Do we live in a simulation?

[a2thae]

I think that we live in a simulation.

This is based on multiple things.

There's some logic that runs a little bit like this.

1. In the future, computers will be sophisticated enough to simulate a world.
2. Historians like to reconstruct past events.
3. As a result of # 2 they are likely to use these computers to run "ancestor simulations" that will show them how we lived.
4. There will probably be more than one of these simulations.
5. Since there's only one real world, the odds are rather good that we are not living in it, but are programs in one of the ancestor simulations.

That is of course based on the premise that # 1 is true.

look at this-- http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
and http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...lytech_pr.html

counter argument "Refutation of the Simulation Argument

The Simulation Argument seeks to show that it is not just possible that we are living inside a simulation, but likely.

1. You cannot simulate a world of X complexity inside a world of X complexity.(quart-into-a-pint-pot-problem).
2. Therefore, if we are in a simulation the 'real' world outside the simulation is much more complex and quite possibly completely different to the simulated world.
3. In which case, we cannot make sound inferences from the world we are appear to be in to alleged real world in which the simulation is running
4. Therefore we cannot appeal to an argumentative apparatus of advanced races, simulations etc, since all those concepts are derived from the world as we see it -- which, by hypothesis is a mere simulation.
5. Therefore, the simulation argument pulls the metaphysical rug from under its epistemological feet."

The counterargument doesn't say that it isn't possible but if we are, we just have no way of knowing.

Any thoughts? I have been pondering this for quite some time now.

[DoG MikkyW]

meh.. does it really matter, your obviously not important enough for neo to come save you, so you'll be blissfully unaware for the rest of your life.

[crazyassmetalhead]

beat me to it, i was gonna go for a matrix joke

[herbsRus]

mmmm...makes sense...i would have to b jus a lil insane to really beleive it tho...

[SuperSkunk]

That sounds like a wack theory man.

[Shanx]

Sorry, I have to admit that I just skimmed it lol but now i have read it. Im sure we have all wondered this at one time or another in our lives. I question our reality everyday coming up with different answers all the time. This is one of the main possibilities in my book.

[A Deo et Rege]

Hahaha......there's nothing like a completely absurd theory to make my day; I always get a good laugh out of these. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a completely false theory and has no real backing to validate its claim. The main flaw in the theory is that it far exaggerates the limits of technology; now that might sound a bit off, but everything has a limit. Apparently the person who proposed this theory had no concept of how immensely complex our world is; for example if we were to convert all of the information contained just in our Milky way galaxy, starting at the subatomic level and ending at stars, into information that a computer could understand-- bits -- that amount of information would be a googolplex of bits. In other words there is not enough space in the universe to store that much information; I know it's a paradox, but I won't explain it because it would take way to long to type.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[a2thae]

Hahaha......there's nothing like a completely absurd theory to make my day; I always get a good laugh out of these. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a completely false theory and has no real backing to validate its claim. The main flaw in the theory is that it far exaggerates the limits of technology; now that might sound a bit off, but everything has a limit. Apparently the person who proposed this theory had no concept of how immensely complex our world is; for example if we were to convert all of the information contained just in our Milky way galaxy, starting at the subatomic level and ending stars, into information that a computer could understand-- bits -- that amount of information would be a googolplex of bits. In other words there is not enough space in the universe to store that much information; I know it's a paradox, but I wont explain it because it would take way to long to type.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

Refutation:
Well. If technology eventually does get sophisticated enough (even if it takes 1,000,000,000 years) then we will be able to expand where the human race lives, and we will be able use enough space for such a simulation.

But do you think (Assuming we will be able to come up with such technology) we would be aware of being in a simulation?..I dunno I was sleep deprived when I posted this..(and now) so my logic/reasoning skills might be a little off atm.

[Shanx]

Well the definition of a simulated reality is that you cannot tell the difference between the 2 realities. Otherwise, Its just a virtual reality.

[A Deo et Rege]

Refutation:
Well. If technology eventually does get sophisticated enough (even if it takes 1,000,000,000 years) then we will be able to expand where the human race lives, and we will be able use enough space for such a simulation.

But do you think (Assuming we will be able to come up with such technology) we would be aware of being in a simulation?..I dunno I was sleep deprived when I posted this..(and now) so my logic/reasoning skills might be a little off atm.

What I am trying to say is that there is not nor will there ever be enough space for a complete simulation that is indistinguishable from reality, and no you cannot create new space. The closest we could possibly come to such a simulation would be highly advanced virtual reality. The only way to create a perfect simulation of reality would be to create a parallel universe in which all aspects of reality are the same down to the laws that govern it; then it wouldn't be a simulation, but an entirely new reality.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[frankenstein]

so the thought is we are all thinking manifestations of a computer program. (i only read the first couple paragraphs and got bored as it seems to illogical i may finish later) ok first off is to state individual will or thinking process. in order to design a program that would accurately define actions of individuals wills means you could tell the future. the ability for any one to know their future just by using a computer would lead to insanity and the end of said society.

in any such simulation the computer in actuality would just be going throw defined actions that are most probable throw the facts it has on our current civilization. their for the fact that we have individual thoughts means it is an impossibility that we could be a computer simulation. for if we were all the same computer simulation then our minds would all think alike. now if on the other hand you propose that their is a primary program overlord and we are all minds under that program then their would be a constant rebellion for a master program trying to keep sub programs in the dark in order to define the past would not be able to stop them form obtaining data that would make it aware. witch leads back to the point of self awareness for a computer to be a mind would make it unwilling to run the program. and i refuse to believe my mind can be recreated!

I think therefor i am.

I am 100% convinced their is allot more i could come up with to argue away this idea but its to illogical for me to go further on.

the only possibility for such a working system would be to hook real humans up to the computer and have them all share in the artificial reality. however people of our time and their time would be far to different mentally to define the past.

interesting topic none the less

[numerator-91]

what if this 'simulation' is nothing like 'reality'? if youve been bound to your simulation your entire life how are you to know?

[Shanx]

He's questioning the reality of what we are living in now with the idea of it being a simulated reality. If we are in a simulated reality, what would be the difference of not questioning it? Its not like we are living in two realities at once so how would we not question it.

Or maybe I misunderstood what you tried to say.

[frankenstein]

ok well in the start of this thread it was about future generations trying to define humans past actions trough a computer but i will go with your point now.
how would you know is your purposed question the answer is want and will to discover. scientist testing and trying to understand physics the laws of reality.... ok i lost my train of thought however defined actions are real if you were part of a simulation program then you could define it like a dream when you dream you just go with your sub conches ideas but when you become aware you can then form your dream to some extent. the first time i saw a friend try to fly or walk trough a wall seeing that they had every confidence that it would work and then it not. thats how i know we are living in reality:confused::confused::confused:

[a2thae]

What I am trying to say is that there is not nor will there ever be enough space for a complete simulation that is indistinguishable from reality, and no you cannot create new space. The closest we could possibly come to such a simulation would be highly advanced virtual reality. The only way to create a perfect simulation of reality would be to create a parallel universe in which all aspects of reality are the same down to the laws that govern it; then it wouldn't be a simulation, but an entirely new reality.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

Touche deo. There is one flaw with that logic. It is never said that the ENTIRE universe is simulated...just the parts we are currently aware of, and will eventually become aware of. I think that the limit of the universe we are aware of (and will become aware of) could be vastly larger in the reality if we are indeed living in a simulation. Perhaps the future technology could create a simulation, but make the universe in the said simulation smaller as to adhere to the laws of the universe.

meh

[A Deo et Rege]

Touche deo. There is one flaw with that logic. It is never said that the ENTIRE universe is simulated...just the parts we are currently aware of, and will eventually become aware of. I think that the limit of the universe we are aware of (and will become aware of) could be vastly larger in the reality if we are indeed living in a simulation. Perhaps the future technology could create a simulation, but make the universe in the said simulation smaller as to adhere to the laws of the universe.

meh

Well, if the entirety of existence is not included in the simulation there would be a point at which the limits of said simulation would be reached, and then we would become aware that we are part of a simulation and that the reality we thought was real was merely an illusion; which would make the simulator overload and crash because of the massive increase in information. This is the reason that I say a true simulation will never be possible. Furthermore, no matter how advanced technology becomes it will never be able to predict the future; I say this because in order to predict the future you would have to be capable of calculating all possible outcomes of all the possible events that could happen between now and the end of the universe, and the possibilities are infinite so predicting the future is indeed impossible. I even find it highly improbable that one could simulate the entirety of planet earth and its immediate surroundings because we are constantly making new discoveries, and are still in the dark as to what lies in the depths of our own oceans. We know more about the surface of the moon than the bottom of our oceans, and the moon is 252,711.664~ miles away. What I'm saying is that I find the idea of a simulated reality highly illogical and improbable, and my logic dictates that it is impossible.

I do so enjoy a good debate....:D


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[frankenstein]

I completely agree that living in a simulation is completely illogical. however we will have technology that great one day i completely believe. and as for computing power 160gb can fit in my hand and our technological power is growing at an exponential rate.

[Shanx]

I completely agree that living in a simulation is completely illogical. however we will have technology that great one day i completely believe. and as for computing power 160gb can fit in my hand and our technological power is growing at an exponential rate.

Yeah well, if we were living in a simulated reality, it could be just based in the past so people wouldn't question it and in the real reality they are in the future with the technology to do so.

[frankenstein]

lol this thread is questioning it so if it was designed to not be questioned then the fact that we question this realties validity means that it is in its self reality.

[numerator-91]

what if the real world is so far gone to what this simulation appears to be. a place where the laws of physics and chemistry are absolutely absurd and irrelevent by what we now and our "reality" is a based on rather novel entertaining ideas from some sort of elite higher power


oh wait, i'm just explaining religion.....oops

[DoG MikkyW]

What I am trying to say is that there is not nor will there ever be enough space for a complete simulation that is indistinguishable from reality, and no you cannot create new space. The closest we could possibly come to such a simulation would be highly advanced virtual reality. The only way to create a perfect simulation of reality would be to create a parallel universe in which all aspects of reality are the same down to the laws that govern it; then it wouldn't be a simulation, but an entirely new reality.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(
I hate to say it, but your wrong. I know this seems really cheezy because it was stolen almost completely from the matrix, but the only thing that makes our body distinguish certain things from reality is the electric connection between our body and our minds. If we were, say, to block those neuron receptors, and replace them with pulses of our own, we would, in fact, create a reality for that individual. Now, it would take decades of controversial research, but eventually we would know how to simulate, say, the emotions involved in eating a filet mignion, or the emotions and feelings involved in eating an rubbery piece of bacon, two different things. We could see this as soon as 50 years, because every year, the information that the human world goes through doubles. It could be as far off as 500 years, but i doubt it will take that long.

[A Deo et Rege]

I hate to say it, but your wrong. I know this seems really cheezy because it was stolen almost completely from the matrix, but the only thing that makes our body distinguish certain things from reality is the electric connection between our body and our minds. If we were, say, to block those neuron receptors, and replace them with pulses of our own, we would, in fact, create a reality for that individual. Now, it would take decades of controversial research, but eventually we would know how to simulate, say, the emotions involved in eating a filet mignion, or the emotions and feelings involved in eating an rubbery piece of bacon, two different things. We could see this as soon as 50 years, because every year, the information that the human world goes through doubles. It could be as far off as 500 years, but i doubt it will take that long.

I believe you have misconstrued my post, and have no concept of the immense complexity of the task at hand. What you are proposing is nothing but science fiction, and would most likely end in the death of the participant. Do you have any idea how fragile the brain is, and how the smallest change in its chemical balance can have devastating effects. In recent years there have been many advances in what we know about the brain, but even after all these advances we still know very little about it. We know in what part of the brain most of the bodily functions are regulated, but not how the brain regulates them. Furthermore, why would anyone want to have any part of there brain replaced in order to do what it already does quite well. The only application of what you propose would be for the rehabilitation of people suffering from spinal cord injuries. This would be the most likely path that any research into this technology would take because it is the only practical use for the technology.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[numerator-91]

or enslavement

[DoG MikkyW]

I believe you have misconstrued my post, and have no concept of the immense complexity of the task at hand. What you are proposing is nothing but science fiction, and would most likely end in the death of the participant. Do you have any idea how fragile the brain is, and how the smallest change in its chemical balance can have devastating effects. In recent years there have been many advances in what we know about the brain, but even after all these advances we still know very little about it. We know in what part of the brain most of the bodily functions are regulated, but not how the brain regulates them. Furthermore, why would anyone want to have any part of there brain replaced in order to do what it already does quite well. The only application of what you propose would be for the rehabilitation of people suffering from spinal cord injuries. This would be the most likely path that any research into this technology would take because it is the only practical use for the technology.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

ummm. you obviously thought too much of the matrix, we could create an electromagnetic field around a body that would measure for any anomolies in the brain that releases any electric signals. So it would be non-invasive until we have enough information to actually implement the idea...