simulation theory

And programs really are instructions literally. They're instructions for the processor.

You can see this happening when you hack games for example using OllyDbg for example - when you go in and try to crack the code you see it is a really long and complicated list of steps that are done one at a time. They're just done very fast so that it looks realtime but it's actually a series of steps, like a film.

It is such that if you use a debugger to find the exact moment in code where something happens, for example when you shoot and it takes one ammo away, you can put a breakpoint so that the program halts when you shoot and you can find by a process of elimination the exact instruction that subtracts one ammo and change the program so it jumps over that, letting you have infinite ammo.
 
Poetic Justice said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Feeling is the root of consciousness and is more than the sum of neurons firing pain or pleasure responses.
Consciousness arises from emotions which are feelings rarefied from sensory sensation.
It is materialism plus, all the arguments of a computer simulation existence depend on a materialistic reductionist view of reality, for all its heady referencing to sub atomic philosophy and allusions to a theory of everything, it is pallidly Newtonian and atomistic.
 
A program can be made to that when x happens it fits perfectly into place and that you are told the greatest thing ever has happened to you. The meaning of your existence has been filled.
 
sprinkles said:
A program is essentially a set of instructions.

A program is not so much a thing that exists and does stuff. A program is a list of stuff to be done by something else.
Click to expand...

I don't see a that this causes a problem for the theory or why it means we wouldn't be able to feel.

Consciousness arises out of a complex series of computations carried out by the synapses firing in a certain pattern. Recently, quantum vibrations have been found in the microtubules in our brains allowing our brains to act like quantum computers. Therefore quantum computers can clearly generate the subjective experience of feelings.

If an advanced race built a quantum computer of extreme complexity they could certainly create a simulation real enough to fool entities which have never known anything different

I don't think its a question of whether or not it is possible. The evidence is clearly in favour of it being so. The question is whether or not it actually happened. I think the probability argument in my op is highly compelling. Btw I hope you noticed I was being staggeringly conservative in my estimate of the odds
 
Poetic Justice said:
I don't see a that this causes a problem for the theory or why it means we wouldn't be able to feel.

Consciousness arises out of a complex series of computations carried out by the synapses firing in a certain pattern. Recently, quantum vibrations have been found in the microtubules in our brains allowing our brains to act like quantum computers. Therefore quantum computers can clearly generate the subjective experience of feelings.

If an advanced race built a quantum computer of extreme complexity they could certainly create a simulation real enough to fool entities which have never known anything different

I don't think its a question of whether or not it is possible. The evidence is clearly in favour of it being so. The question is whether or not it actually happened. I think the probability argument in my op is highly compelling. Btw I hope you noticed I was being staggeringly conservative in my estimate of the odds
Click to expand...

Computers and programs are very different things.
 
I am suggesting that things like ghosts and dreams are bleed through from other simulated universes being run on the same processor. Deja vu is you running into an alternate version of yourself when an error happens through processing
 
Computer in a computer in a computer.

Computerception.

[video=youtube;lB684ym3QY4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB684ym3QY4[/video]
 
sprinkles said:
Computer in a computer in a computer.

Computerception.

[video=youtube;lB684ym3QY4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB684ym3QY4[/video]
Click to expand...

Ha! Wow.
 
Poetic Justice said:
It has been proven that our reality is pixelated like a computer game

It has been proven that what we perceive as objective reality only really exists while we are observing it, like a computer game

It has been proven that our universe has a fixed number of possible states, making it computable, like a computer game

It should therefore be possible to create our universe inside a computer complete with simulated consciousness.

If just one civilisation per galaxy reaches the point of development where they can create these simulations, then there would be hundreds of billions of simulated universes per real universe.

That's if there's only one per galaxy. That's if they only create one simulation each. That's if the observable universe is all there is.

One real universe per countless billions or trillions of simulated universes

What are the odds we live in the real one?

Scared yet?
Click to expand...
not at all,seeing as though there is no choice in the matter and i am still predisposed with human desires to have life not be mundane its not very scary
 
Poetic Justice said:
It has been proven that our reality is pixelated like a computer game
Click to expand...

Not true. Computers are defined over a set of functions called the computable functions. But there is also a universe of functions that are non computer; that can not be defined on a computer. If our universe is a computer simulation, where does this universe of functions come from?

Poetic Justice said:
It has been proven that what we perceive as objective reality only really exists while we are observing it, like a computer game
Click to expand...

Again, this is not so obvious. Copenhagens interpretation requires that quantum particles violate the laws of logic. Which means either laws of logic themselves are hopelessly flawed; a bold statement that requires great care in explaining, or Copenhagens interpretation is wrong.

Poetic Justice said:
It has been proven that our universe has a fixed number of possible states, making it computable, like a computer game
Click to expand...

Not true. The notion of a state is a tool Newton used to explain the laws of physics. But this notion is outdated because it was not capable of explaining all the complexity we see in the universe.

So in short, no. I disagree with everything you have said.
 
Last edited:
What created the first computer from which all other computers were constructed in a top-down fashion?
 
wolly.green said:
Not true. Computers are defined over a set of functions called the computable functions. But there is also a universe of functions that are non computer; that can not be defined on a computer. If our universe is a computer simulation, where does this universe of functions come from?
Click to expand...
Im not sure what you are saying here. what is this universe of functions that are non computer youre talking about?
wolly.green said:
Again, this is not so obvious. Copenhagens interpretation requires that quantum particles violate the laws of logic. Which means either laws of logic themselves are hopelessly flawed; a bold statement that requires great care in explaining, or Copenhagens interpretation is wrong.
Click to expand...
The laws of logic are hopelessly flawed and the copenhagen interpretation is also wrong or incomplete. I think both of these things are true so I dont see a problem here
wolly.green said:
Not true. The notion of a state is a tool Newton used to explain the laws of physics. But this notion is outdated because it was not capable of explaining all the complexity we see in the universe.
Click to expand...
Youre assuming Im using an outdated method when really im using an up to date method. Quantum itself refers to the discreet "packets" of information/energy that our universe is made of. if it is made of a set number of packets with no smaller chunks, which it apparently is, then it has a fixed number of states and is therefore computable. Nothing to do with newton my friend
wolly.green said:
So in short, no. I disagree with everything you have said.
Click to expand...
hmmm
 
My man Elon.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top