Are we living in a computer simulation?

[Kenny_L]

Re: Are we living in a computer simulation?

We don't know. We can't be sure. We are all part of quantum computing processes though. And about the word 'simulation'... if you take this word to the highest level, such as when you say... 'ok...we're done with simulations', we're going to put out the final release...and that's that. In this case, it becomes the official thing. Also, if you decided to do it, then there's nothing wrong with making the very first run/simulation the first and final release...in that the very first simulation would be the official release.

 

[Pythagorean]

You cannot simulate a world of X complexity inside a world of X complexity.(quart-into-a-pint-pot-problem).

This is pretty much where I stand on this topic. We have to use a magnitude of magnitudes of atoms to model a single atom, no matter how we do it.

To expand on refuting the OT, it would be an interesting practice to imagine what kind of complexity would be required to model a world of the complexity we currently experience. We also realize how unstable computer programs (and computers themselves) are compared to the universe.

If we are some sort of 'simulation' and our consciousness is a result of the physical laws we experience, then whatever world is simulating us can't experience the laws the same way and therefore our experience is unique to us (going back to Tournesol's point above; you don't have the resolution).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree. The logic basically rests on some assumptions about the Drake Equation. There is no other way to arrive at the first to inferences. Plus, I'm not sure about that last one (singularity engulfing the universe)...

..a Drake equation result multiplied by the number of galaxies - probability ~ 1.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was an argument put forth by some speaker at the Singularity Summit at Stanford a few weeks back, whose name I cannot remember, attempting to prove that we must be living in a simulation of some sort. The basic reasoning was that other civilizations must have come into existence before we did, given the vast size of the universe and our relatively late arrival in it. If we are to take seriously the notion that humanity will achieve the singularity at some point this century, them some civilization that existed prior to our own must have already done so. Since the singularity comes to engulf the entire universe, it must have already reached us. Yet we are not experiencing it, so we must be living in a simulation of unknown nature.

Pretty specious reasoning if you ask me.

Or
singularities don't happen

Perhaps no one survives the approach to a singularity

 

[Kenny_L]

1 You cannot simulate a world of X complexity inside a world of X complexity.(quart-into-a-pint-pot-problem).

We're just talking about simulating a world...regardless of complexity.

 

[Kenny_L]

There was an argument put forth by some speaker at the Singularity Summit at Stanford a few weeks back, whose name I cannot remember, attempting to prove that we must be living in a simulation of some sort. The basic reasoning was that other civilizations must have come into existence before we did, given the vast size of the universe and our relatively late arrival in it.

That catch here is that ... you're saying that the speaker reckons that other civilisations MUST have come into existence before we did. The thing is ... that speaker doesn't really know that at all. For all he/she knows, we could actually be the first and only ones that came into existence. Like, he/she doesn't realize that WE could be first ones, or we could even be the first AND only ones... or we could actually be the FOREFATHERS/FOREMOTHERS of all other civilisations to come! We just do not know.

Given the large size of the universe...the best we can say right now is we 'MIGHT' be... etc etc etc. But we can't say that we 'ARE' etc etc etc.

 

[robheus]

This whole issue is rather meaningless, because (independend of wether this proposition makes any sense and wether it is the case) the thing is that even that computer simulation must run on some hardware, so it simply means our world would be embedded in a super-world, which in turn could be itself a simulation in yet another super-super-world, etc, so it would be an infinite regress of simulations embedding simulations.
Which in my opinion makes the whole issue meaningless or not worth considering.
Likewise the case in which it is assumed the world is some creation of some deity, as also in that case it would lead to a same infinite regress of a deity created by a super-deity, and so on.
It would be more sensible to accept the world as it is, and for which the question as to what the ultimate nature of the world is, is a useless question and/or is for ever in the domain of unknowable things.
We better look for extending our knowledge in domains of things which can be known, and also have practical use for living our lives. Like it would be very good to know right now how we can sustain economic development without using carbon based fossil fuels and/or not-yet-safe nuclear technology, and enhance living possibilities for future generations based on sustainable / renewable ways of production and ecnomic development.

 

[Kenny_L]

It would be more sensible to accept the world as it is, and for which the question as to what the ultimate nature of the world is, is a useless question and/or is for ever in the domain of unknowable things.

All of us have no choice but to accept the world as it is. At the same time, a lot of us really like thinking about the origins of things like energy. And, it is definitely not UNsensible to try find out the origins, regardless of whether we can find 'it' or not.

 

[robheus]

All of us have no choice but to accept the world as it is. At the same time, a lot of us really like thinking about the origins of things like energy. And, it is definitely not UNsensible to try find out the origins, regardless of whether we can find 'it' or not.

Well we can find of course a whole lot about the material world on all different scales, but then, we can not find some 'ultimate' reality, since there is none.
I think the quest for things like the 'Theory of Everything' fall into the category of 'unknowables'.
If we start out from the idea that the original substance of which everything is made is matter, then there is nothing more original as matter itself (meaning: everything depends on matter to exist, and matter itself is not dependend on anything else).

 

[Kenny_L]

Well we can find of course a whole lot about the material world on all different scales, but then, we can not find some 'ultimate' reality, since there is none.

But you don't actually know if there is none, or if there is one.

I think the quest for things like the 'Theory of Everything' fall into the category of 'unknowables'.

It is ok to 'think' that, but we don't really know if it is unknowable, or not.

If we start out from the idea that the original substance of which everything is made is matter, then there is nothing more original as matter itself (meaning: everything depends on matter to exist, and matter itself is not dependend on anything else).

You can start out with this idea. But the thing is that we all don't know how things (in the whole universe) got there/got here. And this relates to the question of 'are we living in a computer simulation'. The answer here is ... we don't know. Nobody knows.

 

[Coldcall]

robheus,

"(meaning: everything depends on matter to exist, and matter itself is not dependend on anything else)."

I'm not sure about that one. Matter appears to depend on the laws of qm to exist, or at least to exist with any defined properties.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Something some of you might find interesting...
Sensory Experiences as Cryptic Symbols of a Multimodal User Interface
It essential describes sensory perception as a sort of Ontological Operating System.
The author is Donald D. Hoffman of the UCI Department of Cognitive Science. There are other papers if you follow the link on his name. My friend is a student in that department and shared the paper with me. It seems pretty out there, but interesting.

 

[Coldcall]

Something some of you might find interesting...
Sensory Experiences as Cryptic Symbols of a Multimodal User Interface
It essential describes sensory perception as a sort of Ontological Operating System.
The author is Donald D. Hoffman of the UCI Department of Cognitive Science. There are other papers if you follow the link on his name. My friend is a student in that department and shared the paper with me. It seems pretty out there, but interesting.

Very interesting paper and ideas. I don't think its all that far out there considering that the author is clearly a proponent of the observer defined reality - which is a perfectly legit reading of qm from Copenhagen. Thanks for the links.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Very interesting paper and ideas. I don't think its all that far out there considering that the author is clearly a proponent of the observer defined reality - which is a perfectly legit reading of qm from Copenhagen. Thanks for the links.

No problem.

I actually had trouble determining if he was infact arguing the Observer Created Universe or just an interesting way of describing the observer/reality barrier. Maybe I should read some more of those papers.

 

[Coldcall]

No problem.

I actually had trouble determining if he was infact arguing the Observer Created Universe or just an interesting way of describing the observer/reality barrier. Maybe I should read some more of those papers.

It seems that's what he is saying but i could be mistaken. He seems to attack the idea that there is such a thing as an indepenedent objectivity without observers to perceive it. I think qm actually confirms the observer dependency of any objective reality.

Thats not to say worlds don't exist without observers but they certainly would be undefined and in a lowest possible state of energy. Biology seems to have an inate hunger for defining, differentiating etc...