Are we part of a 'computer game'?

Thats good because I have never accepted it. Like you said before, it's a pipe dream. I've only seen the Matrix once, it's so over rated, but that film could also spark a new arguement, are we part of the Matrix or is this real-life, but no-way am I going into that.
Everyone keeps assuming that whoever may have created us has the same level of intelligence to us. As I've said before, that may not be the case.
At the moment, I'm speaking Hypothetically.
If my thoery does one day be proved true, would you want to know. I wouldn't. I'd know that our very exsistance is a lie but we are technically alive.
 
Originally posted by Einstein
Thats good because I have never accepted it. Like you said before, it's a pipe dream. I've only seen the Matrix once, it's so over rated, but that film could also spark a new arguement, are we part of the Matrix or is this real-life, but no-way am I going into that.
Everyone keeps assuming that whoever may have created us has the same level of intelligence to us. As I've said before, that may not be the case.
At the moment, I'm speaking Hypothetically.
If my thoery does one day be proved true, would you want to know. I wouldn't. I'd know that our very exsistance is a lie but we are technically alive.
Click to expand...

Zoidberg,

Originally you were pondering, what if ..... because of the advancement of our AI. That one was debunked.

Now what you saying is nothing but another way to ask "Does God exist?"
 
I was waiting for someone to say that. I don't believe in god. But it is true that what I am refering to is like a god to us.
If my thoery did prove true, would that not answer so many questions. I don't actually believe in my thoery (which is stupid), it a debate that I have been pondering for many months in my own mind.
But the direction you are taking is totally different. It is almost unexplored, what if god is a computer programmer?
But god wouldn't be god, he'd be an average joe working at their version of MicroSoft. So god would not be an almighty being. But thats not the primary arguement, is it.
 
Originally posted by Einstein
But the direction you are taking is totally different. It is almost unexplored, what if god is a computer programmer?
Click to expand...

LOL! That one is so easy to debunk.

We are not part of a computer game because nothing in this world is create as a "digital" imagine. Everything is analog. All you have to do is to use a precise instrument to find where you run out of resolution or where a number is being rounded up or down. You can argue God can use a continuous analog system instead of a discrete system. If God does that then this God is not so intelligent anymore. There are reasons why analog computers are obsolete.

Can you even imagine what storage space and what CPU speed is required? The CPU has to be so fast that, the amount of radiation generated can destroy the entire universe. The program itself takes longer than many many people's life time to write.

This question shouldn't take you very long to ponder. It only took me couple minutes and I am already bored.
 
Zoidberg:
I was waiting for someone to say that. I don't believe in god. But it is true that what I am refering to is like a god to us.
If my thoery did prove true, would that not answer so many questions. I don't actually believe in my thoery (which is stupid), it a debate that I have been pondering for many months in my own mind.
But the direction you are taking is totally different. It is almost unexplored, what if god is a computer programmer?
But god wouldn't be god, he'd be an average joe working at their version of MicroSoft. So god would not be an almighty being. But thats not the primary arguement, is it.
Click to expand...

All this is without a shred of evidence. If you go back to questioning "how do we know what is real?" you might be off on a very interesting philosophical tangent.

But this theory lacks any evidence for it, thus should be discarded.

Sexy:
That is probably why there are more bad philosophers than good ones.
Click to expand...

Aye, that it is. Things can get really fucking weird when you delve deep into philosophy. Drugs only make them weirder.

Of course, philosophy is more or less an excersize in weirdness.
 
You're still assuming that whoever may have created us has a similar technologial base as us. If they could create a universe like this, surely they could create enough power to run us. They would probably have to, as I'm assuming that a species that has the capacity to create us, should have at least basic morals.
They may also have the power to compress us to a size that is equivelent to 1mb. You never know.
 
I find it hard to believe a Descartes discussion showed up without Merljin or I getting into it, so here is my two cents.

The only thing that descartes makes a compelling claim for (and I'm being generous) is when he decides to look at the world around him.

As Xev says, he asks if he can tell that the world around him is actually real, or if he lives in a dream-world. He says he has a "natural inclination" that the objects that exist before him really do exist, without making a claim as to what this natural inclination is, or why he has it, or how we go about having them. But he does finally say that he can tell the difference between a real world and a dream world by doing science. If the existant world ever contradicts itself without any resolution, then the existant world is a dream world. BUT if the existant world has consistent science, then it doesn't matter if it is a real world or a dream world-they are essentially the same.

So, in hopes that this will end, I offer you the solution: figure out where a computer simulation would contradict itself. (realizing of course that the best way to do this is understand how an AI works within a computer system, and that given the level of technology we do have the AI "people" still don't interact with their environment). If you can find a paradox (and I mean a grown-up paradox in this case) then we are likely living in a simulated world. If there is no way of telling, then the distinction is simply not important.
 
If a programmer created us, then the same questions apply to the programmer, like who created it.

I agree with zoidberg, its plausible that with the advancement that we are making with AI, that another more advanced people could make AI that would be cabible of producing a world, with people in it that think and act...

I dont agree that the "grafix" had to be anywhere near amazing, as we know no different, we have nothing to compare it with then its impossible to tell how good the grafix would be.

Any theory that is made has grounds to be thought about, even if its one person spending 5 mins on it, because if we can think it, its not impossible that it will happen.

It could probably be linked in some way with many other theorys, so why not explore it.
 
Look up <b>Digital Physics</b>. Tons of websites (and counting) by Academics.... seriously putting forth that reality is Discrete at the subatomic level.

Originally posted by Joeman
LOL! That one is so easy to debunk.

We are not part of a computer game because nothing in this world is create as a "digital" imagine. Everything is analog. All you have to do is to use a precise instrument to find where you run out of resolution or where a number is being rounded up or down. You can argue God can use a continuous analog system instead of a discrete system. If God does that then this God is not so intelligent anymore. There are reasons why analog computers are obsolete.

Can you even imagine what storage space and what CPU speed is required? The CPU has to be so fast that, the amount of radiation generated can destroy the entire universe. The program itself takes longer than many many people's life time to write.

This question shouldn't take you very long to ponder. It only took me couple minutes and I am already bored.
Click to expand...
Digital Physics
 
As to the technology needed for this reality to be VR?

Consider this:
At the rate technology is expanding, what kind of VR simulation does one think a computer would have the capability of having in say..........50 years or 100 or even 500 years?

This lead to the next hypotheses.....that obviously say 500 years from 'now', these capabilty is a plausible fact.

That leads to the possibility that we are in these VR's from say..... 500 years from "Now".

(Will write more later, gotta jam to work...and I'm reallly freakin late!)
 
Originally posted by Xev
"cognito, ergo sum"
Click to expand...

It's cogito . . . we all know you know that, you lovable cognoscente you . . .
. . . so quit it, you mistress of malapropian mayhem, before it causes me further arousal.
Bah!
:mad: :p :rolleyes:
 
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_dream.html

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_brain.html

Here's some interesting material from the matrix website that might help you understand better what's going on here.

I've gotta say this topic has been debated several hundred times- and it's obvious that there is no way to answer (don't think anyone's trying to refute that). In fact, I read in an essay once that it's really quite impossible to say you're in some kind of simulation because you have no grounds to support your argument. It would be like claiming the insides of a couple of rocks in the center of the universe are blue- you've no way of supporting a claim like this, and it this would make it valueless.

Before you jump on my back Zoidberg, everything you're saying is possible- just like Tyler has been patiently (by the way I don't think I have the ability do what you've done here Tyler- and so calmly) trying to tell you- everything you can possibly say is possible. The problem is there's nothing to debate. It's worth thinking about, but you can't really talk about it because no one can refute anything you say, or even support it for that matter. It's not that it's not important, it's just that it has no conversational value.

I could be a blue dragon for all you know, but that claim is as worthwile debating as yours is.

It's good to think these thoughts for a while, but take them for what they are and don't think you can build any great conclusions on them.
 
Disagree

Originally posted by BigWill


It's good to think these thoughts for a while, but take them for what they are and don't think you can build any great conclusions on them.
Click to expand...

Disagree, disagree, disagree.


Thru a network....which is the same as an 'internet' (which is probably why the 'internet' was invented)...... IF humanity is a collective 'maya', (which has been suggested over and over, by eastern religions, philosophers, and the crazies of the world) .....thru this network........everyone can 'compare notes' so to speak......suggest written works, etc, etc, etc.

Thru this process, many minds is better than one, scenario is set up.

It was suggested either by Zecharia Sitchin or William Bramley that the ancient "Tower of Babylon" was just that.......a world wide networking system....that was demolished. For what reason?

It's also suggested that the many languages we have is also part of the compaign of "Dividing and Conquering".

Reading the books "Gods of Eden" and the Sitchen series (12 books each 400 pages)......one starts to see that Things are not what they seem. (These authors do their research from the first known civilizations.)

You are coming strictly from the academical viewpoint....namely thru debate, it is an excercise in futility to try and figure out if you are a "brain in a vat".

True.

But there are other ways, like I've suggested above.
 
Cogito ergo sum isn't as much a certainty as Descartes wanted it to be.

Descartes talks about "substantia cogitans". This adds too much to the proposition. Only a subjective pole in the given situation can be included in the first experience of existence.

Why should thinking be the most fundamental attribute of "I"? Jaspers says that freedom is the most fundamental. There is something to say for the body or the feelings as well.

Descartes says that his spirit thinks. "I" is the spirit. He splits up body and mind. He has no reason to do that. It leads to dualism, which he can never fully repair in his philosophy.

Maybe we live in a computer game.:eek:
 
infinitethoughts, I see what you're getting at but I"m not sure how you're countering anything I said...

It's suspicious that you made reference to books that probably most people haven't read...i.e. "(12 books each 400 pages)" Are you trying to prove you have more insight on the deal, because you really didn't describe that insight- I'm not impressed yet.

Sure collective minds are better than one- which is why we're here @ sciforums after all, but Zoidberg was talking in a circle even tho everyone said they couldn't bring anything new to the topic- it's good he thought about it, but his persistance is useless, as is yours, unless there's a new point to make.
 
As I said:
You are coming strictly from the academical viewpoint....namely thru debate, it is an excercise in futility to try and figure out if you are a "brain in a vat".

True.

But there are other ways, like I've suggested above.
Click to expand...
 
I think you might be right by thinking in terms of the world as being a computer program, though I highly doubt that it's a video game.

"Is it possible these questions are useless? Yes!!!"

Hilarious

Seriously though, there's been a lot of advances in science by studying nature via simple computer programs that are capable of highly complicated behavior. It turns out that many of these programs are excellent models for things found in nature. Cellular automata are such kinds of programs. I've been reading some freaky shit about cellular automata lately that have deep philosophical implications. Here's something to get you started on.

URL=http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/ca/83-statistical/3/text.html]Cellular Automata[/URL]

It could very well be plausible that the world as we know it be the result of a simple program.
 
dude, you didn't name anything above- you repeated what I said- what exactly did you suggest above? I didn't see any points made
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top