Easily, you can play russian roulette. If an when the bullet hits you would know death is not a simulation.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Easily, you can play russian roulette. If an when the bullet hits you would know death is not a simulation.
Sure, but if you kill yourself the death is not simulated at all. If the animal that eats you alive is a simulation you should be able to stop with your consciousness and the brain, however, you will still be eaten alive-that's not simulation, that's very painful death.
You can't control the simulation. You get eaten alive. Then you wake up in another room, but the present of being eaten alive is still horrible in the present. Should we be afraid of the present.. yes, but of the future... no.
You can't control the simulation. You get eaten alive. Then you wake up in another room, but the present of being eaten alive is still horrible in the present. Should we be afraid of the present.. yes, but of the future... no.
You don't wake up in another room because your brain and your memory is destroyed. Death is the ultimate force.
You don't wake up in another room because your brain and your memory is destroyed. Death is the ultimate force.
Not in a simulation it isn't.
Lawrence Krauss in the book "The physics of Star Trek" was actually talking about hologram, there is a huge difference between hologram and real physical body. For once, hologram has no field at all, while your hand, your desk and etc... all have electrical/electromagnetic fields, it's electric fields that make you physical, while hologram/simulation has nothing the same with characters in any video-game.
something tells me you have not watched that video.
The universe is the ultimate quantum computer.
No, it's not.
something tells me you have not watched that video.
I'm talking about the book not the video. Krauss specifically shows the distinction between hologram and physical body.
Well, if you saw a computer running a program that it was impossible for that computer to run - let's say that you saw a classical computer running a program that only a quantum computer could run - the conclusion would have to be that (assuming your observations were correct and that there is no mistake that it is a classical computer and a quantum program) the program is not being run by the computer. The could imply that it has been designed to make it appear that the classical computer is running a quantum program, whereas really a quantum computer is running the program.
Now, if our brains are equivalent to a computer, and our consciousness is a program, we would expect our consciousness to be a program that can be run by the hardware of our brain. But if we found that this was not the case - that our conscious experience was a program that could not possibly run on our brains - this could be used to conclude that although at first glance it appears that our brains run the program of our consciousness, the program of our consciousness is in fact being run by a different, and unseen, set of hardware.
Despite being highly implausible, this is the only phenomenon that I can think of that I would count as evidence of being in a computer simulation.
If our brain programming does not match computer programming, than it's not a computer simulation. It's something else, we don't know exactly what.
Yes as Chambers said "consciousness is the hard problem." I doubt any set of hard ware can ever be made to have even simple experiences ("Qualia") that humans have all the time.
However, I think we have them because the brain, specifically the parietal part, is running a real time simulation and creating "us" in the process. I have also suggested that because of this genuine free will is not necessarily inconsistent with the natural laws that control the firing of every nerve in your body. See how I think we have experiences and may even have genuine free will (but I doubt that) at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66
BTW, IMHO, John Searle makes the most sense on this subject.
SUMMARY: My POV is not that we are living in simulation, but that we are part of a real time parietal (brain) simulation. I.e. "we" are not a physical body, but an informational process. Note "I" ,"we" "us" etc. in quotes refers to this created psychological self not the physical self /body.
And information process is a physical process, information is physical, it's not something simulated. We definitely can't see completely objective reality (but at least we see its shape, after all people see this world equally), because the brain doesn't allow us that, but saying other people that your brain sees and detects are brain's simulation (if I understood correctly) is pretty much like saying that you're speaking with simulation of me on the other side, and I'm the real person, not some simulation, but the computer shows my cyber-profile, not the physical me.
Not necessarily. Remember in The Matrix it was explained that there was a first Matrix that was a perfect world. Problem is, it was too good, so people didn't buy into the illusion and kept dying off. Part of what makes reality is how crappy it is.
Matrix is the movie, so please skip it, we're dealing with the real world theories.
Even in Matrix they could die though.
Obviously the bullets ere real as well (since they killed real persons in the Matrix).
Not in a simulation it isn't.
If it was true simulation, you would come back from death, but you don't ever come back from death. That's reality.
Why, they could just toss out the 'character'. The huge batch of information and patterns in the simulation that is you could be thrown out.If it was true simulation, you would come back from death, but you don't ever come back from death. That's reality.
The bullets would be programs - sort of like fast viruses that destroy the complicated information patterns these people were in the simulation. Of course they were real, but they were not made of metal, for example.Matrix is the movie, so please skip it, we're dealing with the real world theories.
Even in Matrix they could die though.
Obviously the bullets ere real as well (since they killed real persons in the Matrix).
“ Originally Posted by hardalee
The universe is the ultimate quantum computer. ”
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
Every particle in the universe obeys the quatum laws as it computes the probabilities as to were it will be in the next insant.
The whole universe could be a computer simulation and no one would ever know.
The universe is the ultimate quantum computer. ”
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
Every particle in the universe obeys the quatum laws as it computes the probabilities as to were it will be in the next insant.
The whole universe could be a computer simulation and no one would ever know.
“ Originally Posted by hardalee
The universe is the ultimate quantum computer. ”
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
Every particle in the universe obeys the quatum laws as it computes the probabilities as to were it will be in the next insant.
The whole universe could be a computer simulation and no one would ever know.
extreme ideas require extreme evidences, the question is how sure you're in what you're saying? Would you kill yourself to prove your point? I somehow doubt it.
The universe may be running in a manner analogous to a quantum
computer. However, it can not be a simulation by definition. A
simulation requires something to simulate. A simulation can't simulate
itself. By definition, the universe contains everything.
In order for your question to make any sort of sense, you must
tell us what the universe is simulating. That something must be
outside the universe.
How do you know this universe isn't more than a complex version of Sim City, running on some kids Nintendo?
Well, then. The kid and everything he handles is "the universe".
The computer and software he uses, including us, is only part of the
universe. What we observe is the simulation of his universe.
The concept that you are presenting is called solopsism.
Solopsists believe that there is no way to determine if our sensory
data is an illusion. It is not part of science at all. It doesn't
belong on a physics newsgroup.
A holographic universe does not entail solopsism. There is no
absolutely no simulation in the holographic universe.
There are other issues addressed by a holographic universe. There
can be more than one representation of the universe around us. I
prefer to think of the holographic universe theory as stating that
there is more than one type of representation that one can make of
the universe.
Holographic universe theory refers to the nature of a
representation. You can represent parts of the universe in at least
two different ways: a high dimensional representation or a low
dimensional representation. Each is an equally valid representation of
part of the universe. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
However, there is an isomorphic mapping between the two. Both types of
models potentially yield the same information. Thus, there is only one
universe, which can be represented in different ways.
A representation in a way is similar a projection. You can
represent the earth either with a globe, or by a flat projection.
There are several hundred different types of flat projection. However,
all these representations are projections. They are all what you would
call a representation. In a way, the globe is no more accurate than
the two dimensional projection. Digitally, the surface of the earth
can be represented by a one dimensional projection.
A holograph is a particular type of two dimensional projection.
It involves a Fourier transform. However, it is no more a simulation
than a Decatur projection, or whatever it is called. A holograph of
the earth's surface is just as real as a solid globe representing the
earths surface.
When you read a map on an Atlas, you don't ask whether it is a
simulation. You know it is a simulation. However,
There is no issue of simulation. In order to decide whether that
something is a simulation, you have to decide what is being
I prefer the word "representation" to the word "simulation". The
word representation encompasses some of the concepts that you are
groping for. However, the word "representation" doesn't imply that
there is an unseen reality.
There is no Kid with Divine Intendo who is playing with his
Holographic Universe.
As someone already said you can't give brain, the planet and the universe a computer code to exist-there are no codes which can trigger the life, the brain the consciousness, and the universe itself. If that was the case, everyone by now would have the power to shape the entire reality with super-computers with super-computer's super-codes. This is not the case.
Plus, universe as a simulation would require person A with the hyper-computer who is doing codes for this entire universe, but again there would be someone above person A-a person B with super-hyper-computer who created the person's A entire universe including the person A and the person A's hyper-computer, and this would go to infinity, if you assume that there is someone with computer created this universe.
It's useless to discuss about the universe as the simulation-one of the dumbest hypothetical theories ever.
@gravage
I suggest you read Brian Green’s “The Hidden Reality”, specifically chapter 10, “Universes, Computers and Mathetmatical Reality, The Simulated and Ulitimate Multiverse.”
In that chapter, he discusses simulation of a universe.
The idea, though far out, is not new. It addresses what reality is, much as was done by the ancient philosophers, without the benefits of our current knowledge.
If you are interested in other than science fiction and games, these links may also be useful:
http://www.google.com/search?q=univ....,cf.osb&fp=fe49d561ad75bea3&biw=1360&bih=665
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
http://hanson.gmu.edu/lifeinsim.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
I could go on and on.
A deep phisolphical question asked in the post.
I have given you a point of view, not necessarily mine, but one that has merit.
As to a simulator, maybe there was one. That is a question for religion, not computers and physics.
Thank you for your “kind and thoughtful reply”.
I mean that, as always, in the nicest possible way.
Hardalee
I suggest you read Brian Green’s “The Hidden Reality”, specifically chapter 10, “Universes, Computers and Mathetmatical Reality, The Simulated and Ulitimate Multiverse.”
In that chapter, he discusses simulation of a universe.
The idea, though far out, is not new. It addresses what reality is, much as was done by the ancient philosophers, without the benefits of our current knowledge.
If you are interested in other than science fiction and games, these links may also be useful:
http://www.google.com/search?q=univ....,cf.osb&fp=fe49d561ad75bea3&biw=1360&bih=665
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
http://hanson.gmu.edu/lifeinsim.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
I could go on and on.
A deep phisolphical question asked in the post.
I have given you a point of view, not necessarily mine, but one that has merit.
As to a simulator, maybe there was one. That is a question for religion, not computers and physics.
Thank you for your “kind and thoughtful reply”.
I mean that, as always, in the nicest possible way.
Hardalee
Last edited:
@gravage
I suggest you read Brian Green’s “The Hidden Reality”, specifically chapter 10, “Universes, Computers and Mathetmatical Reality, The Simulated and Ulitimate Multiverse.”
In that chapter, he discusses simulation of a universe.
The idea, though far out, is not new. It addresses what reality is, much as was done by the ancient philosophers, without the benefits of our current knowledge.
If you are interested in other than science fiction and games, these links may also be useful:
http://www.google.com/search?q=univ....,cf.osb&fp=fe49d561ad75bea3&biw=1360&bih=665
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
http://hanson.gmu.edu/lifeinsim.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
I could go on and on.
A deep phisolphical question asked in the post.
I have given you a point of view, not necessarily mine, but one that has merit.
As to a simulator, maybe there was one. That is a question for religion, not computers and physics.
Thank you for your “kind and thoughtful reply”.
I mean that, as always, in the nicest possible way.
Hardalee
Who cares what philosophers are saying. The main point is if the universe was a simulation, our computers would be able to create sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, but this is not the case. If they are so smart they could figure out to create code in computer simulation which can create the real atom for example, but they can't. This shows the difference between the simulation and the real universe.
@gravage
The links I posted do not quote philosophers but scientists.
The universe has all of its own atoms, particles, etc. and at each instant, a probability exists as to what each will do and then it does it. Is that not computation? If not, what is it?
I again state that the universe may act as the ultimate quantum computer.
Take or leave it, it doen't matter to me one way or the other. I'm just discussing a post that IMHO has value.
As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Hardalee
The links I posted do not quote philosophers but scientists.
The universe has all of its own atoms, particles, etc. and at each instant, a probability exists as to what each will do and then it does it. Is that not computation? If not, what is it?
I again state that the universe may act as the ultimate quantum computer.
Take or leave it, it doen't matter to me one way or the other. I'm just discussing a post that IMHO has value.
As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Hardalee
@gravage
The links I posted do not quote philosophers but scientists.
The universe has all of its own atoms, particles, etc. and at each instant, a probability exists as to what each will do and then it does it. Is that not computation? If not, what is it?
I again state that the universe may act as the ultimate quantum computer.
Take or leave it, it doen't matter to me one way or the other. I'm just discussing a post that IMHO has value.
As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Hardalee
Those scientists are not scientists, otherwise such theory wouldn't exist. It seems to me that this hypothesis fits to those who want to find a prupose of life or God's existence. But anyway, why the idea of quantum computer doesn't work, and it can be disproven as I provided above:
Machine executes -> encounters paradox -> cannot decide process -> ineffective computational process. That's about as laymen as it gets. There is no way for any machine to decide whether a process takes a very long time to compute or is fundamentally undecidable. Undecidable statements occur on a highly regular basis in the real world if say this were to simulate human beings. Brains alone can do things no machine can. This is a very well known result in computation.