simulation theory

Poetic Justice said:
Im not sure what you are saying here. what is this universe of functions that are non computer youre talking about
Click to expand...

Exactly. "The universe is a simulation" is like saying "god did it". It does nothing but raise more questions.

Poetic Justice said:
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
Click to expand...

Then how do you know something only exists when we are looking? This idea relies on Copenhagen interpretation.

Poetic Justice said:
Youre assuming Im using an outdated method when really im using an up to date method.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

hmmm
Click to expand...

Are you a reductionist? Quanta is a model made by humans. Its impossible to derive the properties of all physical objects from a single model; this very notion is Newtonian and therefore outdated.
 
We struggle with definitions such as real and fake - of things modeled in the imagination of the
human mind. If I were to define real or natural, it would be things less disturbed by processes of a
higher complexity. Life can be such a complexity compared to what we define as the non-living.
The human mind - the highest complexity we're aware of - could not fathom nor accept
the idea that a higher power is the creator and destroyer of the reality we were given.

My intuition leads me to believe there is infinite beyond and beneath us. And what's real or less
real, is that which (a/e)ffects us more or less respectively. With such a definition, there is endless
illusion, and very finite that is real. What's real is within the scope of our perception,
comprehension, and ultimately the grasp of our minds.

If simulation requires the concept of intention as we know it, then only a human could simulate -
an egotistical assertion.
 
It isn't unheard of for the world as we see it to be described by our current technology, be it the world as some ceramics craft, with god as the smith, or how time and fate was spun in Greek mythology. Not to take away from a simulation theory, I just find it interesting how this pattern continue.
 
ruji said:
We struggle with definitions such as real and fake - of things modeled in the imagination of the
human mind. If I were to define real or natural, it would be things less disturbed by processes of a
higher complexity. Life can be such a complexity compared to what we define as the non-living.
The human mind - the highest complexity we're aware of - could not fathom nor accept
the idea that a higher power is the creator and destroyer of the reality we were given.

My intuition leads me to believe there is infinite beyond and beneath us. And what's real or less
real, is that which (a/e)ffects us more or less respectively. With such a definition, there is endless
illusion, and very finite that is real. What's real is within the scope of our perception,
comprehension, and ultimately the grasp of our minds.

If simulation requires the concept of intention as we know it, then only a human could simulate -
an egotistical assertion.
Click to expand...

Actually, we can know more than we perceive. There are plenty of examples of this in physics. The theory of relativity explains things we can perceive, and predicts things we can not; even in principle. Your view is known as logical positivism, refuted by Karl Popper over 50 years ago.
 
wolly.green said:
Actually, we can know more than we perceive. There are plenty of examples of this in physics. The theory of relativity explains things we can perceive, and predicts things we can not; even in principle. Your view is known as logical positivism, refuted by Karl Popper over 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
I'm not limiting perception as something you can see
 
ruji said:
Within the context of your correction, yes. However, I avoid using the word "know" when I want to make the point that perception comes before knowledge.
Click to expand...

In this case, how do you perceive without observing? The reason I ask is because it is possible to know something without observation.
 
The small but real chance that I get to leave this place behind and go somewhere cooler is pretty much removing any fear I might have.
 
ruji said:
We struggle with definitions such as real and fake - of things modeled in the imagination of the
human mind. If I were to define real or natural, it would be things less disturbed by processes of a
higher complexity. Life can be such a complexity compared to what we define as the non-living.
The human mind - the highest complexity we're aware of - could not fathom nor accept
the idea that a higher power is the creator and destroyer of the reality we were given.

My intuition leads me to believe there is infinite beyond and beneath us. And what's real or less
real, is that which (a/e)ffects us more or less respectively. With such a definition, there is endless
illusion, and very finite that is real. What's real is within the scope of our perception,
comprehension, and ultimately the grasp of our minds.

If simulation requires the concept of intention as we know it, then only a human could simulate -
an egotistical assertion.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You put on your thinking cap.
 
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...

Who says the feelings aren't part of the instructions? Or a reaction by what is following them?
 
Eventhorizon said:
As time has gone on, the data has only continued to stack up on the simulated reality side of things.
It's doubtful we will ever be able to prove it with no doubt. Even if we do the hosts of the stimulation would like end it at that point and reset to a previous date before that happened.

https://www.google.com/amp/gizmodo....ght-actually-be-a-virtual-real-1665353513/amp
Click to expand...

This theory has the same flaw as the theory that says "god did it". It doesn't answer any questions, it just poses more. A good theory NEVER leaves these sorts of gaps. And when a person eventually notice a gap, the theory is quickly overturned and replaced by a new one.
 
wolly.green said:
This theory has the same flaw as the theory that says "god did it". It doesn't answer any questions, it just poses more. A good theory NEVER leaves these sorts of gaps. And when somebody notices a gap, the theory is over turned and a new one created.
Click to expand...
It fits very well. Like a key in a lock.
Still, it's not been proven yet.
 
wolly.green said:
So does the theory that "god did it". "A key in a lock" is a terrible standard to judge the quality of a theory by.
Click to expand...
We need to define "God". Because if all it takes to be a God is to create a simulated reality, our world is currently full of gods.
 
Eventhorizon said:
We need to define "God". Because if all it takes to be a God is to create a simulated reality, our world is currently full of gods.
Click to expand...

This assumes reality is a simulation. If reality is not a simulation, your argument does not follow. The world is NOT full of gods.
 
wolly.green said:
This assumes reality is a simulation. If reality is not a simulation, your argument does not follow. The world is NOT full of gods.
Click to expand...
It doesn't assume that. It only assumes that of this reality is real, people here have created simulated realities and can be called gods assuming we have defined what it takes to be a God as such.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Interesting. You put on your thinking cap.
Click to expand...
louis-ck.jpg
 
Eventhorizon said:
It doesn't assume that. It only assumes that of this reality is real, people here have created simulated realities and can be called gods assuming we have defined what it takes to be a God as such.
Click to expand...

This isn't a problem. This just means god is not special like Religious people seem to think. But this is irrelevant. The problem still remains that "god did it" fits like a "lock and key" since any evidence you use to criticize it can be explained away by it: evidence contrary to "god did it" can be dismissed by saying "god did that as well". It's a perfect theory, but with the serious flaw that it can explain everything,and thus explains nothing at all. It's other fatal flaw is that it raises more questions; which a good theory never does. Everything I have said about "god did it" also applies to Simulation Theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top