Page 4 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Do you believe in Simulation Theory?
Yes - I think we are RPG (we control the character, from outside the simulation.) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Yes - I think we are all Artificial Intelligences, who only think we exist as nature creatures. 9%  9%  [ 1 ]
No - I think we exist is base reality. 91%  91%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 11

Udinaas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2020
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,185

16 Jun 2021, 10:39 am

Fnord wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
... If we live in a simulation with consistent rules, our experiences could be a reliable source of knowledge about the contents of said simulation...
No, if we "live" in a simulation, our experiences and our knowledge -- heck, our entire history -- could just as easily be implanted into our memories, and be only as reliable for us as the programmers want them to be.

It would depend of the purpose of the simulation. You could make the same argument against naturalistic and theistic accounts of reality. Christian apologists like the one you cited argue that naturalism is self-defeating because our senses might not have evolved to perceive the word accurately, and you could make a similar argument against their beliefs by saying that science is unreliable if there's a god that can intervene. All of those arguments fail because they demand a level of certainty that no worldview can achieve. If you don't know absolutely everything there are always going to be skeptical scenarios that cannot be falsified.



sitko
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 1 Mar 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 86
Location: Knoxville, TN

16 Jun 2021, 12:18 pm

Fnord wrote:
sitko wrote:
Fnord wrote:
As I quoted above: "Simply put, if the simulation hypothesis is true, we can't trust the science on which the simulation hypothesis is based, in which case it would be irrational to believe the simulation hypothesis. It looks like the simulation hypothesis has a deeply self-defeating character to it."Why believe in a self-defeating religion, especially one in which none of its tenets can be irrefutably proven?"
It's not a religion. A religion is based on faith. Simulation Theory is based on our experiments, observations and intuition.
WHAT experiments and observations?  Intuition proves nothing.

Without proof, your hypothesis is based on faith -- it is a religion.
sitko wrote:
I looked at your "source" It's a religious nut. (that might be harsh) Not a scientist or philosopher...
He has a PhD.  What is YOUR claim to fame?

Fnord, did you read the above posts that had these starts to it:
Evidence: The Double Slit Experiment
Evidence: A Fermi Paradox solution
Evidence: The Wigner's Friend Experiment

And I'll add: The Anthropic principle.

He does NOT have a PhD, he stated in his About, that he's working on his Masters.

My claim to fame, is I have a BS in Computer Science, and THIS IS ONE OF MY SPECIAL INTERESTS...Do I need to say more?

I'd trust a computer programmer(w/ a BS)(who is me) over a person with working on a masters in religious studies.

ADDED LATER: And I'm not saying that this is the way it is. I'm just saying there is a lot of evidence and observations that lead scientists to see evidence of living in a simulation. It explains a lot of things that we can't explain yet:
Dark Matter/Dark Energy, Computer Codes (self correcting none the less) in String Theory equations. Why Gravity is so much weaker than the rest of the forces. Elon Musk believes it, and he is asperger's.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,935
Location: temperate zone

16 Jun 2021, 8:16 pm

There are such things as irrational numbers in our universe.

Indeed most numbers are irrational numbers.

No simulation could have infinite storage space. So no simulation could store the infinite non repeating patternless strings of digits that exist in irrational numbers.



SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,048
Location: Michigan

16 Jun 2021, 11:11 pm

sitko wrote:
People here don't really "discuss" things do they, I posted a thing that I hoped would engage other users to maybe discuss this, and you guys, just reply "Nope!"

Not much of a discussion...

That's Fnord for you =)

Fnord wrote:
Some people see a pseudo-scientific idea they like and latch on to it as if it was the most profound idea ever written, not realizing that it is just another Heaven-And-Earth story updated with a few scientific-sounding buzzwords to make it seem plausible.

Actually there have been some scientific breakthroughs recently that are pointing towards "simulation theory", but who knows?


_________________
he had a lot to say, he had a lot of nothing to say
we'll miss him


enz
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2015
Posts: 896

16 Jun 2021, 11:15 pm



sitko
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 1 Mar 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 86
Location: Knoxville, TN

17 Jun 2021, 12:57 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
There are such things as irrational numbers in our universe.

Indeed most numbers are irrational numbers.

No simulation could have infinite storage space. So no simulation could store the infinite non repeating patternless strings of digits that exist in irrational numbers.

I can think of the concept of infinity, that doesn't mean I can write it out. I'm not sure I like your assumption that No sim could have infinite storage space. IN OUR reality, that is the case...but out THERE? Who knows? Only The sim runners know that.

Why would a sim need to store all the numbers in existence, when it can just use math to print them as needed?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,711
Location: Stendec

17 Jun 2021, 1:01 pm

Udinaas wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Udinaas wrote:
... If we live in a simulation with consistent rules, our experiences could be a reliable source of knowledge about the contents of said simulation...
No, if we "live" in a simulation, our experiences and our knowledge -- heck, our entire history -- could just as easily be implanted into our memories, and be only as reliable for us as the programmers want them to be.
It would depend of the purpose of the simulation. You could make the same argument against naturalistic and theistic accounts of reality. Christian apologists like the one you cited argue that naturalism is self-defeating because our senses might not have evolved to perceive the word accurately, and you could make a similar argument against their beliefs by saying that science is unreliable if there's a god that can intervene. All of those arguments fail because they demand a level of certainty that no worldview can achieve. If you don't know absolutely everything there are always going to be skeptical scenarios that cannot be falsified.
Exactly, which also supports my claim that Simulation Theory is a topic for philosophers to discuss.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


sitko
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 1 Mar 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 86
Location: Knoxville, TN

17 Jun 2021, 1:01 pm

enz wrote:


Thank you for sharing this incredible video...I've not finished it yet, but I will...

Very cool...it's nice being God for a change...



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,109

17 Jun 2021, 1:09 pm

sitko wrote:
Evidence: The Double Slit Experiment.

If you are not aware of this famous experiment, please go to YouTube an watch a video on it.

What this shows us, is reality's nature is dependent on someone seeing it.

Here's a good video explaining it:

https://youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ

There's an obnoxious ad right at the end of the video, please watch through that ad, because the end of the video is the really weird bit, that will shock you.


The Double Slit Experiment has nothing to do with being evidence for a simulated reality.

It can easily be explained by simple and basic understanding Quantum Physics.

When you measure a particle before it goes through either slit, you cause the wave function to collapse (decoherence) which is just another word or description of the particle being entangled with the measurement apparatus.

The same with spin measurement of particles, where the outcome is 50-50, ie. when you measure a particle with "spin up", the apparatus and the entire branch of the universe (the universe "branches" into different realities according to the Everettian understanding of Quantum Mechanics) gets entangled with the particle, but it won't last long as less than a micro-micro second after, the universe branches again.

It will forever branch, and contrary to popular thinking of this, conservation of energy is still preserved, as each branch of the universe gets slightly thinner than its "root-branch", so to speak. The universe, as a whole, preserves its volume, energy etc.

The different realities of the branching universe, should not be confused with the multiverse theory, which invokes the notion of entirely different universes, each with their own unique constants of nature.

Here, the universe is still the same, but it has multiple branches.

I can recommend you watch PBS Space Time videos, or read some actual books on the subject. Sean Carroll's "Something Deeply Hidden" is a good starting point for understanding basic quantum mechanics, without the need to understand complicated maths.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,104
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

17 Jun 2021, 1:39 pm

Returning to something I was talking about earlier, ie. discontinuity of rule sets (9 min video):




How do you do anything with that - even if it's true?

That's part of the difficulty - it's completely discontinuous from life experience which is Darwinian evolution by natural selection, differential success, and heritability.

A big part of why people won't touch this topic with a ten foot pole, aside from how it looks (in an environment where people are here to mess with each other - over genes, it's your blood in the water), is the discontinuities. It's a bit like saying that the ways you need to think in order to succeed are bad and there's a fairly strong sense for most people that following the prescriptions given would either get you killed or at least set you up to have everything taken from you by other people.

I remember Joscha Bach when he was on Jim Rutt's podcast, when they were talking about consciousness and the woo topic came up, Joscha suggested that we're either in a universe where we're getting messed with and nothing makes sense at a fundamental level, or, alternately, there's something wrong with the phenomena ('paranormal', NDE, etc.). I'm willing to consider that it's both-and.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,711
Location: Stendec

17 Jun 2021, 2:52 pm

A ghost has never appeared to me, and I do not expect that any ever will.  Even in my "Ghostbuster" days, I never encountered a real ghost (IF they exist).  Everything I did encounter turned out to be either a deliberate trick, a deteriorating building or other construct, an animal, a natural event, or some combination thereof.

There was a TV program called Star Trek: The Next Generation (ST:TNG).  In it, they had a reality-simulation system called the holodeck.  Anyone using a simulated environment in this holodeck could speak a codeword and gain immediate access to the computer running the simulation system -- even some of the simulated people could do so.

Now, an irrefutable demonstration of Simulation Theory would involve being able to do exactly what those ST:TNG characters could do: Access and control the simulation system from within the simulation itself.  Show me how to do this, and I will believe.

Excuses and arguments as to whether or not it is even possible would end, and those who believe in Simulation Theory would win.

Well?  What are you waiting for?
  Let the excuses and arguments begin!


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


sitko
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 1 Mar 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 86
Location: Knoxville, TN

17 Jun 2021, 3:55 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
The Double Slit Experiment has nothing to do with being evidence for a simulated reality.


So, your saying that reality changes depending on if it's being observed by a conscience. Do you know anything about video games that render scenes for players? When they render the scene, they ONLY render, what is visible. Its not too much of a stretch to think that if Reality must be observed to be seen, maybe the reason for that is they are not rendering stuff that isn't seen.

thinkinginpictures wrote:
It can easily be explained by simple and basic understanding Quantum Physics.


If you think quantum physics is simple and easily understood, maybe you've not read much about Quantum Physics.

thinkinginpictures wrote:
When you measure a particle before it goes through either slit, you cause the wave function to collapse (decoherence) which is just another word or description of the particle being entangled with the measurement apparatus.

The same with spin measurement of particles, where the outcome is 50-50, ie. when you measure a particle with "spin up", the apparatus and the entire branch of the universe (the universe "branches" into different realities according to the Everettian understanding of Quantum Mechanics) gets entangled with the particle, but it won't last long as less than a micro-micro second after, the universe branches again.

It will forever branch, and contrary to popular thinking of this, conservation of energy is still preserved, as each branch of the universe gets slightly thinner than its "root-branch", so to speak. The universe, as a whole, preserves its volume, energy etc.

The different realities of the branching universe, should not be confused with the multiverse theory, which invokes the notion of entirely different universes, each with their own unique constants of nature.

Here, the universe is still the same, but it has multiple branches.

Where is the evidence of the multi-world theory? You guys keep suggesting I haven't provided any evidence, but what I provided was bits of science that show reality isn't what we think it is. If it's not what we think it is, it COULD be a simulation, it could also be a banana, but that doesn't seem very likely.

thinkinginpictures wrote:
I can recommend you watch PBS Space Time videos, or read some actual books on the subject. Sean Carroll's "Something Deeply Hidden" is a good starting point for understanding basic quantum mechanics, without the need to understand complicated maths.

I've been a huge fan of SpaceTime, for many years. I started watching it when it had a different host. I watch all those types of programs. In fact, check out the SpaceTime video "Are we living in an Ancestor Simulation". Matt says that it's unfalsifiable. The take from the video is he doubts we live in a simulation, but if it's unfalsifiable, who's to say we don't?



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,104
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

17 Jun 2021, 10:55 pm

@ sitko

Out of curiosity, have I been able to unpack my thoughts a bit better than my first post in my last few comments?

I think what this comes down to for me is order of operation:

First concern, what grounding would I give consciousness?

I'm not firmly decided on any of these because they all seem to have their merit but they simultaneously seem like special cases of each other: absolute idealism, neutral monism, dual-action monism (Spinoza). There's a particular kind of functionalism that assumes what's called multiple realizability, I debate whether network effects and such things as egregores in the occult sense can be tied together but it seems like - if there were an explanatory model for it to tie through (eg. the China Brain analogy), it would be via that route.

While I'm not necessarily against panpsychism in the atomistic sense there are a few questions that don't resolve for me - such as how particles themselves could have conscious properties if spacetime isn't fundamental or why it is that certain parts of our brains and nervous system seem to hold consciousness while others don't (I think Mark Solms has made a pretty good case that it's in the mid brain).


After considering the question of how consciousness arises or at least organizes itself into larger scale and more complex agents the next step is metaphors.

I look at simulation as a metaphor because even if we were in the cheesiest Thirteenth Floor or ancestor simulation scenario you still have the question of how a simulation becomes consciousness, which still takes you right back to the nuts and bolts of questions like absolute idealism, neutral monism, dual-action monism, panpsychism, etc.. It could be a set and setting for the hardness or fastness of certain rules, it seems like an intuitive plug perhaps for how one could have a universe that's ultimately mental or information-based but which is so rigid as to believably suggest reductive materialism to many people. This is where I'm actually starting to see people repurpose the term 'physicalism' not to mean reductive materialism necessarily but almost more like a claim that you should be able to trace all existing relevant things through various points of contact, and if you can't then that's when you have to second-guess whether something is as it immediately appears.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,048
Location: Michigan

18 Jun 2021, 12:05 am

Fnord wrote:
Now, an irrefutable demonstration of Simulation Theory would involve being able to do exactly what those ST:TNG characters could do: Access and control the simulation system from within the simulation itself.  Show me how to do this, and I will believe.

All you have to do is die.


_________________
he had a lot to say, he had a lot of nothing to say
we'll miss him


sitko
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 1 Mar 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 86
Location: Knoxville, TN

18 Jun 2021, 12:49 pm

Fnord wrote:
A ghost has never appeared to me, and I do not expect that any ever will.  Even in my "Ghostbuster" days, I never encountered a real ghost (IF they exist).  Everything I did encounter turned out to be either a deliberate trick, a deteriorating building or other construct, an animal, a natural event, or some combination thereof.

There was a TV program called Star Trek: The Next Generation (ST:TNG).  In it, they had a reality-simulation system called the holodeck.  Anyone using a simulated environment in this holodeck could speak a codeword and gain immediate access to the computer running the simulation system -- even some of the simulated people could do so.

Now, an irrefutable demonstration of Simulation Theory would involve being able to do exactly what those ST:TNG characters could do: Access and control the simulation system from within the simulation itself.  Show me how to do this, and I will believe.

Excuses and arguments as to whether or not it is even possible would end, and those who believe in Simulation Theory would win.

Well?  What are you waiting for?
  Let the excuses and arguments begin!


Your making too many assumptions here...seriously, this is the argument, the Great Fnord came up with? I can't call "stop simulation" so I'm not in a simulation. You're using a scene from a fictional tv show as your argument?

Maybe in OUR simulation, they didn't program that functionality. Maybe there isn't a DOOR to outside of the simulation. We may ALL be Artificial beings inside the simulation (the NPC version, I mentioned in my poll).

And to argue Devil's Advocate: Just because YOU FNORD, haven't seen a ghost, doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not claiming they do, just making a point. I don't believe in ghosts.



sitko
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 1 Mar 2021
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 86
Location: Knoxville, TN

18 Jun 2021, 12:51 pm

SabbraCadabra wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Now, an irrefutable demonstration of Simulation Theory would involve being able to do exactly what those ST:TNG characters could do: Access and control the simulation system from within the simulation itself.  Show me how to do this, and I will believe.

All you have to do is die.


Wow, are you wishing Fnord, dead?

Fnord, if you die, will you promise and come back as a ghost and tell us the true nature of reality?