We made a lot of progress in that. You are underestimating science overly here.
The fact that there seems to be no "order" in life and death doesnt suggest a simulation. Greed rules the world, the world is being overrun by greed. This is a fact.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Physics Study uncovers evidence of holographic universe, scientists say
- Thread starter cannot
- Start date
- Tagged users None
We made a lot of progress in that. You are underestimating science overly here.
The fact that there seems to be no "order" in life and death doesnt suggest a simulation. Greed rules the world, the world is being overrun by greed. This is a fact.
This is exactly what i said. This is creationism disguised in form of science. This conversation is not for the science board as there is no empirical evidence for either.
I am not even going back talking about BB. I am talking about the 'available evidence' which shows we had one common ancestor. If you dont believe in evolution then this is not a conversation we should have on this board.
bontshow
Brownlow Medallist
I said that Simulation Theory doesn't change evolution. Evolution is well established and I'm not here to tell you it's false, that would belong on the conspiracy or SRP boards
Simulation Theory attempts to explain the origins of the universe which is why the Big Bang is in play. Maybe the simulation includes the Big Bang, or maybe it means we don't need a Big Bang to explain how the universe came to be as it is. No matter the origins, evolution is undeniable
Why doesnt it? its easy to draw a house rather than build it brick by brick. The fact is homo sapiens been around for 100,000 years only. So why bother running a simulation for 4 billion years and waste processing power? why not just make humans from day 1?
bontshow
Brownlow Medallist
The size of the universe, the seemingly unused planets, and the time taken before humans came to be aren't an argument against simulation theory. Maybe the simulation wasn't just about us. The universe quite obviously hasn't been optimised for humans, whether it just came to be or was created
Exactly.Now we are talking. Considering humans and their obsession with god and a creator, you must wonder the real purpose of the simulation. Lets talk about the earth first instead of the universe. If this earth is not optimised for humans then whom is it optimised for?
This is so unscientific on so many levels. And uninteresting as well.
1) The hypothesis is untestable.
2) even if it could be proved it would change NOTHING. Our lives would still be as challenging with all of the ups and downs. nothing would be gained.
3) my own intuition is that our scientific understanding has told us that things are often stranger and crazier than we could often imagine. To say that this life is the result of bored nerds creating a video game seems almost as banal as saying the human race was created because a deity got bored and lonely so created some stupid creatures to worship him
Behold this new "technological sacred" which has been around for decades now. This is just a new pagan religion, built on the demise of the old ones; and the fact that this is all being explained in scientific wording and techno-discourse does not take away its sacred character. No matter how atheistic this civilization pretends to be, new religions keep popping up!
This, of course, is a fallacious use of the computer and virtual reality paradigm, applied to reality as lived by flesh-and-bone human beings. I rather hang on to the incarnational, down to earth, view of life.
the supposed evidence for our universe being a simulation seems to largely include the idea that if we extrapolate our technological progress further ahead in time, we will be able to build such a simulation ourselves *therefore* we are a simulation. thatss not a very good argument for a lot of reasons. First, how do we know there aren't hard blockers that prevent us from ever getting to the point in our technology to actually build a simulation equal to the world we live in? Of course those blockers might be because we are in a simulation. But like string theory, you might have a theory of everything but if it cant predict anything, its utility is questionable without some other actual theory that predicts things in a testable way.
but in actually thinking about this idea, the one word that best describes the world we live in is "lazy". It answers why water doesnt go uphill, why everything seems to submit to maths, even quantum mechanics and the weird observer question. The answer is if you are lazy, why bother to do something unless you have an observer or something that impacts an observer in some manner? Why bother building other galaxies when you can just show them to us as photons of light? Why bother actually building Mars until humans bother to send spacecraft there?
if you were programming our universe, a computer language with lazy evaluation would be ideal. Write the whole thing out but only actually calculate each function when it is actually needed. We could be living in a Haskell REPL and God could be having fun making changes at the command line.
However if what Musk suggested is we need to simulate to prevent extinction and and if this we are a simulation of the past by humans of the future then what is its purpose? Like the question "why does God let bad things happen?" why are future humans recreating the very real suffering of millions of their ancestors?
1) The hypothesis is untestable.
2) even if it could be proved it would change NOTHING. Our lives would still be as challenging with all of the ups and downs. nothing would be gained.
3) my own intuition is that our scientific understanding has told us that things are often stranger and crazier than we could often imagine. To say that this life is the result of bored nerds creating a video game seems almost as banal as saying the human race was created because a deity got bored and lonely so created some stupid creatures to worship him
Behold this new "technological sacred" which has been around for decades now. This is just a new pagan religion, built on the demise of the old ones; and the fact that this is all being explained in scientific wording and techno-discourse does not take away its sacred character. No matter how atheistic this civilization pretends to be, new religions keep popping up!
This, of course, is a fallacious use of the computer and virtual reality paradigm, applied to reality as lived by flesh-and-bone human beings. I rather hang on to the incarnational, down to earth, view of life.
the supposed evidence for our universe being a simulation seems to largely include the idea that if we extrapolate our technological progress further ahead in time, we will be able to build such a simulation ourselves *therefore* we are a simulation. thatss not a very good argument for a lot of reasons. First, how do we know there aren't hard blockers that prevent us from ever getting to the point in our technology to actually build a simulation equal to the world we live in? Of course those blockers might be because we are in a simulation. But like string theory, you might have a theory of everything but if it cant predict anything, its utility is questionable without some other actual theory that predicts things in a testable way.
but in actually thinking about this idea, the one word that best describes the world we live in is "lazy". It answers why water doesnt go uphill, why everything seems to submit to maths, even quantum mechanics and the weird observer question. The answer is if you are lazy, why bother to do something unless you have an observer or something that impacts an observer in some manner? Why bother building other galaxies when you can just show them to us as photons of light? Why bother actually building Mars until humans bother to send spacecraft there?
if you were programming our universe, a computer language with lazy evaluation would be ideal. Write the whole thing out but only actually calculate each function when it is actually needed. We could be living in a Haskell REPL and God could be having fun making changes at the command line.
However if what Musk suggested is we need to simulate to prevent extinction and and if this we are a simulation of the past by humans of the future then what is its purpose? Like the question "why does God let bad things happen?" why are future humans recreating the very real suffering of millions of their ancestors?
Last edited:
bontshow
Brownlow Medallist
Well i want to meet the programmer that gave us Donald TrumpConsidering it is mostly water, fish
- Aug 21, 2016
- 15,725
- 24,867
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
I think the argument is more like - if simulated universes are possible in the future and there is the capability to create simulated universes then there would be countless simulated universes compared to the original one. So how can we assume we are in the original?
Perhaps you could replace the word 'lazy' with 'efficient'. What if the things we observe are only created/simulated just before we experience them?
We should not think of simulations being some nerdy abstraction from real life. It's likely the virtual world will increasingly immerse with the physical. We've already got a generation that can't take their eyes from smartphones. Facebook believes that virtual reality is the future of socialising. This will be mainstream. And we are just a tiny fraction of time into that journey.
How would you know that for sure? Everyone wants to believe there is something bigger than us all. That there is meaning in the chaotic winds of life. Its a human need. To give us comfort when unfortunate things occur and a belief that death is not the end. But nevertheless it's an interesting thought and would certainly explain some things. Given the state of the world, let's hope we're in a simulation that can simply be switched off and another one started, once we've screwed it completely. In the next one, can they please delete USA.
Is the creator rational as well. There are natural rules. Why do we always need some higher man made creator. When will the day come that we realise that WE are not at the centre of the universe, that is the human race.When will we realise we are living on a planet the size of a speck of sand on a zillion beaches. We blast ourselves to death trying to capture a piece of land and murder in our millions. Wars do not work but they are as old as time and yet we continue. We repeat the same mistakes but expect a different outcome. Perhaps a 'gamer' is controlling us but he is as thick as s**t.
When that day of realisation comes will be the true break through.
It's funny, as much as Musk says things like this he doesn't want to ride on his own first trip to Mars, because there's a very high probability that he'd die. That's not simulated, either - that's reality. I want him to ride his own rocket. Let him tell us how simulated it is.
Last edited:
Well i will say this: Assuming we are simulated, we are more likely to be simulated by another race than by god. Which pretty much makes all religions a bunch of ****.
Except that exactly the same applies to whoever, or whatever is conducting the simulation in which we are supposedly a part. What accounts for their existence then ? its an endless loop IMO.
If we are in a simulated universe created by other advanced humans or another species, then where did they come from? Did they evolve naturally in a real universe, or are they simulations as well.
Just like the god hypothesis, it doesn't actually answer anything, it just poses more unanswerable questions, and throws everything back to some unknowable past.
Even if we did prove the theory, what can we going to do about it? Even if I knew this was a simulation, it's not going to change my life in any way.
However a little more ******* empathy in the code will really be helpful. I think the code is corrupted and needs to be re-coded.
Except that exactly the same applies to whoever, or whatever is conducting the simulation in which we are supposedly a part. What accounts for their existence then ? its an endless loop IMO.
If we are in a simulated universe created by other advanced humans or another species, then where did they come from? Did they evolve naturally in a real universe, or are they simulations as well.
Just like the god hypothesis, it doesn't actually answer anything, it just poses more unanswerable questions, and throws everything back to some unknowable past.
Even if we did prove the theory, what can we going to do about it? Even if I knew this was a simulation, it's not going to change my life in any way.
However a little more ******* empathy in the code will really be helpful. I think the code is corrupted and needs to be re-coded.
Bottom line is, the idea we live in a simulated universe is very much theoretical at this point. Until evidence is shown for it, we might as well not worry about it. Even if evidence is shown, we might as well not worry - it's not like we can change it.
My problem with the "Simulation Hypothesis" is this: there are no dragons.
Why would you go to all the trouble of creating a huge, simulated reality and not put dragons in it? Where's the fun in that?
But on a serious note that's what i have been saying for a while now. Its another "prediction model". Nothing more than that.
I'd like to find the code and rewrite it to end poverty, disease and war. And also to make Liverpool FC win multiple Premier League titles.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
Poverty will end as soon as you put empathy in the codes. Only 62 rich people own more than half of the worlds population. The programmers have obviously ****ed up with the codes. Humans will repeat the same mistake over and over again, greed which lead to wars and growing self interest. Its never in doubt. 150,000 infants will die today, of hunger. And here we are, someones video ******* game apparently.
- Aug 21, 2016
- 15,725
- 24,867
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
I could point out that infant mortality has dramatically reduced, women can work and vote in most countries, slavery has been almost eradicated etc. But our 21st century values and actions are not relevant to the discussion.
It could be that a million simulations were started and this one produced the right physics to form matter, which led to life and humans who have a certain nature. Part of that nature is our morality. But whether morality, human or otherwise, is significant in the grand scheme of things is a different question to that of whether we live in a simulation.
- Aug 21, 2016
- 15,725
- 24,867
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
We are curious creatures. We are here and we want to solve the mystery of how and why. There are competing theories for the creation of the universe. If the evidence shows one of the other we can't change what happened but we search for the answers anyway.
Just because something is currently theoretical does not stop us thinking about it and trying to get to a greater point of truth. The notion of the atom was formed many centuries ago but it was only recently that we gained good evidence for their existence.
Human values have barely changed. Granted we are living in the most peaceful period in human history but human values have not changed. From barbaric religious conquests, to imperialism to colonialism, we now have capitalism. Still the same, just victims are different and a nuclear war is a matter of time, which will wipe out cities within minutes. Empathy, as i mentioned above is still a rare quantity.
Machines will never achieve consciousness, nor any form of awareness. For that you need some form of physiology - and the ability to feel, and to experience sensation.
Machines don't feel - and they cannot experience sensation.
Consciousness arises out of feeling and sensation, not out of 'thinking'. Thinking, and self-awareness arise later - out of earlier forms of consciousness.
Musk and Bostrum, and the rest of these science fantasists - need to put down the sci-fi comics - and take a crash course in first year epistemology and scepticism.
They're out of their field - and out of their depth.
They'd drown in a ******* puddle!
'Simulated' - yes perhaps?
but that 'mind' would still never be able to feel anything, to experience sensation, or, as a result - to later on - become conscious.
this 'mind' won't be able to feel neither heat nor cold. Nor to feel fear or desire. It can thus never develop any form of will - the will to either seek out, or to avoid - any form of experience - of any kind.
many of you 'science' types are so fixated on 'thinking', 'reason', and 'logic' - that you have no understanding whatsoever of the concepts of feeling, sensation, and subjective experience.
hence your many multiple confusions - on these issues.
because as 'rational' and 'empirical' fundamentalists - you utterly dismiss these stark realities - completely out of hand - without even bothering to try to understand them, or to learn anything about them at all.
Tto difficult! Not verifiable! Not falsifiable! No proof! No evidence!
when I know that I am hungry - when I experience hunger - this is a reality.
Even though this experience is not verifiable, not falsifiable - and no proof, nor evidence can be measured - to either confirm, nor to deny it.
Science is not the only form, nor source of knowledge.
Despite the current widespread mass delusion - that it is!
So is string theory, which is an prediction based on observation. I can totally understand where scientists are coming from there.
Biology is stupendously more complex than any machine that we have so far created. Our brain was billions and billions of neuron in there firing every second.
If we do ever create conscious artificial life - which is theoretically possible - it will not be through machines.
Those "swaths" of physicists that would support the idea would be zero or near zero. Only two people in darthbards claim support this hypothesis: Nick Bostrom, a philosopher, and Rich Terrile, an astronomer who did his PhD in planetary science (whatever that is). Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson who claims who are "likely" to be in simulation said its just a feeling. Well scientists been wrong about their "feeling" more often than not. Einstein has been wrong more often than he has been right.
Two actual (and very distinguished) physicists they interviewed have both said the idea is ridiculous. That in itself should have killed your urge to publish this at all, and especially under such a false and ridiculous title.
So this, in essence, the idea about some eccentric belief of a random person called Elon Musk, who dropped out of a physics PhD after two days. He may as well believe in astrology, who cares.
cannot
Norm Smith Medallist
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #146
Newly declassified CIA doc talks about consciousness and energy in a holographic Universe 
as a consequence of their study into remote viewing and non-local information access.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf
as a consequence of their study into remote viewing and non-local information access.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf
Oh yeah ofcourse the CIA would know everything, including God. Is there anything they wouldn't know?
They also claim there are UFO's and aliens. Don't talk crap please. This is a science board not a conspiracy board.
- May 17, 2015
- 4,951
- 5,405
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Tom Campbell supports sim theory as does James Gates as does Hans Moravec,it isn't just the dudes you mentioned. There's many more but I don't think this should be a contest about who can name the most believers vs non believers.
I think to many assumptions are being made as to the sim being made for humans or about humans or even directly by humans. My belief would be humans created SI that then went on to create the sim though,their purpose who knows.
I do think it would be fair for someone to be unsure about us living in a sim, but any flaws in the theory are comparable to all the flaws in any other theory regarding our creation,it certainly makes total sense though. I think once it's proven we live in a simulation we will still need to know about base reality and proving we are in a sim won't necessarily tell us anything about that at all,it doesn't answer any God question at a deeper level. It will answer a creator question for this reality,and if people want to call that a God,good for them. People could still logically be atheists inside the sim so there's no need to get upset about that.
It's certainly science,to suggest otherwise is a bit rude. Even if it isn't proven to be correct it's not even remotely a conspiracy. If someone said the government has proof we live in a sim but is keeping it hush,that's a conspiracy, but I havnt heard anyone mention that. I just hear people who are interested in this area of science. I think that's great. It might not be falsifiable yet but people are working on these things just as they're working on a greater understanding of consciousness,via legitimate scientific research. That to is great.
