universe a simulation

[Grog]

I read an article about a theory that the universe is a simulation and the argument was that once technology gets advanced enough to make good enough simulations of the world then the simulated worlds will get more common then the real one and then probability says that it would be more probable that our world is one of those simulations.

What do you say about this? Is it correct, does it matter, is it as pointless as other types of solipsism (that is what it is called, right?), am I missing something obviously wrong with the argument?

[mauldooku]

The 'universe is a computer simulation' hypothesis has no evidence backing it up. Therefore, it is invalid to claim such.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I read an article about a theory that the universe is a simulation and the argument was that once technology gets advanced enough to make good enough simulations of the world then the simulated worlds will get more common then the real one and then probability says that it would be more probable that our world is one of those simulations.

What do you say about this? Is it correct, does it matter, is it as pointless as other types of solipsism (that is what it is called, right?), am I missing something obviously wrong with the argument?

While it may or may not be true, it doesn't matter, not one bit. All it does is add an unnecessary variable to our understanding of the universe, just like assuming that <insert name of favorite world-creating diety here> made the universe. It is unprovable, unless whatever has set up and run the simulation permits the simulation to partially or wholly reconfigure itself.

[neoolong]

The 'universe is a computer simulation' hypothesis has no evidence backing it up. Therefore, it is invalid to claim such.

Yes, it does. Have you not seen the documentary, The Matrix?

But seriously, we already have simulated worlds, they're called games. MMORPGs are already pretty complex, should we then assume that we're in one? Kinda silly idea.

[Grog]

The problem with the idea is that it is completely useless and unnecessary like more or less all other types of solipsism. But the probability things bug me, how do you refute that?

[Robert Walper]

The problem with the idea is that it is completely useless and unnecessary like more or less all other types of solipsism. But the probability things bug me, how do you refute that?

It's not up to us to refute it. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence/proof.

[Grog]

It's not up to us to refute it. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence/proof.

Evidence for there being more simulated worlds after the point where technology gets advanced enough?

It feels like I'm missing something.

[Hardy]

It's not up to us to refute it. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence/proof.

Evidence for there being more simulated worlds after the point where technology gets advanced enough?

It feels like I'm missing something.

You'd be looking for people in leather trenchcoats running around and jacking up rent-a-cops and normal Americans turning into shady black suited-agents.



Seriously, you'd really be looking for consistent contradictions of the laws of physics which can be attributed to "glitches" in the simulation.

[Chmee]

The 'universe is a computer simulation' hypothesis has no evidence backing it up. Therefore, it is invalid to claim such.

Yes, it does. Have you not seen the documentary, The Matrix?

But seriously, we already have simulated worlds, they're called games. MMORPGs are already pretty complex, should we then assume that we're in one? Kinda silly idea.

If there's a server crash and my toon gets rolled back to puberty, I am gonna be PISSED. Grinding to Professional level was a bitch!

[General Zod]

I read an article about a theory that the universe is a simulation and the argument was that once technology gets advanced enough to make good enough simulations of the world then the simulated worlds will get more common then the real one and then probability says that it would be more probable that our world is one of those simulations.

What do you say about this? Is it correct, does it matter, is it as pointless as other types of solipsism (that is what it is called, right?), am I missing something obviously wrong with the argument?

unless it happened to come from a reputable science journal or magazine, i'm inclined to say bullshit. like many a conspiracy theory out there.

[Grog]

unless it happened to come from a reputable science journal or magazine, i'm inclined to say bullshit. like many a conspiracy theory out there.

It is not a scientific theory really it is just annoying solipsism with an argument I haven't heard before.

The article was based on an interview with some philosopher at Oxford University.

[General Zod]

unless it happened to come from a reputable science journal or magazine, i'm inclined to say bullshit. like many a conspiracy theory out there.

It is not a scientific theory really it is just annoying solipsism with an argument I haven't heard before.

The article was based on an interview with some philosopher at Oxford University.

a philosopher? in that case it's fairly safe to say it's bullshit.

[Grog]

I already know that. It is just that probability argument I'm interested in, at least the math is right.

[Tom_Aurum]

This is why I hate Plato. Refused to look into the reality of the situation.

[Fuzzy]

The 'universe is a computer simulation' hypothesis has no evidence backing it up. Therefore, it is invalid to claim such.

Yes, it does. Have you not seen the documentary, The Matrix?

But seriously, we already have simulated worlds, they're called games. MMORPGs are already pretty complex, should we then assume that we're in one? Kinda silly idea.

If there's a server crash and my toon gets rolled back to puberty, I am gonna be PISSED. Grinding to Professional level was a bitch!

lmfao. thats good. altho, i wouldnt mind a rollback of 1 month. especially right now. wow i would jump at the chance to change the last month.

[wolveraptor]

this begs the question of "who's running this simulation? who made it?"

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

a philosopher? in that case it's fairly safe to say it's bullshit.

WHy's that? Science is a philosophy. Ethics is under philosophy. Are they all bullshit too by virtue of being philosophy supported by philosophers?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think it's bullshit based on it's merit, not based on it's support by philosophers.

[General Zod]

a philosopher? in that case it's fairly safe to say it's bullshit.

WHy's that? Science is a philosophy. Ethics is under philosophy. Are they all bullshit too by virtue of being philosophy supported by philosophers?

because far too often philosophers completely ignore things like the scientific method and logic for whatever happens to sound appealing.

I think it's bullshit based on it's merit, not based on it's support by philosophers

huh? according to grog a philosopher is the one that coined the theory. i wasn't attacking it because philosophers supported it, i was attacking it because it was originally thought up by one. and as mentioned above they have a tendency of ignoring things like the real world and the scientific method.

[Winston Blake]

this begs the question of "who's running this simulation? who made it?"

Duh. His name starts with 'C' and ends with 'olonel Sanders'.

Every time you eat at KFC, although the process alters your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of the products you will think taste good, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first bite may be the most satisfying, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant.

[Mad]

The only way it's possible is if the simulation is less complex than the reality or very, very slow. That would mean reality is far more complex than our reality. Otherwise, the simulation would have to be powerful enough to simulate itself. And, of course, it's impossible for something to simulate itself at full speed, much less everything else in addition.

Given the complexity of our world, I'd say: no, this is not a simulation. (Occam's Razor is also handy.)

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

because far too often philosophers completely ignore things like the scientific method and logic for whatever happens to sound appealing.

They are shitty philosophers then. I learned in my philosophy class that good philosophers use logic--it's a major part of good philosophy. There are many good Philosophers. I don't think all philosophy is bs, just because there are some idiots who don't use what you're supposed to use in Philosophy. Where I come from, in order to be a Phil major, you need to take several classes in Logic.

You are right there, there are many poor philosophers, but you made it sound like it's wrong what he said because he's a philosopher.

i was attacking it because it was originally thought up by one. and as mentioned above they have a tendency of ignoring things like the real world and the scientific method.

Shouldn't you be attacking it because it's a bad idea instead of it's origin?
That would make more sense. Yea, they tend to have idiots who ignore what philosophy requires, but that doesn't make them all like that. There's a difference between good Philosophy and rhetoric-only bs philosophy.


I understand what you are saying, but I think it's a little unfair to attack it because a philosopher coined the theory. He's just a bad philosopher in this case.

As I said before--science is a philosophy. It's just a good one.

[Symmetry]

this begs the question of "who's running this simulation? who made it?"

People from Earth of course. Once a civilization has a Dyson sphere up, they have a lot of energy to play around with, and one use for it people have envisioned is to simulate various historical periods, perhaps to try to give sociology of scientific basis or maybe just for fun. There's no reason they have to simulate history just once, and so you could vary well have many simulations going over a very long period of time (though recent thinking is that the universe can only generate a finite number of computational cycles).

If the above speculation is true, then for every sentient being that is really alive during the twentieth century there will be countless sentient beings who *think* they're alive during the twentieth centry. There are, of course, a many objections to this analysis, some of which have been mentioned. Its also been pointed out by others that future civilizations might consider it immoral to simulate being who have to live in pain, civilization might be wiped out before anything like this can happen, civilization might follow another development track, etc.

I've heard several discussions of why we should care about this, but really none of the reasons seemed likely enough for me to bother relating them.

[Robert Walper]

It's not up to us to refute it. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence/proof.

Evidence for there being more simulated worlds after the point where technology gets advanced enough?

It feels like I'm missing something.

We can never simulate a complete universe, at least not one that is also capable of simulating a universe. That would lead to an infinite number of simulations within simulations. Even with infinite processing power, the program would be an endless routine.

Perhaps that's where the conept of time comes from.

[darthdavid]

It's not up to us to refute it. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence/proof.

Evidence for there being more simulated worlds after the point where technology gets advanced enough?

It feels like I'm missing something.

We can never simulate a complete universe, at least not one that is also capable of simulating a universe. That would lead to an infinite number of simulations within simulations. Even with infinite processing power, the program would be an endless routine.

Perhaps that's where the conept of time comes from.

Well all that that would need to be solved is hard coding that causes any program attempting to program another universe simulator to fuck up and misstype a line or two of code...
But the theory is still bs, because of occams razor and all. It's a useless variable that changes nothing (well unless it's real and we can find a way to say access the real internet and find real porn. Then I'm all for it. 'cause think about it. If porn here is ok then porn in the real world must fucking rock).