Convince me I'm not in a Simulation.

I think that it is likely we are part of a simulated universe and not the real universe. If you look at the way technology continues to advance exponentially, the ability to simulate every single subatomic particle's movement in the known universe on your laptop is not completely unimaginable. In time, with quantum computing, I think "The Sims" becomes a completely accurate simulation of the universe indistinguishable from the actual waking universe. The assumption here is that if you can simulate all of the components of a human brain down to the most fundamental subatomic building block, you can simulate consciousness. You are assuming that this simulated being is self-aware, or at least its self-awareness is simulated -- either way, the being is convinced of its own consciousness and the reality of its universe.

So in the "real universe," assume that this kind of technology is already available. Consider the amount of simulated universes that are possible inside the real universe, on each person's computer or mobile phone or whathaveyou. The possibilities are near limitless. From a pure probability perspective, it is more likely that a conscious being exists in a simulation than the actual real universe.

you can't prove or disprove something like that, unless you figure out that our universe or whatever our universe is apart of is infinite. in that case, it's impossible that we're a simulation because math (something can't be infinite if there is something greater than it).

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:16 PM, Hoodie said:

you can't prove or disprove something like that, unless you figure out that our universe or whatever our universe is apart of is infinite. in that case, it's impossible that we're a simulation because math (something can't be infinite if there is something greater than it).

There are probably ways of reasoning around this... like the simulator simulates a universe that appears infinite to its inhabitants. I think it will be telling though when we do have the technology to simulate the human brain. Agreed you can't prove or disprove, but you can always at least convince ET.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:16 PM, Hoodie said:

you can't prove or disprove something like that, unless you figure out that our universe or whatever our universe is apart of is infinite. in that case, it's impossible that we're a simulation because math (something can't be infinite if there is something greater than it).

We could be, like, one of those Brian Eno generative universes though

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:21 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:16 PM, Hoodie said:

you can't prove or disprove something like that, unless you figure out that our universe or whatever our universe is apart of is infinite. in that case, it's impossible that we're a simulation because math (something can't be infinite if there is something greater than it).

 

There are probably ways of reasoning around this... like the simulator simulates a universe that appears infinite to its inhabitants. I think it will be telling though when we do have the technology to simulate the human brain. Agreed you can't prove or disprove, but you can always at least convince ET.

what do you mean about the human brain? simulating 80 billion neurons in one organism is a far cry from an entire universe (even a finite one).

something somewhat related jumped into my mind..

why the fake matrix universe in the film wasn't utopia but the same gay-ass world we are living in right now ? was that just a plot device or was there an explanation ?

i sure as fuck wouldn't mind being butt plugged to provide electricity for a machine that would grant me many decades of happiness.

if i fall down in the forest, but there are no trees in the forest, is it still a forest?

does the act of observation take in account the various facaces we put up for ourselves? i feel like a puppet on a string, a mere player in a larger game. is my perception of this world simply not broad enough, am i missing an essential perspective? at any moment of time i might break through this veil and unravel the perceptive discrepancies.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:23 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:21 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:16 PM, Hoodie said:

you can't prove or disprove something like that, unless you figure out that our universe or whatever our universe is apart of is infinite. in that case, it's impossible that we're a simulation because math (something can't be infinite if there is something greater than it).

 

There are probably ways of reasoning around this... like the simulator simulates a universe that appears infinite to its inhabitants. I think it will be telling though when we do have the technology to simulate the human brain. Agreed you can't prove or disprove, but you can always at least convince ET.

 

what do you mean about the human brain? simulating 80 billion neurons in one organism is a far cry from an entire universe (even a finite one).

I mean that if the human brain can be perfectly simulated but the simulation is not self-aware, then we don't have to worry about this argument.

Whos sim is this and why did they sim 7 billion fucking spastics

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:12 PM, Fred McGriff said:

I think that it is likely we are part of a simulated universe and not the real universe. If you look at the way technology continues to advance exponentially, the ability to simulate every single subatomic particle's movement in the known universe on your laptop is not completely unimaginable. In time, with quantum computing, I think "The Sims" becomes a completely accurate simulation of the universe indistinguishable from the actual waking universe. The assumption here is that if you can simulate all of the components of a human brain down to the most fundamental subatomic building block, you can simulate consciousness. You are assuming that this simulated being is self-aware, or at least its self-awareness is simulated -- either way, the being is convinced of its own consciousness and the reality of its universe.

 

So in the "real universe," assume that this kind of technology is already available. Consider the amount of simulated universes that are possible inside the real universe, on each person's computer or mobile phone or whathaveyou. The possibilities are near limitless. From a pure probability perspective, it is more likely that a conscious being exists in a simulation than the actual real universe.

We're sending someone around to adjust your settings. Sit tight.

In philosophy, that's called a zombie.

2012.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:29 PM, Lindrum Larry Cocopipe said:

Whos sim is this and why did they sim 7 billion fucking spastics

lol.

for shits 'n giggles? the same reason people play sims. because they're bored and because they can.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:27 PM, magnetandsteel said:

 

 

The real problem is when you say "it is more likely that a conscious being exists in a simulation than the actual real universe." Becauseee, what makes this elusive 'real universe' any more desirable than our made up one? It's probably way shittier and more overcrowded! When push comes to shove this simulation is the realist thing you're ever going to get, its the only place you exist - whether "you" are a self-aware code process or a byproduct of a natural survival process or whatever.

I don't see this as a problem though, why should the real universe be any more desirable? I'm fine being in a simulation, because I'm self-aware, and being self-aware is how I validate my existence, whether in a simulation or not.

It's also easier for me to believe in miracles, now that I believe I'm in a simulation. The simulator can deviate as he pleases from whatever physical/natural rules we consider unbreakable. So there was probably like a drop-down menu on his Sim Universe app to insert Jesus.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:33 PM, sirch said:

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:29 PM, Lindrum Larry Cocopipe said:

Whos sim is this and why did they sim 7 billion fucking spastics

 

lol.

for shits 'n giggles? the same reason people play sims. because they're bored and because they can.

even still, you just wouldnt sim a skrillex would you

The very idea of being in a simulation presupposes that there is something being simulated, which is to say, a 'real world' of which you have no knowledge. And in that sense, you would have to be comfortable with the idea of being massively deceived about what is true in order not to be bothered by the possibility of being in a simulation.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:41 PM, encey said:

The very idea of being in a simulation presupposes that there is something being simulated, which is to say, a 'real world' of which you have no knowledge. And in that sense, you would have to be comfortable with the idea of being massively deceived about what is true in order not to be bothered by the possibility of being in a simulation.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:41 PM, encey said:

The very idea of being in a simulation presupposes that there is something being simulated, which is to say, a 'real world' of which you have no knowledge. And in that sense, you would have to be comfortable with the idea of being massively deceived about what is true in order not to be bothered by the possibility of being in a simulation.

I don't think you necessarily have to understand it as deceit to be part of a simulation. If you are in a simulation and discover that you are in a simulation, the argument can be made that the tools were given to you to uncover the truth. This is how science carries on anyway... when scientists discovered the earth was round, I believe the reaction was closer to elation rather than feeling victimized.

  On 2/8/2012 at 6:29 PM, Lindrum Larry Cocopipe said:

Whos sim is this

that is the question. not to be or not to be.

*posting in an ET thread*

wait..what?

(null)

I advise against philosophy. stop before it is too late.

  On 2/8/2012 at 7:39 PM, GORDO said:

I advise against philosophy. stop before it is too late.

dude you're overthinking this. let's just start with a hypothesis of nothingness in a completely empty space. null, void. the first human construct that will manifest itself, will be your last memory. now, given that your last memory has now taken form and materialized could you perhaps say it is the first memory? time is arbitrary in the sense that we can analyse it, break it down in to smaller units, then quantize it, but still we don't know where it stops and starts. i'm feeling like a snake eating its own tail, i'm not very good at this ET-improv-stuff.

let me ask you this, can a computer possibly replicate the feeling of trembling, nervous excitement when docking for the first time?

We are a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation....etc....