Are we living in the matrix?

[rickolasnice]

I politely request everyone ignore methamaniac in this thread.

I've said in another thread i like the idea of a "programmer".. a being that programmed the laws of the universe and then pressed play..

I don't believe it.. but it's a fun thought.

But anyway-

I read a theory that the chances of the reality we see being a simulation is pretty high..

ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs

 

[harmacologist]

unfortunately not.

 

[ForEverAfter]

In terms of cybernetics, the "best design" for a robot would be one that could improve upon itself. The same goes for Artificial Intelligence. Mankind is limited, cognitively, in terms of brain size/structure. So, we attempt to create machines that can function beyond our limitations. Super computers capable of highly complex, split-second, calculations. We can't infinitely increase the size of a brain, but we can - theoretically - infinitely increase the size of a processor. Once/If we manage to create a machine that is capable of reprogramming and rebuilding itself, we will have - essentially - created "evolution".

Therefore: creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
(Procreation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, either.)

The nature of evolution does not disallow for "intelligent design", unless you're wearing blinders.

Everything within, and beyond, the universe is ouroboros.

...

I read a theory that the chances of the reality we see being a simulation is pretty high..

The abstract that you posted indicated nothing about probability, whatsoever. The three options are not "equally likely". Placing odds on something like that is ludicrous.

any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history

The "simulation"/"programming"/"computer" analogy is being taken too literally, there. I'm not talking about a simulation. I'm talking about the universe, and beyond, giving birth to itself... It seems strange, don't you think, that the Big Bang occurred from nothingness and evolution is getting to a point where highly evolved creatures are dabbling in the creation of evolutionary processes?

(Ouroboros.)

Also - given the vastness of the known universe - why does it have to be humans, or direct descendants of humans (posthumans)? Nobody can say with any certainty that it's "extremely unlikely" a highly evolved posthuman/alien race would intentionally create the universe.

The whole Asimov fear-mongering nonsense about the consequences of "playing God" are preventing us from doing it at the moment. But, only time will tell... Say, perhaps, "we" (or descendants of another race) come to realize that it has to be done, to avoid a paradox occurring. Say, we come to realize - through our highly enlightened perspective of the nature of existence - that it already has happened an infinite number of times?

Say the universe continues to evolve until it becomes God.

we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation

This is no simulation. I was using A.I. purely for analogical purposes.

I've said in another thread i like the idea of a "programmer".. a being that programmed the laws of the universe and then pressed play..

Again, a bit too literal.

What if the universe is it's own "programmer"? The idea of a creator, separate from the universe (and beyond) only raises more questions. Where did the creator come from?

...

I'm watching the youtube link...

The 3 option theory, although a tad too literal, stands up quite well... I see what you mean now when you said "highly probable". Since there is no reason to assume that option 1 or option 2 are true (we have only the human race to observe, after all) the 3rd option is the most viable, logically. But not the most probable. There are no determinants for probability from a scientific/ mathematical perspective.

I didn't finish the video. It's not offering me any new information.

Fractal algorithms are rudimentary "evolutionary processes" in the sense that the universe, itself, is an infinitely complex fractal. A basic fractal, being - very simply - a pattern that changes according to a pattern. Mutation and cell division are fractals. Evolution and the universe (evolution is the universe) are infinitely layered fractals. (Patterns changing according to patterns changing according to patterns changing... ad infinitum.)

 

[methamaniac]

You like the idea of a programmer but dont think there is one.
obviously you see design
if you are just an illusion how would u know?
Ie
Better yet how would prove you weren't
"Ghost dont exist says a ghost"
How the heck could you trust senses

 

[ForEverAfter]

We moved here to get away from you.

If you're going to post in this thread, I'm not going to contribute any more.

Same goes for the entire sub-forum. You are ruining P&S.

From the other thread:

Why do I have to struggle to read every single one of your posts? Can't you take a bit of extra time to check your spelling/grammar/coherency, as a basic courtesy?

You like the idea of a programmer but dont think there is one.
obviously you see design
if you are are just an illusion how would know?
Ie
Better het how would prove you weren't
"Ghost dont exist says a ghost"
How the heck could you trust senses

I would redirect you to Buddha and existentialism, but you've clearly established that you're not willing to do any research or educate yourself in any way... so, what's the point?

Better het how would prove you weren't

How long would it take you to make your sentences easier to read?

It's rude, what you're doing.

 

[rickolasnice]

The "simulation"/"programming"/"computer" analogy is being taken too literally, there. I'm not talking about a simulation. I'm talking about the universe, and beyond, giving birth to itself... It seems strange, don't you think, that the Big Bang occurred from nothingness and evolution is getting to a point where highly evolved creatures are dabbling in the creation of evolutionary processes?

I know..

No, i don't.. I think it's inevitable.. but isn't that what the paper is getting at? A universe in which it creates others by simulating itself?

(Ouroboros.)

Also - given the vastness of the known universe - why does it have to be humans, or direct descendants of humans (posthumans)? Nobody can say with any certainty that it's "extremely unlikely" a highly evolved posthuman/alien race would intentionally create the universe.

It doesn't.. you're basing a lot of assumptions on a very small abstract.

Again, a bit too literal.

I wasn't expanding on your idea directly.. calm down.. it was a tangent off a tangent.

What if the universe is it's own "programmer"? The idea of a creator, separate from the universe (and beyond) only raises more questions. Where did the creator come from?

I said I didn't believe it.. that it was a fun thought.

But judging from your previous posts I'm pretty sure you do believe in a creator..

I apologise for using the term "highly likely"..

I started a new thread with my post.. as to not derail this one Fancy moving your post over there and deleting it from here? I'll do the same

Will read the rest later

 

[methamaniac]

Forever,
Peace then

Have fun posting to yourself
ps how can an illusion ever prove their an illusion
give it up

 

[ForEverAfter]

isn't that what the paper is getting at? A universe in which it creates others by simulating itself?

(Ouroboros.)

That isn't ouroboros. Ouroboros is a snake biting it's own tail. What you're describing is a snake biting another snake's tail.

It doesn't.. you're basing a lot of assumptions on a very small abstract.

The abstract was misleading.

calm down

I'm tired of people telling me to calm down, for no reason.
You quoted "Again, a bit too literal."
[sarcasm]Wow, I'm out of control...
Somebody sedate me![/sarcasm]

I said I didn't believe it.. that it was a fun thought.

I know what you said. You don't have to repeat/defend yourself.

I apologise for using the term "highly likely"..

Yeah, well, you'd better be sorry. Or I'll rip your FUCKING tits OFF and make them into EAR MUFFS!

Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean.

*twitch*

 

[What 23]

What the heck did I miss?

Are we living in the Matrix? I've definitely considered this. I've been positive it is something more or less like it. Right now I lack the processing to grasp it, in any sense enough to add to this.

I seem to remember when I have somewhat grasped the ideas I've come to, that it goes on, and on. Or I have an idea that it seems it should. That if it is simulated, there is no "getting out". And that going deeper into the simulation, creating our own, is essentially the same as getting out of it... In some way. But I don't know.

Err..

 

[.:Holy::Toast:.]

People have been considering this topic for a very long time.
Perhaps not even the matrix, but the fact that we are unable to actually determine if our sense reality is actually real.
Our senses deceive us all the time, how are we able to trust them?
Descartes tackles this very scenario.
To say it's a computer simulation makes it pretty unlikely, imo as soon as you begin specifying the nature of the non existent reality it becomes more unlikely.
His saying "I think, therefore I am" is very infamous for this scenario.
When it comes down to it you can't be sure anything external to your mind is real.
You may not be able to sense your mind but it boggles my mind to much to ponder the scenario of even your own existence being questioned.
I mean if you go through an entire life and the existence of your mind turns out to be a great deception, there had to have been something to have been deceived.

 

[ForEverAfter]

To say it's a computer simulation makes it pretty unlikely, imo as soon as you begin specifying the nature of the non existent reality it becomes more unlikely.

Yep. It's like drawing a picture of God.

it boggles my mind to much to ponder the scenario of even your own existence being questioned. I mean if you go through an entire life and the existence of your mind turns out to be a great deception, there had to have been something to have been deceived.

It is possible to maintain lucidity in dream states, and understand that you exist beyond the dream.

 

[L2R]

this thread has reminded me of many discussion points, not the least of which is roko's basilisk

WARNING: Reading this article may commit you to an eternity of suffering and torment.

Slender Man. Smile Dog. Goatse. These are some of the urban legends spawned by the Internet. Yet none is as all-powerful and threatening as Roko’s Basilisk. For Roko’s Basilisk is an evil, godlike form of artificial intelligence, so dangerous that if you see it, or even think about it too hard, you will spend the rest of eternity screaming in its torture chamber. It's like the videotape in The Ring. Even death is no escape, for if you die, Roko’s Basilisk will resurrect you and begin the torture again.


Are you sure you want to keep reading?
.....

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...errifying_thought_experiment_of_all_time.html

enjoy

 

[24:35]

^
http://www.bestlibraryspot.net/horror/The_Jaunt/1877.html

 

[rickolasnice]

That isn't ouroboros. Ouroboros is a snake biting it's own tail. What you're describing is a snake biting another snake's tail.

That was accidentally left in my part of the post during the multi-quote reply.. ! apologise.

In terms of cybernetics, the "best design" for a robot would be one that could improve upon itself. The same goes for Artificial Intelligence

You mean like Lee Smolins theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin#Cosmological_natural_selection

(One of my favourites)

 

[rickolasnice]

To say it's a computer simulation makes it pretty unlikely, imo as soon as you begin specifying the nature of the non existent reality it becomes more unlikely.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Lovecraft]

I think it's fascinating that depending on the type of sense organs you are perceiving through, whether it be you're a bug or a human, your "reality" is vastly different. The other thing interesting is that physics tell us that the universe is mostly space, and that when they're super-duper magnified, the particles making up every solid object have distances between them comparable to the distances between stars. Yet, we aren't able to perceive this "reality" through our ordinary senses.

 

[rickolasnice]

I've too found that interesting.. I've always wondered what reality would be like if you could shrink down to the planck length and beyond..

Could it be there there is essentially another universe within atomic particles? Or maybe even within the subatomic particles that make them?

Then I wonder what it'd be like to grow so that the universe would be the size of an atom.. would there be another universe out there? Made of billions of atomic universes?

Pretty much russian doll theory.. although when i first thought of it i was thought i was being really clever.. was years before i realised my idea was not an original

 

[Lovecraft]

I've too found that interesting.. I've always wondered what reality would be like if you could shrink down to the planck length and beyond..

Could it be there there is essentially another universe within atomic particles? Or maybe even within the subatomic particles that make them?

Then I wonder what it'd be like to grow so that the universe would be the size of an atom.. would there be another universe out there? Made of billions of atomic universes?

Pretty much russian doll theory.. although when i first thought of it i was thought i was being really clever.. was years before i realised my idea was not an original

I think you may be onto something.

 

[Deleted member 210577]

I've too found that interesting.. I've always wondered what reality would be like if you could shrink down to the planck length and beyond..

The point about scale raised by lovecraft is good to contemplate on. There's a video called "The powers of ten", quite old, but highlights scale quite nicely.. and it reveals that actually it oscillates as you move through the spatial scale/as your point of perspective changes. Empty space.. to busy space.. to empty space.. to busy space. Worth watching.

It's all about your point of reference though. How do you define a length/dimension? You can only define it by comparison to another object. So actually, really, there is no such thing as distance.

This is better understood by contemplating what motion is. The same thing applies. If you only had one particle in existence in empty space, it could be moving at a million miles per second in one direction but without another point to compare it to it does not appear to move at all. Motion, dimension, time.. all these only exist when in relation to other parts. So.. when taken in totality.. do they actually exist at all?


I definitely subscribe to the idea that there is no time, motion, or distance.. that it is all a mirage, a projection, maya, matrix etc.

 

[Lovecraft]

It's all about your point of reference though. How do you define a length/dimension? You can only define it by comparison to another object. So actually, really, there is no such thing as distance.

This is better understood by contemplating what motion is. The same thing applies. If you only had one particle in existence in empty space, it could be moving at a million miles per second in one direction but without another point to compare it to it does not appear to move at all. Motion, dimension, time.. all these only exist when in relation to other parts. So.. when taken in totality.. do they actually exist at all?


I definitely subscribe to the idea that there is no time, motion, or distance.. that it is all a mirage, a projection, maya, matrix etc.

A similar question can be asked if you had only two particles in space: say one is moving away from the other. You wouldn't know which one of them is actually moving unless you also had a third particle as a reference point.