What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

Walker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:56 pm
Age wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:14 pm
Okay, so END OF STORY. What else is there here to be worked out and discovered?
Self-concept is the fundamental simulation.
What do you mean here by, 'fundamental simulation'?
Walker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:56 pm - Self-concept is each person’s fundamental simulacrum.
- Self-concept is the fundamental duality.
- Self-concept is a mental construct.
- Self-concept is the most precious thing to each and every person.
- Self-concept will be defended above life, e.g., the martyrs and self-sacrificers.
- Folks vote for self-concept, not for the candidate.
- Self-concept is arbitrary.
What, to you, is 'self-concept'?

Also, I asked;
What else is there here to be worked out and discovered?

You, however, just informed 'us' of what 'you' believe is true and right, correct?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:36 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:20 am There would be no "place" for the simulation to be running.
Yep. That's another way to put it. That's the main problem.
Another question I think it brings up is can a character in a simulation be conscious? If we're purely characters in a simulation with no other reality than that, then how can we be conscious?
Yes, well said. "Consciousness" then would mean no more than "believing what you see," meaning the so-called "simulation." There would be no other reality to "wake up to."
How does a wannabe simulator create consciousness? Consciousness cannot be seen, felt, heard, etc. by an outside observer. So how does a would-be simulation creator knowingly create consciousness?
Yes, that's an additional problem. What's the creator's frame of reference for this "consciousness"?
Is there REALLY an ACTUAL 'creator'?

If yes, then will you elaborate on and explain what this 'creator' REALLY IS and how 'it' ACTUALLY WORKS?

Also, what is 'consciousness', to you?

If you will not explain, EXACTLY, what these things are, then why write like you know what you are talking about?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:36 am
Presumably, if there is a God, then only God could do something like that. So if we are in any simulation at all, then it could (perhaps) only be a divinely created one--I would think.
There is a biblical take on this. It's that there is a seen world, and an unseen one.
Obviously, there is the seen, visible physical, 'world', and, there is the unseen, invisible, 'world'. But only seen and unseen in the physical eye sense. These seemingly separated 'worlds' are NOT unseen, in the understood sense.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:36 am The one most of us presently see is the "simulation,"
So, how do you KNOW there is a "simulation"?

though you and I would probably assume it was the basic reality. [/quote]

AGAIN, WHY would 'you' ASSUME things?

Especially considering the FACT that doing so STOPS 'you' from SEEING Reality and thus thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:36 am But the unseen world -- at least, the one most people don't yet see -- is the ultimately real and eternal world.
Besides this fact that just about EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, in those days when this was written could NOT YET SEE the Real, eternal 'world', this 'world' is just unseen to 'you' in the understood sense, there is also the unseen 'world', with the physical eyes, which is a whole other matter.

But when this unseen 'world' is FULLY understood, and thus SEEN, then ALL-OF-THIS, that is; Everything, becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR and makes PERFECT SENSE.

The WHOLE, BIG PICTURE is SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:36 am There's talk of this in books like Job, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation, among other places.
So what?

There is LOTS of talk just about EVERYWHERE with 'you', adult human beings. But most of it is, literally, babble, as some of you know it as, or 'babel' as talked about in some books.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:36 am In fact, one could well say it's a running theme throughout the entire Bible, being referred to fairly frequently by indirect means; but is only manifested and described adequately in specific passages.
'Adequate' is a VERY RELATIVE word. So, 'adequate' relative to, or in relation to, 'what', EXACTLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:36 am When John, for example, is faced with seeing the usually-unseen world for the first time, he lapses into metaphor and symbol immediately. It seems he has a great deal of difficulty finding references to things from the seen world to illuminate adequately what he is perceiving in his vision. The result is a set of descriptions that are often composites or collages of imagery:
In other words, this human being just did NOT YET FULLY KNOW what 'it' was talking about, correct?

Does this ring True with 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:36 am "From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also in front of the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle..." (Rev. 4:5-7)
And 'your' actual point for repeating this was ...?

If you want to make it crystal clear that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was written did NOT YET REALLY KNOW what you were talking about in relation to Life, God, and the Universe, Itself, then this is just PLAIN OBVIOUS. You do not need to keep reaffirming this FACT. 'your' OWN words speak LOUD and CLEAR regarding this.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:38 amElon Musk and others think we may live in a simulation. What do you think? Is it probable or plausible?
This idea that reality is not what it seems has been a feature of philosophy since Plato's allegory of the cave. Basically Plato likened our experience of the world to watching shadows on the wall of a cave. The shadows are cast by 'the real world' as it passes between the mouth of the cave and the true source of light.
This is because 'you', adult human beings, do only LOOK AT, and thus only SEE, a VERY small and narrowed perspective of 'things'. This is due partly to the fact that you tend to mostly look and see from your already il-gotten gained BELIEFS, and assumptions.

When you look at ANY thing from your already gained views, beliefs, and assumptions, then you are NOT OPEN, and it is only when you are Truly OPEN can you then SEE the FULL and WHOLE BIG Picture of things.
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am It was Descartes who pointed out that the only thing we can be sure of is that we are having experiences and that frankly, any hypothesis that accounts for those experiences could be true: dreaming, deception by an evil dæmon, idealism, brain in a vat, the Matrix, you name it; all of them could cause identical experiences and there is no way to tell which is 'The Truth'.
ANY one could say ANY thing, which 'you' would then like to FOLLOW and REPEAT. But, it is just PLAIN OBVIOUS that the only thing 'one' can KNOW, for sure, are the thoughts, which arise. Now, just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that if those thoughts are True, Right, and/or Correct or NOT is a whole other matter.

You here said that "descartes" pointed out that the only thing 'we' can be sure of is ... Now, who and/or what is this 'we', which 'you' and "descartes" are talking about and referring to here?
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am John Locke divided objects into their primary and secondary properties - primary qualities being the things need to be 'an object': shape, motion, solidity (in a very loose sense), while secondary qualities are the experiences we have: colour, smell, taste and so on.
But how could "john locke" (whatever that is) or ANY one else "divide objects" if as "descartes" supposedly "pointed out" that 'we' (whoever or whatever that is) can only be sure of 'having experiences'.

Now, if 'we' want to take the 'having experiences' is the ONLY thing that we can be sure of 'road', then 'having experiencing' does NOT necessitate that there are objects at all. ANY, so called, 'object' could, in fact, just be a figment of the imagination.

And, if 'you' want to take us down this road, then there is NO "things 'need to be' an 'object" path nor scenario.

'you', human beings, can NOT have 'it' both ways, and be right nor correct.
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am Kant calls essentially the same qualities 'noumena' and 'phenomena' and for practical purposes, physicists stopped caring about what the world is really made of and decided to concentrate on the numbers.
Who really cares about 'you' "history lesson"?

Who really cares about what 'you', insignificant adult human beings do and say?

When 'you' START listening to, HEARING, and observing, SEEING, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and then START doing and saying the Right 'things', and thus START SPEAKING thee ACTUAL Truth, then what 'you' SAY and DO is important enough to be LISTENED TO, and FOLLOWED. Until then, REALLY, who does care what 'you', adult human beings, 'babble on about'?
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am Contemporary hypotheses don't make the situation any clearer.
OBVIOUSLY. 'Hypotheses' are NOT of what IS ACTUALLY True and Real. 'Hypotheses' are just an ASSUMPTION, or GUESS.

Only when expressing what IS ACTUALLY True and Real do 'things' become MUCH CLEARER.
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am According to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, any reality you happen to find yourself in is like a single frame from a movie, where reality is every film ever made.
But, thee Truth IS there is only One Reality, ONLY. And, if ANY one can NOT YET SEE this, then they are NOT LOOKING properly AND correctly.
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am There's the multiverse hypothesis based on the idea that the universe we find ourselves in is one of who knows how many others?
LOL "multiverse"

Also, there are LOTS of ideas made up by 'you', adult human beings, but a LOT of them are just not even worth repeating.

What does the word 'Universe' actually mean to 'you', adult human beings? Now, take that word and its definition and EXPLAIN how there could be more than One?
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am Anyway, long story short: Do we live in a simulation? Dunno. Anyone who insists they do know is a crank or a religious nut.
LOL The contradiction here is STRIKING.

'you', "uwot", here ask the question, "Do we live in a simulation?", and answer, "Dunno", like 'you' are OPEN, yet 'you' go on to REVEAL 'your' True BELIEFS, and thus SHOW 'us' ALL just how Truly CLOSED 'you' REALLY ARE.

Well done. Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just how human beings really were back in the days when this was written. That is; Truly CLOSED beings, but 'trying to' live in the pretence that they were OPEN.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm What if I have a computer which can simulate things which have never exist, and could never exist in this world. Why must the things which exist in the “external world” exactly match the thing in the simulated world? It isn’t a necessary thing.
Great question. And, just as great answer.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm But, I think it’s the case that, our experience captures some structural information from that reality, I suppose, the primary qualities, like shape, size, position etc. Furthermore, secondary qualities, like colour or taste, are constructed based on its survival value.
This works in that because 'you', human beings, will keep evolving, and thus into the next other stage, and out of the human being stage, so that 'we' end up creating a Truly 'better world' in which 'we' can live and 'survive' in together peacefully, forever.

But, 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, are still a long way of FULLY understanding this. But 'you' are right in that 'your' experiences are based on 'Its' survival value. Just what 'It' is, or 'I' am, is YET to be understood and KNOWN, by most of 'you', in the day that this was written.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm Imagine if salty actually tasted sweet.
Then 'you', human beings, would just just change the definition for the word 'salty', or just change the name, or make up a new name, and a new definition.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm We would continue to eat salty things until our bodily sodium content became critical and we died.
What?

The body will do what it takes to survive.

Constructed within the dna or within the genes is a code, or a "secret", to life and living, with an instinct for survival and passing on that gene/dna. That code/life, energy, does not allow the physical body to do what will 'kill' it. That energy/life forces the physical bodies to keep living and surviving. They do this to keep the specie/s alive, (of which there is ONLY One, but that is for another time.)

Remember, 'you', human beings, are still living and existing because 'you' have evolved from the physical bodies doing what they needed to do in order to keep on living and surviving.

However, as the human body keeps evolving, and keeps evolving to consist of a Truly intelligent being within it as well, along this process the being, within, started 'thinking' that 'it' knows best, or at least better, and so can and does, at times, override what the 'instinctual knowing', KNOWS.

Human beings, themselves, can and do sometimes override the 'Intuition', or the Tutor and Teacher within, and so do do things, which inevitably kill off the individual body, which they are in. Like, for example, by eating or drinking 'that' what they SHOULD NOT.

'you', human beings, eat and do the Wrong things NOT because of the example, "if salty tasted sweet", but because 'you' just override the internal KNOWING of what is Right and Wrong in Life, with your OWN individual and personal DISTORTED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Oh, and by the way, do not forget about just how many of your human bodies, in the days when this was written, actually die of heart disease, which was partly or mostly due to an oversatuation of salty foods.

Some people actually do overeat salty foods because they actually prefer this taste than to sweet foods.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm Imagine if pain actually felt pleasant.
Then 'you', human beings, would just call 'that', and label 'it', "pleasant" instead of "painful". Or, as I pointed out before you would just change the definition of those words.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm We wouldn’t last long,
You can NOT just change the word, and then think that the human being would have done, and evolved, differently. Whatever is associated with what is known as 'pain', in the days when this is written, then the human body would have attempted to disassociate itself from that 'thing'.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm that’s for sure.
If 'you' are personally SURE, then so be it. But 'I' prefer to LOOK AT ALL of the variables, and only then decide.

See, to some, some pain does actually feel pleasant. But this is just due to the previous past experiences some have 'had to' experience and endure. And, these people keep living, and some for relatively a 'long' period, continually doing what is 'painful' to some but 'pleasant' to them.

Again, the human being has evolved to have the ability to override and do what the body INTERNALLY KNOWS is Right.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm And in fact, some people have such a condition which means they don’t feel pain, a rare genetic disorder, and such people tend not to have long lives. It seems an anthropic principle would explain why our experiences are as they are.
Which I partly explained above.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm Because if we didn’t have such experiences, we would likely not exist.
When 'you' say 'we' here are 'you' just referring to human beings only, or to ALL species?

Because when LOOKED AT and INTO ALL species have an internal 'driver' to keep living and existing. There is an internal Life force, or energy, in ALL species to keep that specie/s alive and well.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm This set of experiences under certain external conditions, results in behaviour which improves ones survival and reproductive odds.

So getting back to the question, do we live in a simulation. If your definition of simulation is, the thing that is being simulated must have an exact referent possessing all the same qualities as that which is simulated, absolutely not, that is absurd.
Agreed.

But "immanuel can" was on the Right track. "immanual can", unfortunately, however, just took the wrong turn in 'trying to' persuade "others" to what is ACTUALLY True and Right.
Dimebag wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:06 pm But if what we mean by simulation is, there is something external which “informs” the experience, which is separate from the experience, yes. We have vision which is informed by light waves external to the eye. We have hearing which is informed by pressure waves which are external to our ear drums.

But, what is important to note is, without that external signal, the sensory organs do NOT have adequate information to convincingly simulate an experience.

Though, the mind IS capable of generating highly detailed environments completely separate from any external influence. An example is, lucid dreaming. There is NO external signal from the outside, yet, a detailed inner world is generated, along with a dream body, which can interact with that inner world.

If the brain did not do something akin to a simulation (or if you don’t like that word, a construction), the only explanation which follows the other line of reasoning is that of “astral projection”. Now, I find that hard to believe, so I’ll take the construction/simulation hypothesis.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Do we live in a simulation?

Post by henry quirk »

5A66D5DA-B99B-4772-A012-E769635C8C20.jpeg
5A66D5DA-B99B-4772-A012-E769635C8C20.jpeg (89.84 KiB) Viewed 1848 times
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Walker »

Age wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:40 pm
Walker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:56 pm
Age wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:14 pm
Okay, so END OF STORY. What else is there here to be worked out and discovered?
Self-concept is the fundamental simulation.
What do you mean here by, 'fundamental simulation'?
Walker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:56 pm - Self-concept is each person’s fundamental simulacrum.
- Self-concept is the fundamental duality.
- Self-concept is a mental construct.
- Self-concept is the most precious thing to each and every person.
- Self-concept will be defended above life, e.g., the martyrs and self-sacrificers.
- Folks vote for self-concept, not for the candidate.
- Self-concept is arbitrary.
What, to you, is 'self-concept'?

Also, I asked;
What else is there here to be worked out and discovered?

You, however, just informed 'us' of what 'you' believe is true and right, correct?
What you quoted answers those questions.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Dontaskme »

Dimebag wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:25 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 7:09 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:38 am Elon Musk and others think we may live in a simulation. What do you think? Is it probable or plausible? And if we are living in a simulation, then what is the "reality" that the simulation is running within? For example, if we use the game Grand Theft Auto as an example of a simulation, then we would say that "reality" is me playing the game on a computer screen. The "simulation" is inside the processor and is viewed on the screen. Me looking at the computer screen while I play is "reality." Does a simulation presume a "reality" that it must be running in? And if so, then is it a violation of Occam's Razor to assume that we live in a simulation? Because, if we live in a simulation then we need to postulate the existence of a second world called "reality" within which the simulation is running.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
EM is right to speculate we are living in a simulation.

Reality is a simulation simply because it’s nondual.

It’s a simulation because the characters are not real. The characters are not watching the movie of life, the characters are being watched by the light that animates them.

It’s no different than watching a movie on a tv ... every character seen is made out of the same substance that is watching....in other words LIGHT...with some sound effects thrown in of course.


.
I’m not saying I disagree, but, can you explain or expand on what you mean by light? Is the knowing of sound also light? I have heard this before and it makes me wonder how the light is the basis of all knowing.
Everything is light. Light is source - and all that is - is nothing but source.

Knowing concepts, are seen for what they are. .words are nothing but ''Sound'' heard as words...Or in the case of the deaf, words are symbolic configurations of body movements, interpreted as conceptual language. All of which is a play of light and sound.

So conceptually and metaphorically speaking... Every atom of the brain makes the brain and it's functions to be an illusion of electricity. This also implies that every atom of the senses and it's functions are illusions of electricity.
Atoms make up everything that exists in nature. Atoms are made up of positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons and electricity too contains both positive and negative charge. This implies that an atom is an illusion of electricity.

Light is carried by photons which have dual particle/wave behaviour. Science also points out that electricity is light.
The world is a play of light and sound, since light is electricity, it implies that nature is electricity or an illusion of light.

It's all very simple, once we break everything down to it's original source. So yes, reality is likened to a simulation.

Now look at this interesting quote :arrow:

Image

Birth and Death are the same ONE reality, can't have one without the other. ONE is the other, and the other is ONE

ONE is not-a-thing.

No-thing is REAL - - except in this conception.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

Walker wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:21 am
Age wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:40 pm
Walker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:56 pm
Self-concept is the fundamental simulation.
What do you mean here by, 'fundamental simulation'?
Walker wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 2:56 pm - Self-concept is each person’s fundamental simulacrum.
- Self-concept is the fundamental duality.
- Self-concept is a mental construct.
- Self-concept is the most precious thing to each and every person.
- Self-concept will be defended above life, e.g., the martyrs and self-sacrificers.
- Folks vote for self-concept, not for the candidate.
- Self-concept is arbitrary.
What, to you, is 'self-concept'?

Also, I asked;
What else is there here to be worked out and discovered?

You, however, just informed 'us' of what 'you' believe is true and right, correct?
What you quoted answers those questions.
'you' have lost 'me'.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 7:11 am
Dimebag wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:25 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 7:09 pm

EM is right to speculate we are living in a simulation.

Reality is a simulation simply because it’s nondual.

It’s a simulation because the characters are not real. The characters are not watching the movie of life, the characters are being watched by the light that animates them.

It’s no different than watching a movie on a tv ... every character seen is made out of the same substance that is watching....in other words LIGHT...with some sound effects thrown in of course.


.
I’m not saying I disagree, but, can you explain or expand on what you mean by light? Is the knowing of sound also light? I have heard this before and it makes me wonder how the light is the basis of all knowing.
Everything is light. Light is source - and all that is - is nothing but source.

Knowing concepts, are seen for what they are. .words are nothing but ''Sound'' heard as words...Or in the case of the deaf, words are symbolic configurations of body movements, interpreted as conceptual language. All of which is a play of light and sound.

So conceptually and metaphorically speaking... Every atom of the brain makes the brain and it's functions to be an illusion of electricity. This also implies that every atom of the senses and it's functions are illusions of electricity.
Atoms make up everything that exists in nature. Atoms are made up of positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons and electricity too contains both positive and negative charge. This implies that an atom is an illusion of electricity.

Light is carried by photons which have dual particle/wave behaviour. Science also points out that electricity is light.
The world is a play of light and sound, since light is electricity, it implies that nature is electricity or an illusion of light.

It's all very simple, once we break everything down to it's original source. So yes, reality is likened to a simulation.

Now look at this interesting quote :arrow:

Image

Birth and Death are the same ONE reality, can't have one without the other. ONE is the other, and the other is ONE
But one is NOT the other. Obviously is 'dark' is NOT 'light', like 'light' is NOT 'dark'. But BOTH are part of thee One, and ONLY One.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 7:11 am ONE is not-a-thing.

No-thing is REAL - - except in this conception.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:07 pm
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:38 amElon Musk and others think we may live in a simulation. What do you think? Is it probable or plausible?
This idea that reality is not what it seems has been a feature of philosophy since Plato's allegory of the cave. Basically Plato likened our experience of the world to watching shadows on the wall of a cave. The shadows are cast by 'the real world' as it passes between the mouth of the cave and the true source of light. It was Descartes who pointed out that the only thing we can be sure of is that we are having experiences and that frankly, any hypothesis that accounts for those experiences could be true: dreaming, deception by an evil dæmon, idealism, brain in a vat, the Matrix, you name it; all of them could cause identical experiences and there is no way to tell which is 'The Truth'. John Locke divided objects into their primary and secondary properties - primary qualities being the things need to be 'an object': shape, motion, solidity (in a very loose sense), while secondary qualities are the experiences we have: colour, smell, taste and so on. Kant calls essentially the same qualities 'noumena' and 'phenomena' and for practical purposes, physicists stopped caring about what the world is really made of and decided to concentrate on the numbers. Contemporary hypotheses don't make the situation any clearer. According to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, any reality you happen to find yourself in is like a single frame from a movie, where reality is every film ever made. There's the multiverse hypothesis based on the idea that the universe we find ourselves in is one of who knows how many others?
Anyway, long story short: Do we live in a simulation? Dunno. Anyone who insists they do know is a crank or a religious nut.
What's a simulation? If it's all a simulation, where did the idea of a simulation come from?
Imagination. Where do ALL 'ideas' come from?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 2:43 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:38 am Elon Musk and others think we may live in a simulation. What do you think? Is it probable or plausible?
It would certainly explain time dilation/relativistic phenomena.
But these have ALREADY been explained, anyway.
Skepdick wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 2:43 pm The inability of the underlying hardware to handle infinite precision/infinite values would cause exactly the kind of behaviour we are observing at the extremities as we start over-flowing buffers.
What kind of behavior, exactly, are 'you' observing at the extremities? And, what do 'you' mean here by 'extremities'?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:39 pm
Skepdick wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 2:43 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:38 am Elon Musk and others think we may live in a simulation. What do you think? Is it probable or plausible?
It would certainly explain time dilation/relativistic phenomena. The inability of the underlying hardware to handle infinite precision/infinite values would cause exactly the kind of behaviour we are observing at the extremities as we start over-flowing buffers.
If we are in a simulation, then I wonder what "reality" is?
But have 'you' not been wondering what 'reality' is anyway? Or, do you already KNOW, with absolute certainty, what 'reality' is?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:39 pm Is it Newtonian physics? Is relativistic physics simply the processing system showing its limits, then?
If you still do NOT YET KNOW, but you do want to discover and KNOW, then there is a formula for this.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:45 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 4:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:59 am What is the "simulation" supposed to be "simulating"?

A "simulated" apple is something that looks like a (real) apple. A "simulated" experience is one that convinces you that it's a real experience. There are always, then, two apples or two experiences, in any situation that implicates a "simulation": the real, and the simulated one.

But if there is only the "simulation," then it's not "simulating" anything. And then, it's not a "simulation."

If the "simulation" is the only reality, then there's nothing for it to "simulate." So even using the word "simulation" assumes the existence of two realms, not one: one reality being the original, and the "simulation" being the copy.

So the question you're asking is not if we live merely in a "simulated" reality, but also, where is the other reality, the real one it (supposedly) "simulates"? :shock:
That's my take on it. A simulation is going to be running within a "reality." So for example without the "real" world, there can be no simulated reality called Grand Theft Auto. There would be no "place" for the simulation to be running.
I agree with both of you.

Furthermore, if there were a reality and any number of simulated realities, the only one we could be aware of is the one we exist in.
Well no matter how many number of simulated realities 'you', human beings, are existing in, 'you' are still ALWAYS in Reality, Itself. In other words if the simulated reality you are currently and presently in, was within ANY number of other simulated realities, they are ALL still in 'Reality', Itself. Therefore, by your own logic here, if 'you', human beings, are able to evolve discovering and learning more and anew, then 'you' are able to continually learn, see, and understand more and more. Which means; you have the ability to eventually become aware of thee One and ONLY True Reality.

Which, by the way, is NOT hard NOR complex at all. That is; when 'you' discover and/or learn how to be able to SEE thee ACTUAL of 'things' as they REALLY ARE.
commonsense wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:45 pm There would be no way for us to recognize that we are living in a simulation.
Why not?

If you have evolved with the ability to discover and/or learn that you could be living in a simulation, then why could you not continue evolving to discover and/or learn more and more?
commonsense wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 8:45 pm It would be a whole different matter if we were able to travel between, or exist in, multiple universes of reality and simulation.
But there are NO "multiple universes of reality and simulation".

There is ONLY One Universe/Reality, in which there could be any number of simulated any things, which are imagined and created up by (a) living being/s.

Being able to travel and SEE between what 'you', human beings see and imagine as being true and real, and, what IS ACTUALLY True and Real, is quite enlightening. It is also some thing in which ALL of 'you', human beings, will evolve into being able to do, as well.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:07 pm
uwot wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:22 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:38 amElon Musk and others think we may live in a simulation. What do you think? Is it probable or plausible?
This idea that reality is not what it seems has been a feature of philosophy since Plato's allegory of the cave. Basically Plato likened our experience of the world to watching shadows on the wall of a cave. The shadows are cast by 'the real world' as it passes between the mouth of the cave and the true source of light. It was Descartes who pointed out that the only thing we can be sure of is that we are having experiences and that frankly, any hypothesis that accounts for those experiences could be true: dreaming, deception by an evil dæmon, idealism, brain in a vat, the Matrix, you name it; all of them could cause identical experiences and there is no way to tell which is 'The Truth'. John Locke divided objects into their primary and secondary properties - primary qualities being the things need to be 'an object': shape, motion, solidity (in a very loose sense), while secondary qualities are the experiences we have: colour, smell, taste and so on. Kant calls essentially the same qualities 'noumena' and 'phenomena' and for practical purposes, physicists stopped caring about what the world is really made of and decided to concentrate on the numbers. Contemporary hypotheses don't make the situation any clearer. According to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, any reality you happen to find yourself in is like a single frame from a movie, where reality is every film ever made. There's the multiverse hypothesis based on the idea that the universe we find ourselves in is one of who knows how many others?
Anyway, long story short: Do we live in a simulation? Dunno. Anyone who insists they do know is a crank or a religious nut.
What's a simulation? If it's all a simulation, where did the idea of a simulation come from?
But asking or wondering, if it is all a simulation, is like asking or wondering, if I did not exist. They BOTH are just MOOT.

Obviously, I do exist, just like it could NEVER all be a simulation.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What do you think? Do we live in a simulation?

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 3:48 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:38 am Elon Musk and others think we may live in a simulation. What do you think?
I think that the only reason the universe seems like some kind of "simulation" is because its quantum underpinning appears to be "software-like" in nature.
Why do you presuppose that thee One and ONLY Universe's "quantum underpinning" appears to be "software-like" in nature, to you?

To me, the 'quantum underpinning' of thee Universe is UNDERSTOOD FULLY when it is SEEN in light, and in context, with the overall 'general relative' view of ALL 'things'.

509801However, that doesn't mean that the universe is "simulating" something.[/quote]

LOL How could thee Universe, Itself, even begin to 'simulate' ANY thing?

Obviously there is NO "other thing" than thee Universe, Itself. So, could a 'thing' simulate itself? If yes, then HOW?
seeds wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 3:48 am No, it just means that there is something similar going on between the workings of computer software and that of the workings of quantum "software."
_______
Is that a FACT, or just what is being imagined within that computer, also known as that brain, within that body?
Post Reply