What do you think about this idea: Reality is a Simulation

i think it was phrased in philosophy class as, is it possible that you are in reality a disembodied brain in a vat on jupiter where an evil scientist has wired your brain to receive exactly the right sensory data to create the illusion that you're on earth, have a body, that there are other people, etc.

i always thought the phrasing of the problem was unimaginative, because the existence of jupiter itself, vats, evil scientists, and even the laws of physics, were all, at least potentially, only part of the fictitious universe that exists only in the signals being sent to my brain. if brains even exist.

the real interesting philosophy question is, what is the minimal things that could exist that could create this illusion/simulation? do i have to have some notion of a physical brain? what laws of physics are necessary?

different question from whether or not we *are* in a simulation or someone else's illusion.


ah, late night sophomore year memories....

detector. The Double Slit Experiment detector that is. It seems to me that to begin to understand the complexity of the Universe we start with the Double Slit experiment. According to the results of this experiment, at the level of a photon, reality does not solidify until someone or something sees it.


The implication of this experiment is apparently that reality is a product of consciousness. Unless someone hears and sees the tree fall in the forest, no sound and no object was perceived, did it happen at all?

Far fetched? Many physicists appear to be giving this a second thought.

I interpret it to mean "observed" by interacting with other particles (energy transfer).

Nobody needs to be in the laboratory to order for a non-conscious detector behind one of the slits to eliminate the interference pattern.

On the other hand, I get a chuckle out of the other interpretation of "observer" since it shows there's no omniscient God that many people want to believe without evidence to support it. If conscious observation collapsed wave functions, and a God observed EVERYTHING, we shouldn't see any such interference patterns.

The Simulation Hypothesis:

and we're the dream.

Or was it Siva?

It's all pasta these days!

Just asking.

And no, Neo is not a valid response.

top notch Scientists are entertaining the idea:

Leonard Susskind on the World As Hologram


2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?

Or are they merely trying to justify their attempt to turn modern physics into unintelligible mathematical legerdemain with no checks in evidence?

In the same category as multiverse.

back in October at Mile Hi Con, a science fiction con that always includes a lot science topics. One of the physicists present at that panel said that it was highly unlikely, because there simply wasn't enough computing power available to keep up the simulation in the sort of detail we keep on finding. In short, if no more science had been discovered/uncovered/learned after, say Newton, then this could be a simulation. Of if the entire Universe were only one galaxy, or at best a handful, then maybe.

But instead there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each of which contain hundreds of billions of stars. Everywhere we look we find more and more complexity, more and more detail. Everywhere we look.

(At some other science panel at Mile Hi a year or two earlier someone in the audience actually suggested we'd learned all there was to learn, and got a hearty laugh at that.)

Anyway, the more we learn, the more there is too learn, and while one or two on the panel were open to the possibility we might be living in a simulation, the general opinion was no. The Universe is real, and we are only one very tiny portion of it.

So essentially, those who seriously think we're living in a simulation, don't understand the actual complexity involved.

if I understand them correctly are

1) the The Simulation is self perpetuating and evolves, according to certain laws, infinitely, or until it meets some sort of destructive situation. IOW, the designer was not responsible for most of the complexity that developed.
2) We only see part of the simulation at one time. There are short-cuts. We only see one screen of a simulation game at a time- Other screens exist while you are playing a game as possibilities (other rooms) you could enter at another time, but they only exist if you look at them. Einstein complained about this argument by saying that he preferred to think that the moon existed when he was not looking at it.

This apparently is an old, ongoing argument in physics.

The second isn't valid in that while any one individual is seeing only one part of it at a time, millions upon millions (perhaps even billions) of humans are looking at millions or billions of screens all at once. The very first time I heard the question about a tree falling in the forest, and if there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Truly stupid, unless you believe that you are the only creature in the Universe and that nothing exists unless you are paying attention to it. Einstein's right.

I sort of got the impression at that panel that the physicists were fairly certain this has been resolved in favor of the Universe being real. Not totally, but with a fairly high degree of confidence.

especially as stated by Nick Bostrom, where it's posed as a trilemma...the whole thing rests on the assumption that a "post-human" civilization would have tremendous computing power and be able to create a simulated environment wherein the occupants would experience it as a fully "real" world, and also that artificially created, simulated entities would possess consciousness/sentience. Given those assumptions, logically, you'd have to accept that at least one of the following statements is true:

1."The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
2."The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero", or
3."The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"

I suppose it also begs the question as to "what is consciousness?"

Here's the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

Our current "reality" certainly looks like somebody with a seriously cruel streak has decided they're tired of their Sims and are just going to torture us all and blow up the world. My guess: space alien invasion and/or massive natural disasters are next up. Hope it's all very entertaining for some fucker somewhere....

Just like the strings conjecture. No evidence (plus a whole lot of meaninglessly mathematical legerdemain).

I am not against such explorations, but as a mere BS in physics, I'll stick with quantum field theory until it has been supplanted by something new... BY PREDICTIONS BORNE OUT BY ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Hopefully versions2018 & 2020 will begin to fix this.

This is an ancient idea, which is why political, religious and patriarchal bullies always think they can change it. Sometimes they even get away with it for a while. Eventually either they kick the bucket or cognitive dissonance becomes so painful that people around them kick it for them.

I was a nurse for a long time. I disbelieve 50% of what I see and 90% of what I'm told. This kind of idea is a hard sell to me.

I believe this is the video that was partially shown in the video from the OP:

[center][/center]

In D’Souza’s TED talk she claims that our universe is pixelated. I don’t believe that is an established scientific fact. There is a paper from 2011 that puts the graininess of space at no larger than 10[sup]-48[/sup] m. But the paper also states that whether or not space is continuous is an open question.

An excerpt from the paper:




It’s difficult to respond to the video in the OP because it doesn’t present a single coherent argument but rather excerpted segments from a number of different people speaking at different times and places.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

This hypothesis seems a modern version of Genesis, from the perspective of the Computer age rather than the Bronze Age. Maybe it's a new creation myth. Viewed literally, it's just as silly.

The Universe is very big, the human mind is very small. We humans don't know shit and we never will.

But it's great fun to explore what we *can* know, and sometimes this knowledge has practical applications, as in the understanding of quantum physics and information theory that went into this machine I'm writing on and the internet it's connected to.

The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. Still can't bend spoons with my thoughts. So my answer is: no.

Exploring this topic gives me a lovely distraction from the DT (Delerium Trumpet).

before people started producing high tech simulations.

If someone knows how to affect the simulation, please PM me instructions on how to get a private, deserted island and Elizabeth Banks and/or Elisabeth Shue...

Nothing is easier than stringing together vacuous sequences of words, as (for example) Chomsky's Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

One can, of course, have long and pleasantly inconclusive discussions around such assertions: Assuming colorless green ideas do sleep, do all green ideas sleep or just the colorless green ones? And if green ideas sleep, do they actually always sleep furiously or do they sometimes sleep moderately?

None of this has anything to do with science, which -- after all -- is not an abstract search for metaphysical truth but an ongoing attempt to produce a coherent computationally-useful view of our world

... reminds me of Apollo flying across the sky in a fiery chariot. What was the height of technology at the time? The chariot.