Are we living in a simulation?

[devildavid]

I suppose that Oxford University's Nick Bostrom and MIT's Max Tegmark just forgot to apply logic to this question. They must not teach logic at Oxford and MIT anymore. :roll:

You missed my point entirely. Those logical people whose authority you bow to are merely products of the simultion that is happening now. We can't both be real and part of a simulation at the same time. The simulation theory is stillborn. If we are truly in a simulation, we can't discover we are in a simulation since everything is just part of the simulation. Those smart guys you refer to are only simulated. They don't exist independently from the simulation. Taking evidence from a simulation to postulate a theory that we are in a simulation is a dog chasing it's tail. It's a pointless exercise. I'd rather stick to the hard work of studying reality to try to figure out more about the real workings of the universe.

 

[CrabCake]

You missed my point entirely. Those logical people whose authority you bow to are merely products of the simultion that is happening now.

I just finished criticizing someone for their appeal to those authorities, so try again.

We can't both be real and part of a simulation at the same time.

That would depend on how you define real. Knowing we are part of a simulation would affect our definition of what it means to be real.

In addition to that, you aren't accounting for theories that posit that our physical and biological reality is truly physical and biological but also created as a simulation. A simulation does not have to run on a computer, it could be a real physical big bang that was truly created by other entities as an experiment, a simulation of their world, or whatever.

The simulation theory is stillborn. If we are truly in a simulation, we can't discover we are in a simulation since everything is just part of the simulation. Those smart guys you refer to are only simulated. They don't exist independently from the simulation. Taking evidence from a simulation to postulate a theory that we are in a simulation is a dog chasing it's tail. It's a pointless exercise. I'd rather stick to the hard work of studying reality to try to figure out more about the real workings of the universe.

Most of the evidence comes from reason, not from the simulation.

Now, you could of course postulate that we can't trust reason. But at that point you really can't ever postulate anything else.

We can actually gather evidence from the world because we can look for things like rounding errors. Things that would indicate this may be a simulation. It is only impossible if the simulation is truly perfect.

You haven't actually read any of the papers on this topic have you? It shows.

Pretty much every paper I've read on this topic addresses your concern. Yet you seem to think it's some kind of trump card that proves this whole theory to be illogical, but it's actually a well known concern that is addressed by everyone who writes on this topic.

 

[CrabCake]

I will listen to philosophers' opinions, but I'll side with the physicists who are actually smashing particles instead of sipping lattes in Starbucks and discussing philosophical theories.

It seems you don't even know what philosophers do but have already discounted their contributions. Which is quite funny given the fact they developed this theory you are supporting and are responsible for pretty much everything about it.

You have stated your support of a theory developed and supported entirely by philosophers and simultaneously criticizing philosophers. Then, you are incoherently appealing to the authority of physicists (who basically have nothing to contribute to this field thus far).

There was a time when most people thought Charles Darwin was a nutcase because he was proclaiming something new and off the wall.

That's not true. You are reinventing history. Evolution was already a well known and respected theory when Darwin came around. His achievement was his discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. The fact things evolved over time was non-controversial. He was not considered a nutcase. His theory of natural selection was well received.

 

[Brewdog]

That's not true. You are reinventing history. Evolution was already a well known and respected theory when Darwin came around. His achievement was his discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. The fact things evolved over time was non-controversial.

We have a very large section of the population now that still believe in Creationism. Bless their hearts. So imagine how well it was taken then when humans still didn't understand much of science and believed God made everything with his magic god wand.

 

[CrabCake]

We have a very large section of the population now that still believe in Creationism. Bless their hearts. So imagine how well it was taken then when humans still didn't understand much of science and believed God made everything with his magic god wand.

I don't have to imagine. I've actually studied history.

You're wrong.

 

[Brewdog]

I don't have to imagine. I've actually studied history.

You're wrong.

So, tell us your alternate theory since you know history. Was it god or was it a Big Bang that created everything? And tell us how you can explain why photons react differently when observed as opposed to when they are not. Aren't you even the guy that said that it's explained like pixels in a computer simulation? Are you bipolar?

 

[CrabCake]

So, tell us your alternate theory since you know history. Was it god or was it a Big Bang that created everything? And tell us how you can explain why photons react differently when observed as opposed to when they are not. Aren't you even the guy that said that it's explained like pixels in a computer simulation? Are you bipolar?

What does this have to do with what I was addressing? You claimed Charles Darwin was once considered a nutcase. That is historically inaccurate. Real history shows that evolution had already found widespread support long before Charles Darwin came on the scene and his explanation of the process of natural selection was well received; he was not widely considered a nutcase. That is all I was addressing in that post.

 

[Brewdog]

What does this have to do with what I was addressing? You claimed Charles Darwin was once considered a nutcase. That is historically inaccurate. Real history shows that evolution had already found widespread support long before Charles Darwin came on the scene and his explanation of the process of natural selection was well received; he was not widely considered a nutcase. That is all I was addressing in that post.

From the BBC:
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Evolution
"Darwin's theory caused a lot of controversy and his ideas were only gradually accepted. Some people do not believe them today."

 

[CrabCake]

From the BBC:
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Evolution
"Darwin's theory caused a lot of controversy and his ideas were only gradually accepted. Some people do not believe them today."

OK. Let's pretend that is a complete account for a moment. Where's the part about widespread ridicule and being considered a nutcase?

Oh, I see. It didn't actually happen did it?

Here's a more complete history of evolutionary thought:
History of Evolutionary Thought

and the section on Darwin:
Natural Selection: Charles Darwin & Alfred Russel Wallace

...as earlier chapters in this history have shown, the raw material for Darwin's theory had been known for decades. Geologists and paleontologists had made a compelling case that life had been on Earth for a long time, that it had changed over that time, and that many species had become extinct. At the same time, embryologists and other naturalists studying living animals in the early 1800s had discovered, sometimes unwittingly, much of the best evidence for Darwin's theory.

At no point was he considered a nutcase. His book was a bestseller and his theory helped support a belief in evolution that was already widespread by the time he came on the scene. He wasn't some crackpot who came up with a brand new controversial idea about animals evolving. He was one more stone on the foundation of evolutionary thought. We could probably consider him the keystone and recognize his contribution as greatest, but this wasn't some crazy new idea that made everyone think he was a nutcase. It was a proposed solution to the question of why life evolves, given that everyone already believed it did.

 

[Brewdog]

OK. Let's pretend that is a complete account for a moment. Where's the part about widespread ridicule and being considered a nutcase?

Oh, I see. It didn't actually happen did it?

Here's a more complete history of evolutionary thought:
History of Evolutionary Thought

and the section on Darwin:
Natural Selection: Charles Darwin & Alfred Russel Wallace



At no point was he considered a nutcase. His book was a bestseller and his theory helped support a belief in evolution that was already widespread by the time he came on the scene. He wasn't some crackpot who came up with a brand new controversial idea about animals evolving. He was one more stone on the foundation of evolutionary thought. We could probably consider him the keystone and recognize his contribution as greatest, but this wasn't some crazy new idea that made everyone think he was a nutcase. It was a proposed solution to the question of why life evolves, given that everyone already believed it did.

Ok, Darwin's theory about evolution wasn't controversial. Got it. We can all agree that everyone loved Darwin's theory back then and now. Case solved. Thanks.

 

[late]

Evolution was controversial, Darwin had delayed publication because of it, and a mob went to his house with the intent of killing him after he did.

Fortunately he liked really big dogs.

There has been a culture war since science started. So that there was conflict is hardly a surprise. But 'nutcase' raises an interesting point. There is a permanent argument in the social sciences about what is, and should be, normative.
At it's root, normative is statistics. So did most side with religion back then? I have no idea.

But it's not something I would think worth pursuing.

 

[devildavid]

I just finished criticizing someone for their appeal to those authorities, so try again.



That would depend on how you define real. Knowing we are part of a simulation would affect our definition of what it means to be real.

In addition to that, you aren't accounting for theories that posit that our physical and biological reality is truly physical and biological but also created as a simulation. A simulation does not have to run on a computer, it could be a real physical big bang that was truly created by other entities as an experiment, a simulation of their world, or whatever.



Most of the evidence comes from reason, not from the simulation.

Now, you could of course postulate that we can't trust reason. But at that point you really can't ever postulate anything else.

We can actually gather evidence from the world because we can look for things like rounding errors. Things that would indicate this may be a simulation. It is only impossible if the simulation is truly perfect.

You haven't actually read any of the papers on this topic have you? It shows.

Pretty much every paper I've read on this topic addresses your concern. Yet you seem to think it's some kind of trump card that proves this whole theory to be illogical, but it's actually a well known concern that is addressed by everyone who writes on this topic.

The whole theory is nonsense no matter how many fools write papers on it. It is illogical at its core, with zero evidence to back it up. Just a new twist on the god concept. It isn't science, it's science fiction.

 

[CrabCake]

The whole theory is nonsense no matter how many fools write papers on it. It is illogical at its core, with zero evidence to back it up. Just a new twist on the god concept.

Ooh...doubling down. Now, not only are people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Oxford University's Nick Bostrom, and MIT's Max Tegmark forgetting to apply logic to this question; they are also fools and the entire theory is nonsense.

Calling scholars from some of the top educational institutions in the world illogical fools because they disagree with you sure does make you seem smart. :roll:

 

[devildavid]

Ooh...doubling down. Now, not only are people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Oxford University's Nick Bostrom, and MIT's Max Tegmark forgetting to apply logic to this question; they are also fools and the entire theory is nonsense.

Calling scholars from some of the top educational institutions in the world illogical fools because they disagree with you sure does make you seem smart. :roll:

Once again, the point is missed. All these so-called authorities are also part of the simulation. And even if they weren't, I am not convinced by argument from authority. Some scientists in our simulated world believe in (simulated) god.

All of the evidence they have for it is only part of the simulation. So we are in a simulation that leads us to conclude we are in a simulation. You can't hedge between the real and the simulated. If our world is simulated, all the evidence is as well. We can't extrapolate about the future of computing power because our evidence for this is only part of the simulation. We can't perceive a reality beyond the simulation by using evidence we gather within the simulation. I can't have a dream and expect the dream to provide evidence of reality. It is just a dream. And in this case, just a pipe dream.

I don't give a damn what Plato or any other simulated being philosophized about. I am fully capable of coming to my own conclusions based on evidence, not futuristic speculation.

 

[late]

Eeegads.

While I don't want to paraphrase Boswell, the simulation idea is something you can't disprove. You can never prove the negative case.

OTOH... it really is nothing more than idle speculation.

We've been studying perception and cognition since the 1800s. Once you get busy learning how limited and screwed up we are, you won't worry about the Matrix.

But you will have to adjust to the idea that we're really just idiots that got lucky.

 

[calamity]

15 years ago I read a book discussing how impossible it was to know whether or not we lived in the Matrix or not. Apparently it is still a hotly discussed topic.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

NEW YORK—If you, me and every person and thing in the cosmos were actually characters in some giant computer game, we would not necessarily know it. The idea that the universe is a simulation sounds more like the plot of “The Matrix,” but it is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Researchers pondered the controversial notion Tuesday at the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate here at the American Museum of Natural History.

 

[calamity]

The whole theory is nonsense no matter how many fools write papers on it. It is illogical at its core, with zero evidence to back it up. Just a new twist on the god concept. It isn't science, it's science fiction.

Not so fast. It's actually a legitimate hypothesis with a proposed method to test it.

A long-shot method to test one type of simulation hypothesis was proposed in 2012 in a joint paper by physicists Silas R. Beane from the University of Bonn (now at the University of Washington, Seattle), and Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage from the University of Washington, Seattle.[12] Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe would be performed by dividing the continuum space-time into a discrete set of points. In analogy with the mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists run today to build up nuclei from the underlying theory of strong interactions (known as Quantum chromodynamics), several observational consequences of a grid-like space-time have been studied in their work. Among proposed signatures is an anisotropy in the distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, that, if observed, would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis according to these physicists (but, of course, would not prove that the universe is a simulation). A multitude of physical observables must be explored before any such scenario could be accepted or rejected as a theory of nature.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_the_hypothesis_physically

Granted, "longshot" is the understatement of the day here.

 

[devildavid]

Not so fast. It's actually a legitimate hypothesis with a proposed method to test it.



Granted, "longshot" is the understatement of the day here.

Let me know when they run the tests and what the results are.

 

[SMTA]

Elon Musk, Ray Kurzweil, Alan Guth, George Smoot, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Hans Moravec, Nick Bostrom, Rich Terrile.


“Today, your cell phone has more computer power than all of NASA back in 1969, when it placed two astronauts on the moon. Video games, which consume enormous amounts of computer power to simulate 3-D situations, use more computer power than mainframe computers of the previous decade. The Sony PlayStation of today, which costs $300, has the power of a military supercomputer of 1997, which cost millions of dollars.” ― Michio Kaku

“If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it." —Albert Einstein

Seriously??

Human are not cell phones.

 

[SMTA]

Ok, Darwin's theory about evolution wasn't controversial. Got it. We can all agree that everyone loved Darwin's theory back then and now. Case solved. Thanks.

Rich post from the guy creating the 'we live in the Matrix' thread.

 

[CrabCake]

Once again, the point is missed. All these so-called authorities are also part of the simulation.

Oh, I do get it. It's just that your idea is covered in pretty much every paper on the the topic. You aren't contributing anything new to the discussion, you are just pointing towards one of the most well known and widely discussed weaknesses of the theory and pretending it is an unassailable trump card that renders the entire thing incoherent.

And even if they weren't, I am not convinced by argument from authority.

I am not making an argument from authority. I am not even supporting the simulation theory. I haven't actually stated my opinion on the theory.

What I am criticizing is your approach of pretending like everyone who doesn't agree with you is an illogical fool despite the overwhelming evidence that they are not.

You have argued, rather incoherently, that it is an illogical and foolish theory and thus, those who consider it are illogical and foolish. Any evidence we can provide that those people are not foolish and illogical would not be an appeal to authority, but rather direct evidence that you are wrong and the people who study this theory are not foolish and illogical. Thus I pointed out that many of the people studying this theory are widely respected intellectuals employed by some of the top educational institutions in the world. That is not an appeal to authority; it's evidence that they are not illogical fools and thus your claim that this is an illogical and foolish theory is false. That doesn't mean the theory is correct; it just means it isn't foolish and illogical, like you claimed.

 

[Brewdog]

Eeegads.
Once you get busy learning how limited and screwed up we are, you won't worry about the Matrix.

But you will have to adjust to the idea that we're really just idiots that got lucky.

I'm just mad that some people got to be rock stars, Brad Pitt, and Prince Harry in this simulation and I'm just a regular looking guy with a regular life.

 

[late]

I'm just mad that some people got to be rock stars, Brad Pitt, and Prince Harry in this simulation and I'm just a regular looking guy with a regular life.

If you look at the sum of human history, you live better than most kings. Enjoy what you have. But I wouldn't have minded living Warren Beatty's life for a while.

 

[devildavid]

Oh, I do get it. It's just that your idea is covered in pretty much every paper on the the topic. You aren't contributing anything new to the discussion, you are just pointing towards one of the most well known and widely discussed weaknesses of the theory and pretending it is an unassailable trump card that renders the entire thing incoherent.



I am not making an argument from authority. I am not even supporting the simulation theory. I haven't actually stated my opinion on the theory.

What I am criticizing is your approach of pretending like everyone who doesn't agree with you is an illogical fool despite the overwhelming evidence that they are not.

You have argued, rather incoherently, that it is an illogical and foolish theory and thus, those who consider it are illogical and foolish. Any evidence we can provide that those people are not foolish and illogical would not be an appeal to authority, but rather direct evidence that you are wrong and the people who study this theory are not foolish and illogical. Thus I pointed out that many of the people studying this theory are widely respected intellectuals employed by some of the top educational institutions in the world. That is not an appeal to authority; it's evidence that they are not illogical fools and thus your claim that this is an illogical and foolish theory is false. That doesn't mean the theory is correct; it just means it isn't foolish and illogical, like you claimed.

These people demonstrate they are fools by lending any credence to this hare-brained theory. I don't care who respects this goofy theory or what school they went to. The theory itself is foolish no matter who thinks it is or isn't. And you still miss the point. If we are in a simulation now, all those logical intellectuals are nothing but simulations creating a theory based on evidence from a simulated world. Whoever or whatever is running the simulation is controlling that. And we have absolutely zero evidence of anything other than our simulated world.

 

[laska]

So, you're apparently going to refute everything I say without Googling anything on your own? You have your mind made up, so nothing will change it. I see you describe yourself as socialist. And if anyone is illogical, it's a socialist.

Tech billionaires convinced we live in the Matrix are secretly funding scientists to help break us out of it | The Independent

"Mr Musk spoke earlier this year about the fact that he believes that the chance that we are not living in a computer simulation is “one in billions”. He said that he had come to that conclusion after a chat in a hot tub, where it was pointed out that computing technology has advanced so quickly that at some point in the future it will become indistinguishable from real life – and, if it does, there’s no reason to think that it hasn’t done already and that that’s what we are currently living through."

You can use the same logic that if an advanced civilization in the past evolved to create such simulations that we are just on the path of the same creators. And it is not a given that computing technology will ever be able to create sentient beings that can love, feel, etc. That is not a given. Someone who leans atheist believing we are in a simulation from a creator. Think bigger.