Mooka Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 The original research article:http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html :rubeyes: Good grief... try and follow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsphan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 you just blew my mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 He's just bitter because he needs a new graphics card with more memory before he can run latest version.:secret: At least my processor's up to snuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 This argument is self-defeating. There are only two possibilities: we are in a simulation, or we are not in a simulation. If we are not in a simulation, then the argument is wrong. Stop right there. If we are in a simulation, then we have no idea how accurately the simulation portrays the actual development of scientific technology. It's not real, it's a simulation. Thus, we have no accurate method of determining if such a simulation is actually possible, and such potential capability in the future is the linchpin of the entire argument. In this case, we can't know one way or the other, so the argument fails again. Since the two scenarios leave the argument either defeated outright, or totally undemonstrable, the argument is a nice speculation, but useless beyond that, particularly if one wants to put a percentage on it. My faith says thats why everything tastes like chicken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 My faith says thats why everything tastes like chicken! Are you making fun of my efforts to earn my Junior Philosopher Merit Badge? Anyway, a philosopher named Brain Weatherson offers a rebuttal here on his blog, including a link to his paper on the subject, if anyone's interested in that sort of thing. I know, I know. People just want to read the cool story and pretend they're going to get to meet Trinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Are you making fun of my efforts to earn my Junior Philospher Merit Badge? Anyway, a philosopher named Brain Weatherson offers a rebuttal here on his blog, including a link to his paper on the subject, if anyone's interested in that sort of thing. I know, I know. People just want to read the cool story and pretend they're going to get to meet Trinity. Just thought it was interesting that you, of all people, debunked the simulation theory for the same reasons Atheists debunk religion. Lack of faith. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 This is the craziest post I have ever read. My mind is spinning thinking of this even being remotely possible. I felt like I was high the whole time I was reading the article and the responses to it in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Species A: Creates technology capable of simulating an entire infinite universe. Species B: Advances so much within the "program" that they become smart enough to realize they are actually not real at all. What happens then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 How is this different from religion?Anyway, I'm not sure if this idea works. If the Earth was a simulation, like in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it might be feasible. But given an extremely large, if not infinite Universe, the amount of information required to run the simulation would be so large that the innaccuracies due to incomplete information and even quantum effects would cause the simulation to break in places. Glitches if you like. Find me a glitch and I'm a believer.:geek: Black Holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 How is this different from religion? It isn't really, since religion falls into the realm of philosophy quite often. Personally, I think the chances of their being a God are higher than the chances of this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Just thought it was interesting that you, of all people, debunked the simulation theory for the same reasons Atheists debunk religion.Lack of faith. :2cents: I don't think that's accurate. The philosopher who proposed this theory did so not on grounds of faith, but rather his attempt to apply logic and mathematical probabilities to our situation. No faith involved. As a transhumanist he might, in fact, be offended at your insinuation that he is operating on faith... Likewise, my response, muddled as it was (and I can already see at least one big flaw in it, but hey, I was on my lunch break...), was an (awfully poor ) attempt to apply rules of logic to the theory. No faith there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I don't think that's accurate. The philosopher who proposed this theory did so not on grounds of faith, but rather his attempt to apply logic and mathematical probabilities to our situation. No faith involved. As a transhumanist he might, in fact, be offended at your insinuation that he is operating on faith... Likewise, my response, muddled as it was (and I can already see at least one big flaw in it, but hey, I was on my lunch break...), was an (awfully poor ) attempt to apply rules of logic to the theory. No faith there either. He has faith in some pretty big assumptions made at the start of the paper.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Species A: Creates technology capable of simulating an entire infinite universe.Species B: Advances so much within the "program" that they become smart enough to realize they are actually not real at all. What happens then? If you have to ask this question, you need to watch more Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 As much of it as I could understand, it really just looks like he watched the Matrix too many times, said to himself, this will get me publicity, and put it in print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 He has faith in some pretty big assumptions made at the start of the paper.. Please, let's not have another pointless discussion where words like "faith", which have a definite connotation in everyday language, get stretched and muddled... That's not the kind of faith we were talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Please, let's not have another pointless discussion where words like "faith", which have a definite connotation in everyday language, get stretched and muddled...That's not the kind of faith we were talking about. Call it what you want. I wouldn't exactly call all of his assumptions at the beginning of the paper 'applying logic' either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Anyway, a philosopher named Brain Weatherson offers a rebuttal here on his blog, including a link to his paper on the subject, if anyone's interested in that sort of thing. err correct me if I'm wrong, but his argument goes something like this: "I am a material being because in all likelihood there is only one being with conscious experiences indiscriminable from mine, and clearly I am a material being since I am a material being." :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedlightG20 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Larry: That means that our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.. That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--- Jennings: ...One little tiny universe. Larry: Could I buy some pot from you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 As much of it as I could understand, it really just looks like he watched the Matrix too many times, said to himself, this will get me publicity, and put it in print. The Matrix was obviously created by the simulators so someone would say just that when we started figuring out the truth..."Dude, you've watched The Matrix too many times, this theory is ridiculous." Isn't that what they'd WANT you to say? :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 interesting to say the least. I'd say that our day to day interactions betwen us and my ability to think and be self-concious are proof enough to me that this world is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I don't think that's accurate. The philosopher who proposed this theory did so not on grounds of faith, but rather his attempt to apply logic and mathematical probabilities to our situation. No faith involved. As a transhumanist he might, in fact, be offended at your insinuation that he is operating on faith... Likewise, my response, muddled as it was (and I can already see at least one big flaw in it, but hey, I was on my lunch break...), was an (awfully poor ) attempt to apply rules of logic to the theory. No faith there either. The logic I used to compare the two only served to show you the atheist point of view. You apply no faith to this particular scenario in the same manner atheists apply no faith to religion. Both are extremely comparable sans history. That was my only point. No worries, I'm still with ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 When they were programming the Matrix, and trying to produce a believable similation of what life should be like, there were some pieces of information that they were missing. One of these was what chicken was supposed to taste like. None of the programmers had a clue what chicken should taste like, so they just made it taste like everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the universe is a computer. A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it is more likely than not that we're living inside a machine. The theory basically goes that any civilisation which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened. And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd. And it's not just theory. We previously reported that researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany had found evidence the Matrix was less than fiction. That story was by far our most popular of the year - indicating it's something about which you lot have wondered too. Now another team have devised an actual test to see if this theory holds any hope of being proven. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 So what they are saying was Plato might have been correct with his Cave Allegory? Amazing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Though I heard the program ends in 9 days Based on the original Mayan programmers coding measures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.