Pages:
Author

Topic: We're almost certainly living in a simulation - page 2. (Read 2113 times)

donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
I just told my Ex-wife that this is just a simulation so I’m not sending the child support next month.  She told me her attorney specializes in simulated ass raping in court. Any ideas how I can get this program to crash before next month?

Not without thermonukes. Many, many thermonukes, cbh.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007
There is no such morality in the modern scientific mathematical-mechanical world view either. You have no free will, you are determined by your genes and the imprinting from your environment. Guilt, responsibility would be merely artificial constructs.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
This is fun, except it's wrong.

But it's close.
Ean
full member
Activity: 199
Merit: 100
We're being simulated on the hard drives of computers of the future.

What future? The simulated future? So we live in a simulation run by computers that hasn't been simulated yet?
donator
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
since it would be rather "entertaining" for our masters to tinker with the laws of nature, which to our best knowledge hasn't happened yet.
Our regular laws of nature are already weird enough.

And you would just leave it at that running your simulation and look at it like a TV show? I certainly wouldn't; too tempting to mess with it. Or maybe they are messing with it once in a while, then the whole simulation crashes or gets out of hand and they just restart it from a backup and we'll never know.


sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}
 ... it´s the mice! Read the book! It´s all written in the book!
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007
since it would be rather "entertaining" for our masters to tinker with the laws of nature, which to our best knowledge hasn't happened yet.

Our regular laws of nature are already weird enough.

* Quantum superposition, probability waves collapsing into particles where there is an observer => rendering engine much?

* Quantum entanglement => references to the same object in the machine's memory much?

* Error correcting computer code discovered within equations of string theory  Shocked
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
It is most rational to assume that we're all very likely not living in a real universe, but in a simulated universe. We're being simulated on the hard drives of computers of the future.

This is called the "Simulation argument" and is seriously discussed in academic circles. It was introduced in a paper by philosopher Nick Bostrom of Oxford University.

There is little to assume to make this argument robust. Consciousness is at last the result of information processing. Then you have to grant that humans of the future build and run simulations of the past in the way we run simulations today (Sims games, etc), and then there is just one short move: the simulated universes almost by definition will outnumber real universes, and therefore we're far more likely to be among the simulated ancestors than the real ancestors.

Found in this video debate about consciousness and afterlife (sequence starting at 18m 20s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbzd6ZbCowY&t=18m20s

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
Bostrom's Paper: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Quote
[...] One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. [...]

So what does this mean for Bitcoin? It's an in-game currency for this simulated universe, will they trade with it in the next outer simulated universe? And the next? omg buy buy buy!  Shocked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D0BeLz5blM&t=1m23s
donator
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
Well, I say "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am), so it is irrelevant to me and my life whether we are in a lab system or not.

Stephen Hawking also basically says that it would be hard for us to figure out whether we live in a simulation as long as the laws of nature are consistent. He is quick to also add an argument against that, since it would be rather "entertaining" for our masters to tinker with the laws of nature, which to our best knowledge hasn't happened yet.

Then also, quoting from the Matrix movie:
Cypher: [Cuts a piece of steak and holds it in front of him] 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 9 years, you know what I have learned? [Eats the piece of steak and sighs contently] Ignorance is bliss.

Mmmmmm, steak...
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007
It is most rational to assume that we're all very likely not living in a real universe, but in a simulated universe. We're being simulated on the hard drives of computers of the future.

This is called the "Simulation argument" and is seriously discussed in academic circles. It was introduced in a paper by philosopher Nick Bostrom of Oxford University.

There is little to assume to make this argument robust. Consciousness is at last the result of information processing. Then you have to grant that humans of the future build and run simulations of the past in the way we run simulations today (Sims games, etc), and then there is just one short move: the simulated universes almost by definition will outnumber real universes, and therefore we're far more likely to be among the simulated ancestors than the real ancestors.

Found in this video debate about consciousness and afterlife (sequence starting at 18m 20s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbzd6ZbCowY&t=18m20s

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
Bostrom's Paper: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Quote
[...] One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. [...]

So what does this mean for Bitcoin? It's an in-game currency for this simulated universe, will they trade with it in the next outer simulated universe? And the next? omg buy buy buy!  Shocked
Pages:
Jump to: