I do not believe in that, BUT, what could be the best argument to prove that this life is NOT a simulation by aliens or whatever.
It will be entertaining to hear your arguments :)
I do not believe in that, BUT, what could be the best argument to prove that this life is NOT a simulation by aliens or whatever.
It will be entertaining to hear your arguments :)
The PC community is the red headed step child Reloaded never wanted but got saddled with when they married the PC community's mother.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shoutout to mah real Africans out there.
Then Matrix cunfrimed!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ermagherd!!!!!!!!
It's the mice you know. They are so clever
![]()
The Atlas Of Illal https://community.pl...atlas-of-illal/
Illal Maps and Information https://community.pl...nd-information/
An Interview With Laila https://community.pl...iew-with-laila/
The Quarantine of Illal https://community.pl...ntine-of-illal/
You can not prove it.
http://en.wikipedia..../Brain_in_a_vat
There was a great episode of Rick and Morty just about this.
Knight of the Holy Tree
CRITICAL ASSIST
United in Diversity, Divided by Zero
predators gonna predate
Edited by ticklemyiguana, 06 April 2015 - 10:46 AM.
wow, much serious, much thinking, wow
Damnit Tickle, I'm out of like-votes for today..
I'll like it tomorrow, and there's nothing you can do about it!
You can not prove it.
http://en.wikipedia..../Brain_in_a_vat
There was a great episode of Rick and Morty just about this.
I just saw the title of the thread and thought, "Is this Philosophy 101?"
Given the current state of technology, it's actually mathematically improbable that we are not living in a simulated universe of some sort.
If we continue to grow as a species and continually increase our computing power, we will build simulations of more and more complex systems. Such systems are primarily used to predict real life outcomes, and have been in use since the dawn of mankind - before computers it was just called imagination.
It's fair to say that with the appropriate technology, we will attempt to construct a simulation of our galaxy, and perhaps someday, a simulation of as much of the universe as we can fit in said simulation. In order for that simulation to be accurate, it must contain beings of some sentience, as our universe already does. In order for it to be more accurate, said sentient beings must closely resemble those found in the universe.
Since they are almost identical, it is highly probable that said sentient beings will attempt to create simulations of their own. Those simulations, as they grow in accuracy, will begin to include their own sentient beings and those beings will construct their own simulations and those simulations will have their own beings and so on and so forth.
Based on modern scientific theory, each simulation must be smaller than that above it, but given the scale of the universe, it's likely many many simulations could be computed within the initial "reality".
And who knows? Modern science may, and probably would fall short in whatever other possible realities there are.
Given these probabilities and the scope of our own universe as well as its physical limits, one could very reasonably argue that we are living in a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of...
But hey, at least our simulation has Hawken.
I've always thought the simulation hypothesis was hogwash.
As nice as Moore's law is, it cannot extend indefinitely into the future; and it seems we are already reaching some limitations in that regard. So at best, I think we may be able to simulate a vastly smaller universe (as in, a teacup-sized universe) very slowly, and for a very limited amount of time (a few hours worth of time in the simulation, happening over weeks for us). I can be wrong, and physics is certainly not my specialty, but there's no way anything of value (such as abiogenesis, evolution, intelligent species, and nested simulations) can happen in it.
Now it could be that the computer simulating our universe does not share these limitations, but we probably cannot know anything about it. It's very likely we can't ever know, unless the simulation has quirks we can detect; and even then, it would not be proof of simulation. And since we have no evidence, the null hypothesis applies: I don't believe complex universes can be simulated, so I don't believe our universe is a simulation.
Also, philosophy is far behind me now, so take my reasoning with a grain of salt :)
Moore's law is actually set to expire in the next decade or so as we're reaching the limits of the conditions on which it is based. However I think it'd be real silly to think computing won't advance just because we don't have a theoretical model of how fast it will advance.I've always thought the simulation hypothesis was hogwash.
As nice as Moore's law is, it cannot extend indefinitely into the future; and it seems we are already reaching some limitations in that regard. So at best, I think we may be able to simulate a vastly smaller universe (as in, a teacup-sized universe) very slowly, and for a very limited amount of time (a few hours worth of time in the simulation, happening over weeks for us). I can be wrong, and physics is certainly not my specialty, but there's no way anything of value (such as abiogenesis, evolution, intelligent species, and nested simulations) can happen in it.
Now it could be that the computer simulating our universe does not share these limitations, but we probably cannot know anything about it. It's very likely we can't ever know, unless the simulation has quirks we can detect; and even then, it would not be proof of simulation. And since we have no evidence, the null hypothesis applies: I don't believe complex universes can be simulated, so I don't believe our universe is a simulation.
Also, philosophy is far behind me now, so take my reasoning with a grain of salt :)
Edited by ticklemyiguana, 06 April 2015 - 10:56 AM.
Note that I like thinking about that. I'm not refuting your argument, because it is completely valid. I don't agree with the implicit premiss of continued exponential improvement of computing power.
So yeah, it's possible computing will know a paradigm-shift and dramatically increase in power. Still, the laws of physics set upper limits to our computational power, just like the speed of light limits how fast we can go.
If you want to simulate a universe similar to this one, you need unimaginably vast amounts of storage and computing power even for a very small universe. We could simulate it very slowly, but assuming it takes us 1000 days to simulate 10 days (I'm being very generous here), we need to run it for a century... to simulate one year. And a slow simulation still does not address the storage problem.
Let's say you want to simulate ten years. Now you have to convince someone to pay for your simulation for 1000 years. And let's not talk about the need for political stability over such a long period, or the risk of your computer failing way before that reaching your goal.
And at the end, since you have simulated ten years of a small universe, nothing interesting has happened; abiogenesis and evolution seem to need a very big universe, and a lot of time.
Note that I'm addressing the whole-universe simulation hypothesis here. The brain-in-vat one is probably much more accessible.
Edited by Niels, 06 April 2015 - 11:14 AM.
Oh, exactly. I don't disagree with a word you've said. However all that tells me is that each reality is likely significantly smaller than the last. If the universe is really just as big as we've observed, it's probable we'll be able to simulate a galaxy before we can simulate the universe. Which in and of itself is can be capable of supporting life.Note that I like thinking about that. I'm not refuting your argument, because it is completely valid. I don't agree with the implicit premiss of continued exponential improvement of computing power.
So yeah, it's possible computing will know a paradigm-shift and dramatically increase in power. Still, the laws of physics set upper limits to our computational power, just like the speed of light limits how fast we can go.
If you want to simulate a universe similar to this one, you need unimaginably vast amounts of storage and computing power even for a very small universe. We could simulate it very slowly, but assuming it takes us 1000 days to simulate 10 days (I'm being very generous here), we need to run it for a century... to simulate one year. And a slow simulation still does not address the storage problem.
Let's say you want to simulate ten years. Now you have to convince someone to pay for your simulation for 1000 years. And let's not talk about the need for political stability over such a long period, or the risk of your computer failing way before that reaching your goal.
And at the end, since you have simulated ten years of a small universe, nothing interesting has happened; abiogenesis and evolution seem to need a very big universe, and a lot of time.
Note that I'm addressing the whole-universe simulation hypothesis here. The brain-in-vat one is probably much more accessible.
It's the mice you know. They are so clever
![]()
How many roads must a man walk down?
Given the current state of technology, it's actually mathematically improbable that we are not living in a simulated universe of some sort.
If we continue to grow as a species and continually increase our computing power, we will build simulations of more and more complex systems. Such systems are primarily used to predict real life outcomes, and have been in use since the dawn of mankind - before computers it was just called imagination.
It's fair to say that with the appropriate technology, we will attempt to construct a simulation of our galaxy, and perhaps someday, a simulation of as much of the universe as we can fit in said simulation. In order for that simulation to be accurate, it must contain beings of some sentience, as our universe already does. In order for it to be more accurate, said sentient beings must closely resemble those found in the universe.
Since they are almost identical, it is highly probable that said sentient beings will attempt to create simulations of their own. Those simulations, as they grow in accuracy, will begin to include their own sentient beings and those beings will construct their own simulations and those simulations will have their own beings and so on and so forth.
Based on modern scientific theory, each simulation must be smaller than that above it, but given the scale of the universe, it's likely many many simulations could be computed within the initial "reality".
And who knows? Modern science may, and probably would fall short in whatever other possible realities there are. There could very literally be infinite accurate simulations. If this were the case, the mathematical chance of us not being in a simulation would literally be zero. obviously I'm not about to base an argument on the hypothetical that there just might be an infinite number, but in order for us to say mathematically improbable, all we need are three.
Given these probabilities and the scope of our own universe as well as its physical limits, one could very reasonably argue that we are living in a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of...
Especially since the rest of the universe could just be a set backdrop. We haven't even been outside our own solar system yet.
But hey, at least our simulation has Hawken.
Oh, uh, as an afterthought, as our sense of consciousness is dependent on stimulation and the storage of our perceptions of these stimulants, and not some objective sense of reality, it's basically impossible to prove that you are any more than a single brain hooked up to an IV with some wires attached to it, much less prove that the entire universe isn't a simulation.
lel, #heHasNoLife :p
THE TRUE ANSWER!
One shockingly strong argument that this life is NOT a simulation is the existence of irrational numbers. Constants like PI or the golden number etc... are impossible to fully and completely calculate. Those unending numbers prove that there is no one that is simulating our existence because that would be a flaw.
Thank you irrational numbers for making us rest assured that we aren't a simulation.
Note: This is more of a joke for fun and some good times. I'm a muslim and I have strong beliefs, but it was jokingly trying to hear some wacky answers and laugh along about a weird question :)
The PC community is the red headed step child Reloaded never wanted but got saddled with when they married the PC community's mother.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shoutout to mah real Africans out there.
I feel as if that doesn't logically follow. Similar to the speed of light, irrational constants may just represent boundary conditions that are necessary in order to maintain an appropriate simulation.lel, #heHasNoLife :p
THE TRUE ANSWER!
One shockingly strong argument that this life is NOT a simulation is the existence of irrational numbers. Constants like PI or the golden number etc... are impossible to fully and completely calculate. Those unending numbers prove that there is no one that is simulating our existence because that would be a flaw.
Thank you irrational numbers for making us rest assured that we aren't a simulation
Note: This is more of a joke for fun and some good times. I'm a muslim and I have strong beliefs, but it was jokingly trying to hear some wacky answers and laugh along about a weird question :)
Edited by ticklemyiguana, 06 April 2015 - 12:52 PM.
This is literally the premise of my year long research project for school, that we are not in control and robots are the dominant lifeform on this planet.

CRT master race... No questions allowed.
Period.
if we are living in an aliens simulation they will most likely be unaware of our existance
The gameplay is boring, but the GFX is 10/10
Ceterum censeo ... bootcamp-servers! &:
#rapidMMR4newaccounts #removethedelay
#morespeed4EOC #lessspread4T-32
#buffG2R #nerfZerk'n'Assault
#dosomethingwithHF #noisesupression4breacher
THANKS FOR THIS AWESOME GAME!
If life is a simulation then I applaud the creators of it for being sadistic and ingenious in equal measure
According to Quantum Physics there's only one possibility in between a zillion of zillions of.... hey!, here it is; one "brand new & quantumgly materialized from who knows where...?" cold beer for me...
Interesting thread... ;)
Are you also discussing about transformation equations as an approach on how any given familiar singularity might be recording stuff as holo-data.. or what?
...
.
The difference between theory and practice is smaller in theory than it is in practice.
What if we are running are own simulation? What if our world is simply being powered by our own brains?
Then again, what if we are all actually asleep? Or drops of water in an ocean simply interpreting the activity around us as this world?
I always like to think that whatever this "world" truly is, its probably beyond what we can comprehend in our own small, acute thinking.
Well, going to go play something now and forget about it all!
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users