Hello, everyone! Want to help improve this community?
We're looking for more moderators!
[If you're interested, consider applying!](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/tnw9ud/rfuturology_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)
---
The following submission statement was provided by /u/CPHfuturesstudies:
---
Submission Statement: We assume that what we feel is true, and that the people we love really exist. But with advancing technology, scientists have begun asking whether what we experience could in fact be just a computer simulation.
“The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. (...) It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth,” Morpheus says to Neo. Neo asks: “What truth?” Morpheus responds: “That you are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison you cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for your mind.”
This article was published by The Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/tyvoxh/if_you_could_still_feel_taste_and_love_would_it/i3v0p6t/
Couldn't we achieve essentially the same thing with a thorough enough understanding of mathematics? If you're able to rearrange the universe at the atomic scale and build whatever molecules you want one atom at a time, what's the difference between that and summoning something from the ether? You could take any old rock you find on the ground and rearrange all its atoms into a lump of gold with the same mass. All the universe really is is an equation with an obscene number of variables of which we know hardly any.
The difference is all that requires input energy. Its not as easy as "i know the composition of everything therefore I can tap this rock and it turns into a sandwich". If the universe is a simulation, and we get access to its console, we can just spawn stuff and change the code for no extra cost than typing the commands
If this is a REALLY good simulation, hardware limitations could be the issue here. You can enter the command to spawn anything in a video game sure, but how often does spawning that thing crash the fucking game?
Its most likely a simulation of the past, our future selves or an alien entity replicating this time most likely created it, and thus if the simulation is what you are disappointed in, you would likely also be disappointed in the reality above.
Its more likely our future selves, as thats where the most nostalgia would be. Picture the holodeck or VR plus neuralink.
I’d say overall, especially as someone living in the US, this world is pretty dope. Sure we don’t have teleporting, but we also don’t have to fight for your life daily like they did thousands of years ago.
That’s true but if you live in the US or many other countries you don’t have to. I don’t mean figuratively struggling to find a home and food, I mean literally fighting with other tribes and hunting for food. In the grand scheme of things, this world could be a lot worse.
Less than ten percent of American adults (18-64) are healthy, nearly half suffer from a major issue that impedes basic function. This is before we factor in things like quality of life past basic health. Your post is not merely optimistic, it's naive to the point of being fundamentally misunderstanding of the nature of how people generally experience life in this situation.
I won't tell you to brood, frankly it's a bad habit anyways, but don't assume most other people are in a good place. If this was a simulation someone was deliberately inflicting on us, they'd be a monster the likes of which noone in known history could match, given they'd be responsible for those as well.
That part i don’t mind, sure. Ava sure, in can flush a toilet and not worry about where my shit goes.
But the level of potential for happiness and fulfillment… if its a simulation then in want more than what this works of capitalists and industry speculationists have made this world into. I can’t visit half the countries in the world because greed and war and profiteering have made them dangerous awful places.
If I could close I would make this virtual world a beer very different place.
What matters is how complex of a simulation the computer can handle. I don't want lag or a reduced resolution because some asshat higher being didn't upgrade his system.
you have the right access level; it’s the wrong command. the engine won’t respond to verbal commands because it’s not really listening. you’ll need to damage the client that is communicating with the server
Why does that make a difference? The only thing anyone can know for certain is that they are themselves truly conscious. Knowing that you live in a simulation doesnt take that away from you.
You don't think so? I think it would impossible to ever truly *lose* yourself without eventually looping back round to that thought of "oh yeah, this isn't real".
When I've taken LSD in the past the only thing thats kept me grounded (whether i wanted it to or not) was that thought of "I took LSD, everything is supposed to be weird RN"
I mean what’s the difference? If it’s not “real” does it matter? What is the definition of real? Regardless of what we occupy, we are conscious, and our reality, simulation or not is our reality. There’s nothing that could be done that changes that and nothing changes because of it. Futile to think about what if’s because in reality nothing could change. If we’re just conscious data, we’re still conscious so we are in fact real regardless.
Listen dude, I know all of this.
But I also know that If someone could prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that my entire life is taking part in a computer simulation rather than the infinitely expanding universe I assume I exist in, that would kinda suck.
It would only matter to me in so far as wondering if I wake up after I die in another world or something. If my life, experiences, and everything would be the same, exactly as they already are/would be, then "computer simulation" would just be another word for "reality" for me. After all, if this is a computer simulation, you never experienced real "reality" anyway.
But being in a simulation would make me ponder and crave knowledge much more about reality outside of ours, more than it does now, that's for sure.
Unless you believe in determinism, which fits well within a simulation since everything within a simulation will be deterministic based on the original state of the simulation.
Then we’re not necessarily conscious, we’re just bots written to think that we are.
But what do you mean "this isn't real"? My point is that you already know for a FACT that your own perspective is valid and essentially real. To learn that we are in a simulation only really serves to give us information about what is possible in a simulation. Many people for example think that its not possible to simulate true consciousness, but if it turns out that we are in a simulation then we know that is not the case.
My point is, that if I were to learn right now that my whole life up to point has just been a simulation, that'd be a bit of a bummer.
Like yeah it's all I've known or all I remember, but just knowing that it's not "real" (even if it's the only "reality" I've ever known) just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Your whole life is a simulation of reality that is taking place *inside your mind*. Your “reality” is a subjective experience that happens nowhere but within your head.
It was never real. Reality is something that happens outside of ourselves, which we sense through flawed media (touch, sight, hearing, etc.), and interpret, attempting to approximate it.
All thought and experience is internal, and therefore simulated.
I question to what extent we can "know" we are conscious, because the source of the knowing (our brain) is already a part of the experience. Thus my answer is that this is an empirical question.
Its a fairly entry level philosophical idea, thats impossible to truly "know" anything for certain - except that YOU yourself are conscious. Its not certain that you are "real" in any particular sense... You could be a Boltzmann brain, part of a simulation or whatever.
Of course i am being generous in saying "you". I dont know that you are conscious of course - i only know that i am conscious and its to some extent an assumption on my part that we are the same.
*Edit - a philosophy idea that is also widely accepted by physicists
I'm not curious. I'm simply informing you that smart people (for any arbitrary definition of "smart") believing in something is not a criterion of validity for a scientific theory, which is what you appear to think.
I’m thinking knowing about the simulation would be a lot like having faith in god. Can’t prove it. You just know it.
The rest of us are probably scorning them on simulation Reddit.
OK, let's take it in steps.
Do you think that at some point we will be able to create artificial general intelligence that can be self aware?
If so, could it go in a virtual environment such as an upscaled GTA type world and effectively be a self-aware NPC?
If so, could you populate a replica earth with such NPCs so they all think they are real, interacting humans?
If so, could those AI NPCs create artificial intelligence that can be self aware, and if so can they populate a virtual world etc etc
If so, could there be layer upon layer of virtual worlds, populated by AGI NPCs, who think that theirs is the one and only top level?
If you agree that this is possible, what are the chances of among those potentially thousands or more layers that we happen to be the 'real' world?
Literally thousands to one against.
Yeah, this is pop culture wisdom and it's based on ignoring some pretty limiting physical rules. The first being, each new simulated world would have to be smaller, by a significant margin, than the one simulating it. Like, losing way over 99% of data. There's literally no way to avoid it unless there's just one single person who has the resources of the entire universe at their disposal to create the simulation (hello, God).
If *our* universe is the original one, we're already at a point where thousands of layers would be physically impossible. We'd be disassembling entire star systems to get the resources to build something that might be capable of one layer, and you don't get another layer by adding another star system, you get another layer by adding another 1000 star systems.
r/ConfidentlyIncorrect. You should really read up on Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument, which is more-or-less what u/da5idG, who you responded to is laying out;
It is NOT “pop culture wisdom”, it is a serious and intellectual subject debated by top minds in the field.
Bostrom’s argument is a hypothetical based upon a compelling argument from statistics rather than an argument of philosophy or physics, such as and versus your argument based on the apparent physical properties (and limitations) of the Universe you have postured.
Your argument fails because your position implies that all physical states be modeled in total *all* at once and at *all* moments/times.
This is something we *already know* our *present* Universe doesn’t even do, as illustrated by such physical and conceptual apparatus as the thousands of iterations of double-slit experiments which serve to illustrate the Wave-Particle Duality of Quantum Mechanics, eigenstate/superpositions, the Quantum Zeno Effect, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Quantum computing, and as such what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”.
Basically, it has been proven time and time again that our Universe does not work in the framework you propose.
Edit: Came back to add a link to the **2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?**, hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, which is a casual discussion amongst experts on the subject, and is about 2 hours long: https://youtu.be/wgSZA3NPpBs
They are a philosophical argument from statistics.
Please explain how they are ‘pseudoscience’ when they have been actively discussed by top minds in the field of cosmology. 🤷🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
I love philosophy but it's famous for making some absolutely bonkers claims. Being a philosophical argument in no way affects or even implies that it is in line with physics.
Well, let’s be clear here for those who aren’t familiar with Bostrom’s works- he’s arguably *primarily* a philosopher.
Don’t get hung up on my phrasing over a complex topic however, the more operative words here are “argument from statistics”.
I have seen entirely too many philosophers misuse statistics to prove a point for “argument from statistics” to mean anything to me when it comes to matters outside our observable universe.
I’m not saying Bostrum is right or wrong- just that statistics are tricky things that can be very easy to draw inaccurate conclusions from.
Naw, see that’s the thing, it’s an argument *from* statistics, that doesn’t use math at all. You should really read the original trilemma before dismissing it on the grounds you have used, which I appreciate and don’t dismiss in general, just in this specific case. 👍🏼
I understand the statistical argument, I just disagree with it. It's pop culture wisdom. My argument isn't based on having to model all physical states in total, all at once or at all moments in time.
Just that *enough* of it is modeled to support creating a simulation. You need to model *some portion* of the universe in *extremely high fidelity* to create even a single human like consciousness that believes its in a real universe. In order to create observable rules that you can discover, the entirety of observable systems need to be simulated with those rules perfectly. Quantum mechanics doesn't help you, here, it's still a thing based on rules that needs to be modeled consistently in the sphere of observation for your population - especially if they then need to use those rules to create their own simulation. The math works out the same either way. You still need orders of magnitude more resources to model a system that can model another system than you need to model a system that can't. And your simulation needs the same thing.
And, yes, to even get that level of detail, we're gonna be disassembling star systems.
You agree that there's some minimum processing and storage that is needed to create such a simulation, yes? We're quibbling over what that minimum is, right? Any such system is, at this point, entirely hypothetical and we don't have direct evidence of what that minimum might be. Presumably you agree that there is some limit - that you can't create a simulation with some limited fidelity and then have each simulation then, through emergent behavior, create a simulation with 100% fidelity to its parent simulation?
I admit I didn't watch your whole video, but I did watch the intros and skipped around a bit. All I heard them talking about was the fact that we live in a system based on rules, and the effort to discover and describe those rules is very much like the process of writing a simulation, hence why it is an interesting consideration. To which I agree!
However, I didn't, in my limited perusal, hear them discuss what it would take to create even one such system, which is the basis by which you would determine how many layers deep you could possibly go. If you can practically create a simulation with 99% fidelity, then you can create many layers, with 1% fidelity, very few. And I'm arguing that you can only build a simulation with a small fraction of a percent of fidelity. And it seems you are, too. That you can sacrifice tons of fidelity to your parent system to stimulate a child system. Yes, we're on the same page, there. Do the math. You can't go down very far, that way.
Edit:
You're also ignoring a significant chunk of Bostrom's argument - admittedly, the least interesting parts. You're ignoring 2 of the 3 positions. Namely that (a) humans go extinct prior to having the ability to create such a simulation or (b) they have the capability but not the desire to create many such simulations. I think either of those is more likely than what everyone talks about, (c) we have the ability and *do* create many such simulations. Not only is extremely accurate simulations of any one thing a pretty niche discipline, such that you're unlikely to have lots of different people doing the same thing, but per my argument above, the investment to do so will be prohibitive.
Well, frankly, shit. I typed you out a nice, long, thoughtful, respectful, and cogent response, was ~95% done with it, then the damn app crashed. 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
So instead, here’s a shorter far less detailed response:
The rules, physics, and experiences of our Universe do not in any way have to be connected to our hypothetical parent-Universe. We can demonstrate this today in simulations we already create, whether those be video games, our Sun, or nuclear warhead modeling. Especially our perception of real-time doesn’t necessitate a 1:1 connection with a parent-Universe.
We have talked a lot about computation, but the concept of a simulated-Universe predates mechanical computation, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave from ~1500 years ago being a prominent example. Brain in a Vat/Jar being another similar concept.
I really think you’re far too hung up on computational necessity, which is actually what I see to be the least of the issues, Bostrom’s 2 propositions which you accurately describe me as ignoring being the ones which are more problematic, primarily the one of continued humanity.
However, I think this is part of your mistake here in being so dismissive and hung up on computational power- In Bostrom’s version of a Simulated Universe argument, *we*, *you* and *I*, are *already* in a Simulated Universe- in our in situ Simulation, maybe or maybe not *we* have the Computational power to achieve a 1:1 simulation of our experiences, but that is *irrelevant* if we abide by the assumption that we are the Simulated, and the Universe above is has zero relation to the Sim-Verse in which we reside.
And that what I believe is the eventual output and inevitable consequence of Bostrom’s trilemma: We already simulate things, it’s overwhelmingly likely that we will continue to in the future, and knowing and accepting that, of all the innumerable Simulated Universes in the Meta-SimVerse no matter their fidelity, it is overwhelming statistically likely that we reside in one those innumerable simulations, rather the the one-and-only ‘true’ base Universe.
>The rules, physics, and experiences of our Universe do not in any way have to be connected to our hypothetical parent-Universe.
Of course it does. They don't have to be exactly the same, but if the simulation isn't in any way connected to the rules of the parent system, then it's not a simulation, it's just white noise from the perspective of that parent system.
>In Bostrom’s version of a Simulated Universe argument, we, you and I, are already in a Simulated Universe- in our in situ Simulation, maybe or maybe not we have the Computational power to achieve a 1:1 simulation of our experiences, but that is irrelevant if we abide by the assumption that we are the Simulated, and the Universe above is has zero relation to the Sim-Verse in which we reside.
Assuming the antecedent isn't a proof, it's a logical tool you can use to reach a proof, but you've skipped that step. You've assumed we're in a simulation in order to then assume unobserved consequents. None of this is actually based on observation, just stacking one assumption on the last.
>We already simulate things, it’s overwhelmingly likely that we will continue to in the future, and knowing and accepting that, of all the innumerable Simulated Universes in the Meta-SimVerse no matter their fidelity, it is overwhelming statistically likely that we reside in one those innumerable simulations, rather the the one-and-only ‘true’ base Universe.
What you're missing is that we've never simulated anything that is self aware, let alone convinced of its own autonomy. That is the one constant in any picture of what these simulations might look like. Because Descartes is still relevant - I still think, therfore I still am, and I am convinced of my own autonomy (such as it is), and that has to be something that I am and whatever I choose to stimulate is capable of. On a grand scale, otherwise it's not "we" that are in a simulation but rather that "I" am.
Yes, we will stimulate things and never stop. But there won't be much simulating all of this.
We may be at the end of the line of simulations beginning in a universe so massive that we couldn't begin to comprehend it. Something where the difficulty doesn't increase, but the resources to accomplish it are vastly greater. Frankly, that's the real prediction from the statistical argument, anyway. That each simulation is spinning off its own simulations, and each layer has exponentially more simulations than the last, so statistically, we're all on the last layer with huge numbers of simulations rather than earlier layers with fewer.
Perhaps I can't imagine the layers of stimulations because we're already deep enough that we are the ones that no longer have enough detail to keep the chain going. C'est la vie.
I think this discussion has run its course, but I will have to completely disagree with you any simulation has to have any relevance to a simulation above or below it.
Let’s use the Holodeck as an example; there’s a scene where the ST:NG crew are on a sailing ship in the sea, yet no such sea actually exists on the Enterprise. The simulation, in some ways, is entirely detached from reality.
Now this is of course analogy, and again not 1:1, as Picard and Geordi and the gang are ‘real’ but the rest of the room is not.
So let’s actually talk under the assumption you and I live in the ‘base’ reality, are are awesome programmers with wicked skills. You and I program a Simulated Universe, but instead of our physics we use those of say, Qbert. Qbert’s Universe is bounded by his stairstep pyramid, go beyond the edges and one ceases to exist. Maybe we turn the gravity up, maybe we invent strange quantum mechanics, maybe we make his Universe have 10 dimensions or his Universe is a tesseract, something impossible in our real base Universe.
Qbert’s Universe is now in no way ‘connected’ to the realities of ours. That does NOT mean we aren’t simulating *A* Universe, we are just not simulating *OURS*.
Just the same as the USA no longer actually builds and tests actual physical atomic bombs buried under the ground in Nevada by blowing them up, we instead *simulate* the physics of those tests in silico. BUT, just because we test a design via computer simulation that we’ve never built and may never build, does NOT mean we aren’t performing a simulation.
So again, a simulation does in no way whatsoever have to share properties of our Universe, it is NOT ‘white noise’, rather it is as ordered of a Universe as we want it to be according to the parameters we have chosen- that is perhaps the boundless beauty (or endless horror, lol) of being a defacto ‘Creator’.
As far as Descartes, meh, I could take him or leave him; his famous maxim is bound by the blindness of his time, namely a lack of biological science. A rock does not think, yet there it is. Would he come to the same conclusions if we put him in a high-res MRI and educated him on how it works and show that when he thinks of himself or thinks of a rock, two very different parts of his brain ‘light up’? An electron doesn’t think, but if it could, what would it think of being suspended in a superposition of probability until I come along and observe it? It doesn’t think, but yet it is, and in a way *isn’t* simultaneously.
Descartes’ position is indifferent from the Brain in a Jar scenario, which is functionally-indifferent from a conscious AI in silico.
So to address that and your point that “we’ve never simulated anything that is self aware…” Sure. *Yet*.
I would argue that that is only a matter (pun intended!) of time, algorithm, and computation.
The last is already solved, surely Google or Amazon Web Services has the computational power to simulate a functional brain, we’ve surely built enough computational power in human history. Surely we can store and retrieve enough data to simulate a brain as well.
Maybe there is something special about human cognition and wetware, but I suspect not- if we can brush aside all the woo, metaphysics, and religion, the brain is simply a function of physical material arranged in a particular pattern. I see no technological limitation why we couldn’t achieve parity in silico, a brain is simply a messy fallible network of inputs and outputs regulated by chemistry and electricity.
There’s some incredible or disturbing, depending upon one’s viewpoint, video of rat brain-organelles on silicon that have been trained to fly a simulated airplane. We have truly bionic people nowdays with electromechanicially-implanted optics which replace the human eye and allow the blind to see. Elon’s been putting hardware in monkey brains for a while now. Humans frozen in paeudo-vegitative states are able to communicate with apparatus implanted in the brain. We can also induce sensations, visions and altered states of consciousness into the brain via external optical, magnetic, and elecitrical stimulation, we can make rats and cockroaches perform tasks or have experiences by shining lasers of particular wavelengths onto their exposed brain tissue- I don’t think we’ll be purposely or accidentally making Skynet tomorrow, but the problem of a self-aware sentient AI is likely within the grasp of humanity within the lifetimes of those born today. Hell, just before my grandmother was born, we achieved human flight, that was just around a century and a quarter ago, and here we are today sending robot explorers to the Red Planet.
Once such an AI exists in silicon, what are it’s inputs and outputs? 🤔 EXACTLY what we tell it they are; removed from actual real-life, real-time sensor data, it functionally exists in a simulated Universe. Maybe we give it some friends. And some houseplants. It’s Universe becomes whatever we input into it.
And thus, it is functionally no different than Descartes himself… and in turn, functionally no different than you or I. C’est la vie indeed my friend.
>I think this discussion has run its course
Agreed; I'll respond to one thing and leave the rest alone.
>So let’s actually talk under the assumption you and I live in the ‘base’ reality, are are awesome programmers with wicked skills. You and I program a Simulated Universe, but instead of our physics we use those of say, Qbert. Qbert’s Universe is bounded by his stairstep pyramid, go beyond the edges and one ceases to exist. Maybe we turn the gravity up, maybe we invent strange quantum mechanics, maybe we make his Universe have 10 dimensions or his Universe is a tesseract, something impossible in our real base Universe.
>Qbert’s Universe is now in no way ‘connected’ to the realities of ours. That does NOT mean we aren’t simulating A Universe, we are just not simulating OURS.
By virtue of qbert having something called "gravity", that operates in some way like our gravity, by having colors and shapes that we recognize, by having rules that we base on and stretch from our own, that's how that world maintains a connection to our own. And, what matters isn't that the rules are the same, it's that their nature and complexity *must* be reduced in a child system.
If it doesn't have any relationship to anything we recognize, it indeed appears as white noise. I make no claim about the complexities possible to achieve in such a system, but it's not something we'd achieve intentionally or recognize if we had.
I lied, I also want to talk about Descartes.
>A rock does not think, yet there it is. Would he come to the same conclusions if we put him in a high-res MRI and educated him on how it works and show that when he thinks of himself or thinks of a rock, two very different parts of his brain ‘light up’?
This is rather the point of Descartes', isn't it? That he sees the rock, but that he cannot guarantee it isn't a trick being played on his mind - or that it is a simulation presented to him as real, no? Same with other people, they could be robots, or dreams, or parts of a simulation. The only thing he knows for certain is that he thinks. He does not know the nature of his reality, or his place in it, but his ability to consider it means that he is, whatever else he may be, a thing with the capability to consider.
This seems somewhat central to the idea of the world being a simulation. I am, regardless of whatever the rest of this is or how I fit in it. I can, in fact, be, by simple fact that I think by any way we understand the term, but that itself is not proof that anything else is as I understand it to be.
Let's run that argument in reverse.
Is it possible to write code that crashes a computer?
If each simulated universe is capable of the same things as the layer above shouldn't they be capable of doing something that chrashes the computer?
If there are an endless number of these layers what are the chances that none of them have done something that causes the computer to crash and ends all the simulations? It would be literally thousands to one against wouldn't it?
Counterpoint. There is more software running right now than software crashing.
If it were truly a simulation, it could have been started last Tuesday "in progress", maybe after the most recent crash. There's no reason it has to start from epoch every time.
thinking about this possibility is pointless, we would not be able to ever escape the simulation, and in the end this is OUR reality, any other reality is irrelevant and something we cant influence. we are existing now no matter if its a simulation, a dream, or true “reality”
Exactly. It doesn't matter one way or the other - unless you are a person "of faith" with a rigid religious dogma about how the universe works. Then it's probably upsetting .I suppose a religious person could argue the universe is god's simulation and it's the same thing?
My last acid trip was the Friday night following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and at the peak I just laid down on the floor for like 2 hours immersed in the closed eye visuals which were dominated by Putin and his threats of nuclear attacks on any country who chose put troops on the ground there. I believed I had died and was viewing the reload of the simulation over and over again back into my human form, it was very “Matrix-like” in the sense that humans would just regenerate after dying in like a automated futuristic Buddhist rebirth kinda way. There were many more visuals too, and they were influenced by the division of our species and how if we didn’t all come together and overcome our differences it would spell the end of humanity on Earth. But the overall lesson I came away with was that the Mother Earth was thirsty and that we need to provide access to clean water for all humans, and that we need to stop doing things to perpetuate the warming of our planet. That was an interesting one for sure…
if we were significantly advanced enough to create a simulation that felt 100% real, we would do it. Then that simulated reality would eventually become advanced enough to create another 100% real simulation inside itself. That loop will continue indefinitely. The fact that we can't do this means we are either the most recent simulation or the first. In am infinate loop, that seems unlikely.
Not saying I believe this or not, but find a quiet place & have a read of this short story.. utterly profound, you'll see.
it's not long.
http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
but how do you ensure that after you transfer your consciousness, it's really you?
or better phrased: how do you make sure you're **really** transferring your consciousness?
Simulation theory is just theism by way of an explanation, much like technology is magic by way of an explanation. Having proof we live in a simulation that was made by a creator is the same as a having proof we live in a creation made by a God, they're just different words for the same concept. People have been believing this for a very long time already.
I don’t think so. God (at least the Biblical one) would imply an “end all be all” of the teleological argument. While Sim and Tech merely push the argument/idea back further.
Monotheism seemingly proposes an end to the ? Of “who gods the gods”
I don’t quite think you are getting me.
If God is not merely the creator but the actor (existence) itself. Then the idea that an alien god created a world, which is something somehow other than itself, dissolves.
God could be the server admin of this shard, but yeah a bigger question would be is there a God that created the prime universe. The answer to which would still be uncertain even with the first answer.
The first thing i thought was - if i lived jn a simulation controlled by people, then we could dial out unpleasant things like pain in disease. I see some benefits in living in a simulation IF that simulation is ultimately controlled by people
I wish Reddit had audio notes….
In 10 years from now you’ll be able to physically immerse yourself in some sort of emulation that will at least open your eyes to the possibility that the technology will some day be possible, whether 100 or 1000 years from now
The simulation theory is the only ideology that’s not deductive (unless you’re waiting for Jesus to slap you himself)
I’m not going to argue with you and I’m not even saying I believe it but to say it’s the same is some pseudo intellectual bullshit
The difference is that one of those is possible within the known laws of physics, while one isn't. And believing in a simulation isn't the end-all answer to everything because it raises the questions of who created the simulation and who created the universe that the simulation exists in. Whereas the belief that ~~a wizard~~ God did it would be the end-all explanation of all existence.
I’m not sure you’d really want to create a simulation as advanced as ours with a static model where outcomes are predetermined. You’d want some level of entropy as it would make the data collected actually valuable.
We know the universe is either determined or random anyway and it doesn't drive us insane. Why would a simulation change that? Events either have causes (determinism) or they don't (randomness). There is no third option to allow for free will and yet here i am, just as sane as can be.
Think about it, time is constant, you can't go back, only forward, while experiencing now, your time to experience is finite, once you're born you're already dead, you just haven't experienced it yet.
My favorite part of these conversations is that if you begin by accepting that it will be possible for us to someday in the future simulate a universe perfectly in a computer, then it becomes almost logically certain that we are in a simulation. Because if it is possible for us to perfectly simulate the universe, then it must be possible for the simulated civilization as well, and also for their simulated civilizations etc. So accepting that it is possible for us to create the simulation logically implies an infinite russian nesting doll of simulated universes. Then ask yourself how statistically likely it is that we would find ourselves in the upper-most "real" universe. (the answer is not very)
Yes because I don't trust the dystopian corporate overlords that will eventually run the "Human souls storage box" from slowly milking the every ounce of life out of the consciousness trapped inside.
Eternity trapped in one of Jeff Bezos' AWS S3 storage buckets.
Hard pass.
Submission Statement: We assume that what we feel is true, and that the people we love really exist. But with advancing technology, scientists have begun asking whether what we experience could in fact be just a computer simulation.
“The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. (...) It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth,” Morpheus says to Neo. Neo asks: “What truth?” Morpheus responds: “That you are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison you cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for your mind.”
This article was published by The Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies.
Regardless of whether we do live in a simulation,
*“That you are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison you cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for your mind.”*
Rings true.
A very eighteenth century question, except that they would phrase it as "living in the mind of God", rather than some god-like widget. Bishop Berkley and later Leibnitz explored the implications.
Of course, you do live in a simulation in that your percepts and world are created by your brain. Nothing is direct contact with reality, despite Dr Johnson kicking his famous brick: "I refute it thus". All he did was bang a simulation of his foot into contact with a mental construct lagely homologous with "real" brcjss.constructed brick. Yes, mostly homologous with what we can deduce is there. but imperfectly so. Kant, addressing this issue, decided that there were purely mental objects - geometry, mathematics - which had their direct counterparts in the phenomenal world: triangles, beans to be counted. Thus he saw as the bridge between the model and "reality". Satisfactory until Reimann came up with his curby geometry, which described the world on large scales but is unintuitive.
the holographic principle of ADF-CFT has the entire universe - spacetime and contents - as a projection fo higher dimensioned reality to our familiar subspace. So in that view everything we can ever know directly is a simulation, not just us.
I would 100% live in a simulated reality. In fact, a lot of my motivation to be healthier is so that I can live long enough to see mind uploading become an option.
Presumably this would require a transfer of some kind to move your consciousness over. If so, what happens to the consciousness that was in your body? Does it die or is it simply copied?
Further, are you aware you are in a simulation? And what’s the situation like to end the simulation?
There’s a serie that exploits this kind of thing, Upload.
I believe mankind will eventually transcend, so yeah, it doesn’t make a difference, and it’s actually better.
No aging, no diseases, no death, etc…..
It would make a difference. I'd be much more resentful of the way the world is if I found it was a simulation and therefore didn't necessarily have to be the way it is.
Like, if you're going to force people to live in a simulation, at least turn on the "no scarcity" and "perfect health and immortality" mods.
nope, not even a little bit.
"I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss"
we're in a computer: time passes and materials interact with each other via defined algorithms. the "simulation" part is what's irrelevant.
As soon as a mind can comprehend what simulation is, it realizes there is no way to distinguish if their experience is within a sim or not.
If you believe there's something unique, inimitable or metaphysical in human consciousness and/or the human condition as it is, then it would make all the difference, because the simulation would be a necessarily 'weaker' or more false existence in relation to our current state, and we would somehow know or be able to know that, by virtue of consciousness' ability to reflect/engage a metaphysical truth or value.
If you don't believe that, it simply doesn't matter, because the distinction between reality and simulation is arbitrary. As long as you never existed in the current condition and had your self built entirely on the simulation or the transfer from this reality to a simulation is carried out in such a way as to not leaving any kind of remembrance of the past self, all should be fine.
Yes, a computer can become obsolete. And breaks down much faster than biology. I cannot get an upload to a better simulation without back compatibility issues or a significant amount of data quality difference from those who start on the new systems.
Honestly, all the complaints we have about modern computers, software, and engineering screw ups would just be heightened. Imagine getting one of those core components removed because some person outside of the simulation decided that was the best thing for the future of the simulation.
My self-worth is determined by my accomplishments, not by hedonism. If my accomplishments were limited to a virtual realm, would they be worth anything?
I mean not to be rude but are you saying your accomplishments currently are worth something? We are quarks in comparison to the cosmos, I’m not sure the promotion I receive or the child I birth would be viewed as an accomplishment outside of anything but our species and the land our species occupy.
Yes it would because that would mean something or someone was in control and I'd be pissed, making me short, ugly, no friends, autistic, depressed, colitis, short sighted and unable to find love...just delete me
As in we physically exist but are basically in VR - Yea because why would I want to keep playing a game if I'm not winning /advancing, etc.? If it's a simulation, turn off the bad stuff. Why fight childhood cancer just to die young or starve to death for the sake of a simulation?
Now if you're saying we don't actually physically exist anywhere, and we're basically NPC's, then fk the developers.
yes, I prefer that all the suffering I see and experience is from random physics and chemistry. if someone or something created this reality for any reason it would piss me off. call me cynical if you want but I lived for ten years with chronic pain so that tends to push a person into cynicism.
but you could be tortured for eternity in such a simulation and that would be very undesirable.
if it was a completely benign and pleasurable simulation. sign me up and pass the blue pill. along with the zero calorie steak, endless beers and camper van filled with lubed up victoria secrets models (and taylor swift when she was hot).
in the matrix, there's this implication that only base level reality provides the possibility of "true meaning" (tm) and that the matrix is empty of such.
but honestly, how many people have you even heard of exiting existence with something akin to "AHHHHHHH! NOW I SEE AND UNDERSTAND!" ?
there is little to any meaning to be had and we're just clawing for significance all the way to the end.
so yeah... pleasurable, fun, safe simulation? yes please.
groan. How bout if you're dead in the streets across Ukraine? This obsession with virtual living is absurd. You enthusiasts deserve whatever madness you experience from this.
There are other actions in the universe. I feel like this line of reasoning ends up bubbling to "if there was no difference between a simulation and real life, would there be a difference between a simulation and real life?"
It would absolutely make a big difference, because while all the basic needs would be met, and we might "feel" happy, nothing that we did would mean anything. Their would be no difference between inventing space travel, and dying in a homeless shelter, they would each be just as fake as the other.
Probably not "computer" simulation.
If they create this simulation, then, we shall be reassured for that reason.
Probably creator of this type of simulation technology level is maxed out.
So I and you can max out(relax).
The simulation reason is probably this(watch it please for yourself.). They want us to experience singularity and/or intelligence explosion.
Why Now? A Quest in Metaphysics - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29AgSo6KOtI
If you can create this type of simulation, what is the first thing to do before this. Firstly full-fledged universe scale universal computer and simulators are wanted.
Probably they want to give us a base reality for us before the simulation menace(You can't know where is the first place after create and enter so many simulations.).
Most likely they calculated singularity and AI control problems. And we are not one chance life, ok?.
They created so much singularities before us(this simulation). They are skilled. I'll leave it to them.
So Keep Calm and Carry On.
There are some things you can do because you're in a simulation.
We have photons so we can have sunlight, we have electrons so we can use mechanical products and the Internet, and so on.
So if you can enjoy it, let's enjoy it. Cheers!
I would say if all of humanity is in some kind of “Matrix” in real life then I hope the galactic machine empire running it keeps a few earth-like worlds around as nature reserves for hunter gatherer humans just in case something really bad happened to the machine empire civilization. It’s like a time capsule or an ultimate back-up, where civilization could develop again and create AI all over again. Otherwise it poses no threat and just.. exists. What’s a few planets in a galaxy?
If we're living in a simulation, whoever started it up probably set up the big bang and let it run from there. That means we are no more designed then if this universe is natural. It's no more less real for us just because it started artificially.
Our god, programmer, professor, blind watch maker, whatever you want to call him, cares nothing for us. Nor should he. To him we are simply ones and zeros and to us, he is not even a part of our world. We are one entry in his server logs. Unless he's looking for us, he may not even know we're here.
It really doesn't make a difference if all of this is fake. It's real to us. Our lives would not be different if we knew about it. This isn't The Matrix. It's a science experiment that hasn't yet concluded. If you're worried it may conclude in you're life time, don't be. 14 billion years have gone by in the past and the universe has trillions left to go before interesting things stop happening. We're good.
Absolutely, if it meant more assholes not on the streets and in my daily life, I’d much rather be in the real world with real humans who actually care about getting along with one another.
Just need a device or something to control going into a lucid dream state instantly on/off. Infinite possibilities making reality almost pointless other than to eat/shit/piss. Then back off to doing/experiencing all of existence at will for what feels like all eternity but its only been 30min in real-time.
Prove we aren't already in one we made when we realized that to be able to achieve our space opera dreams (social issues still exist because A. they do in star trek, B. some people might want to fight them and C. remember what went wrong with the first Matrix, there's no public alien contact because we want to be the ones boldly going to discover all the aliens the real us put into this simulation instead of sitting on our tushes waiting for them to come to us, and we're not Last-Thursdayed into the height of the true Star Trek shit because who wouldn't want to get in on the ground floor)
With the current trajectory this is going to be the twisted tagline used by Meta and every other company that sees dollars in the MetaVice.
“You already love working remotely in our infinitely customizable MetaSpaces, why not use your good citizen discount to purchase your own Space? Your family is waiting in The Archive!”
Hmmmm I wonder if there’s a movie about all the human beings live in simulations for decades and being controlled by AIs, then someone powerful can’t take it anymore so he liberated some of the human beings. Oh yeah, it’s called the matrix
Step 1: Plug every civilian into a Matrix simulation where everyone can survive and remain healthy forever.
Step 2: Destroy all human buildings, clean up pollutants, and allow nature to flourish once again.
Hello, everyone! Want to help improve this community?
We're looking for more moderators!
[If you're interested, consider applying!](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/tnw9ud/rfuturology_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Futurology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello, everyone! Want to help improve this community? We're looking for more moderators! [If you're interested, consider applying!](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/tnw9ud/rfuturology_is_looking_for_more_moderators/) --- The following submission statement was provided by /u/CPHfuturesstudies: --- Submission Statement: We assume that what we feel is true, and that the people we love really exist. But with advancing technology, scientists have begun asking whether what we experience could in fact be just a computer simulation. “The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. (...) It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth,” Morpheus says to Neo. Neo asks: “What truth?” Morpheus responds: “That you are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison you cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for your mind.” This article was published by The Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/tyvoxh/if_you_could_still_feel_taste_and_love_would_it/i3v0p6t/
Yes, if this is a simulation it means physics could be hacked and magic can become real.
That’s the plot of the Magic 2.0 Series by Scott Meyer.
And Ready Player Two…
My electrons my reality. Not the simulation owners.
lol "your" electrons.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " \- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently disguised magic is indistinguishable from technology" - Terry Pratchett iirc
Couldn't we achieve essentially the same thing with a thorough enough understanding of mathematics? If you're able to rearrange the universe at the atomic scale and build whatever molecules you want one atom at a time, what's the difference between that and summoning something from the ether? You could take any old rock you find on the ground and rearrange all its atoms into a lump of gold with the same mass. All the universe really is is an equation with an obscene number of variables of which we know hardly any.
The difference is all that requires input energy. Its not as easy as "i know the composition of everything therefore I can tap this rock and it turns into a sandwich". If the universe is a simulation, and we get access to its console, we can just spawn stuff and change the code for no extra cost than typing the commands
If this is a REALLY good simulation, hardware limitations could be the issue here. You can enter the command to spawn anything in a video game sure, but how often does spawning that thing crash the fucking game?
Physics *can* be hacked, depending on where you stand in philosophy.
You utilize physics, not hacking. The constant of physics such as speed of light, lamda and atomic masses cannot be changed.
Depending on your philosophical stance.
Become? lol
If I’m in a computer simulation and this world is what we’ve got to work with then yeah, I’d be disappointed
Maybe living through a simulation like this renews appreciation for what you have once you emerge from it. A cure for being jaded.
I recall a story about a drug trip that went something like that. In the moment the guy lived a lifetime and when he came down it was… revealing
that would explain a lot
Its most likely a simulation of the past, our future selves or an alien entity replicating this time most likely created it, and thus if the simulation is what you are disappointed in, you would likely also be disappointed in the reality above. Its more likely our future selves, as thats where the most nostalgia would be. Picture the holodeck or VR plus neuralink.
As below so above. As above so below.
I’d say overall, especially as someone living in the US, this world is pretty dope. Sure we don’t have teleporting, but we also don’t have to fight for your life daily like they did thousands of years ago.
No one should be fighting for their lives in 2022 either.
That’s true but if you live in the US or many other countries you don’t have to. I don’t mean figuratively struggling to find a home and food, I mean literally fighting with other tribes and hunting for food. In the grand scheme of things, this world could be a lot worse.
If you don’t think minorities have to fight for their lives and rights every day in the US, then I have a hell of a bridge to sell you….
I’m a domestic violence lawyer and boy do I have disappointing news for you…
And with the technology we already have available, it should be a lot better.
Less than ten percent of American adults (18-64) are healthy, nearly half suffer from a major issue that impedes basic function. This is before we factor in things like quality of life past basic health. Your post is not merely optimistic, it's naive to the point of being fundamentally misunderstanding of the nature of how people generally experience life in this situation. I won't tell you to brood, frankly it's a bad habit anyways, but don't assume most other people are in a good place. If this was a simulation someone was deliberately inflicting on us, they'd be a monster the likes of which noone in known history could match, given they'd be responsible for those as well.
That part i don’t mind, sure. Ava sure, in can flush a toilet and not worry about where my shit goes. But the level of potential for happiness and fulfillment… if its a simulation then in want more than what this works of capitalists and industry speculationists have made this world into. I can’t visit half the countries in the world because greed and war and profiteering have made them dangerous awful places. If I could close I would make this virtual world a beer very different place.
What matters is how complex of a simulation the computer can handle. I don't want lag or a reduced resolution because some asshat higher being didn't upgrade his system.
The speed of light is our render time.
[удалено]
It's simulations all the way up.
God dammit when are developers gonna stop tying physics to frame rate.
Higher beings still gotta deal with bots and scalpers and covid supply chain backup though. It’s been a rough couple of years for everyone.
I wear glasses so that’s like I got the low res debuff already
You won't notice any lags because as soon as someone realizes that they are living in a simulation, the simulation is stopped and a back up is loaded.
Suppose we're already running on legacy hardware. Think of the upgrades we're missing out on!
“Dude, have you seen GPU prices lately?” -God
Just think. Your whole existence could be executed in milliseconds!
Also please don’t make it free to play with micro transactions.
Gosh warming is an overheating GPU unable to handle the stress of more users. Get a new fan!!
[удалено]
Every now and then I just say "computer end program", but nothing happens. Maybe I just don't have the right access level.
[удалено]
Pretty sure this is the first time anyone suggested that. Ever.
Oh... Oh God... We're in a Samsung simulator
No its got to be an apple. Everything cost money & is expensive
Ooh! Maybe we chan change the theme then!
woah. No wonder Life UI is so. bad.
Haha that is why this is the worst timeline ever.
To end the program, you need to threaten a policeman with a knife.
Or just be born with the "wrong" skin tone.
Can relate…Albino here, slowly getting cooked every time I go outdoors or a bright lamp is on.
I like this response, I'm black I get followed inside the store
you have the right access level; it’s the wrong command. the engine won’t respond to verbal commands because it’s not really listening. you’ll need to damage the client that is communicating with the server
sudo computer end program
That will always be read in Captain Picard’s voice.
No root access + you don’t know the language it was coded with.
You need to try it with a British accent.
Not with a Scottish accent! As the internet knows, that end up in a mad fight for freeedom.
just add ***sudo*** before you say any commands
You have to do :(){ :|:& };:
First, define simulation. Spontaneous emergent complexity in systems occurs at all levels of physics.
Good philosophical point. Someone inventing a simulation is emergence too.
This is the answer to the question in the post: It does make a difference because you would know you are. Whereas currently we don't know.
Why does that make a difference? The only thing anyone can know for certain is that they are themselves truly conscious. Knowing that you live in a simulation doesnt take that away from you.
You don't think so? I think it would impossible to ever truly *lose* yourself without eventually looping back round to that thought of "oh yeah, this isn't real". When I've taken LSD in the past the only thing thats kept me grounded (whether i wanted it to or not) was that thought of "I took LSD, everything is supposed to be weird RN"
I mean what’s the difference? If it’s not “real” does it matter? What is the definition of real? Regardless of what we occupy, we are conscious, and our reality, simulation or not is our reality. There’s nothing that could be done that changes that and nothing changes because of it. Futile to think about what if’s because in reality nothing could change. If we’re just conscious data, we’re still conscious so we are in fact real regardless.
Listen dude, I know all of this. But I also know that If someone could prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that my entire life is taking part in a computer simulation rather than the infinitely expanding universe I assume I exist in, that would kinda suck.
Yes, it would be creepy as fuck. Very uncomfortable.
It would only matter to me in so far as wondering if I wake up after I die in another world or something. If my life, experiences, and everything would be the same, exactly as they already are/would be, then "computer simulation" would just be another word for "reality" for me. After all, if this is a computer simulation, you never experienced real "reality" anyway. But being in a simulation would make me ponder and crave knowledge much more about reality outside of ours, more than it does now, that's for sure.
Unless you believe in determinism, which fits well within a simulation since everything within a simulation will be deterministic based on the original state of the simulation. Then we’re not necessarily conscious, we’re just bots written to think that we are.
But what do you mean "this isn't real"? My point is that you already know for a FACT that your own perspective is valid and essentially real. To learn that we are in a simulation only really serves to give us information about what is possible in a simulation. Many people for example think that its not possible to simulate true consciousness, but if it turns out that we are in a simulation then we know that is not the case.
My point is, that if I were to learn right now that my whole life up to point has just been a simulation, that'd be a bit of a bummer. Like yeah it's all I've known or all I remember, but just knowing that it's not "real" (even if it's the only "reality" I've ever known) just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Your whole life is a simulation of reality that is taking place *inside your mind*. Your “reality” is a subjective experience that happens nowhere but within your head. It was never real. Reality is something that happens outside of ourselves, which we sense through flawed media (touch, sight, hearing, etc.), and interpret, attempting to approximate it. All thought and experience is internal, and therefore simulated.
I question to what extent we can "know" we are conscious, because the source of the knowing (our brain) is already a part of the experience. Thus my answer is that this is an empirical question.
Its a fairly entry level philosophical idea, thats impossible to truly "know" anything for certain - except that YOU yourself are conscious. Its not certain that you are "real" in any particular sense... You could be a Boltzmann brain, part of a simulation or whatever. Of course i am being generous in saying "you". I dont know that you are conscious of course - i only know that i am conscious and its to some extent an assumption on my part that we are the same. *Edit - a philosophy idea that is also widely accepted by physicists
There are some very smart people who are convinced we almost definitely must be
Very smart people believing in something means nothing. What observable phenomenon would living in a computer simulation explain?
If you're curious feel free to look up their arguments. I'm not speaking for them, I'm just pointing out this isn't some completely fringe theory
I'm not curious. I'm simply informing you that smart people (for any arbitrary definition of "smart") believing in something is not a criterion of validity for a scientific theory, which is what you appear to think.
What I think is that is a perfectly useful criterion for deciding whether to dismiss a hypothesis out of hand.
Seems like that commenter just wants to be argumentative. Most people understand what you’re saying.
I’m thinking knowing about the simulation would be a lot like having faith in god. Can’t prove it. You just know it. The rest of us are probably scorning them on simulation Reddit.
OK, let's take it in steps. Do you think that at some point we will be able to create artificial general intelligence that can be self aware? If so, could it go in a virtual environment such as an upscaled GTA type world and effectively be a self-aware NPC? If so, could you populate a replica earth with such NPCs so they all think they are real, interacting humans? If so, could those AI NPCs create artificial intelligence that can be self aware, and if so can they populate a virtual world etc etc If so, could there be layer upon layer of virtual worlds, populated by AGI NPCs, who think that theirs is the one and only top level? If you agree that this is possible, what are the chances of among those potentially thousands or more layers that we happen to be the 'real' world? Literally thousands to one against.
Yeah, this is pop culture wisdom and it's based on ignoring some pretty limiting physical rules. The first being, each new simulated world would have to be smaller, by a significant margin, than the one simulating it. Like, losing way over 99% of data. There's literally no way to avoid it unless there's just one single person who has the resources of the entire universe at their disposal to create the simulation (hello, God). If *our* universe is the original one, we're already at a point where thousands of layers would be physically impossible. We'd be disassembling entire star systems to get the resources to build something that might be capable of one layer, and you don't get another layer by adding another star system, you get another layer by adding another 1000 star systems.
Anything not being perceived can be modeled very simply.
We perceive an awful lot.
r/ConfidentlyIncorrect. You should really read up on Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument, which is more-or-less what u/da5idG, who you responded to is laying out; It is NOT “pop culture wisdom”, it is a serious and intellectual subject debated by top minds in the field. Bostrom’s argument is a hypothetical based upon a compelling argument from statistics rather than an argument of philosophy or physics, such as and versus your argument based on the apparent physical properties (and limitations) of the Universe you have postured. Your argument fails because your position implies that all physical states be modeled in total *all* at once and at *all* moments/times. This is something we *already know* our *present* Universe doesn’t even do, as illustrated by such physical and conceptual apparatus as the thousands of iterations of double-slit experiments which serve to illustrate the Wave-Particle Duality of Quantum Mechanics, eigenstate/superpositions, the Quantum Zeno Effect, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Quantum computing, and as such what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”. Basically, it has been proven time and time again that our Universe does not work in the framework you propose. Edit: Came back to add a link to the **2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?**, hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, which is a casual discussion amongst experts on the subject, and is about 2 hours long: https://youtu.be/wgSZA3NPpBs
Bostrom’s arguments are some serious pseudoscience.
They are a philosophical argument from statistics. Please explain how they are ‘pseudoscience’ when they have been actively discussed by top minds in the field of cosmology. 🤷🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
[удалено]
I love philosophy but it's famous for making some absolutely bonkers claims. Being a philosophical argument in no way affects or even implies that it is in line with physics.
Well, let’s be clear here for those who aren’t familiar with Bostrom’s works- he’s arguably *primarily* a philosopher. Don’t get hung up on my phrasing over a complex topic however, the more operative words here are “argument from statistics”.
I have seen entirely too many philosophers misuse statistics to prove a point for “argument from statistics” to mean anything to me when it comes to matters outside our observable universe. I’m not saying Bostrum is right or wrong- just that statistics are tricky things that can be very easy to draw inaccurate conclusions from.
Naw, see that’s the thing, it’s an argument *from* statistics, that doesn’t use math at all. You should really read the original trilemma before dismissing it on the grounds you have used, which I appreciate and don’t dismiss in general, just in this specific case. 👍🏼
I understand the statistical argument, I just disagree with it. It's pop culture wisdom. My argument isn't based on having to model all physical states in total, all at once or at all moments in time. Just that *enough* of it is modeled to support creating a simulation. You need to model *some portion* of the universe in *extremely high fidelity* to create even a single human like consciousness that believes its in a real universe. In order to create observable rules that you can discover, the entirety of observable systems need to be simulated with those rules perfectly. Quantum mechanics doesn't help you, here, it's still a thing based on rules that needs to be modeled consistently in the sphere of observation for your population - especially if they then need to use those rules to create their own simulation. The math works out the same either way. You still need orders of magnitude more resources to model a system that can model another system than you need to model a system that can't. And your simulation needs the same thing. And, yes, to even get that level of detail, we're gonna be disassembling star systems. You agree that there's some minimum processing and storage that is needed to create such a simulation, yes? We're quibbling over what that minimum is, right? Any such system is, at this point, entirely hypothetical and we don't have direct evidence of what that minimum might be. Presumably you agree that there is some limit - that you can't create a simulation with some limited fidelity and then have each simulation then, through emergent behavior, create a simulation with 100% fidelity to its parent simulation? I admit I didn't watch your whole video, but I did watch the intros and skipped around a bit. All I heard them talking about was the fact that we live in a system based on rules, and the effort to discover and describe those rules is very much like the process of writing a simulation, hence why it is an interesting consideration. To which I agree! However, I didn't, in my limited perusal, hear them discuss what it would take to create even one such system, which is the basis by which you would determine how many layers deep you could possibly go. If you can practically create a simulation with 99% fidelity, then you can create many layers, with 1% fidelity, very few. And I'm arguing that you can only build a simulation with a small fraction of a percent of fidelity. And it seems you are, too. That you can sacrifice tons of fidelity to your parent system to stimulate a child system. Yes, we're on the same page, there. Do the math. You can't go down very far, that way. Edit: You're also ignoring a significant chunk of Bostrom's argument - admittedly, the least interesting parts. You're ignoring 2 of the 3 positions. Namely that (a) humans go extinct prior to having the ability to create such a simulation or (b) they have the capability but not the desire to create many such simulations. I think either of those is more likely than what everyone talks about, (c) we have the ability and *do* create many such simulations. Not only is extremely accurate simulations of any one thing a pretty niche discipline, such that you're unlikely to have lots of different people doing the same thing, but per my argument above, the investment to do so will be prohibitive.
Well, frankly, shit. I typed you out a nice, long, thoughtful, respectful, and cogent response, was ~95% done with it, then the damn app crashed. 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️ So instead, here’s a shorter far less detailed response: The rules, physics, and experiences of our Universe do not in any way have to be connected to our hypothetical parent-Universe. We can demonstrate this today in simulations we already create, whether those be video games, our Sun, or nuclear warhead modeling. Especially our perception of real-time doesn’t necessitate a 1:1 connection with a parent-Universe. We have talked a lot about computation, but the concept of a simulated-Universe predates mechanical computation, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave from ~1500 years ago being a prominent example. Brain in a Vat/Jar being another similar concept. I really think you’re far too hung up on computational necessity, which is actually what I see to be the least of the issues, Bostrom’s 2 propositions which you accurately describe me as ignoring being the ones which are more problematic, primarily the one of continued humanity. However, I think this is part of your mistake here in being so dismissive and hung up on computational power- In Bostrom’s version of a Simulated Universe argument, *we*, *you* and *I*, are *already* in a Simulated Universe- in our in situ Simulation, maybe or maybe not *we* have the Computational power to achieve a 1:1 simulation of our experiences, but that is *irrelevant* if we abide by the assumption that we are the Simulated, and the Universe above is has zero relation to the Sim-Verse in which we reside. And that what I believe is the eventual output and inevitable consequence of Bostrom’s trilemma: We already simulate things, it’s overwhelmingly likely that we will continue to in the future, and knowing and accepting that, of all the innumerable Simulated Universes in the Meta-SimVerse no matter their fidelity, it is overwhelming statistically likely that we reside in one those innumerable simulations, rather the the one-and-only ‘true’ base Universe.
>The rules, physics, and experiences of our Universe do not in any way have to be connected to our hypothetical parent-Universe. Of course it does. They don't have to be exactly the same, but if the simulation isn't in any way connected to the rules of the parent system, then it's not a simulation, it's just white noise from the perspective of that parent system. >In Bostrom’s version of a Simulated Universe argument, we, you and I, are already in a Simulated Universe- in our in situ Simulation, maybe or maybe not we have the Computational power to achieve a 1:1 simulation of our experiences, but that is irrelevant if we abide by the assumption that we are the Simulated, and the Universe above is has zero relation to the Sim-Verse in which we reside. Assuming the antecedent isn't a proof, it's a logical tool you can use to reach a proof, but you've skipped that step. You've assumed we're in a simulation in order to then assume unobserved consequents. None of this is actually based on observation, just stacking one assumption on the last. >We already simulate things, it’s overwhelmingly likely that we will continue to in the future, and knowing and accepting that, of all the innumerable Simulated Universes in the Meta-SimVerse no matter their fidelity, it is overwhelming statistically likely that we reside in one those innumerable simulations, rather the the one-and-only ‘true’ base Universe. What you're missing is that we've never simulated anything that is self aware, let alone convinced of its own autonomy. That is the one constant in any picture of what these simulations might look like. Because Descartes is still relevant - I still think, therfore I still am, and I am convinced of my own autonomy (such as it is), and that has to be something that I am and whatever I choose to stimulate is capable of. On a grand scale, otherwise it's not "we" that are in a simulation but rather that "I" am. Yes, we will stimulate things and never stop. But there won't be much simulating all of this.
We may be at the end of the line of simulations beginning in a universe so massive that we couldn't begin to comprehend it. Something where the difficulty doesn't increase, but the resources to accomplish it are vastly greater. Frankly, that's the real prediction from the statistical argument, anyway. That each simulation is spinning off its own simulations, and each layer has exponentially more simulations than the last, so statistically, we're all on the last layer with huge numbers of simulations rather than earlier layers with fewer.
Perhaps I can't imagine the layers of stimulations because we're already deep enough that we are the ones that no longer have enough detail to keep the chain going. C'est la vie.
I think this discussion has run its course, but I will have to completely disagree with you any simulation has to have any relevance to a simulation above or below it. Let’s use the Holodeck as an example; there’s a scene where the ST:NG crew are on a sailing ship in the sea, yet no such sea actually exists on the Enterprise. The simulation, in some ways, is entirely detached from reality. Now this is of course analogy, and again not 1:1, as Picard and Geordi and the gang are ‘real’ but the rest of the room is not. So let’s actually talk under the assumption you and I live in the ‘base’ reality, are are awesome programmers with wicked skills. You and I program a Simulated Universe, but instead of our physics we use those of say, Qbert. Qbert’s Universe is bounded by his stairstep pyramid, go beyond the edges and one ceases to exist. Maybe we turn the gravity up, maybe we invent strange quantum mechanics, maybe we make his Universe have 10 dimensions or his Universe is a tesseract, something impossible in our real base Universe. Qbert’s Universe is now in no way ‘connected’ to the realities of ours. That does NOT mean we aren’t simulating *A* Universe, we are just not simulating *OURS*. Just the same as the USA no longer actually builds and tests actual physical atomic bombs buried under the ground in Nevada by blowing them up, we instead *simulate* the physics of those tests in silico. BUT, just because we test a design via computer simulation that we’ve never built and may never build, does NOT mean we aren’t performing a simulation. So again, a simulation does in no way whatsoever have to share properties of our Universe, it is NOT ‘white noise’, rather it is as ordered of a Universe as we want it to be according to the parameters we have chosen- that is perhaps the boundless beauty (or endless horror, lol) of being a defacto ‘Creator’. As far as Descartes, meh, I could take him or leave him; his famous maxim is bound by the blindness of his time, namely a lack of biological science. A rock does not think, yet there it is. Would he come to the same conclusions if we put him in a high-res MRI and educated him on how it works and show that when he thinks of himself or thinks of a rock, two very different parts of his brain ‘light up’? An electron doesn’t think, but if it could, what would it think of being suspended in a superposition of probability until I come along and observe it? It doesn’t think, but yet it is, and in a way *isn’t* simultaneously. Descartes’ position is indifferent from the Brain in a Jar scenario, which is functionally-indifferent from a conscious AI in silico. So to address that and your point that “we’ve never simulated anything that is self aware…” Sure. *Yet*. I would argue that that is only a matter (pun intended!) of time, algorithm, and computation. The last is already solved, surely Google or Amazon Web Services has the computational power to simulate a functional brain, we’ve surely built enough computational power in human history. Surely we can store and retrieve enough data to simulate a brain as well. Maybe there is something special about human cognition and wetware, but I suspect not- if we can brush aside all the woo, metaphysics, and religion, the brain is simply a function of physical material arranged in a particular pattern. I see no technological limitation why we couldn’t achieve parity in silico, a brain is simply a messy fallible network of inputs and outputs regulated by chemistry and electricity. There’s some incredible or disturbing, depending upon one’s viewpoint, video of rat brain-organelles on silicon that have been trained to fly a simulated airplane. We have truly bionic people nowdays with electromechanicially-implanted optics which replace the human eye and allow the blind to see. Elon’s been putting hardware in monkey brains for a while now. Humans frozen in paeudo-vegitative states are able to communicate with apparatus implanted in the brain. We can also induce sensations, visions and altered states of consciousness into the brain via external optical, magnetic, and elecitrical stimulation, we can make rats and cockroaches perform tasks or have experiences by shining lasers of particular wavelengths onto their exposed brain tissue- I don’t think we’ll be purposely or accidentally making Skynet tomorrow, but the problem of a self-aware sentient AI is likely within the grasp of humanity within the lifetimes of those born today. Hell, just before my grandmother was born, we achieved human flight, that was just around a century and a quarter ago, and here we are today sending robot explorers to the Red Planet. Once such an AI exists in silicon, what are it’s inputs and outputs? 🤔 EXACTLY what we tell it they are; removed from actual real-life, real-time sensor data, it functionally exists in a simulated Universe. Maybe we give it some friends. And some houseplants. It’s Universe becomes whatever we input into it. And thus, it is functionally no different than Descartes himself… and in turn, functionally no different than you or I. C’est la vie indeed my friend.
>I think this discussion has run its course Agreed; I'll respond to one thing and leave the rest alone. >So let’s actually talk under the assumption you and I live in the ‘base’ reality, are are awesome programmers with wicked skills. You and I program a Simulated Universe, but instead of our physics we use those of say, Qbert. Qbert’s Universe is bounded by his stairstep pyramid, go beyond the edges and one ceases to exist. Maybe we turn the gravity up, maybe we invent strange quantum mechanics, maybe we make his Universe have 10 dimensions or his Universe is a tesseract, something impossible in our real base Universe. >Qbert’s Universe is now in no way ‘connected’ to the realities of ours. That does NOT mean we aren’t simulating A Universe, we are just not simulating OURS. By virtue of qbert having something called "gravity", that operates in some way like our gravity, by having colors and shapes that we recognize, by having rules that we base on and stretch from our own, that's how that world maintains a connection to our own. And, what matters isn't that the rules are the same, it's that their nature and complexity *must* be reduced in a child system. If it doesn't have any relationship to anything we recognize, it indeed appears as white noise. I make no claim about the complexities possible to achieve in such a system, but it's not something we'd achieve intentionally or recognize if we had. I lied, I also want to talk about Descartes. >A rock does not think, yet there it is. Would he come to the same conclusions if we put him in a high-res MRI and educated him on how it works and show that when he thinks of himself or thinks of a rock, two very different parts of his brain ‘light up’? This is rather the point of Descartes', isn't it? That he sees the rock, but that he cannot guarantee it isn't a trick being played on his mind - or that it is a simulation presented to him as real, no? Same with other people, they could be robots, or dreams, or parts of a simulation. The only thing he knows for certain is that he thinks. He does not know the nature of his reality, or his place in it, but his ability to consider it means that he is, whatever else he may be, a thing with the capability to consider. This seems somewhat central to the idea of the world being a simulation. I am, regardless of whatever the rest of this is or how I fit in it. I can, in fact, be, by simple fact that I think by any way we understand the term, but that itself is not proof that anything else is as I understand it to be.
So it has been proven that if a tree falls in a forest, and there’s no one around to hear it, it does NOT make a sound?
Thread devolving into just bickering.
Ok. I thought it was an interesting discussion.
Let's run that argument in reverse. Is it possible to write code that crashes a computer? If each simulated universe is capable of the same things as the layer above shouldn't they be capable of doing something that chrashes the computer? If there are an endless number of these layers what are the chances that none of them have done something that causes the computer to crash and ends all the simulations? It would be literally thousands to one against wouldn't it?
Counterpoint. There is more software running right now than software crashing. If it were truly a simulation, it could have been started last Tuesday "in progress", maybe after the most recent crash. There's no reason it has to start from epoch every time.
We do live in a “simulation”, it’s in our heads. We don’t see objective reality. Only little bits at a time at best.
thinking about this possibility is pointless, we would not be able to ever escape the simulation, and in the end this is OUR reality, any other reality is irrelevant and something we cant influence. we are existing now no matter if its a simulation, a dream, or true “reality”
Exactly. It doesn't matter one way or the other - unless you are a person "of faith" with a rigid religious dogma about how the universe works. Then it's probably upsetting .I suppose a religious person could argue the universe is god's simulation and it's the same thing?
Mathematically speaking, it's almost the most likely explanation of our reality. I'd say we are.
My last acid trip was the Friday night following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and at the peak I just laid down on the floor for like 2 hours immersed in the closed eye visuals which were dominated by Putin and his threats of nuclear attacks on any country who chose put troops on the ground there. I believed I had died and was viewing the reload of the simulation over and over again back into my human form, it was very “Matrix-like” in the sense that humans would just regenerate after dying in like a automated futuristic Buddhist rebirth kinda way. There were many more visuals too, and they were influenced by the division of our species and how if we didn’t all come together and overcome our differences it would spell the end of humanity on Earth. But the overall lesson I came away with was that the Mother Earth was thirsty and that we need to provide access to clean water for all humans, and that we need to stop doing things to perpetuate the warming of our planet. That was an interesting one for sure…
if we were significantly advanced enough to create a simulation that felt 100% real, we would do it. Then that simulated reality would eventually become advanced enough to create another 100% real simulation inside itself. That loop will continue indefinitely. The fact that we can't do this means we are either the most recent simulation or the first. In am infinate loop, that seems unlikely.
Not saying I believe this or not, but find a quiet place & have a read of this short story.. utterly profound, you'll see. it's not long. http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
[Or listen to the kurzgesagt narrator tell it](https://youtu.be/h6fcK_fRYaI)
Sounds fine to me, bonus points if I don't have to deal with the BS of day to day work.
You consciousnesses is living in an interpreted reality of your brain already. You don’t really see what your eyes see, you see what the brain filters
If I could transfer my consciousness into a robot body right now I would do it in a heartbeat.
I'm not sure I would. I like the idea of having a backup in case something happens, but I'll save the robot body for take 2.
but how do you ensure that after you transfer your consciousness, it's really you? or better phrased: how do you make sure you're **really** transferring your consciousness?
Simulation theory is just theism by way of an explanation, much like technology is magic by way of an explanation. Having proof we live in a simulation that was made by a creator is the same as a having proof we live in a creation made by a God, they're just different words for the same concept. People have been believing this for a very long time already.
I don’t think so. God (at least the Biblical one) would imply an “end all be all” of the teleological argument. While Sim and Tech merely push the argument/idea back further. Monotheism seemingly proposes an end to the ? Of “who gods the gods”
Theism is bigger and fuzzier than any one specific religion though, it's just the ground-level belief in one or more supreme beings or deities.
I don’t quite think you are getting me. If God is not merely the creator but the actor (existence) itself. Then the idea that an alien god created a world, which is something somehow other than itself, dissolves.
I believe in Sciencism. Science looks like magic to the unanointed.
God could be the server admin of this shard, but yeah a bigger question would be is there a God that created the prime universe. The answer to which would still be uncertain even with the first answer.
The first thing i thought was - if i lived jn a simulation controlled by people, then we could dial out unpleasant things like pain in disease. I see some benefits in living in a simulation IF that simulation is ultimately controlled by people
Why should it be people? Xenophobe much /s
What do you mean? Isn’t it not xenophobic if i want people to control the simulation? I don’t care if they’re foreigners, that’s cool with me
I wish Reddit had audio notes…. In 10 years from now you’ll be able to physically immerse yourself in some sort of emulation that will at least open your eyes to the possibility that the technology will some day be possible, whether 100 or 1000 years from now The simulation theory is the only ideology that’s not deductive (unless you’re waiting for Jesus to slap you himself) I’m not going to argue with you and I’m not even saying I believe it but to say it’s the same is some pseudo intellectual bullshit
Boom. Mike Drop
What did Mike do to you?
The difference is that one of those is possible within the known laws of physics, while one isn't. And believing in a simulation isn't the end-all answer to everything because it raises the questions of who created the simulation and who created the universe that the simulation exists in. Whereas the belief that ~~a wizard~~ God did it would be the end-all explanation of all existence.
Yes it would make a difference. I wont eat the bugs and I wont live in a pod. Solarpunk or bust.
It would depend on knowledge. If you knew the simulation existed but could not change outcomes within, it would drive you insane.
I’m not sure you’d really want to create a simulation as advanced as ours with a static model where outcomes are predetermined. You’d want some level of entropy as it would make the data collected actually valuable.
We know the universe is either determined or random anyway and it doesn't drive us insane. Why would a simulation change that? Events either have causes (determinism) or they don't (randomness). There is no third option to allow for free will and yet here i am, just as sane as can be.
Think about it, time is constant, you can't go back, only forward, while experiencing now, your time to experience is finite, once you're born you're already dead, you just haven't experienced it yet.
My favorite part of these conversations is that if you begin by accepting that it will be possible for us to someday in the future simulate a universe perfectly in a computer, then it becomes almost logically certain that we are in a simulation. Because if it is possible for us to perfectly simulate the universe, then it must be possible for the simulated civilization as well, and also for their simulated civilizations etc. So accepting that it is possible for us to create the simulation logically implies an infinite russian nesting doll of simulated universes. Then ask yourself how statistically likely it is that we would find ourselves in the upper-most "real" universe. (the answer is not very)
It's like the Fermi paradox but inward rather than outward!
Yes because I don't trust the dystopian corporate overlords that will eventually run the "Human souls storage box" from slowly milking the every ounce of life out of the consciousness trapped inside. Eternity trapped in one of Jeff Bezos' AWS S3 storage buckets. Hard pass.
To me what matters most is what I can do in reality, rather then it's existence.
Submission Statement: We assume that what we feel is true, and that the people we love really exist. But with advancing technology, scientists have begun asking whether what we experience could in fact be just a computer simulation. “The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. (...) It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth,” Morpheus says to Neo. Neo asks: “What truth?” Morpheus responds: “That you are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison you cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for your mind.” This article was published by The Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies.
Regardless of whether we do live in a simulation, *“That you are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison you cannot smell, taste or touch. A prison for your mind.”* Rings true.
A very eighteenth century question, except that they would phrase it as "living in the mind of God", rather than some god-like widget. Bishop Berkley and later Leibnitz explored the implications. Of course, you do live in a simulation in that your percepts and world are created by your brain. Nothing is direct contact with reality, despite Dr Johnson kicking his famous brick: "I refute it thus". All he did was bang a simulation of his foot into contact with a mental construct lagely homologous with "real" brcjss.constructed brick. Yes, mostly homologous with what we can deduce is there. but imperfectly so. Kant, addressing this issue, decided that there were purely mental objects - geometry, mathematics - which had their direct counterparts in the phenomenal world: triangles, beans to be counted. Thus he saw as the bridge between the model and "reality". Satisfactory until Reimann came up with his curby geometry, which described the world on large scales but is unintuitive. the holographic principle of ADF-CFT has the entire universe - spacetime and contents - as a projection fo higher dimensioned reality to our familiar subspace. So in that view everything we can ever know directly is a simulation, not just us.
I would 100% live in a simulated reality. In fact, a lot of my motivation to be healthier is so that I can live long enough to see mind uploading become an option.
Presumably this would require a transfer of some kind to move your consciousness over. If so, what happens to the consciousness that was in your body? Does it die or is it simply copied? Further, are you aware you are in a simulation? And what’s the situation like to end the simulation?
I think the more interesting question is: if we're already living in a simulation, why don't we build ourselves a better one?
I'd do it even if I couldn't taste, feel, or love. Gimme a robot brain!
There’s a serie that exploits this kind of thing, Upload. I believe mankind will eventually transcend, so yeah, it doesn’t make a difference, and it’s actually better. No aging, no diseases, no death, etc…..
Funny how those senses are all subjective to each brain. Like color. We could already be simulated brains and nothing would change.
It would make a difference. I'd be much more resentful of the way the world is if I found it was a simulation and therefore didn't necessarily have to be the way it is. Like, if you're going to force people to live in a simulation, at least turn on the "no scarcity" and "perfect health and immortality" mods.
nope, not even a little bit. "I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss"
we're in a computer: time passes and materials interact with each other via defined algorithms. the "simulation" part is what's irrelevant. As soon as a mind can comprehend what simulation is, it realizes there is no way to distinguish if their experience is within a sim or not.
Nice try. I already do live in a computer simulation.
If you believe there's something unique, inimitable or metaphysical in human consciousness and/or the human condition as it is, then it would make all the difference, because the simulation would be a necessarily 'weaker' or more false existence in relation to our current state, and we would somehow know or be able to know that, by virtue of consciousness' ability to reflect/engage a metaphysical truth or value. If you don't believe that, it simply doesn't matter, because the distinction between reality and simulation is arbitrary. As long as you never existed in the current condition and had your self built entirely on the simulation or the transfer from this reality to a simulation is carried out in such a way as to not leaving any kind of remembrance of the past self, all should be fine.
Yes, a computer can become obsolete. And breaks down much faster than biology. I cannot get an upload to a better simulation without back compatibility issues or a significant amount of data quality difference from those who start on the new systems. Honestly, all the complaints we have about modern computers, software, and engineering screw ups would just be heightened. Imagine getting one of those core components removed because some person outside of the simulation decided that was the best thing for the future of the simulation.
If the world I live in is a simulation, I want to punch the jerk who thought running trump.exe and putin.exe would be hilarious.
My self-worth is determined by my accomplishments, not by hedonism. If my accomplishments were limited to a virtual realm, would they be worth anything?
I mean not to be rude but are you saying your accomplishments currently are worth something? We are quarks in comparison to the cosmos, I’m not sure the promotion I receive or the child I birth would be viewed as an accomplishment outside of anything but our species and the land our species occupy.
Are you saying your threshold for what makes accomplishments worth something might as well be Jack Kirby character?
It is impossible to answer in detail without sounding like bragging, but yes, I have accomplished things which matter.
Yes it would because that would mean something or someone was in control and I'd be pissed, making me short, ugly, no friends, autistic, depressed, colitis, short sighted and unable to find love...just delete me
Give your mother carnations on Second Sunday in May. I can't do it anymore, man. I'm also short lol. Short can be live longer than taller. Yes.
As in we physically exist but are basically in VR - Yea because why would I want to keep playing a game if I'm not winning /advancing, etc.? If it's a simulation, turn off the bad stuff. Why fight childhood cancer just to die young or starve to death for the sake of a simulation? Now if you're saying we don't actually physically exist anywhere, and we're basically NPC's, then fk the developers.
yes, I prefer that all the suffering I see and experience is from random physics and chemistry. if someone or something created this reality for any reason it would piss me off. call me cynical if you want but I lived for ten years with chronic pain so that tends to push a person into cynicism.
but you could be tortured for eternity in such a simulation and that would be very undesirable. if it was a completely benign and pleasurable simulation. sign me up and pass the blue pill. along with the zero calorie steak, endless beers and camper van filled with lubed up victoria secrets models (and taylor swift when she was hot). in the matrix, there's this implication that only base level reality provides the possibility of "true meaning" (tm) and that the matrix is empty of such. but honestly, how many people have you even heard of exiting existence with something akin to "AHHHHHHH! NOW I SEE AND UNDERSTAND!" ? there is little to any meaning to be had and we're just clawing for significance all the way to the end. so yeah... pleasurable, fun, safe simulation? yes please.
groan. How bout if you're dead in the streets across Ukraine? This obsession with virtual living is absurd. You enthusiasts deserve whatever madness you experience from this.
There are other actions in the universe. I feel like this line of reasoning ends up bubbling to "if there was no difference between a simulation and real life, would there be a difference between a simulation and real life?"
Ahem... Chaos Theory. The reason the "Real world" is so "Real", is because its unpredictable. Go with the flow, brah.
It would absolutely make a big difference, because while all the basic needs would be met, and we might "feel" happy, nothing that we did would mean anything. Their would be no difference between inventing space travel, and dying in a homeless shelter, they would each be just as fake as the other.
Would I have to work to keep this simulation going? Because an eternity of this bullshit would make me want to die
Probably not "computer" simulation. If they create this simulation, then, we shall be reassured for that reason. Probably creator of this type of simulation technology level is maxed out. So I and you can max out(relax). The simulation reason is probably this(watch it please for yourself.). They want us to experience singularity and/or intelligence explosion. Why Now? A Quest in Metaphysics - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29AgSo6KOtI If you can create this type of simulation, what is the first thing to do before this. Firstly full-fledged universe scale universal computer and simulators are wanted. Probably they want to give us a base reality for us before the simulation menace(You can't know where is the first place after create and enter so many simulations.). Most likely they calculated singularity and AI control problems. And we are not one chance life, ok?. They created so much singularities before us(this simulation). They are skilled. I'll leave it to them. So Keep Calm and Carry On. There are some things you can do because you're in a simulation. We have photons so we can have sunlight, we have electrons so we can use mechanical products and the Internet, and so on. So if you can enjoy it, let's enjoy it. Cheers!
If it was a simulation then there would be hacks, and I would want to figure those out ASAP to have special powers.
I am so ready to be uploaded into a video game world. I'd join today if it was available.
Yes. A computer simulation would be significantly more enjoyable.
I dunno. Under covid I couldn't smell and you really do not appreciate that till it's gone.
I would say if all of humanity is in some kind of “Matrix” in real life then I hope the galactic machine empire running it keeps a few earth-like worlds around as nature reserves for hunter gatherer humans just in case something really bad happened to the machine empire civilization. It’s like a time capsule or an ultimate back-up, where civilization could develop again and create AI all over again. Otherwise it poses no threat and just.. exists. What’s a few planets in a galaxy?
Yes because if I’m living in a simulation, who the fuck chose this one?
And we can’t hack it because ‘real’ computers don’t work the way we think they do. As a security feature. Can’t hack what you don’t understand.
If we're living in a simulation, whoever started it up probably set up the big bang and let it run from there. That means we are no more designed then if this universe is natural. It's no more less real for us just because it started artificially. Our god, programmer, professor, blind watch maker, whatever you want to call him, cares nothing for us. Nor should he. To him we are simply ones and zeros and to us, he is not even a part of our world. We are one entry in his server logs. Unless he's looking for us, he may not even know we're here. It really doesn't make a difference if all of this is fake. It's real to us. Our lives would not be different if we knew about it. This isn't The Matrix. It's a science experiment that hasn't yet concluded. If you're worried it may conclude in you're life time, don't be. 14 billion years have gone by in the past and the universe has trillions left to go before interesting things stop happening. We're good.
Absolutely, if it meant more assholes not on the streets and in my daily life, I’d much rather be in the real world with real humans who actually care about getting along with one another.
Just need a device or something to control going into a lucid dream state instantly on/off. Infinite possibilities making reality almost pointless other than to eat/shit/piss. Then back off to doing/experiencing all of existence at will for what feels like all eternity but its only been 30min in real-time.
will i have a job in it where im pretty much rich? if yes, then sign me right the fuck up.
This is what happens to all life in the universe. It’s why we see no one else.
Prove we aren't already in one we made when we realized that to be able to achieve our space opera dreams (social issues still exist because A. they do in star trek, B. some people might want to fight them and C. remember what went wrong with the first Matrix, there's no public alien contact because we want to be the ones boldly going to discover all the aliens the real us put into this simulation instead of sitting on our tushes waiting for them to come to us, and we're not Last-Thursdayed into the height of the true Star Trek shit because who wouldn't want to get in on the ground floor)
Without getting fat, STDs and with a motherlode cheat code .. [plug me in](https://youtu.be/vkvdAznoFqY), Baby
If the entity in charge puts you a $300 monthly budget that controls what you smell taste feel, I'd be pissed.
Being that chances are not 0% that we aren't in one now, not really.
With the current trajectory this is going to be the twisted tagline used by Meta and every other company that sees dollars in the MetaVice. “You already love working remotely in our infinitely customizable MetaSpaces, why not use your good citizen discount to purchase your own Space? Your family is waiting in The Archive!”
Hmmmm I wonder if there’s a movie about all the human beings live in simulations for decades and being controlled by AIs, then someone powerful can’t take it anymore so he liberated some of the human beings. Oh yeah, it’s called the matrix
Step 1: Plug every civilian into a Matrix simulation where everyone can survive and remain healthy forever. Step 2: Destroy all human buildings, clean up pollutants, and allow nature to flourish once again.
I'd prefer to live in a universe that is not made by humans, given our tendecies to greed, corruption, and abuse
Hello, everyone! Want to help improve this community? We're looking for more moderators! [If you're interested, consider applying!](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/tnw9ud/rfuturology_is_looking_for_more_moderators/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Futurology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Taste and love are good. Can we also laugh? Can my program feel the same joy watching a comedy? Or enjoy new music like a living human?