Are we programs in a machine?

[Calin Leafshade]

Sorry, I actually meant the physical *constants* are descriptive in that they arise from other things.

However, the point is that gravity(which i'm fairly sure is not capitalised unless youre talking about the constant G) is something that *CAN* be simulated. Indeed general relativity can calculate gravitation to within an inperceptable margin of error.

Gravity was a bad example for you to choose. You know where you shouldve gone? You shouldve gone for quantum interactions since they are unpredictable and random by definition (radioactive decay for instance).
But thats only from the perspective of the observer within the universe. Watch me simulate whether or not a decay event takes place.

bool decay = Random(1);

Also, it should be noted that I am not saying we are going to simulate a universe *tomorrow* but rather that IT IS CONCEIVABLY POSSIBLE!

[Dualnames]

Okay, let's assume for a moment that this whole simulation is correct, then by the very assumption that laws and physics are something we have explained with our comprehension and in reality it COULD be something very different then that results into making a theory based on laws barely proven therefore even if simulation was possible it wouldn't be possible with those means/laws, therefore it's not possible.

The problem is that the attempt of proving that life under other terms than what we have now is a completely wrong thing to do.

NASA has spent millions and theories of alien life anywhere but UNDER OUR VERY NOSE. You want to spent your time learning about others, when you frankly have no idea who you are, that's the equivalent of your theory.

If this was an idea for a game, I'd say cool. But there's no standard answer on a big question, tying up what seems logical and more understandable, is something restricted by your own brain capabilities. The very answer is unrestricted, no boundaries, it doesn't care if it's gonna be accept or if its digestible by anyone's mind, it's just is.

[ddq]

Seen this theory before, the Matrix probably popularized it. It's sorta similar to the living in a dream one, except more tehnologically based. Yeah, probably. It is theoretically possible, and depending on certain assumptions, probable. I wouldn't get worried about it unless we start seeing glitches or figure a way to get out of the box.

Plus, there was that one enemy in Half-Life 2 who wouldn't see you if you had a coffee can in front of your face.

[Igor Hardy]

Due to the exponential nature of moores law we are likely within 50-100 years of being able to relatively accurately simulate a world within a computer if we so desired.

Already this introductory inference makes no sense. How can you derive from growing complexity anything about such a vague concept as "accurately simulate a world" is beyond me. Unless to you reality and meaning are nothing more than a random structure of accidental material.

[Calin Leafshade]

Ok, a couple of people are missing the point.

Yes i know this is all just cogito ergo sum all over again. That was not my concern.
The point I was making, and why i felt it was interesting, was that if my logic holds then it is *more likely than not* that we are simulations simply because they outnumber us.

Unless to you reality and meaning are nothing more than a random structure of accidental material.

Yes they are. 'Meaning' is derived from the electrical impulses in your brain. (Although I dislike the word 'accidental'. It belies the underlying system')

[Igor Hardy]

Unless to you reality and meaning are nothing more than a random structure of accidental material.

Yes they are. 'Meaning' is derived from the electrical impulses in your brain. (Although I dislike the word 'accidental'. It belies the underlying system')

If you believe that, I find it strange you worry about such trivialities as the possibility of being a brain in a vat or a simulated lifeform. You don't seem to believe in any difference between the real and the artificial.

[Ryan Timothy B]

I don't understand Gabriel's arguments at all, and I'm not even sure what Dualnames is saying.

Why is it hard to not understand that we, as possible virtual lifeforms living in a simulation, may being living in a universe equivalent to Minecraft as to our own. If you created a true AI that could freely roam around and fully interact with the cubed environment of Minecraft with his little cube arms. Even if gravity and physics and lighting was completely faked. It would probably take many generations of the AI's to learn that its own environment 'may' not be real.

The AI isn't born with intelligence, it must learn on its own. You can only learn from what you see and experiment with what's around you. You think you have an understanding of gravity but that's because it's part of this simulation and its physics. What if that was completely faked for this simulation we live in.

For a while we used to believe in witches and magical forces. We used to believe our world was flat. We didn't start putting the pieces together until very late into our development.

The lifeforms above us, the ones who created the simulation we are in, may be living in a universe that we couldn't even comprehend. That is, if we were really in a simulation. Are we?


I don't see this theory being all that difficult. Do I believe we're in a simulation? Hell no.

In fact. I'm looking at this a little stupid. Thinking of AI and such. If this was a simulation down to the molecular level, we could have been created by chance. If the building blocks are there in this simulation, I can't see how it isn't possible.

[Calin Leafshade]

If you believe that, I find it strange you worry about such trivialities as the possibility of being a brain in a vat or a simulated lifeform. You don't seem to believe in any difference between the real and the artificial.

Ha ha, well us materialists dont generally break down and sob ourselves to sleep due to the lack of some objective truth.
For me, the meaning of life is making everyones experience more enjoyable. Just because we are all bags of meat doesnt mean we can't enjoy being so.

Even if gravity and physics and lighting was completely faked. It would probably take many generations of the AI's to learn that its own environment 'may' not be real.

There's no reason why the AI would *ever* realise the light wasnt real. For the minecraftians that is how light works.
Minecraftian physicists would craft blockular(sp) science labs and they would study the light and write "Dr Creepers General Theory of Minecraftivity"

From their perspective what is the difference? If their laws fit the observations how would they ever know the difference?

[Igor Hardy]

If you believe that, I find it strange you worry about such trivialities as the possibility of being a brain in a vat or a simulated lifeform. You don't seem to believe in any difference between the real and the artificial.

Ha ha, well us materialists dont generally break down and sob ourselves to sleep due to the lack of some objective truth.

Actually materialism does believe in objective truth and makes lots of strong claims about how the world works (as you do). It's skepticism that doesn't believe in objective truth and questions everything.

[Kweepa]

Hey everyone,
Check out this universe I'm creating!
Features:
* ever expanding
* single axis of time
* grand unifying theory
* seemingly fractal features
* everything is made out of little interacting wavelets
* billions of biospheres on which life evolves, argues, and dies
I've been at it for nearly a week now. To be honest I'm a bit bored of working on it. If anyone wants to take over, I've enclosed the source. I think I spotted a bug where the fabric of space time wrapped around on itself.
Enjoy!

[Anian]

Surely all this means that it is vastly more likely that we are in a simulated universe rather than a real one.

I'm sorry, even if I get where you're going with this theory, this statement "more likely" I just don't get. Why is it more likely that we're in a simulated universe.

And even if this theory is correct, you're basically suggesting that we're living in someones simulation, so by further contemplation - why would you care. If you are, than life loses just a bit less meaning and besides nothing you can do can change this relationship, you might as well say people that you see on the TV actually live in the TV, they/we are also bounded by the restrictions, we can't exit the universe and even if we could, what would you accomplish by it?

And might I add that this theory doesn't really awnser anything, you're just adding a layer, you do not explain the mechanics or origins of this universe. Might as well say "God did it" and after the inevitable question "Why?" just anser "...because".

[Barricus]

I know what you're talking about, Calin.  I'm familiar with the theory.  My personal philosophy is that I can never be 100% positive about anything, due to Descartes and my understanding of Quantum Mechanics.  So, I do believe that this is not only possible, but probable.  If we've advanced so far in the realm of robotics and AI in such a short time, it's possible another civilization could have had more time and created a simulation of their universe, or a universe with rules they defined.  If anything, this argument explains a lot about the universe and even gives credibility to the existence and communication with God.  It would make sense that if the programmers created or noticed Earth in the simulation, they may have tried to shape the development of the planet and ultimately humanity.

[veryweirdguy]

Hey everyone,
Check out this universe I'm creating!
Features:
* ever expanding
* single axis of time
* grand unifying theory
* seemingly fractal features
* everything is made out of little interacting wavelets
* billions of biospheres on which life evolves, argues, and dies
I've been at it for nearly a week now. To be honest I'm a bit bored of working on it. If anyone wants to take over, I've enclosed the source. I think I spotted a bug where the fabric of space time wrapped around on itself.
Enjoy!

I give it 3 days in GiP before Darth closes it.

[Blackthorne]

Simulation or not, this universe is here and we're in it.  So I'm going to stop wondering about it's nature and have a taco, because at least I know THAT is delicious.


Bt

[Calin Leafshade]

I'm sorry, even if I get where you're going with this theory, this statement "more likely" I just don't get. Why is it more likely that we're in a simulated universe.

Well its a fairly tenuous stretch but if you assume that making these fake universes is possible then intelligent species are likely to make many more than 1. Because thats what intelligent species do (as far as we know with our sample size of 1). Also you can assume that within any universe there is more than 1 intelligent species capable of this (just by pure force of numbers) So for each universe capable of evolving such species you can expect a great number of fake universes. So for any given universe it is more like to be fake than not because there are more fake ones than real ones.

And even if this theory is correct, you're basically suggesting that we're living in someones simulation, so by further contemplation - why would you care. If you are, than life loses just a bit less meaning and besides nothing you can do can change this relationship, you might as well say people that you see on the TV actually live in the TV, they/we are also bounded by the restrictions, we can't exit the universe and even if we could, what would you accomplish by it?

Agreed, it's an entirely pointless conversation. But the unexamined life is not worth living my friend.

And might I add that this theory doesn't really awnser anything, you're just adding a layer, you do not explain the mechanics or origins of this universe. Might as well say "God did it" and after the inevitable question "Why?" just anser "...because".

This wasnt to explain the origins of the universe. I just found it amusing that there is a strong possibility (possibly more than evens) that I'm not real.


I'm kinda surprised that everyone seems so down on the idea (except Darth ^_^).

What difference does it make to your experience of life if you are not real? You still feel things and you can still influence the experience of others.

Actually materialism does believe in objective truth and makes lots of strong claims about how the world works (as you do). It's skepticism that doesn't believe in objective truth and questions everything.

Sorry, I meant objective *meaning*

Although I'm not too sure about your definitions. I would think that all skeptics are materialists by default? How can you have a dualist skeptic?

[Damien]

Anyway I'm off, you're right we are programs in some machine, and we can simulate life et cetera that's why we haven't even start to make the slightest AI

Well, there is "the Blue Brain Project" and a simillar project which simulated a mouse brain (actually, half of it at 10% speed for 10 seconds).

And even if this theory is correct, you're basically suggesting that we're living in someones simulation, so by further contemplation - why would you care. If you are, than life loses just a bit less meaning and besides nothing you can do can change this relationship, you might as well say people that you see on the TV actually live in the TV, they/we are also bounded by the restrictions, we can't exit the universe and even if we could, what would you accomplish by it?

And might I add that this theory doesn't really awnser anything, you're just adding a layer, you do not explain the mechanics or origins of this universe. Might as well say "God did it" and after the inevitable question "Why?" just anser "...because".

This thread seems to be more about interesting conversation rather than finding meaning on that level.

Since the theory relies on statistical data I don't take it too seriously but understanding some of our current limitations we might just as well be in a simulation.

I'm reminded of an old text adventure, "A Mind Forever Voyaging".


Also, Half-Life 2 had excellent AI.

[Barricus]

Simulation or not, this universe is here and we're in it.  So I'm going to stop wondering about it's nature and have a taco, because at least I know THAT is delicious.


Bt

My thoughts exactly.  I'm not even sure if any of you exist at all.  All the proof I have is text on the internet that I'm reading with my eyes, both of which can easily be fooled.  Doesn't stop me from enjoying life.  There's always the statistical possibility that life is a sham, or we're all just robots, or just in each others over active imaginations.  Be aware of it, but don't let it get in the way of enjoying life.

[Dualnames]

I'm increasing my post count with this post.

[Wyz]

First of all, moore's law is about transistor count, not computational speed. Secondly: computers are nowhere near the speed required to do such compution in a time we could actually observe it. Maybe if we have quantum computers

Can we simulate a complete universe? Well let's simplify it a bit: can we simulate another computer. Well yes we can! Computer scientists use the term 'turing complete' to denote a machine can at least be as functional as a turing machine. The turing machine is considered to be the most basic computer. You can simulate another computer that is in itself turing complete (think dos box, emulators, java, etc). That proves any computer can simulate an infinite chain of computers. Well if I see the universe as a computer, that would mean the universe also can simulate an infinite number of universes. But is it likely we are in one? Not very. Besides, people would not be albe to interact with the simulated universe because it would run so slowly.

Assume we would need one molecule to store one bit. However we would need many bits to describe one molecule. The overhead created by the simulated (not only the storage, also the computation) would always require the simulated world to be drastically smaller the the real universe. This means this chain is finite, and not even that impressive.

Still it could be that this universe is simulated by another universe that is a (tremendous) multitude bigger then this one. Well it would not change things for me, since it would be just as good as a non simulated universe. Besides, I think, therefore I am! 

[Ryan Timothy B]

I'm kinda surprised that everyone seems so down on the idea (except Darth ^_^).

Heck no. There isn't a day that passes that I don't think of this theory at least once. I absolutely love it.

It's definitely more believable than any religion. But then one would argue that the creators of this simulated universe would be considered God. Meh.