Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Al Doggity on June 07, 2016, 12:54:50 PM
-
This is one of those philosophical/internet questions that has been kicking around for a while. The below video with Elon Musk is posted as reference, I don't necessarily agree with his reasoning ( I also don't completely understand it :P )
I have believed for a while that our perception of time only moving in one direction suggests we're in a computer simulation. I also think the concept of emotions- specifically love- seems like something a programmer might come up with.
-
Yes, God is the creator (Software developer), and we are the computer programs. Reject His Son, Jesus Christ, and you shall be retired and deleted for ever.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/CluTronLegacy.jpg)
-
{
public static void getBig (String[] args) {
System.out.println("Great thread");
}
}
-
{
public static void getBig (String[] args) {
System.out.println("Great thread");
}
}
Java ::)
-
This is one of those philosophical/internet questions that has been kicking around for a while. The below video with Elon Musk is posted as reference, I don't necessarily agree with his reasoning ( I also don't completely understand it :P )
I have believed for a while that our perception of time only moving in one direction suggests we're in a computer simulation. I also think the concept of emotions- specifically love- seems like something a programmer might come up with.
Basically unless we are the base civ, then we have to be a simulation, so there can only be 1 real civ and then the billions of sims that civ creates.
-
Yes, God is the creator (Software developer), and we are the computer programs. Reject His Son, Jesus Christ, and you shall be retired and deleted for ever.
Have you ever thought that it seems really strange that god (the western, christian god) experiences emotions in largely the same way humans do? From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that humans have emotions in the way we do. It's not just humans, either, pretty much every complex organism experiences the same emotions informed by thought/brain complexity. Those emotions essentially drive the survival and development of their species. A computer programmer could program emotional responses with a few if statements. But why does god have those same basic emotions? (and the bible repeatedly tells us that he does.) It really doesn't make sense for an omnipotent,omnipresent creator to feel love or anger.
But this thread isn't really about religion. It's whether or not we live in a computer simulation.
-
{
public static void getBig (String[] args) {
System.out.println("Great thread");
}
}
void newResponse() {
if (serious) {
sunglassesEmoji++;
} else {
System.out.println("Go Fuck Yourself!");
}
}
-
Basically unless we are the base civ, then we have to be a simulation, so there can only be 1 real civ and then the billions of sims that civ creates.
No, I mean I understand the basics of what he's saying, I just don't entirely get how he came to that conclusion. This isn't a great analogy, but it's almost like saying that if there are millions of copies of mario bros sold, then there must be a real mario mario somewhere. I basically included the vid as an example that this is a question that serious people discuss (for people who've never considered it), but I have some reservations about his reasoning.(I'm sure Elon Musk will not be able to sleep tonight after hearing that Al Doggity disagreed with him :D)
-
Have you ever thought that it seems really strange that god (the western, christian god) experiences emotions in largely the same way humans do? From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that humans have emotions in the way we do. It's not just humans, either, pretty much every complex organism experiences the same emotions informed by thought/brain complexity. Those emotions essentially drive the survival and development of their species. A computer programmer could program emotional responses with a few if statements. But why does god have those same basic emotions? (and the bible repeatedly tells us that he does.) It really doesn't make sense for an omnipotent,omnipresent creator to feel love or anger.
But this thread isn't really about religion. It's whether or not we live in a computer simulation.
Yes, and He programmed his own emotions into His creation.
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him"
-
This is one of those philosophical/internet questions that has been kicking around for a while. The below video with Elon Musk is posted as reference, I don't necessarily agree with his reasoning ( I also don't completely understand it :P )
I have believed for a while that our perception of time only moving in one direction suggests we're in a computer simulation. I also think the concept of emotions- specifically love- seems like something a programmer might come up with.
Is he saying that, we are all playing a game and player 1 starts at conception and ends at death? that's pretty deep, but I don't think anyone super advanced would find it a worthwhile, pleasant experience, unless they are being forced to, which is also deep.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/Sims_3_console_cover_art.jpg/250px-Sims_3_console_cover_art.jpg)
-
Yeah, the theory isn't Musk's and has been around, in several different iterations, for years:
For philosophers: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
For physicists: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf
Enjoy. ;)
-
What if we are really part of a simulation, but the advanced civilization that developed us is also a simulation from another, more advanced civilization? ???
-
From another forum, about the same video OP posted.
His justification was that only 40 years ago, we had pong - a game that has a dot and a line, and today we have highly photo-realistic 3d games, and are quickly moving into augmented reality.
I think that's a lousy argument. He assumes a constantly accelerating growth in tech, though the truth is likely along the lines of the law of diminishing returns - that tech advancement will slow down as we move towards a 'singularity', as they say.
He assumes a technological singularity can even exist, or is highly likely, such that reality can be absolutely simulated using a computer. I think that's a false assumption.
And non-falsifiable claims shouldn't be taken seriously, anyway.
P.S. big fan of Elon Musk, here. I just don't think everything that drops from his mouth is rainbow coloured.
-
Goodrum is proof that we are not a simulation made by an intelligent creator
-
From another forum, about the same video OP posted.
Quite right. As far as "argument," or "strongest argument," Musk's response was an embarassment (though, in his defense, the forum wasn't a conference of experts).
-
Java ::)
In 2016, what language would you recommend a person learn to be most marketable in the next few years?
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/Sims_3_console_cover_art.jpg/250px-Sims_3_console_cover_art.jpg)
Sims get more ass than us married people.
-
In 2016, what language would you recommend a person learn to be most marketable in the next few years?
Spark
Thank me later.
-
If we're a simulation then why can't things be deleted? You can kill someone but they still exist and need to be buried.
-
Yes, God is the creator (Software developer), and we are the computer programs. Reject His Son, Jesus Christ, and you shall be retired and deleted for ever.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/CluTronLegacy.jpg)
FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!! 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
If we're a simulation then why can't things be deleted? You can kill someone but they still exist and need to be buried.
People disappearing by being abducted, our creator manifest s as an alien.
-
If we're a simulation then why can't things be deleted? You can kill someone but they still exist and need to be buried.
Science doesn't even have a working definition for "life" . Most branches use a set of characteristics that can distinguish between living or not living, but there isn't a universally accepted scientific definition of life. From a programming/resource standpoint, there would be no difference between a living entitity and a dead one. There is the same amount of energy in the system either way. The question itself comes from a somewhat solipsistic perspective. If we are living in a simulation, the simulation's purpose does not necessarily revolve around accommodating human life. It also doesn't have to operate in a manner that replicates Windows Vista.
-
From another forum, about the same video OP posted.
Like I said in the opening post and in another post after that, I don't really agree with Musk's take on this. I only posted the vid to show that this is a topic that people known as smart and serious do discuss.
As for why the poster you quoted thinks Musk is wrong, I actually have some issues with that, too. If we are living in a simulation, the simulation doesn't really have to replicate reality, so whether or not technology gets to a point where it can replicate base reality is not really relevant. From what I understood Musk to be saying, his argument isn't really dependent on the existence of a technological singularity, just the idea that the possibility of one suggests that one version of reality supersedes all others and that means it's likely we are living in one of the simulations.
-
things that make you go hmmmmm
-
for and against
it's still an idea we cook up to explain what we don't understand
-
From another forum, about the same video OP posted.
Those are the basic arguments, however, Musk is correct, technology will speed up not slow down, as is the nature of technology.
Quantum processes will be understood and once that occurs, quantum computers will far exceed anything we could ever hope to simulate today.
A singularity will occur, like the one that started this simulation.
-
If we're a simulation then why can't things be deleted? You can kill someone but they still exist and need to be buried.
In a game, the bits are still stored or used in a different manner, the same process occurs, decomposition.
-
The argument for our universe being a computer simulation is unfalsifiable... it cannot be proved either way, therefore it's not to be taken seriously.
-
In 2016, what language would you recommend a person learn to be most marketable in the next few years?
Have a look at the stackoverflow surveys (https://stackoverflow.com/research/developer-survey-2015) to learn more about current trends.
Imo it's not about platforms, it's about design skills and knowing what you're talking about.
-
The argument for our universe being a computer simulation is unfalsifiable... it cannot be proved either way, therefore it's not to be taken seriously.
Why do you think that?
There could be ways of knowing.
-
Yeah, the theory isn't Musk's and has been around, in several different iterations, for years:
For philosophers: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
For physicists: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf
Enjoy. ;)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (published in 1979), the characters visit the legendary planet Magrathea, home to the now-collapsed planet-building industry, and meet Slartibartfast, a planetary coastline designer who was responsible for the fjords of Norway. Through archival recordings, he relates the story of a race of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who built a computer named Deep Thought to calculate the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. When the answer was revealed to be 42, Deep Thought explained that the answer was incomprehensible because the beings didn't know what they were asking. It went on to predict that another computer, more powerful than itself would be made and designed by it to calculate the question for the answer. (Later on, referencing this, Adams would create the 42 Puzzle, a puzzle which could be approached in multiple ways, all yielding the answer 42.)
The computer, often mistaken for a planet (because of its size and use of biological components), was the Earth, and was destroyed by Vogons to make way for a hyperspatial express route five minutes before the conclusion of its 10-million-year program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
-
Why do you think that?
There could be ways of knowing.
I suppose if there were physical limits, it would be a hint. However, so far it seems the universe is infinite...
-
there have been some smart guys who have worked on this question and given up.
Newton was one of them but you never know could be some better minds here on the forum.
???
-
Marty has the answer, he's just not sharing until everyone gets their heme under control
-
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Yeah. The "Sims Hypothesis" is widespread and its appearance in literature predates even Adams' Hitchhiker.
For more current and rigorous discussions, Bostrom's site is a rich source (note, e.g., his exchange with Brian Weatherson -- a very eminent philosopher).
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
-
Basically unless we are the base civ, then we have to be a simulation, so there can only be 1 real civ and then the billions of sims that civ creates.
His argument — one presumably honed in the soothing waters of many a jaccuzi — goes that the incredibly fast advancement of video game technology indicates we'll be capable of creating a fully lifelike simulation of existence in a short span of time. In 40 years, Musk explained, we've gone from Pong to massively multiplayer online games with millions of simultaneous players, games with photorealistic graphics, and stand now on the cusp of a new wave of virtual and augmented reality experiences.
"If you assume any rate of improvement at all then games will become indistinguishable from reality," Musk said. "Even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now, let's just imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale." Given that we're on that trajectory and that these games are increasingly playable on any device, Musk said, the odds that we are living our lives in base reality — that is, "real" reality — is one in billions.
It's not necessarily a bad thing. "If a civilization stops advancing then that may be due to some calamitous event that erases civilization," Musk said, presenting two options. "Either we're going to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist.
Tell me what’s wrong with that argument. Is there a flaw in that argument?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/06/02/elon-musks-fallacy/#63c2aa515e76 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/06/02/elon-musks-fallacy/#63c2aa515e76)
"Yes Elon, there is a flaw in the argument. It is a very common informal fallacy known as begging the question, in which the conclusion is assumed in the premises. The odds that we are living in a simulation are only billions to one because Musk is assuming that such realistic simulations exist."
This is similar to the “everybody knows” type of argument, such as “everybody knows that electric car companies can’t be profitable, therefore Tesla will never be profitable.” The conclusion is only true because I’ve already assumed it in the premise. It’s a completely circular argument.
There are unknown physical limits to how fast computers can be in the future. And you would need an order of magnitude more processing power to simulate the Universe to the level of detail we observe.
-
Those are the basic arguments, however, Musk is correct, technology will speed up not slow down, as is the nature of technology.
Quantum processes will be understood and once that occurs, quantum computers will far exceed anything we could ever hope to simulate today.
A singularity will occur, like the one that started this simulation.
http://www.lgcnsblog.com/features/quantum-computers-a-step-above-your-average-computer/ (http://www.lgcnsblog.com/features/quantum-computers-a-step-above-your-average-computer/)
Pros and Cons of D-Wave
Pros
According to Google’s D-Wave benchmark in January of 2014, quantum computers show much higher speed in solving optimization problems compared to general PCs. Although there are reports that say its speed is sometimes slower than PCs, they seem to be faster than PCs, on average, to solve optimization problems involving data with regularity[2].
Cons
D-WAVE has three big cons.
First, despite being called the world’s first commercial quantum computer, it’s a shame that D-Wave is not considered a real quantum computer at the same time. This is because it’s designed to have an external computer read the processing results from the quantum CPU. Some may refer to it as just a “half-quantum” computer which consists of the regular workstation with a qubit CPU on the side[3].
Second, the CPU generates heat while operating, and the noise made while running the cooler to lower the temperature can create computing errors. The size of the computer is also quite large due to the big cooling unit on top to stabilize the temperature of absolute zero.
Finally, D-Wave is made based on the tunnel effect of quantum annealing unlike the formerly defined quantum computers. The tunnel effect here means the phenomenon where a particle stochastically tunnels through the energy barrier higher than its own potential energy. As a result, its computing speed is not overwhelmingly faster than in existing computers except for in particular calculating operations.
-
If we're a simulation then why has it taken so long for man to figure out computers? There's a big part of history during the dark ages that's not even documented or accounted for. Then the renaissance in the 1400's brought us new thinkers, writers, artists but what happened before then? So my question is, is Religion an anti virus program and has it been hacked to become a virus itself?
-
I suppose if there were physical limits, it would be a hint. However, so far it seems the universe is infinite...
The size of the universe wouldn't necessarily prove or disprove whether or not you're in a simulation. Physicality is almost entirely perspective and relativity, anyway. Some physicists speculate that we are living in a hologram.
-
If we're a simulation then why has it taken so long for man to figure out computers? There's a big part of history during the dark ages that's not even documented or accounted for. Then the renaissance in the 1400's brought us new thinkers, writers, artists but what happened before then? So my question is, is Religion an anti virus program and has it been hacked to become a virus itself?
Once again, you're approaching this from a far too solipsistic view to gain a truly critical perspective. If we're in the simulation, that doesn't mean we're running the simulation. It doesn't mean that the ultimate purpose of the simulation is for the sims to analyze the collected date. It doesn't mean that the "computer" the simulation runs on would even be recognizable as what we consider a computer.
-
If we're a simulation then why has it taken so long for man to figure out computers? There's a big part of history during the dark ages that's not even documented or accounted for. Then the renaissance in the 1400's brought us new thinkers, writers, artists but what happened before then? So my question is, is Religion an anti virus program and has it been hacked to become a virus itself?
Bet the little programs in these games are asking the same question.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/Far_Cry_Primal_cover_art.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Far_Cry_4_box_art.jpg/250px-Far_Cry_4_box_art.jpg)
-
It is said by an intelligent billionaire... so it must be true!
-
The size of the universe wouldn't necessarily prove or disprove whether or not you're in a simulation. Physicality is almost entirely perspective and relativity, anyway. Some physicists speculate that we are living in a hologram.
I agree, in fact nothing can prove or disprove the simulation hypothesis.
I don't think it matters in either case, simulation or not it is our reality, we should be trying to understand it anyway.
-
I agree, in fact nothing can prove or disprove the simulation hypothesis.
I don't think it matters in either case, simulation or not it is our reality, we should be trying to understand it anyway.
If we live in a simulation, then being able to prove that would help us understand our reality. There's nothing inherently disprovable about a simulation hypothesis.
-
If we live in a simulation, then being able to prove that would help us understand our reality. There's nothing inherently disprovable about a simulation hypothesis.
Fair enough, but it is not possible to test your assertion, anyway. The argument is unfalsifiable, it can always be true given a sufficiently advanced simulation.
-
Fair enough, but it is not possible to test your assertion, anyway. The argument is unfalsifiable, it can always be true given a sufficiently advanced simulation.
The title of this thread is "Arguments FOR and AGAINST yada yada yada". Can you imagine where science or the human race would be if we never contemplated things because some considered them unfalsifiable.
-
In order for a simulation to exist there must be something concrete to simulate. "reality" is a concept we don't understand so how can we know if something we don't understand is a simulation?
???
-
The title of this thread is "Arguments FOR and AGAINST yada yada yada". Can you imagine where science or the human race would be if we never contemplated things because some considered them unfalsifiable.
Can you imagine where the human race would be if every unfalsifiable theory was taken seriously? Psychoanalysis was once considered the pinnacle of psychology, now it is considered a pseudoscience.
-
Can you imagine where the human race would be if every unfalsifiable theory was taken seriously? Psychoanalysis was once considered the pinnacle of psychology, now it is considered a pseudoscience.
That isn't really a tautological argument. You said earlier that a simulation hypothesis can't be taken seriously since you considered it unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable =/= without merit. No theory has ever been taken seriously just because it could not be proven untrue. The very title of the thread asks whether or not this is something to take seriously. You may feel it is not, but historically and scientifically, simply saying something can't be taken seriously because you can't conceive of a test is not a good argument.
-
In order for a simulation to exist there must be something concrete to simulate. "reality" is a concept we don't understand so how can we know if something we don't understand is a simulation?
???
??? Theoretical simulations in OUR reality happen all the time. The video game industry is almost entirely made up of theoretical simulations.
-
??? Theoretical simulations in OUR reality happen all the time. The video game industry is almost entirely made up of theoretical simulations.
you actually need to understand something to simulate it. whatever it is that's being simulated in a game must have some intelligible properties that allow it to be processed by a computer.
asking if the world is a simulation is just like asking if the the big bang was god farting. There is no there there to discuss.
Good luck defining "reality", quite a few smart guys have tried and given up on it.
???
-
you really think there are ET's out there simulating men in pink thongs flexing their shaved, oiled up glutes to crowded schmoes?
Is that what they are bothering with in this vast universe?
-
The simulation argument is both philosophically compelling and testable, in an indirect fashion.
I think that the when James Gates found doubly-even-self dual linear error correcting block code was found in the math of superstring theory I started to consider the idea more strongly.
The assumptions that we won't reach a singularity seem more far fetched then the inverse to me. His argument is simply Bostrom's boiled down, if you think life like simuations are possible given enough time (even 100k years) then once this occurs, simulations will outnumber real reality as reailty is primal.
-
So are the Kardashians a Virus gone rogue? Can't be stopped?
-
So are the Kardashians a Virus gone rogue? Can't be stopped?
If you put your key into one of their keyholes, you will get a virus.
-
The simulation argument is both philosophically compelling and testable, in an indirect fashion.
I think that the when James Gates found doubly-even-self dual linear error correcting block code was found in the math of superstring theory I started to consider the idea more strongly.
The assumptions that we won't reach a singularity seem more far fetched then the inverse to me. His argument is simply Bostrom's boiled down, if you think life like simuations are possible given enough time (even 100k years) then once this occurs, simulations will outnumber real reality as reailty is primal.
How precisely do you test this argument?
???
:D
-
How precisely do you test this argument?
???
:D
If computer code is embedded in the math we use to describe the theory that ultimately explains everything, that's pretty solid evidence.
if dark matter is behaving like virtual matter and increasing, as would in a simulation, we have more evidence.
-
If computer code is embedded in the math we use to describe the theory that ultimately explains everything, that's pretty solid evidence.
if dark matter is behaving like virtual matter and increasing, as would in a simulation, we have more evidence.
That isn't computer code though, is it? I think the term code has a different meaning in the context of physics.
-
void newResponse() {
if (serious) {
sunglassesEmoji++;
} else {
System.out.println("Go Fuck Yourself!");
}
}
int[] myIntArray = new int[1];
while (1==1)
{
myIntArray = Arrays.copyOf(myIntArray, myIntArray.length + 1);
}
-
int[] myIntArray = new int[1];
while (1==1)
{
myIntArray = Arrays.copyOf(myIntArray, myIntArray.length + 1);
}
You just made a good argument as to why simulation is unlikely.
This code would run forever, eventually causing an out of memory or similar exception in any finite system. You would need infinite computing resources to run it, just like you would with a simulation.
-
If computer code is embedded in the math we use to describe the theory that ultimately explains everything, that's pretty solid evidence.
if dark matter is behaving like virtual matter and increasing, as would in a simulation, we have more evidence.
so it's dependant on string theory going somewhere. hmmm the author has not published these findings and describes the material as "technical gobbeldy gook". like I said, you can claim god farted to create the universe as long as you attach enough hypotheticals to it. ie. if this if that. don't let this dissuade the conversation, we may be living in a simulation, OR we may be living in a crock pot of chicken soup, both are equally likely!
-
getbig++
-
-
It fails what I call the Cute Test.
It's too cute. the idea that we are in an elaborate computer simulation is very complicated and much too cute. And why us? Why not some other simulation? We were "chosen" to exist in this particular (infinite) simulation. So then we are, in a sense, special.
And how do you power a simulation that maps every proton? It would take a near infinite amount of power to model an infinite universe.
It's another strange example of how dumb smart people are. Someone like me, who is kind of dumb, has to really scrap and think in a more three dimensional fashion to cognitively exist in the same playing field as people who come up with these theories. But that doubt and effort creates a mental toughness forged by constantly questioning my own assumptions.
-
You just made a good argument as to why simulation is unlikely.
This code would run forever, eventually causing an out of memory or similar exception in any finite system. You would need infinite computing resources to run it, just like you would with a simulation.
Once again, if we were in fact in a simulation, it's unlikely that it's running on something we would recognize as a computer or utilizing code we are familiar with.
-
It's too cute. the idea that we are in an elaborate computer simulation is very complicated and much too cute. And why us? Why not some other simulation? We were "chosen" to exist in this particular (infinite) simulation. So then we are, in a sense, special.
And how do you power a simulation that maps every proton? It would take a near infinite amount of power to model an infinite universe.
There is no "specialness" implied. Actually, Musk's theory implies lack of specialness.
As for near limitless computing power, the strong likelihood of this happening one day is the foundation of Musk's theory. As for me, as I've said over and over again, if this is a simulation, there's not even really a need to simulate base reality. I had lasix surgery about 6 years ago. Up until shortly before getting the procedure done, I didn't even realize how bad my eyesight was. You could take a real human and make them satisfied with a low def virtual world in a relatively short period of time. We could basically be living in a game of minecraft and outside of the simulation could be far more detailed.
-
That isn't computer code though, is it? I think the term code has a different meaning in the context of physics.
The math of string theory has a built in error code that sends extra 1's and 0's to similar to how our computers work.
-
Just to be clear, the simulation thing is not a theory, not even a hypothesis. Before those 2 you usually have speculation but I'm not sure if people even consider this speculation.
-
Just to be clear, the simulation thing is not a theory, not even a hypothesis. Before those 2 you usually have speculation but I'm not sure if people even consider this speculation.
thank you
-
so it's dependant on string theory going somewhere. hmmm the author has not published these findings and describes the material as "technical gobbeldy gook". like I said, you can claim god farted to create the universe as long as you attach enough hypotheticals to it. ie. if this if that. don't let this dissuade the conversation, we may be living in a simulation, OR we may be living in a crock pot of chicken soup, both are equally likely!
in the spirit of clarification it's in fact much more likely that we are living of a pot of soup given that human understanding of chicken soup far exceeds human understanding of "reality" let alone human understanding of an imagined simulation of reality. Nevertheless carry on, you never know we could be living in a computer simlulation, ya anything is possible!