I see that Neil deGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk think that we are living inside a simulation.

I get the argument in regards to how low the probability is that we would be the first species/reality to simulate another reality – and so therefore the likelihood is that we are living in a simulation. But how likely is it that, even given millions of years of evolution that a species could create computer hardware that could scale infinitely to be able to cope with an infinite amount of realities creating an infinite amount of simulations? Surely that would cause the whole thing to be shut down?

Doesn’t that lower probability of us living in a simulation? As we’d have to be in a reality that was in a window of realities that the hardware could cope with, or a reality in which we were shut down before we ran our own simulation (which would give us a 50/50 probability?).

Not sure but why would I be running simulations of loading hospitals up if I was in a simulation 😉 On the computing power the trick to simulating is to discard and simplify the non essential parts. Similar to the glitch in the matrix idea where they are just reusing the code, looping a background etc. SoI’m going very low…

😀

But how likely is it that, even given millions of years of evolution that an Alien species could create computer hardware that could scale infinitely to be able to cope with an infinite amount of realities creating an infinite amount of simulations?

It’s them*,they control all our thoughts and dreams..

* they made me post that.

So Bacup could be a dead pixel?
Or a coding glitch?

Makes sense….

But how likely is it that, even given millions of years of evolution that a species could create computer hardware that could scale infinitely to be able to cope with an infinite amount of realities creating an infinite amount of simulations? Surely that would cause the whole thing to be shut down?

You’re assuming the test subjects have infinite free will. It’s entirely possible that they don’t.

Loddrik +1 with the steak but without the treachery 😆

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLSgehi09Z4[/video]

You’re assuming the test subjects have infinite free will. It’s entirely possible that they don’t.

Brexit voters? 😆

yep.

But how likely is it that, even given millions of years of evolution

If we are in a simulation, you only know that becuase it’s the limitation of the simulation, It may be that outside the simulation trillions upon trillions of years have gone by and the architects of it a very much more advanced than you can imagine. To them we might appear as limited as the pieces used on a Draughts board.

I’m all for the theory that it’s not that we “can’t” or there “isn’t” other species in the universe merely that we are not “allowed” to progress. You have to ask yourself with phones millions of computing times more powerful than the Apollo missions wy we haven’t got new Spaceships yet after the space shuttles where retired. Most likely we borrowed and wore out some technology we can’t replicate aka failed a real or simulated test.

I find this topic fascinating. Mostly because it has now moved from the realms of quackery to possibility.

Science has gone full circle from debunking religion (and various Gods) to now laying down theories that the creation of the universe is so improbable that a ‘creator’ of some sorts must have been responsible for the Big Bang.

As such imagine the universe as a big science project, an ant farm if you will, but the logic of the world is run as computer code.

Some scientists and cosmologists suggest that this computer is all around us. Nature itself. Others suggest that this is some external ‘server farm’ type of simulation. The crux of it is that it is a simulated reality.

Of course, this is still mostly theory, but there is some real scientific thinking behind this. Before you say ‘you sound mental flipiddy’. Take some acid and watch these…

Existentialism lite

Nerdy science fair ramblings

In fact maybe give the acid a miss and just watch the vids. Quite enlightening.

😆

I don’t disagree with that. Some people have said that science has proven things etc, the greatest minds of all time blah de blah.

However, we are limited by what we know and our arrogance that we know pretty much every theory (eg scientific and mathematic) to prove this that and the other. For example, we constantly search for what we believe are life bearing planets based on values we have predicted. Well that’s great, assuming there are no life forms formed of material gas or substance or immaterial being that we don’t understand. In fact they are probably pointing and laughing at us right now, wondering when we will get over ourselves.

It’s a revolving door, we constantly search for something within the realms of our own possiblities and refuse to believe it is in anyway limited. We’ll never get out of the box we are in unti, that changes.

So, all the Flat Earthists. Are they part of the same plot or is this a completely different one?

you’re on thin ice with that one kryton57!

Last time I dared to put that very same idea to the forum, the science heads on here became apoplectic with rage at the notion that maybe, just maybe, they’re throwing pebbles into the chasm with their theories

I remember certain forum members turning themselves inside out with blind fury 😆

disclaimer: I only believe in infinite tea and the restorative power of a satisfying dump

However, we are limited by what we know and our arrogance that we know pretty much every theory (eg scientific and mathematic) to prove this that and the other. For example, we constantly search for what we believe are life bearing planets based on values we have predicted. Well that’s great, assuming there are no life forms formed of material gas or substance or immaterial being that we don’t understand.

Most half arsed scientists have read Solaris and get this.

yunki – Member
you’re on thin ice with that one kryton57!

Last time I dared to put that very same idea to the forum, the science heads on here became apoplectic with rage…

ok, i’ll give it a go…

Kryton57 – Member
I don’t disagree with that. Some people have said that science has proven things etc, the greatest minds of all time blah de blah.

However, we are limited by what we know and our arrogance that we know pretty much every theory (eg scientific and mathematic) to prove this that and the other.

i think you’d be looking for a long time to find anyone who works in science/research who believes we know ‘pretty much every theory to explain everything…’

I believe in the past thread which Yunki refers to I mentioned this – the existence of life forces beyond our scientific or mathematic explanation and was argued down. That’s the arrogance I speak of – not that we know everything but that we assume everything can be explain by the charactertics of our own formulae.

It may be we cannot discover some thing that is right in front of our noses becuase we do not have the capability to do so

Sounds to me like someone trying to do way with God but still not prepared to do away with external influences.

I reckon it’s rubbish.

@slowoldman – Well, I’m assuming that it’s technically possible to build such a simulation if it turns out the universe is discrete (ie digital).

Could such a simulation be run on some kind of insane analogue computer if not?

PS I’m a total layman in regards to physics and computing, so if any physics guys could tell us something interesting – ie educate us cretins, that’d be great.

PS I’m a total layman in regards to physics, so if any physics guys could tell us something interesting – ie educate us cretins, that’d be great.

Funny you should say that. Everything you need is right here

Sci – fi stoner BS

Better than life?

If it’s a simulation who pays for the electricity to run the computing device it’s on?

If it’s a simulation, who is the mother of the IT geek who lives at home with said mother and runs said simulation?

If it’s a simulation, where does the pretty girl in the company who our single IT geek secretly loves, live?

Perhaps it is a simulation. At the moment the sky outside looks like a BSOD.

Golf. Nobody would have included it in a simulation.

Golf. Nobody would have included it in a simulation.

Pffft whatevs!

Golf is precisely the kind of evidence that we were being run by/acting as the playground for a bunch of IT technonerds, that I would look for.

Speculation without data or evidence is sometimes entertaining, but isn’t a foundation for trying to support an idea that hasn’t earned the entitlement to be called a theory.

Sci – fi stoner BS

Leader of the stoner BS

Do you think he uses king skins or regulars?

😆

They’re looking for part of that evidence though aren’t they woppit, with that giant Fermilab Holometer? So far, they have failed to find evidence of any pixelation at the planck length. Am I right in thinking that if they don’t find any evidence for this in the long run, that implies that the universe is analogue? Or am I wrong?

That bit of kit is cool as hell btw.

thestabiliser – Member

Golf. Nobody would have included it in a simulation.

Stepping in dog shit as a youngster, while playing in the park in your new Nike Airs….
No way that would be in a computer simulation!

It’s entirely possible, but if the sim wasn’t fully immersive and convincing (or didn’t have rules and overrides built in to prevent us noticing that it isn’t) then we’d have noticed, and if it is or has those things then we will never know and it makes no difference. Though, wouldn’t it have been awesome if Tenzing Norgay got to the summit of Everest and discovered he’d poked out of the skybox?

(the next step is basically solipsism- if this is a sim, we have to at least assume that we’re a real functional emotional intelligence simmed in the sim; but why assume that of everyone else? Unless we’re meat in a machine, it’d be far easier to create a projection of other intelligences to surround you than it would be to have 7.125 billion equally complex entities)

TBH I don’t think Elon Musk believes it himself, but it creates interesting chat

I am rather fond of Elon, it makes me happy that someone a little bit nuts (in a good way) can end up as a CEO – instead of the usual vacuous corporate donkeys with no imagination.

The supposition that there are intelligences made of gas that we can’t detect is amusing, but I think attention to J.B.S. Haldane is useful: “Not only is the universe queerer than we suppose, it’s queerer than we CAN suppose “…

I love this stuff!!

My work has touched on quantum computing and it is mind blowing some of the things the developers claim it may be able to prove in the future is crazy…..whilst i understand the words and the concept, beyond that i’m baffled!! 🙂 There is indeed a theory where on paper it can be mathematically proven that we do live in a hologram simulation. Real AI stuff.

Its a fascinating subject. I’ll be checking these youtube links out at lunch!

It’s entirely possible, but if the sim wasn’t fully immersive and convincing (or didn’t have rules and overrides built in to prevent us noticing that it isn’t) then we’d have noticed, and if it is or has those things then we will never know.

Yes, if you tried to mimic other ‘laws’. If those ‘laws’ are unique to this ‘science experiment’, then there is no convincing to be done.

However, it appears there are glitches…

😕

Knowing the sort of shit some people used to put their Sims characters through, I do sincerely hope it’s not a simulation.

Turns out, for example, that putting your Sim in a swimming pool and removing the only ladder is not good.
And neither is, (also purely by way of example), putting the Sim in a room with numerous sources of water, but no toilet, then sealing the doors and windows shut and leaving them in there until they cry themselves to death in a puddle of their own urine.

And in other news… Never mind about whether or not it’s a simulation, apparently it might not even be there. Here. Whatever…

blimey

It’s ***ing nonsense. All the Chariots of the Gods stuff was a way for some bloke to make a living and so is this garbage.

“Is the universe digital or analogue”? Just what do you mean by that?