do we live in a matrix?

@wildgrass said
Ha. I'm guessing but the safe word is probably Jesus.

..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 e ...[text shortened]... t be extremely low right? Right now we're failing our simulation of how to handle a global pandemic.

“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.”
Agreed as long as we are talking about the same probability as finding proof that god or gods exist.

“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.”
Given that we’re assuming we survive long enough to attain the ability or bother to attain the ability let alone utilise the ability. The argument for the high probability of us actually being in a simulation sounds spookily similar to Decartes circular argument for the existence of god.
I’m not convinced of the usefulness of these real time simulations to a civilisation advanced enough to generate them, unless we’re assuming that there is such a thing as simulation time which runs a whole lot faster than base reality time but is experienced as base reality time by the simulation / us.
To be honest running a simulation this complicated even if it’s possible seems a bit inelegant.

@kevcvs57 said
“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.”
Agreed as long as we are talking about the same probability as finding proof that god or gods exist.

“But, assuming the ability to create the simulation will exist, the probability we're in the pre-simulation universe must be ...[text shortened]... us.
To be honest running a simulation this complicated even if it’s possible seems a bit inelegant.

Given that we’re assuming we survive long enough to attain the ability...

Yes. If we die out or enter a dark age in which we never regain our current level of technology, then the probability of simulated reality decreases substantially.

...or bother to attain the ability...

My understanding is that we are currently bothering.

...let alone utilise the ability

Well of course we would use it. All those unknowable problems become solvable. Climate change. Most efficient form of governance. Cures for cancer. The possibilities are endless.

To be honest running a simulation this complicated even if it’s possible seems a bit inelegant.

While I agree the infrastructure to create a truly realistic simulation is a high hurdle, once it's running it would be quite efficient and useful. One could get very detailed information on macro-evolution and space flight and microbiology and medicine and science in general. Clinical trials for new drugs could be run through the simulation, for example, without having to expend all that much effort on R & D. I think it would operate as a very realistic experimental "model" system for testing hypotheses. And it's not all that unlike the multiverse theory of infinite parallel universes. Just virtual instead of physical.

@wildgrass said

Given that we’re assuming we survive long enough to attain the ability...

Yes. If we die out or enter a dark age in which we never regain our current level of technology, then the probability of simulated reality decreases substantially.

...or bother to attain the ability...

My understanding is that we are currently bothering.
[quote]...let ...[text shortened]... that unlike the multiverse theory of infinite parallel universes. Just virtual instead of physical.

So explain how this works in terms of efficiency
If we are in a simulation then all our current history is fabricated for the purpose of the simulation. When do you think we entered this particular simulation.
Or is it theorised that a base reality is simulating us sentient beings and subjecting us to the horrors of the holocaust, countless horrific wars, famine, disease and I won’t even mention my first marriage. Is that who we are in a our base reality.
Why can we not run the simulated models without involving sentient beings like ourselves or in fact any living creatures programmed with the ability to feel pain, fear and distress.
As I say it seems very inelegant.

@kevcvs57 said
So explain how this works in terms of efficiency
If we are in a simulation then all our current history is fabricated for the purpose of the simulation. When do you think we entered this particular simulation.
Or is it theorised that a base reality is simulating us sentient beings and subjecting us to the horrors of the holocaust, countless horrific wars, famine, disease ...[text shortened]... ures programmed with the ability to feel pain, fear and distress.
As I say it seems very inelegant.

I don't really have your answers here. The simulation doesn't specify, but if I were building a simulation I would want it to be as close to real as possible. A climate change simulation that doesn't include catastrophic volcanoes would not give you the whole picture, for example.

Have you ever heard of the Mandela effect? This might be more of a science forum topic (I first heard of it on X-Files) but there are thousands of people all over the world who will attest to the fact that Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1980s. These people claim to have witnessed TV broadcasts reporting his death, and swear it really happened. Even though he died in 2013.

There are lots of other examples of this effect, along with many documented examples of malleable, distorted memories. It is a fact that false memories can be implanted in your brain.

@wildgrass said
I don't really have your answers here. The simulation doesn't specify, but if I were building a simulation I would want it to be as close to real as possible. A climate change simulation that doesn't include catastrophic volcanoes would not give you the whole picture, for example.

Have you ever heard of the Mandela effect? This might be more of a science forum topic (I f ...[text shortened]... s of malleable, distorted memories. It is a fact that false memories can be implanted in your brain.

No I haven’t heard of that Mandela thing but I’ve had loads of times that I’ve remembered my own history upside down. It would be more explainable if it was mainly happening to South Africans.
Not sure science forum is where it should be but I wish there was a philosophy forum.
“ A climate change simulation that doesn't include catastrophic volcanoes would not give you the whole picture, for example.”
Agreed I’m just not sure why I have to be here, the base reality shouldn’t need confirmation that I’ll choke to death on sulphur or fry to a crisp if I’m caught in the lava flow. The more realistic the model the better but I’m not convinced it would require the presence of sentient beings.
Now the dream machine theory is another matter all together.

@kevcvs57 said
No I haven’t heard of that Mandela thing but I’ve had loads of times that I’ve remembered my own history upside down. It would be more explainable if it was mainly happening to South Africans.
Not sure science forum is where it should be but I wish there was a philosophy forum.
“ A climate change simulation that doesn't include catastrophic volcanoes would not give you the ...[text shortened]... quire the presence of sentient beings.
Now the dream machine theory is another matter all together.

A while back, someone deleted from the Matrix a feature film called "Shazam" starring Sinbad. Most people will tell you this movie does not exist. However, there are many people (hundreds at least if you just look at Reddit posts) who will tell you unequivocally that the movie does exist. They remember which video store they rented it from and specific plot lines and how old they were and where they were with whom when they watched it. For some reason, they retained the memory of this movie after it was deleted from our simulation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/6ljvwu/yes_ive_seen_shazam_with_sinbad/

My initial though when i heard about this was "why did they bother deleting that?" It seems inconsequential as it was a pretty underwhelming movie if I remember right. Perhaps it had some significant impact later on in the simulation? Maybe the entire point of our simulation is to determine whether or not the Sinbad movie "Shazam" had any significant impact on humanity? Maybe the same goes for your own storyline. So cheer up. That's why you're here.

Regarding sentient beings, I think they're obviously required. Although not in the biological sense. This simulation allows you to feel and perceive and think without physically existing.

@wildgrass said
A while back, someone deleted from the Matrix a feature film called "Shazam" starring Sinbad. Most people will tell you this movie does not exist. However, there are many people (hundreds at least if you just look at Reddit posts) who will tell you unequivocally that the movie does exist. They remember which video store they rented it from and specific plot lines and how ol ...[text shortened]... ogical sense. This simulation allows you to feel and perceive and think without physically existing.

A lot of people are also convinced that they’ve been anally probed by thick fingered aliens but I’m not so sure.
Really we are that bored in our base reality that we want to know what effect a B movie video had on our development. Perhaps we should run a simulation to figure out what caused us to degenerate to that level after millennia of successful evolutionary progress.
Still not convinced why sentient beings are necessary enough to inflict all this agony on what are to all intents and purposes real people in terms of how they experience the simulation as base reality.
It may work at a technical level but it falls flat on its face on the logic of implementation.
My advice would be to live this life as if it was base reality because it probably is 😊

@kevcvs57 said
A lot of people are also convinced that they’ve been anally probed by thick fingered aliens but I’m not so sure.
Really we are that bored in our base reality that we want to know what effect a B movie video had on our development. Perhaps we should run a simulation to figure out what caused us to degenerate to that level after millennia of successful evolutionary progress. ...[text shortened]... ementation.
My advice would be to live this life as if it was base reality because it probably is 😊

Yes. False memories are a strange and quite common phenomenon. It's thought that most people have false memories without ever knowing it's false. In fact, science doesn't know a whole lot about 'real' memories either. Plants have memory storage and recall mechanisms without nerves. One thing they do know is that they change over time. The molecular process involved in remembering something affects the memory itself. How are they stored? How are they destroyed? When they are recalled, why do they change? Since fake memories can be implanted by you subconscious, psychologists and Sinbad via completely elusive mechanisms then why not make the our brains simulations? In research it can be a useful assumption.

@wildgrass said
Yes. False memories are a strange and quite common phenomenon. It's thought that most people have false memories without ever knowing it's false. In fact, science doesn't know a whole lot about 'real' memories either. Plants have memory storage and recall mechanisms without nerves. One thing they do know is that they change over time. The molecular process involved in remem ...[text shortened]... mechanisms then why not make the our brains simulations? In research it can be a useful assumption.

False memories are a strange phenomenon indeed but it’s no surprise that something as computationally advanced as the human brain would have the ability to alter the data it receives to suit the purposes of an unrelated programme it’s running.
I’m convinced De ja vue is an example of a memory being stored fractionally faster than the consciousness part of the brain experiences the same event. I’m convinced it happens because I’ve experienced it myself but the answer lies inside the brain rather outside IMO
I think your right about false memories being a common occurrence it’s just a matter of figuring out what their purpose is. They are often described as part of the minds defence mechanism and could be caused by stress or trauma where an unacceptable memory is replaced by a more acceptable or edited one.

@kevcvs57 said
False memories are a strange phenomenon indeed but it’s no surprise that something as computationally advanced as the human brain would have the ability to alter the data it receives to suit the purposes of an unrelated programme it’s running.
I’m convinced De ja vue is an example of a memory being stored fractionally faster than the consciousness part of the brain experien ...[text shortened]... sed by stress or trauma where an unacceptable memory is replaced by a more acceptable or edited one.

Psychological anomalies with false memories, physical anomalies associated with objects changing after observation and the apparent existence of infinite parallel multiverses, biological paradoxes (e.g. Moravec's paradox which notes how easy it is to simulate high level intelligence with computers but not motor skills), could also be explained by the simulation theory.

We're in agreement though that, while a useful philosophical thought experiment, the existence of a simulated reality is largely pseudoscience (although some scientists think it can be falsified). The philosopher Preston Greene writes that "if our universe has been created by an advanced civilization for research purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that it is crucial to the researchers that we don’t find out that we’re in a simulation. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world." So.. he argues... we should actively avoid resolving the question.

In that podcast, the astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson was unable to come up a strong argument against it. Elon Musk has said it's almost impossible that we don't live in a simulation. If you assume any rate of improvement at all in gaming tech, at some point they will be indistinguishable from reality.

@wildgrass said
Psychological anomalies with false memories, physical anomalies associated with objects changing after observation and the apparent existence of infinite parallel multiverses, biological paradoxes (e.g. Moravec's paradox which notes how easy it is to simulate high level intelligence with computers but not motor skills), could also be explained by the simulation theory.

W ...[text shortened]... ate of improvement at all in gaming tech, at some point they will be indistinguishable from reality.

“ biological paradoxes (e.g. Moravec's paradox which notes how easy it is to simulate high level intelligence with computers but not motor skills), could also be explained by the simulation theory. ”
Tell that to Sarah Connor 😲 but seriously it could also be explained by a lack mechanical engineering skills or a lack of the right engineering materials or maybe there’s more to us carbon based units than a stream of binary configurations.

“ The philosopher Preston Greene writes that "if our universe has been created by an advanced civilization for research purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that it is crucial to the researchers that we don’t find out that we’re in a simulation. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, ”

Unless the purpose of the simulation is to ascertain how to find out if the advanced civilisation is in a simulation. No hang on it’s going fractal again and I’m getting a headache, but presumably the simulation is going to be switched off for some reason at some point so you might as well just follow the breadcrumbs. Perhaps the simulation is just long enough to out run living memory and then loops again. The last 130yrs of human history could do with some serious analysis, perhaps at the start of each cycle the programme alters a few key variables. Maybe we are where / when it all went wrong for the advanced civilisation.
I agree with Tyson that there isn’t a strong argument against it but that’s along way from a strong argument for it, which seems to be based on the argument that the fact that we will probably be able means that we must. There are many possible futures or non futures for our species and the simulation obsessed civilisation possibility is but one of them and based on a circular argument. Its a big leap from being the observer / game player to being the unaware sprite in someone else’s game.
If you told me that Tyson claimed it was almost a certainty and Musk could not muster an active argument against it I would be a lot more concerned. 😊

@kevcvs57 said
“ biological paradoxes (e.g. Moravec's paradox which notes how easy it is to simulate high level intelligence with computers but not motor skills), could also be explained by the simulation theory. ”
Tell that to Sarah Connor 😲 but seriously it could also be explained by a lack mechanical engineering skills or a lack of the right engineering materials or maybe there’s more ...[text shortened]... ertainty and Musk could not muster an active argument against it I would be a lot more concerned. 😊

If you told me that Tyson claimed it was almost a certainty and Musk could not muster an active argument against it I would be a lot more concerned. 😊

Good point, there's definitely an important distinction there in terms of commitment to an idea.

Concerned or convinced? Why concerned? I think there is some comfort in the simulation.

@wildgrass said

If you told me that Tyson claimed it was almost a certainty and Musk could not muster an active argument against it I would be a lot more concerned. 😊

Good point, there's definitely an important distinction there in terms of commitment to an idea.

Concerned or convinced? Why concerned? I think there is some comfort in the simulation.

Much the same as many people find a comfort in god I suppose and I get that. I sometimes think it would be nice to have a belief in an over reaching hand guiding our destiny but until someone lays out some incontrovertible evidence I find it concerning that we believe in what comforts us rather than just believe in our senses and follow the bread crumbs.
What I’m saying is, the very fact that it comforts us should ring alarm bells concerning our objectivity about the evidence.

@kevcvs57 said
Much the same as many people find a comfort in god I suppose and I get that. I sometimes think it would be nice to have a belief in an over reaching hand guiding our destiny but until someone lays out some incontrovertible evidence I find it concerning that we believe in what comforts us rather than just believe in our senses and follow the bread crumbs.
What I’m saying is, ...[text shortened]... very fact that it comforts us should ring alarm bells concerning our objectivity about the evidence.

... believe in our senses and follow the bread crumbs.

The idea has been around for a long time, predating computers by thousands of years. My senses are telling me we live in a simulation. The evidence seems clear.

What is a more likely explanation for the existence of infinite parallel universes? What is a more likely explanation for false / edited memories?
What is a more likely explanation for the existence of immutable 'rules' that govern our universe?

Occam's razor and common sense says we're not real.

@wildgrass said

... believe in our senses and follow the bread crumbs.

The idea has been around for a long time, predating computers by thousands of years. My senses are telling me we live in a simulation. The evidence seems clear.

What is a more likely explanation for the existence of infinite parallel universes? What is a more likely explanation for false / edited memo ...[text shortened]... f immutable 'rules' that govern our universe?

Occam's razor and common sense says we're not real.

You seemed convinced that the reality of the universe should fit in with your own intra psychic landscape rather than the hard evidence.
Absolutely no evidence whatsoever for us being in a simulation outside people’s own desires, and suppositions that we will even survive long enough to build one and even then that we would bother to construct probably the most cumbersome model imaginable.
Don’t get me wrong if we do get to the point where we can simulate the known universe we probably will.
But unless you can explain why we would put ourselves or similes of ourselves inside the simulation and what possible purpose that would serve then simulation theory has one thing more in common with every other known god or gods model of reality.
It has no internal logic.