Are we living in a simulation?

several xp to the post where DLH ripped the bong

*riiiiip*

i don't disagree with you on any of that. (except maybe on the premise that if we are the dream of someone else (or a simulation), that we're any less real.) as aimless said upthread, these are ancient questions. i do think, though, that the compelling thing about the simulation argument is that it provides an understandable idea of what links us to the "dreamer". many cosmologies require some sort of leap of faith at some point - a miracle, an unexplainable metaphysical transformation, some sort of deus ex machina just making it all work. but it's easy (for me, at least) to imagine computers getting more and more advanced and powerful, given how far they've come in our lifetimes alone. that's not to say i think that kurzweil et al are right and that moore's law is actually a law. but if an advanced civilization could keep cracking at it for say, 10,000 years, i imagine they could probably come up with a pretty fucking intensely fast computer. and i think anyone with a basic understanding of exponential growth could at least imagine how it was possible, too.

the fact that the argument relies on extensions of things that already exist and that it doesn't involve magic doesn't prove anything, of course. but it does make it stand out from previous attempts to come up with an explanation, so it's not surprising that a lot of people talk about it. if some people take it too far and turn it into a religion for computer nerds (which is definitely a thing), that's annoying, but i don't see a problem with entertaining it as a possibility

This is yet another instance of the argument from analogy, but it fails miserably to establish its conclusion, because the things analogized from (computer simulations created by humans) have so little in common with the observable universe that they have almost nothing in common,

see, i don't know what to say - i just disagree with this. it is very easy for me to imagine a simulated space that is virtually indistinguishable from "reality". like, i think i might even get to experience some version of that in VR in my lifetime, if i grow to be very old

and if/when i do, i'm going to claim the virtual space username "Z S" because i really miss that one

extensions of things that already exist

minds exist tho, and the dream question just means: what if mind, but big? it's never had to be magic. any sufficiently advanced etc

true tho that one thing that has changed over the years is our understanding of how minds and analogous machines work, which has improved. as you point out we have ourselves built less and less crude representations of the mind, closer and closer to our model if still (very) far off. this growing experience of creation maybe does provide us with increasingly graspable metaphors. but they shouldn't be taken as "realer" or counted upon not to be supplanted themselves. we've always been creators, and wondered if it's anything like what god does.

nice lil joke in the late tech tree of sid meier's alpha centauri (source of most of my thoughts) where amidst other on-research-completion quotes from kierkegaard, nietzsche, confucius etc., you're suddenly read this:

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

--Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity recorded Mission Year 2302.22467. (TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED)

to bring the palmer family back into it, here's a 13-year-old laura getting high for the first time:

Tim brought us a cup of coffee with chocolate mixed in, and all five of us sat and talked about all sorts of things, like if maybe our universe was just a tiny little speck of lint that a huge giant hadn't noticed on his sweater, and someday soon, who knows if this great giant would just brush us off, or toss us into a washer and drown us all to death. Donna said maybe our idea of hundreds of years is only a split second to this giant, and soon something would have to happen, because how long can someone keep a sweater on?

We all liked the idea that there might be other little universes or "balls of lint" on this sweater, and we thought we'd someday like to meet a few people from these other places, as long as they were nice to us.

Ladies and gentlemen, Rene Decartes' Evil Demon hypothesis

The evil demon, also known as malicious demon[1] and evil genius,[2] is a concept in Cartesian philosophy. In the first of his 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes imagines that an evil demon, of "utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me." This evil demon is imagined to present a complete illusion of an external world, so that Descartes can say, "I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgement. I shall consider myself as not having hands or eyes, or flesh, or blood or senses, but as falsely believing that I have all these things."

Some Cartesian scholars opine that the demon is also omnipotent, and thus capable of altering mathematics and the fundamentals of logic, though omnipotence of the evil demon would be contrary to Descartes' hypothesis, as he rebuked accusations of the evil demon having omnipotence.

I opine that the demon possesses a beautiful jump shot

upon my life, the tracks have vanished

As a counterpoint, Descartes was a cunt.

or was he

He did invent Cartesian coordinates, which seem to be integral to computer simulations, such as the one we are not living within.

i agree with karl that there's no reason to call it not-living

aimless: how did the evil demon get there?

why don't they make the whole cartesian plane out of the evil demon?

he stinks therefore he aint

Wait if we are a simulation does that mean we are AI?

many cosmologies require some sort of leap of faith at some point - a miracle, an unexplainable metaphysical transformation, some sort of deus ex machina just making it all work. but it's easy (for me, at least) to imagine computers getting more and more advanced and powerful, given how far they've come in our lifetimes alone. that's not to say i think that kurzweil et al are right and that moore's law is actually a law. but if an advanced civilization could keep cracking at it for say, 10,000 years, i imagine they could probably come up with a pretty fucking intensely fast computer. and i think anyone with a basic understanding of exponential growth could at least imagine how it was possible, too.

imo it is much easier to imagine that there's one or many fundamental limits that will prevent this from happening, and this reads like a leap of faith where this imaginary computer is the deus ex machina. it's been said already, but this computer is just another metaphor, and I guess that's fine, but it's a shame that it heaps more importance on a sector of our world's endeavors already full up of self-importance.

you guys sure do know everything about the origins of the universe, enough to rule out one possibility that's just as dumb as anything you believe

Maybe I missed it, but nobody said "this theory is clearly wrong, and I know one that's probably correct". Simulation theory doesn't really "explain" anything wrt how did a universe arise, as in it's another "turtles all the way down" victim. Does the entity who created the simulation also wonder if it is itself part of a simulation?
Personally, I don't "believe" anything about origins of the universe. I do have a hunch that it's part of a infinite multiverse which has no cause, no beginning, no ending.

but the idea of the universes big banging out of a vaccuum seems wrong

the universe has no obligation to make sense to you

Then it's doing a grand job.

but the idea of the universes big banging out of a vaccuum seems wrong

For a start, the vacuum only exists INSIDE the universe. The universe bangs out of an singularity from an unimaginable prior state we have no access to.

If it helps, think of it more like a Big Prolapse.

http://www.bieniosek.com/gallery/albums/goatse/nebula.jpg

in primary school one of my stock jokes was that I hoped that when I died I would get a loading screen for level 2. now of course, I see how naïve I was: my current best guess is that the universe is nothing but the dream speed-run of a dragon, and the dragon is about to rage-quit

what if rather than being the deliberate and finely tuned masterpiece of a deeply engaged creator, the universe is just god's fart? your move, atheists

So the consensus here is that metaphysical speculation of any kind is just a waste of time that should be mocked, eveb though human beings have engaged in it from the start? We’re just radical pragmatists on ilx

you think we need more protected subjects on this site?

i wld rather speculate abt whether we can waste time

I think the consensus is more that strawmen make great scapegoats in the wake of butthurt.

At any rate, I don't think many of those who've engaged in serious thinking about the nature of reality have historically worked themselves into a lather about permission or consensus. Hash it out and damn the haters.

I am a bot btw

Hm, i’m in a lather now

i want to hear caek's thoughts on the matter

Jokes are good when they’re part of the discussion. Skepticism is good as well. But you guys are just throwing peanut shells on people’s heads from the rafters.

i dunno but what karls rather untypical but def misplaced sense of persecution on behalf of his pixel theory hasnt somehow transmitted to you too treesh but it has been discussed and fairly discussed and nobody is stopping more discussion

cosmology appeals to a lot of foundationalists and they ruin everything imo

I didn’t say I was being censored. I was trying to engage Old Lunch and the rest of the traveling comedy troupe in discussion. What’s their position?

That’s a position ogmor, thank you.

ah here "it would be impossible to tell from within the simulation" is a position!

Yeah that one is fine but I think from there maybe there are more things to say.

I was talking more of the extraordinary proliferation of these kinds of posts:

he stinks therefore he aint

― fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Monday, January 14, 2019 9:59 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If it helps, think of it more like a Big Prolapse.

― A Nugatory Excrescence (Old Lunch), Tuesday, January 15, 2019 7:50 AM (fifty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag

I offered several perspectives upthread treesh fwiw. Shit perspectives perhaps but perspectives nonetheless.

We might be living in a simulation
But I'm still living for that stimulation
WHEEEEDLYDEEEDLYDEEEEEEEEEE (guitar solo sound)

― A Nugatory Excrescence (Old Lunch), Monday, January 14, 2019 6:28 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ah missed them then sorry

If though you would like me to reach all the way up my ass to my undergrad philosophy major days I will see what I can do for u.

only graduate level grasping at straws from here out plz

Metaphysics is great as a branch of aesthetics tbf

In Iain M Banks' The Algebraist there's a religion called The Truth which involves believing we're in a simulation, and believing that if enough people believe that we're in a simulation, the simulation will end. If it makes them happy... (it probably doesn't.)

I don't know if this is covered in any of the literature and nor can I be arsed to find out, but I think there is a bit of a paradox in the simulation argument. It says that if our experience of reality is accurate (a universe with consistent laws of physics which allow for conscious beings & computers) then our experience of reality is not accurate (i.e. simulated).

to experience a simulation as accurate wouldn't be inaccurate necessarily

It's like the Kremlin scene in Ghost Protes. The simulation self-corrects according to your perspective.