Are we living in a simulation?

What do you mean, "we"

Residents of earth

Some people take the hollow-earth theory seriously. Some people take Jordan Peterson seriously. Some people are not to be trusted with sharp objects. This is axiomatic.

Roll the booooones
Roll the boooones

voted yes, unironically

this whole topic REALLY pisses a lot of people off

Neanderthal otm

if treesh wants to become one of those people who posts on the "glitch in the matrix" reddit board and thinks they died in 2010 but it got rolled back or whatever well then i support it

Need an "it doesn't matter" option

it's there

I feel like "stfu" is for ppl mad about the question. I'm not mad, just feels inconsequential

inconsequential feels like the appropriate word. What would you do differently, if you decided that your perceptions of yourself and the universe were the result of "a simulation"? more to the point, what is this "simulation" simulating and how would that be any different than this "reality" being real?

I’ll argue about this a bit more tomorrow I guess. fwiw my position is not “we are living in a simulation”, but I think it’s as likely as any other expiation I’ve heard. People roll their eyes at it, but I guess I roll my eyes at anyone who thinks that anything else is more plausible

That last aimless post otm btw

Assuming the answer is “nothing”

I'm not sure that I would do anything differently, but I imagine that it would massively impact how I thought about myself and the things around me. If I'm in a simulation (something like a computer simulation, which I think is what we're talking about here) then it seems to follow that the simulation has been designed or programmed by someone, and so I can start to wonder about the nature of the designer, why they made this thing, why the features of it are the way they are, and why I'm part of it. And I can wonder about what the world outside of the simulation is like, which is another way to put the question "What is this 'simulation' simulating?" That doesn't seem inconsequential for me.

"which dreamed it?" remains a salient question but despite the apparent novelty of its present form i don't think there's been any actual advance in its tech for quite some time

I can start to wonder about the nature of the designer, why they made this thing, why the features of it are the way they are, and why I'm part of it.

brave new concerns for a brave new century

Lisa Randall otm. We hate oursleves so much for fucking everything up, and we want to belive we're one failed branch in a much larger optimization. But this is reality that we are fucking up. And the probabilities people invoke for these arguments are usually one part of a long string of condotional probabilities.

Conditional

needs a 'no and stfu' option

it feels like a lazy way out of answering a fundamental question we don't know the answer to. Like panspermia: how does life originate, we don't know, oh look a comet, there's the answer, done.

Sufjan otm, I suspect that's part of the appeal, consciously or not. It's no biggie, just a trial run, right?

i will get grimes to write a ballad of this dream

brave new concerns for a brave new century

I didn't say any of that was new. I'm not that interested in the Bostrom formulation myself. My point was just to resist the idea that this kind of question is inconsequential. I could also say that it's not inconsequential whether we're inside of a dream.

J.E.H. Smith has a good post on this topic: https://www.jehsmith.com/1/2016/06/we-are-not-living-in-a-video-game-simulation.html

The particular form the new version takes offers a vivid case study in the consequences of historical and anthropological ignorance. How self-congratulatory and parochial does a member of a given culture, at a given moment, have to be, to suppose that reality itself takes the form of a particular technology developed within that very culture in the course of one's own lifetime? Consider the familiar claim that 'the brain is like a computer', or, switching the comparative 'like' for the stoner one, that 'the brain is, like, a computer'. Is this not effectively to say that this thing that has been around in nature for hundreds of millions of years turns out to in fact have been, all along, this other thing that we ourselves came up with in the past few decades?

oh i wasn't aiming my snot at you (or being sarcastic w "salient"). we agree i think. there have been thousands of years of work done on this question and metaphors have come and gone.

(tho pointlessly imo, because what's ever gonna work better than a dream)

you are living in a simulation

Your grandmothers were right, kids: video games have ruined everything.

bold take: we havent rly fucked everything up things are pretty good

just cuz life is pretty good for you (and for me tbh) doesn't mean things aren't fucked up

relative to what

also my life is awful fu

This reminds me of the first time I heard "Sh-Boom", particularly the opening line "Life Could Be A Dream" - I was full of the pondering that we (or maybe it's YOU) could wake up and find that none of this exists. Particularly as the version of "Sh-Boom" was by Stan Freberg.

relative to what

relative to how unfucked they could be obv

yeah idk how valid that is a comparator

And there are other reasons to think we might be virtual. For instance, the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws. Perhaps that is not a given, but a function of the nature of the universe we are living in. “If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical,” said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “That just reflects the computer code in which it was written.”
Furthermore, ideas from information theory keep showing up in physics. “In my research I found this very strange thing,” said James Gates, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland. “I was driven to error-correcting codes—they’re what make browsers work. So why were they in the equations I was studying about quarks and electrons and supersymmetry? This brought me to the stark realization that I could no longer say people like Max are crazy.”

This sounds like deism

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

ah look this idea isn't a new idea, the notion that this reality isn't the ultimate reality, sooner or later some of these kids will discover gnosticism or prakrti or gorgias or what the fuck ever.

reality is broken, we don't know and will never know why, take it seriously or don't but for god's sake at least try to be kind.

It does neatly explain some things people have always intuited—like the existence of a realm of pure being that is more “real” than this one.

Or whar rushomancy just said. (Can’t see if someone has posted on safari mobile).

To me, God being a computer programming AI is the worst of all possible worlds, almost. It must be cruel to program all this suffering in but then someone could say the same of God.

suffering does predominate in all of the fictions we produce, there's no reason our own simulating overlords wouldn't also bring the pain

So this is just westworld

actually a very interesting and good q imo which occupies not-non-adjacent ethical space with "how would you live differently if you knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that a divine Being existed"

the world would certainly be a healthier and happier place. the trick is to see the divine in what we can already perceive. children need to be shown nature and volcanos and stuff

that's true joan. the idea of the simulation question is interesting to me basically for that reason--this is really about metaphysics not technology

fuck washing a virtual toilet then

actually a very interesting and good q imo which occupies not-non-adjacent ethical space with "how would you live differently if you knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that a divine Being existed"

― she carries a torch. two torches, actually (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Monday, 14 January 2019 12:20 (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

do i know what they want?

Microsoft Fight or Flight Simulator

I just wrote this incontrovertible proof that I am. Dunno about you.

https://haonowshaokao.com/2020/04/11/what-are-the-seven-wolves/

Fascinating. I did some deep googling and was able to find reference to Seven Wolves in a Cherokee legend called "The Groundhog Dance."

https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/OriginOfTheGroundhogDance-Cherokee.html

I also found this:

We represented the wolf geographical range as seven demes, defined by major geographical barriers through time.

The European deme is bordered by open water from the north and the west (the Arctic and the Atlantic oceans, respectively); the Ural Mountains from the east; and the Mediterranean, the Black and the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus mountains from the south.

The Middle‐Eastern deme consists of the Arabian Peninsula, Anatolia and Mesopotamia and is bordered by the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea in the north; the Indian Ocean in the south; the Tien Shen mountain range, the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas from the east; and the Mediterranean Sea in the west.

The Central North Eurasian deme consist of the Siberian Plateau and is bordered by the Arctic Ocean from the north; the Ural Mountains from the west; the Lena River and mountain ranges of northeastern Siberia (Chersky and Verkhoyansk ranges) from the east; and the Tien Shen mountain range, the Tibetan Plateau and the Gobi Desert from southeast.

The East Eurasian deme is bordered by the Tien Shen mountain range, the Tibetan Plateau and Gobi desert from the west; the Pacific Ocean from the east; and the Lena river and the mountain ranges of northeastern Siberia (Chersky and Verkhoyansk ranges) from the north.

The Beringia deme spans the Bering Strait, which was a land bridge during large parts of the Late Pleistocene and the Early Holocene. It is bordered to the west by the Lena River and mountain ranges of northeastern Siberia (Chersky and Verkhoyansk ranges), and to the south and east by the extent of the Cordillerian and Laurentide ice sheets during the LGM.

The Arctic North America deme consists of an area of the North American continent east of the Rocky Mountains and west of Greenland, that was covered by ice during the last glaciation and is at present known as the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

The North America deme consists of an area in the Northern American subcontinent up to and including the area that was covered by the Cordillerian and Laurentide ice sheets during the last glaciation (Raghavan et al., 2015).

Good digging. However I am if anything more convinced now.

https://media.gq-magazine.co.uk/photos/5d1390d59fa601d9a58380ff/master/w_640%2cc_limit/David-Bowie-02-GQ_11Jan16_Markus-Klinko_b.jpg

if you google arbitrary numbers of wolves, you get differing numbers of results for brands, stories, etc.

"six wolves" seems to be even more popular than seven

although seven is generally considered to be a lucky number in multiple cultures

How many wolves are in the average pack? Probably more than seven.

Also seven being lucky could just be the simulation creating some retcon justification

Have you looked up the legend of "Seven and the Ragged Tiger?"

7 days in a week 7 years in the jubilee

Average pack size is six wolves. A pack usually consists of an alpha male, alpha female, current offspring, and a few yearlings. There also may be a few adult subordinate wolves in the pack. Wolves will usually stay with the pack until 2-3 years of age.

New hypothesis argues the universe simulates itself into existence

A physics paper proposes neither you nor the world around you are real.

A new hypothesis says the universe self-simulates itself in a "strange loop". A paper from the Quantum Gravity Research institute proposes there is an underlying panconsciousness. The work looks to unify insight from quantum mechanics with a non-materialistic perspective.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence

spelled "stimulate" wrong

glad we worked this out

The scientists link their hypothesis to panpsychism, which sees everything as thought or consciousness. The authors think that their "panpsychic self-simulation model" can even explain the origin of an overarching panconsciousness at the foundational level of the simulations, which "self-actualizes itself in a strange loop via self-simulation." This panconsciousness also has free will and its various nested levels essentially have the ability to select what code to actualize, while making syntax choices. The goal of this consciousness? To generate meaning or information.

Let's see how much trendy bullshit we can cram into one paragraph.

A new "hypothesis"! Nobel prizes all round! This is almost certainly next-level woo but I'm tempted to go down the rabbit hole if only for the lols.

We have not used the term “God” in place of panconsciousness in this document because that is an ambiguous and confusing term. It has many meanings. Two of the most general meanings associated with that word are ideas anathema to this thesis. The first is that God is infinite. This is not the case in the SSH model. Our panpsychic substrate evolves. The second is the popular idea in many religions that God creates everything. Our panpsychic self-simulation is everything and is collectively created by everything within it. It is unitary and interdependent, where the panconsciousness cannot exist without evolving through us and everything else that can make decisions.

Is the universe a simulation or is human consciousness a simulation? Discuss.

Looked up Klee Irwin and apparently quantum physicist is his second career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OppvPEM0wEQ

Let's see how much trendy bullshit we can cram into one paragraph.

― jmm, Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:10 PM (seventeen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

^^ this sounds like someone who's simulated would say tbf

i wish i was able to grow a pencil moustache, they say so much

It's easy to simulate

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BH6JKA/teenage-girl-with-a-pencil-between-her-upper-lip-and-nose-BH6JKA.jpg

'Strange Loops' are Hofstadter's thing, iirc.

The goal of this consciousness? To generate meaning or information.

Least plausible element.

alamy stock is the new snorg girl

The concept of a simulation requires that some reality exists apart from the simulation for it to be similar to, otherwise there is nothing to simulate.

this is not really propopsing a "simulation" per se, they're just using that idea as a jumping off point

If I can't even tell that I'm in a simulation, the fuck do I care if robots use me as AAs in their Walkman?

why do physicists always think they’re uniquely equipped to solve reality once and for all

haven’t read the paper so the article may be selling it short but it makes it sound like a mashup of ideas (some I like more than others) that have been buzzing around for a while in whatever you call that weird interdisciplinary zone where they talk about emergence a lot. the simulation angle seems tacked on like a hashtag to get it trending

worth revisiting:

Looked up Klee Irwin and apparently quantum physicist is his second career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OppvPEM0wEQ

that weird interdisciplinary zone where they talk about emergence a lot.

Ding ding ding

https://quantumgravityresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/logo-ret-4-13-17.gif

Dr. Franklin Pangborn, Physicist

The concept of a simulation requires that some reality exists apart from the simulation for it to be similar to, otherwise there is nothing to simulate.

Was just about to say. 'Everything is a simulation' is virtually indistinguishable from 'everything is real'.

this is *not* a simulation theory

it's the new generation of Oldsmobile

The concept of a simulation requires that some reality exists apart from the simulation for it to be similar to, otherwise there is nothing to simulate.

― Respectfully Yours, (Aimless), Tuesday, December 15, 2020 12:22 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

i agree with this part “ The concept of a simulation requires that some reality exists apart from the simulation“ but not what follows. simulation does not mean “make something similar to” and a simulation doesn’t require a similar counterpart in reality

i cut my finger while peeling carrots yesterday. if this is a simulation, it's quite a painful and gross one and i want a word with the mods.

Wikipedia has settled on this definition: "A simulation is an approximate imitation of the operation of a process or system that represents its operation over time."

As I'd define a simulation, it is an extension in time of the concept of a simulacrum. While it is possible to create a simulacrum of something that does not exist directly in reality, such as a pink elephant, or a Death Star, I'd be surprised to discover any simulation whose components are not wholly modeled upon or derived from some aspect of reality, if you include mathematics as an aspect of reality. I won't rule out being surprised, though. It has happened often enough before.

there are multiple definitions of simulation, but that one is not the one that people have in mind when they say ‘we are living in a simulation’. all it means is “fake data generated in a computer.” no similarity to any existing part of reality is necessary. an artist or mathematician could simulate completely abstract systems with no representation in mind. for example it’s obvious that we could simulate the game The Sims with a crazy species of aliens from our imagination instead of humans. in analogy, our experiences might be simulated by some other super smart species who have better computers than us. they don’t even have to have imagined us too vividly, they just need a good model and then they feed it some initial conditions and let it rip. it happens that most existing simulations do have a real counterpart, but thats just historical circumstance. engineers simulate air planes flying because it’s cheaper and safer than testing real planes and crashing a bunch of them in the process

I have no idea

i agree it’s an unfortunate development in the etymology of the word though

I thought the timing of the Good Place being right at a point when a number of things were obviously going in completely the wrong direction was oddly fitting.

Might just be an indication that life was following a similar pattern.

That was an interesting take on a simulation of a different set up.
I thought the usual take was about brains in vats which normally tied in with a famous thought experiment we studied in Philosophy but I'm going blank on who the philosopher writing it was.
Like would you know if things were real or if you were being fed false information passing itself off as a form of reality.
So if everything was false and you still did stupid things like stubbing your toes and knocking fragile objects flying and forgetting things how would you tell? & if you were a Buddhist and everything is false anyway would you mind.

i feel that if this were a simulation then that guy that plays maverick in those movies, you know about whom i'm talking, given that his unnamed and therefore unactionable affiliated religious organization's super-duper powers center is trying way hard to prove a point, that guy would have developed the ability to fly like neo and bend the artificial construct that we think of as time and space, and he'd already be telling us all about it. that ain't happened. also i believe keanu reeves of all of us would actually innately have this predisposition to superpowers if such actually existed, but keanu being keanu, he'd think it immodest to show off thusly and so we'll never know. keanu can probably fly irl, but he's just as happy taking a bus, because someone on that bus might need his help like in that one movie where he takes that bus.

idk where i'm going with this but it's more that likely about how we're blessed to live in the era of keanu than about simulation theory.

cyberpunk2077 players are blessed and cursed to live in both

who the fuck runs the simulation then?

What is their purpose of existence?

It's run by turtles. Who learned to program. Their purpose is to move fast (fast for turtles, that is) and break things.

why they making me work this shit job, fucking turtle shit heads

Did you miss the "break things" part?

oh yeah, sorry

It's run by turtles. Who learned to program. Their purpose is to move fast (fast for turtles, that is) and break things.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless)

TO SQUARE
REPEAT 4 [FORWARD 50 RIGHT 90]
END

i feel that if this were a simulation then that guy that plays maverick in those movies, you know about whom i'm talking, given that his unnamed and therefore unactionable affiliated religious organization's super-duper powers center is trying way hard to prove a point, that guy would have developed the ability to fly like neo and bend the artificial construct that we think of as time and space, and he'd already be telling us all about it. that ain't happened. also i believe keanu reeves of all of us would actually innately have this predisposition to superpowers if such actually existed, but keanu being keanu, he'd think it immodest to show off thusly and so we'll never know. keanu can probably fly irl, but he's just as happy taking a bus, because someone on that bus might need his help like in that one movie where he takes that bus.

idk where i'm going with this but it's more that likely about how we're blessed to live in the era of keanu than about simulation theory.

― slugbuggy

i have good news slugbuggy there is a way to develop the ability to fly like neo

it's called estrogen

(if people are going to call me a social contagion i'm going to fucking _earn_ the title)