@lemondrop saidDebatable for sure, I think wildgrass was being kind. 😉
I knew it!
I'm not crazy after all
-VR
@very-rusty saidhow would you know?
Debatable for sure, I think wildgrass was being kind. 😉
-VR
you're dumber that a vacuum
@lemondrop saidAnd you sound like a child with your name calling lemon! 😉
how would you know?
you're dumber that a vacuum
-VR
@wildgrass saidExactly I’m sure it’s technically feasible now, so how many times might this have happened. We could be looking at a fractal scenario.
Wait we can only debate things relevant to our reality?
How close are we, computationally, to creating our own nested simulation for others? At least that would even the playing field (I think).
@kevcvs57 said“The day we invent that technology, it flips the odds from a little bit better than 50–50 that we are real to almost certainly we are not real, according to these calculations. It’d be a very strange celebration of our genius that day.”
Exactly I’m sure it’s technically feasible now, so how many times might this have happened. We could be looking at a fractal scenario.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/
An interesting article/link to podcast on the subject. One of the strongest arguments for the simulation idea is that our universe has limits. Like, you can't travel faster than light. Almost as if a game programmer wrote that one in, because if we could then we could get to another galaxy and they haven't programmed out that far.
Also the idea for the Matrix goes all the way back to Plato/Socrates allegory of the cave.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidCogito ergo sum springs to mind. In one sense we are all living in a simulation called subjectivity.
“The day we invent that technology, it flips the odds from a little bit better than 50–50 that we are real to almost certainly we are not real, according to these calculations. It’d be a very strange celebration of our genius that day.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/
An interesting article/link to podcast ...[text shortened]... t far.
Also the idea for the Matrix goes all the way back to Plato/Socrates allegory of the cave.
Interesting article though, I was glad that the stoner Musk was probably talking out of his hat.
These things always raise fundamental questions about the common sense of the programmers.
Such as:- never mind the speed of light problem just don’t give us light speed engine sub routines, or, why did the matrix creators give us computer terminals and telecoms to play with?
@kevcvs57 saidElon Musk, the most productive stoner the world has ever seen.
Cogito ergo sum springs to mind. In one sense we are all living in a simulation called subjectivity.
Interesting article though, I was glad that the stoner Musk was probably talking out of his hat.
These things always raise fundamental questions about the common sense of the programmers.
Such as:- never mind the speed of light problem just don’t give us light speed engin ...[text shortened]... sub routines, or, why did the matrix creators give us computer terminals and telecoms to play with?
I'm not a video gamer myself (unless online chess counts), but I think there's a difference in realism when you have a fundamental constraint of the system vs. a virtual "wall" that prohibits access. Place a mouse in a giant cage where it can't ever get to the wall in its lifetime and it'll never know it's in a cage. But if you didn't allow computers to exist, but all the info needed to build it was known, you'd feel like a mouse who can see the outside world through its cage but can't ever get out the cage.
@wildgrass saidHe does talk some nonsense when he’s stoned though, as do we all.
Elon Musk, the most productive stoner the world has ever seen.
I'm not a video gamer myself (unless online chess counts), but I think there's a difference in realism when you have a fundamental constraint of the system vs. a virtual "wall" that prohibits access. Place a mouse in a giant cage where it can't ever get to the wall in its lifetime and it'll never know it's in ...[text shortened]... 'd feel like a mouse who can see the outside world through its cage but can't ever get out the cage.
Well I’m sure the sort of computer power needed for the simulation would be sufficient for the player to never be able to reach the wall. Not sure we should extrapolate from the clunky games programming and hardware we have now and assume the same issues would apply.
There many historical atrocities that imply that we are either, not in a simulation, or that the programmers are sociopaths.
If we could simulate a whole universe / reality why would it be this one?
2 edits
@kevcvs57 said
He does talk some nonsense when he’s stoned though, as do we all.
Well I’m sure the sort of computer power needed for the simulation would be sufficient for the player to never be able to reach the wall. Not sure we should extrapolate from the clunky games programming and hardware we have now and assume the same issues would apply.
There many historical atrocities that imp ...[text shortened]... ogrammers are sociopaths.
If we could simulate a whole universe / reality why would it be this one?
Well I’m sure the sort of computer power needed for the simulation would be sufficient for the player to never be able to reach the wall.
Right. I was explaining (or at least attempting to explain) the difference between a limit as defined by natural law vs. an arbitrary limit in which computers can't exist.
Only part of the programming is deterministic and based on codified natural laws.
We can't alter the base properties of water. But the decision to go swimming is probabilistic. Likewise with wars / genocide etc. We're programmed with deeply-embedded survival instincts that manifest in a wide range of human behaviors.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidYeah but your still describing very clunky programming.Well I’m sure the sort of computer power needed for the simulation would be sufficient for the player to never be able to reach the wall.
Right. I was explaining (or at least attempting to explain) the difference between a limit as defined by natural law vs. an arbitrary limit in which computers can't exist.
Only part of the programming is deterministic a ...[text shortened]... programmed with deeply-embedded survival instincts that manifest in a wide range of human behaviors.
It’s a simulation, the base properties of anything are irrelevant.
I want to be able to fly and breath under water and I don’t want any wars or rapes n stuff.
“ We're programmed with deeply-embedded survival instincts that manifest in a wide range of human behaviors.”
I’ve seen similar arguments made on the spirituality forum when someone asks why a loving god let’s bad things happen.
I do understand what your saying wildgrass and you could be right, but there is no more internal logic in the simulation argument than there is for the existence of god or gods argument.
It seems like another desperate attempt to place us back in the centre of a universe that doesn’t actually know we exist.
@kevcvs57 saidYeah, it's basically the same argument as God's existence, although I've never understood why the outwardly religious insist on proving His existence all the time.
Yeah but your still describing very clunky programming.
It’s a simulation, the base properties of anything are irrelevant.
I want to be able to fly and breath under water and I don’t want any wars or rapes n stuff.
“ We're programmed with deeply-embedded survival instincts that manifest in a wide range of human behaviors.”
I’ve seen similar arguments made on the spi ...[text shortened]... desperate attempt to place us back in the centre of a universe that doesn’t actually know we exist.
God is the programmer. I'm not a religious person, but I have always been intrigued by the persistence of deity belief systems in our cultures. Tribes who never interacted for thousands of years ended up with a very similar idea of the worlds origins that included an all powerful entity creating it and dictating moral behaviors.
It's almost as if we're living in a simulation and something feels just a bit off to the point that we need to create magical explanations for it all.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidWe are definitely hard wired by evolution to want to understand the world around us and fill in the gaps with theories, creation myths and all powerful gods.
Yeah, it's basically the same argument as God's existence, although I've never understood why the outwardly religious insist on proving His existence all the time.
God is the programmer. I'm not a religious person, but I have always been intrigued by the persistence of deity belief systems in our cultures. Tribes who never interacted for thousands of years ended up with ...[text shortened]... something feels just a bit off to the point that we need to create magical explanations for it all.
I think simulation theory works as all three. It has the same negative strength as a belief in the existence gods in that it’s as impossible to disprove as it is to prove.
I’m Agnostic or actually more Apatheistic about the ultimate nature of existence / the Universe. But fascinated by the flickering shadows that science allows us to glimpse.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidRight, impossible to disprove so fundamentally unscientific. But, if technology with the ability to generate simulated reality can exist, it would be very likely that we don't exist in base reality.
We are definitely hard wired by evolution to want to understand the world around us and fill in the gaps with theories, creation myths and all powerful gods.
I think simulation theory works as all three. It has the same negative strength as a belief in the existence gods in that it’s as impossible to disprove as it is to prove.
I’m Agnostic or actually more Apatheistic ab ...[text shortened]... xistence / the Universe. But fascinated by the flickering shadows that science allows us to glimpse.
And, we're already very good at simulated reality. Now give it a hundred more years.
Simulations like the one we currently live in (obviously) would be extremely useful for solving problems. For example, we could set up 100 parallel simulations of humankind forced to deal with the existential threat of climate change on planet Earth. Which ones were successful and what did they do?
@wildgrass saidThis is where it loses me though and it’s probably my fault but
Right, impossible to disprove so fundamentally unscientific. But, if technology with the ability to generate simulated reality can exist, it would be very likely that we don't exist in base reality.
And, we're already very good at simulated reality. Now give it a hundred more years.
Simulations like the one we currently live in (obviously) would be extremely useful fo ...[text shortened]... istential threat of climate change on planet Earth. Which ones were successful and what did they do?
A: Are we talking about an ability to generate a simulated universe that’s programmed into the simulation that we are in now.
Or
B: we will eventually have the technology to generate a simulated Universe so therefor we must be in one already?
I get the learning curve simulation at some point in the future logic but how do you know we are not in a pre simulation actual universe prior to developing the technology. There does have to be one those doesn’t there.
And lastly what the £&#@ is the safe word, I am done with this simulation.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidHa. I'm guessing but the safe word is probably Jesus.
This is where it loses me though and it’s probably my fault but
A: Are we talking about an ability to generate a simulated universe that’s programmed into the simulation that we are in now.
Or
B: we will eventually have the technology to generate a simulated Universe so therefor we must be in one already?
I get the learning curve simulation at some point in the future ...[text shortened]... one those doesn’t there.
And lastly what the £&#@ is the safe word, I am done with this simulation.
..how do you know we are not in a pre simulation actual universe prior to developing the technology.
While there may be evidence favoring simulation that arises at some point, we don't know and can't disprove the idea that we're in a simulation. But, assuming the ability to create the simulation will exist, the probability we're in the pre-simulation universe must be extremely low right? Right now we're failing our simulation of how to handle a global pandemic.