We are most likely in a simulated universe (2 Viewers)

[ronnknee]

You are infuriatingly stupid. You've proposed that this provides a simple answer to our creation, when it just shifts the question as to how creation occured in the first instance to "Who created our creators?".

You are even more infuriatingly stupid! It does provide a simple answer for our creation. We can't possibly know how our creators are made because their universe might not be the same. There is no way to know, so the question is not shifted for now. For now, we would know how we exist, if the theory is true, and thats all we can do.

 

[withoutaface]

You are even more infuriatingly stupid! It does provide a simple answer for our creation. We can't possibly know how our creators are made because their universe might not be the same. There is no way to know, so the question is not shifted for now. For now, we would know how we exist, if the theory is true, and thats all we can do.

You've created more new questions than you've answered though, and that isn't satisfactory.

 

[Enteebee]

For this theory to have any merit, you would have to accept that the processing power of computers pretty much has the potential to exponentially increase. Has anyone proved this to be true/false? I personally believe that there is a point in time where processing speed will hit a glass ceiling, and that that limit will not be enough to simulate an entire universe/multiple universes.

It isn't necessarily simulating an entire universe, merely it processes what it needs of the universe as we come up to it.. Games have utilised this sort of technology for ages -entire maps are not rendered for the computer to deal with, merely as far as the eye can see with a little lee-way...

 

[KFunk]

For interest, the US government has been making use of a pretty neat world simulator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_Environment_for_Analysis_and_Simulations (wiki)

http://www.mgmt.purdue.edu/academics/mis/workshop/AC2_100606.pdf (rough structure)

 

[ronnknee]

You've created more new questions than you've answered though, and that isn't satisfactory.

I think it is a great way to advance our knowledge because it is like understanding that there is something beyond our planet. Ackowledging that creates so many more questions like dark matter etc. To me its about looking beyond our horizons.

"What breathes fire into these equations? The usual approach of science constructing a universe with a mathematical model cannot explain why there should be a universe for the mathematical model to explain in the first place"- Stephen Hawking

The creator universe may not even be subject to any laws. This may raise more questions, but thats just how science works. Think about how many questions have arisen from acknowledging something beyond our tiny planet. When I learn science, I often get answers that create more questions.

 

[ronnknee]

It isn't necessarily simulating an entire universe, merely it processes what it needs of the universe as we come up to it.. Games have utilised this sort of technology for ages -entire maps are not rendered for the computer to deal with, merely as far as the eye can see with a little lee-way...

Plus it doesn't have to run in real time. This simulation can have paused for a billion years and then restarted but we would never know.

 

[brainwashed39]

if there is some deep dark secret to the universe and our conscious existence in it i sinceryly doubt a bunch of bored teens would figure it out.
but if you mysteriously dissapear... we'll all know why.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

If we were in a simulated universe wouldn't the fact that we were thinking about the possibility (i.e. this thread and like half the internet) be a 'glitch' in the system itself which would have been fixed by now? I mean, if I was the...simulation admin or whatever and the people in it started realizing what was going on I'd put a stop to it pretty fast...so perhaps the fact that this thread is still here is proof enough of the reality of our existence.

If we are in a simulated universe, though, I want mad awesome Matrix heavy-dude powers. Now plz.

 

[Russdog]

To actually properly dismantle the argument:
1. You've acknowledged that it may not be possible to create such an artificial consciousness.
2. If such consciousnesses were created, it is likely they'd have a few glitches here and there that we would experience in everyday life. The likelyhood of us beng in a glitch free existence would be fairly low.
3. While we don't have definitive evidence saying that we aren't in a synthesised reality, there's certainly nothing to suggest we are. Occam's razor therefore says that we make less assumptions by simply taking it at face value.

open your eyes.

 

[ronnknee]

If we were in a simulated universe wouldn't the fact that we were thinking about the possibility (i.e. this thread and like half the internet) be a 'glitch' in the system itself which would have been fixed by now? I mean, if I was the...simulation admin or whatever and the people in it started realizing what was going on I'd put a stop to it pretty fast...so perhaps the fact that this thread is still here is proof enough of the reality of our existence.

If we are in a simulated universe, though, I want mad awesome Matrix heavy-dude powers. Now plz.

I don't see why admin would have to change us because we start questioning it. Maybe its a computer program of their past, and their just tryin to find out wat happened cause they lost historical records etc.

The fact that you may like it does not make it anymore likely to be true. Sure it may be an interesting thought experiment. But the fact that it raises more questions than it answers and that there is no evidence to support it, means we have no reason to think that it is true.

For the last time for everyone in this thread, I know theres no hard evidence to back it up and i would never say there was. Im just sayin there could be, and if its possible to create consciencess, then its highly PROBABLE that we are simulated. Its not proof! Its just highly probable. Also, our world would be extremely primitive if we only accepted answers that did not provide more questions.

 

[scarybunny]

If we are in a simulated universe, though, I want mad awesome Matrix heavy-dude powers. Now plz.

Yes pls.

I want some patent leather and firearms, too.

 

[ronnknee]

life is a dream.

Yes that's another theory that is very related to this because it uses similar ideas and arguements to back it up.

 

[Graney]

How anyone can like that movie is beyond me.

You should read a lot more philip k. dick.

Failboat of Psychology, Philosophy and Computer Science ITT

So no different to most of NCAP then.

 

[BradCube]

I'm pretty sure this is where properly basic beliefs come into play. Going to the extent that we actually imagine that we are in a simulated universe means we can begin to doubt every foundation of our knowledge.

 

[Graney]

It actually is more likely, based on some logical reason I forgot.

Well now I'm convinced.

 

[Ennaybur]

I don't know if anyone's actually covered this yet but:

(according to my lecturer) there was a pretty famous paper written on this, which argued that in all probability we are in a simulated universe. From my understanding it goes something like this:
- we have no way of telling whether we are in a simulation/brain in a vat
- over the course of human history we (or robots) will eventually be able to develop a computer simulation of reality.
- considering the maths of it all and comparing how many people who have lived, and how many billions of people who would be living in the simulated universe, what is the chance that you are one of the ones in the real world before the simulation? very very small
----
- Therefore it is most probable that we are in a simulated universe.

 

[Ennaybur]

I probably need kfunk in here to explain it better.^


He then gave a really sweet rebuttal of it, but I don't really remember so I'll leave it to you guys to nut out.

 

[KFunk]

*facepalm*

Occ. Fucking. Am.

I really don't think that Ockham's Razor is the right thing to apply here. In this argument the claim that we are in a simulated reality is a conclusion, not a premise/assumption.

Any issues with the argument seem, to me, to lie at the level of ascription of probability. If the respective probabilities can be ascribed, such that it is more likely that we are in a simulated universe, then the conclusion follows through deference to the most probable explanation of observational data.

Ockham's razor is applied when we are dealing with theory building, assumptions of existence and metaphysical baggage. It can't just be thrown at a conclusion which strikes one as absurd, as is being done in this thread.

 

[Riet]

The question is choice.

 

[KFunk]

But even those premises don't sit at the right theoretical level for the application of Ockham's razor to be appropriate.

In the scientific context, the principle of parsimony (much the same thing as O's razor) is used to help decide between competing theories. Theories, in science, aim to explain observational phenomena and to predict similar events in the future. The claims that "humans will one day be able to simulate reality" or that "such technology, if developed, will be widely used" are not theoretical claims in this sense. They are statements, or factual claims, which do not aim to explain observations, but instead speculate about the future state of affairs. They may themselves be grounded in theoretical considerations (indeed, ineveitably they should be if they are to be made in a scientific setting) but they don't strike me as reasonable candidates for the basis of a theory.

The argument appears to be a deductive one to me. The premises are being proposed as reasonable claims and then a probabilistic argument ensues. While it ends up making claims about how we should explain our experiences it is not primarily a construction of a theory which aims to do this - this is just a consequence of the conclusion. Does this distinction between a deductive argument and a hypothetico-deductive theory make sense, or are my claims still striking people as bogus?

I'm not saying that these premises can't be attacked; they can be. When a person makes an outlandish claim like 'hedgehogs can fly' you needn't crack out Ockham's razor (as I have argued, it would be inappropriate) - you need only ask "where is the evidence?".