We are most likely in a simulated universe (1 Viewer)

[Omium]

Just because you cant prove something is untrue, Doesnt mean its true.

So therefore the chance of our universe being simulated is so high it is nearly 100%?

Naw

 

[ronnknee]

You've provided a bunch of "maybes" and "what ifs". Your theory explains nothing about the universe as it is, or has been, and in fact all it provides is a whole bunch of new hypotheses. Therefore it is invalid.

Your thinking just like the primitive people of the ancient world. Ptolomey's earth centred view of the universe was a better predictor of the movements of the stars yet Copernicus was right in his heliocentric. He just added hypotheses and gave a lot of maybes and yet he was right. Therefore it can be valid.

All the laws of physics can be seen as computer programming. Plus for all those people who say I cant say we live in a simulated universe because I am saying it is possible are wrong. For every one universe that can make simulations, there are a massive amount, so massive that it is highly unlikely we live in the real thing.

If we all knew we lived in a phony universe i think many people will lose faith in their religion, though God(s) can still exist and we'll use funding to try and get outta here or at least ask the programmers to move to a new simulation that is as good as heaven. Ask them by chanting it and hopefuly they'll notice its no fun or use to keep us here any longer, unless there doing an experiment.

 

[voktyabreh]

I dare say the main reason to doubt it is that while I do actually think it's theoretically possible I don't think it's very likely that many civilisations would last long enough to reach such a level of technology. In how many universes might this be true?

Well, if it is possible to reach that level of technology, and if there are an infinite number of realities, then there are an infinite number of realities where civilisations that have reached that level of technology and created the simulated realities ... ...I think.

 

[withoutaface]

Your thinking just like the primitive people of the ancient world. Ptolomey's earth centred view of the universe was a better predictor of the movements of the stars yet Copernicus was right in his heliocentric. He just added hypotheses and gave a lot of maybes and yet he was right. Therefore it can be valid.

No, my thinking is like a scientist, because I hold a fucking science degree. Science holds that you don't accept a new theory that makes more assumptions if it fails to explain anything.

If we all knew we lived in a phony universe i think many people will lose faith in their religion, though God(s) can still exist and we'll use funding to try and get outta here or at least ask the programmers to move to a new simulation that is as good as heaven. Ask them by chanting it and hopefuly they'll notice its no fun or use to keep us here any longer, unless there doing an experiment.

It's interesting you bring religion up, because you're making essentially the same argument as religion does. "I can't prove it but it seems unlikely that life was spontaneously generated hence there is a God" vs "I can't prove it but it seems likely that there's more simulated realities than actual realities, hence our reality is simulated".

 

[ronnknee]

No, my thinking is like a scientist, because I hold a fucking science degree. Science holds that you don't accept a new theory that makes more assumptions if it fails to explain anything.

It's interesting you bring religion up, because you're making essentially the same argument as religion does. "I can't prove it but it seems unlikely that life was spontaneously generated hence there is a God" vs "I can't prove it but it seems likely that there's more simulated realities than actual realities, hence our reality is simulated".

The thoery actually explains a lot. For one it explains we are data. Thats a pretty big explanation about our existance. I think you mean observations. But like I said before, the new theory can still be right.

I think this is pretty similar to religion actually. Hey it could be a new cult. Anyway, the simulation can perhaps show another way of why miracles and wierd stuff happen.

 

[ronnknee]

Well, if it is possible to reach that level of technology, and if there are an infinite number of realities, then there are an infinite number of realities where civilisations that have reached that level of technology and created the simulated realities ... ...I think.

There cant be infinite universes out there. I cant remember why though. And it doesnt really matter if a civilisation is unlikely to be able to reach that level of technololgy. If it can, then they would make heaps of fake universes and so ours is probably fake. Think this through a bit, because it might be hard to understand at first.

 

[townie]

i suppose it's possible, but unlikely,, far more interesting a question, if we had the technology to create simulated reality, would we ourselves create our own little universes?

 

[Graney]

Finding out that you exist in a simulated universe would change everything, most likely for the worse. How would you feel knowing that everything you have taken for granted is in effect, (or is it affect?) a lie.

None of the things you hold dear and value have any real worth. Everything you believe is just your inheritance from many millenia of human culture and biology. You are lying to yourself. Nothing on earth has any meaning. Ultimately the universe does not care about you.

Your life is no more worthy than a blade of grass.

 

[Graney]

If a simulated reality is sufficiently complex the occupants are self-aware but still can't recognise it for what it is, then it is no less real or important than if you lived in the "real" universe.

If this universe is a simulation being run by an infinetly powerfull, infinitely complex piece of artifical intelligence in some greater reality outside our universe, it seems the controller of this simulated reality would be indistinguishable from our concept of god.

If the earth could be proven to be a simulated reality, then the existence of god would also be a given.

 

[ronnknee]

If a simulated reality is sufficiently complex the occupants are self-aware but still can't recognise it for what it is, then it is no less real or important than if you lived in the "real" universe.

If this universe is a simulation being run by an infinetly powerfull, infinitely complex piece of artifical intelligence in some greater reality outside our universe, it seems the controller of this simulated reality would be indistinguishable from our concept of god.

If the earth could be proven to be a simulated reality, then the existence of god would also be a given.

If we are self aware but in a fake universe, we are far less important than if we were in the real universe. Think of it this way, that if we made a self aware robot, would it be as important as a human life? I dont think so.

Incorrect. If a God does exist, God would not act in the same way as the AI. An AI could just be simulating us to see their history, or for fun etc.

 

[withoutaface]

The thoery actually explains a lot. For one it explains we are data. Thats a pretty big explanation about our existance. I think you mean observations. But like I said before, the new theory can still be right.

I think this is pretty similar to religion actually. Hey it could be a new cult. Anyway, the simulation can perhaps show another way of why miracles and wierd stuff happen.

"It explains we are data"

What? It doesn't then explain how those who created us exist so we're back where we started.

 

[blakegman]

Ummm...

 

[ronnknee]

"It explains we are data"

What? It doesn't then explain how those who created us exist so we're back where we started.

It doesn't actually explain how those who created us exist. It tells us about our existance, and that is not where we started.

 

[Graney]

Think of it this way, that if we made a self aware robot, would it be as important as a human life? I dont think so.

Have you ever taken the voight-kampff test yourself?

 

[Riet]

The question is choice. Why do you resist even when you can't win? Because I choose to.

 

[ronnknee]

Have you ever taken the voight-kampff test yourself?

How anyone can like that movie is beyond me.

 

[AsyLum]

i suppose it's possible, but unlikely,, far more interesting a question, if we had the technology to create simulated reality, would we ourselves create our own little universes?

If we had the ability to create simulated realities, we'd never know about it. We'd most likely be jacked into it from birth, or whatnot.

The biggest thing going against simulated realities are senses and memories, afaik I don't think we've been able to translate our experiences/senses/lives into pure data, which is at the heart of our current understanding of technology/simulation.

 

[Enteebee]

Why would anyone go to the trouble of creating this simulated reality in the first place?

Matrix idea makes no sense, since the humans being used as batteries would require energy to keep them alive. So if they had a source of energy that could power the humans, why not use it to generate electricity directly.

It's a game, we're currently in a computer game... While you think your life has been boring up until now it's possible that you've only just entered the game with these mundane memories intact to serve as the beginning of a more interesting scenario. Or maybe it's your older self re-living your past years, who knows?

 

[Garygaz]

For this theory to have any merit, you would have to accept that the processing power of computers pretty much has the potential to exponentially increase. Has anyone proved this to be true/false? I personally believe that there is a point in time where processing speed will hit a glass ceiling, and that that limit will not be enough to simulate an entire universe/multiple universes.

 

[withoutaface]

It doesn't actually explain how those who created us exist. It tells us about our existance, and that is not where we started.

You are infuriatingly stupid. You've proposed that this provides a simple answer to our creation, when it just shifts the question as to how creation occured in the first instance to "Who created our creators?".