What are the odds that we are all in a simulation?
-
consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain
Have you ever been surprised?
I have no idea what you are trying to get at by that.
-
I have no idea what you are trying to get at by that.
So now you wonder what you need to answer.
-
In reality, simulations would outnumber reality. So that’s the ratio and therefore the chances.
Assuming reality and/or consciousness can be simulated, which we have no way of knowing is true (for now).
-
This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could)
I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware...
I would hope that we wouldn't build such a thing just out of ethical concerns for the inhabitants, but then again we've built a giant AI-training network with very little knowledge of if they have some kind of limited consciousness during the process.
I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware...
Then what? We have no reason to believe that would cause parts of the simulation to be conscious and think they exist in reality.
-
consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain
Have you ever been surprised?
surprise is simply the sensation of unexpected information
-
Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.
Can't prove it, can't disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.
People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.
This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)
It is as pointless as arguing about god.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't know why people assume that computation power increases indefinitely forever until it simulates a universe. why would it do that?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I don't know about ya'll, but from my perspective, the simulation would only have to simulate my world.
You all might not even exist.
-
it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.
We don't need to model reality, only people's perception of it.
-
Counter question; would it make any difference?
I think it would matter if these simulations existed if we could interact outside or between them somehow.
-
The modern Christian God is mostly a passive observer, whenever him or his agents have visited us there have been tons of miracles and magical shit, but that does not happen very often, and we've been basically alone for millenia while He is busy in his own realm. If Christ visited again, it would likely portend the end of the world, at least in a lot of Christian world views.
Christians are shitty con-artists who spread their filth by lying to, subverting, and intimidating others.
I'll never get over how they call the Torah the "old testament." They do this as a sneaky way to make it seem like it's all Christianity with no ties to Judaism.
-
This post did not contain any content.
You mean that reality might have been created by intelligent being(s)? wow.. Nobody ever thought about that one before.
-
I think it would matter if these simulations existed if we could interact outside or between them somehow.
If we'd manage to communicate with parallel universes, would it matter if they are all real or simulations along with ourselves?
How could we possibly interact with any machinery sophisticated enough to be our entire universe or the parent universe where these machines can be conceived?
It's like pacman breaking out of assembly language and figuring out how to sneak out of the arcade.
-
I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware...
Then what? We have no reason to believe that would cause parts of the simulation to be conscious and think they exist in reality.
We're physics. It seems like we exist.
-
The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics.
Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use.
And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture...
-
We're physics. It seems like we exist.
But we have no evidence that we're anywhere close to being able to accurately simulate physics, even with planet sizes computers.
-
it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.
I think the smallest computer that can simulate the universe is the universe. Though I guess you may be able to get rid of one of the dimensions due to that one projection theory. Which means you may be able to get ride of more than one dimension. Which means maybe the universe can fit into a single infinitely dense point. So maybe we can make black hole computers. We'd just need to bend space time in a real specific way because what's the point of a computer you can't get any output from?
tl;Dr: I bet we could figure out how to simulate a whole universe within a decently small computer. Seems hard though.
-
But we have no evidence that we're anywhere close to being able to accurately simulate physics, even with planet sizes computers.
wrote last edited by [email protected]We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments. My evidence is that we routinely do, although hardware limitations mean if you want perfect accuracy it's going to involve just a few particles, with more and more approximation as you scale beyond that.
There are no extreme environments on Earth, by that definition, which is a big part of why physics is stuck on them in the first place. All known life is also on Earth, so that shouldn't matter, if life and consciousness is what we're interested in.
-
A simulation could be hacked, and that's really fun to think about
If we are in a simulation, I'm pretty sure it's already been hacked or infected by a bad virus at least.
-
We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments. My evidence is that we routinely do, although hardware limitations mean if you want perfect accuracy it's going to involve just a few particles, with more and more approximation as you scale beyond that.
There are no extreme environments on Earth, by that definition, which is a big part of why physics is stuck on them in the first place. All known life is also on Earth, so that shouldn't matter, if life and consciousness is what we're interested in.
We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments
This is not true. For example, we don't know why [ice is slippery].(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.03.002).
Furthermore
There are no extreme environments on Earth...
Yes, there is. Ice. And superconductors. And so on... And even if all the other stuff is exotic, it's important to know all the other underlying principles to comprehend what's actually going on.
