the most self centred view of humanity. They can't come to grips with the fact that man is not the centre of the universe. In fact we are pretty much irrelevant and inconsequential.

 

[Cmdr Cheese Wedge]

As a wise man once said.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

 

[Ziljan]

Yeah I find this almost as silly as the "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it still make a sound?". I find this to be the most self centred view of humanity. They can't come to grips with the fact that man is not the centre of the universe. In fact we are pretty much irrelevant and inconsequential.

Quite true, but there is an actual quantum mechanical version to the tree in the forest "paradox", where the wave function of a system isn't considered real until it is observed. It's called the Copenhagen Interpretation, and is the version of quantum mechanics that is taught in most universities, and is actually backed up by experimentation. It's extremely disturbing, and perhaps that is in part why some people are trying to push the problem back a step, and instead betting that the universe we are currently nested in might be analog in nature, lol. It's a ridiculous and far fetched set of assumptions that presumes that the universe is intended to be comprehensible to humans .

 

[AJW]

Quite true, but there is an actual quantum mechanical version to the tree in the forest "paradox", where the wave function of a system isn't considered real until it is observed. It's called the Copenhagen Interpretation, and is the version of quantum mechanics that is taught in most universities, and is actually backed up by experimentation. It's extremely disturbing, and perhaps that is in part why some people are trying to push the problem back a step, and instead betting that the universe we are currently nested in might be analog in nature, lol. It's a ridiculous and far fetched set of assumptions that presumes that the universe is intended to be comprehensible to humans .

I'm not sure which is worse, assuming that the universe is intended to be comprehensible to humans, or assuming that the universe gives a damn about whether its wave functions are observed or not.

 

[BillD]

Quite true, but there is an actual quantum mechanical version to the tree in the forest "paradox", where the wave function of a system isn't considered real until it is observed. It's called the Copenhagen Interpretation, and is the version of quantum mechanics that is taught in most universities, and is actually backed up by experimentation. It's extremely disturbing, and perhaps that is in part why some people are trying to push the problem back a step, and instead betting that the universe we are currently nested in might be analog in nature, lol. It's a ridiculous and far fetched set of assumptions that presumes that the universe is intended to be comprehensible to humans .

Yeah I understand that, and I would be getting out of my league here, but I still believe it is a self centred view as they kind of assume we are the ones that have to observe it. (and no I am not hinting at alien observers. Moreso, that the universe and its mechanics itself can be the observer).

 

[Chevy66]

I've looked at Bostroms statements and I'd say either the first or second statement are massively more likely than the last one

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

Consider the amount of computing power necessary to simulate even a small system down to the fidelity we see in real life. The amount of information needed just to precisely measure the position and velocity of a single particle to that level is huge. To simulate our Universe you need a computer bigger than our Universe. I know what you're thinking, it's all PG, it's not there till we look at it etc. Maybe it is, but in that case it become impossible for us to develop to the stage where we can simulate a Universe in the same fidelity. So it become far more likely that Human stage populations never develop to the stage where they can run a high fidelity Universe simulation.

 

[Han_Zen]

I've looked at Bostroms statements and I'd say either the first or second statement are massively more likely than the last one



Consider the amount of computing power necessary to simulate even a small system down to the fidelity we see in real life. The amount of information needed just to precisely measure the position and velocity of a single particle to that level is huge. To simulate our Universe you need a computer bigger than our Universe. I know what you're thinking, it's all PG, it's not there till we look at it etc. Maybe it is, but in that case it become impossible for us to develop to the stage where we can simulate a Universe in the same fidelity. So it become far more likely that Human stage populations never develop to the stage where they can run a high fidelity Universe simulation.

I think this discussion is more interesting on a philosophical level. Science is based on models that explains our observations in the best way possible. Our observations are limited by our perceptions and our tools. The tools we use are in most cases, just extended versions of our senses.

From a philosophical view point one could say that most of our reality is created 'client side' and that the computing power needed to make this universe is exactly one mind.

The challenge for science is to determine the true nature of the 'server', with access only to 'client side' data. Luckily we have a lot of 'clients' that are able to share their observations and make some impressive science models.

Whether or not this 'simulation' that we perceive as reality is artificial, is really not that interesting.

 

[StiTch]

This kind of theory is as silly as the panspermia theory. It's a complex set of superfluous assumptions that only manages to push the problem of cosmology and the origin of life back one step, or an infinite steps if you follow the "logic" down the rabbit hole.

This is why scientists like Occam's razor.

Yup.

The "anything is possible unless proven otherwise" concept gets taken much too far in some very questionable directions.

 

[Chevy66]

I think this discussion is more interesting on a philosophical level. Science is based on models that explains our observations in the best way possible. Our observations are limited by our perceptions and our tools. The tools we use are in most cases, just extended versions of our senses.

From a philosophical view point one could say that most of our reality is created 'client side' and that the computing power needed to make this universe is exactly one mind.

The challenge for science is to determine the true nature of the 'server', with access only to 'client side' data. Luckily we have a lot of 'clients' that are able to share their observations and make some impressive science models.

Whether or not this 'simulation' that we perceive as reality is artificial, is really not that interesting.

That makes sense, but I'm arguing against those Like Musk who think the simulation hypothesis is the most likely. There isn't enough computing power in my mind to simulate another high fidelity Universe

My argument is that if it can't be done by us with an amount of computing power that we can reasonably attain, Bostroms statements about Post human societies running multiple Ancestor simulations become much less likely

 

[Han_Zen]

That makes sense, but I'm arguing against those Like Musk who think the simulation hypothesis is the most likely. There isn't enough computing power in my mind to simulate another high fidelity Universe

My argument is that if it can't be done by us with an amount of computing power that we can reasonably attain, Bostroms statements about Post human societies running multiple Ancestor simulations become much less likely

It's all a bit silly, as we can't test it. When it's not testable, it's not really science.

It's more an interesting thought experiment. The trick of a simulation is to make it believable. The fidelity is not important. If it's believable you accept the fidelity you get.

How far away are we today form making a VR game that combined with the right drugs, is so believable that you would accept it as reality?