Is our world a simulation?

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Is our world a simulation?

#1  Postby beautifuljose » Nov 05, 2018 9:25 am

Howdy, people. I want to discuss such a thing as "Is our world a simulation?". Recently I was listening to E.Musk interview at Joe Rogan Experience and he told such an interesting thing that simulation is a squeeze of everything interesting. When we create a game we put just an interesting stuff inside. What if our life was built by the same principles?
Also, I guess a lot of you have heard about quantum physics experiment on Observer effect. If no - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) check it at wiki.

Don't you think that it could be a true or it is just people's desire to believe in everything what is mystical?
bigthink.com/paul-ratner/10-benefits-of-atheism - benefits of atheism
User avatar
beautifuljose
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Josephine
Posts: 2
Age: 39
Female

Country: USA
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#2  Postby felltoearth » Nov 05, 2018 1:16 pm

IIRC there is already a thread on this.

ETA here it is. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 54994.html

Also, welcome!
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 9562
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#3  Postby TopCat » Nov 05, 2018 1:23 pm

Please, no more videos on a glitch in the matrix...
TopCat
 
Posts: 625
Age: 56
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#4  Postby hackenslash » Nov 05, 2018 1:37 pm

beautifuljose wrote:Howdy, people. I want to discuss such a thing as "Is our world a simulation?". Recently I was listening to E.Musk interview at Joe Rogan Experience and he told such an interesting thing that simulation is a squeeze of everything interesting. When we create a game we put just an interesting stuff inside. What if our life was built by the same principles?
Also, I guess a lot of you have heard about quantum physics experiment on Observer effect. If no - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) check it at wiki.

Don't you think that it could be a true or it is just people's desire to believe in everything what is mystical?


No, no, no, no, no.

It saddens me that so many get the observer effect and its implications so badly wrong. There's nothing mysterious about it, and it doesn't require consciousness in any way.

If you really want to know what's going on with the observer, you can do worse than this piece:

Did You See That?!!

Edit: Bugger, just noticed that LaTeX has stopped working. I'll get it fixed.

ETA2: Fixeded.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21366
Age: 49
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#5  Postby MarkS » Nov 05, 2018 11:41 pm

When someone says this I always think "a simulation of what?"
“Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'.”
User avatar
MarkS
 
Posts: 301
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#6  Postby laklak » Nov 06, 2018 12:37 am

If this were a simulation then I'd obviously be the simulator, since I'm conscious and y'all aren't. If I were the simulator I wouldn't be sitting here in a little house in Florida, I'd be emperor of the fucking universe. Since I'm not emperor of the fucking universe this isn't a simulation.

Q.E.D.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 18468
Age: 64
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#7  Postby gobshite » Nov 06, 2018 12:39 am

Depends if it's a Microsoft simulation (uses public for beta testing), or a more rigorous one. If it was a Microsoft product we could expect to wake up to a solid blue colour pervading throughout every now and then.
gobshite
 
Posts: 43

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#8  Postby beautifuljose » Nov 06, 2018 9:02 am

felltoearth wrote:IIRC there is already a thread on this.

ETA here it is. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 54994.html

Also, welcome!


woops, sorry for createing duplicate. Anyway glad to see so many people already responded.

I also don't understand people being crazy about Observer Effect Phenomenon, it's as pointless as to ask is paperhelp.org good ?
I guess that's only because people love everything mysterious

There is science
There are facts
Last edited by beautifuljose on Nov 06, 2018 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bigthink.com/paul-ratner/10-benefits-of-atheism - benefits of atheism
User avatar
beautifuljose
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Josephine
Posts: 2
Age: 39
Female

Country: USA
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#9  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 06, 2018 9:11 am

MarkS wrote:When someone says this I always think "a simulation of what?"


So right. It's very similar (!) (or even identical) to the problem in asking what can be simulated. Of course, one can imagine a 'simulator' that can simulate anything, but the kind of simulation we know about requires computation, and we know something about the limits of what can be computed in real time. Yeah, we can speculate if there is some kind of time other than 'real time', or computers unimaginably more powerful than the ones we know about. Maybe even omniscient and omnipotent computers. What a mind-fuck.

It just goes on and on. The question is not worth entertaining until after thinking about specifying 'simulation' more precisely. We see that the question usually reduces to asking, "Is reality really real? Really-o, truly-o?"

Van Morrison sang (I think in "Moonshine Whiskey", from "Tupelo Honey"): "and it's really real, the way I feel, lord have mercy".
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26756
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#10  Postby GrahamH » Nov 06, 2018 9:58 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
MarkS wrote:When someone says this I always think "a simulation of what?"


So right. It's very similar (!) (or even identical) to the problem in asking what can be simulated. Of course, one can imagine a 'simulator' that can simulate anything, but the kind of simulation we know about requires computation, and we know something about the limits of what can be computed in real time.


True, but that may only be a problem of resources and/or patience. We have no idea about what resources might be available. A simulation doesn't need realtime, it will use simulation time (it will simulate the passage of time).


We might agree that any level of simulated detail requires more resource than a real world at that detail. You need more than 100 atoms to simulate 100 atoms. You can simulate simplified aggregates with fewer resources. But we don't know anything about relative level of detail. It seems our universe has limits to the detail, quantised energy levels, Planck scale etc.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#11  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2018 10:20 am

Simulations, computer language compilers and spoken languages are all emergent phenomena. It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects: they are demonstrably not the 'fundamental' objects of a physical universe.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5233
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#12  Postby GrahamH » Nov 06, 2018 10:26 am

newolder wrote:Simulations, computer language compilers and spoken languages are all emergent phenomena. It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects: they are demonstrably not the 'fundamental' objects of a physical universe.


What a strange statement to make. WHo do you think is suggesting otherwise. It's a given. The proposition discussed is whether what we take to be a physical universe is in fact a simulation of one. If it's a simulation there are no "fundamental objects" in it, only representations that seem to be fundamental.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#13  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2018 10:38 am

GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:Simulations, computer language compilers and spoken languages are all emergent phenomena. It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects: they are demonstrably not the 'fundamental' objects of a physical universe.


What a strange statement to make. WHo do you think is suggesting otherwise. It's a given. The proposition discussed is whether what we take to be a physical universe is in fact a simulation of one. If it's a simulation there are no "fundamental objects" in it, only representations that seem to be fundamental.

What a strange reply. If this were a simulation it would require a substrate. For all the same reasoning that produced the conclusion that we are simulants, that substrate would be a simulation at the "next level" and it would be simulations all the way up - ad absurdum.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5233
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#14  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 06, 2018 10:50 am

GrahamH wrote:True, but that may only be a problem of resources and/or patience. We have no idea about what resources might be available. A simulation doesn't need realtime, it will use simulation time (it will simulate the passage of time).


We might agree that any level of simulated detail requires more resource than a real world at that detail. You need more than 100 atoms to simulate 100 atoms. You can simulate simplified aggregates with fewer resources. But we don't know anything about relative level of detail. It seems our universe has limits to the detail, quantised energy levels, Planck scale etc.


Oh, shut up. I'm not interested in your speculations. That isn't even philosophy. I said the whole point was to specify what is denoted by 'simulation'? Have you done that? No. All you've done is transfer the problem to 'resources'. Is that philosophy? Not on your tintype.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Nov 06, 2018 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26756
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#15  Postby GrahamH » Nov 06, 2018 10:52 am

newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:Simulations, computer language compilers and spoken languages are all emergent phenomena. It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects: they are demonstrably not the 'fundamental' objects of a physical universe.


What a strange statement to make. WHo do you think is suggesting otherwise. It's a given. The proposition discussed is whether what we take to be a physical universe is in fact a simulation of one. If it's a simulation there are no "fundamental objects" in it, only representations that seem to be fundamental.

What a strange reply. If this were a simulation it would require a substrate. For all the same reasoning that produced the conclusion that we are simulants, that substrate would be a simulation at the "next level" and it would be simulations all the way up - ad absurdum.


So there is a substrate, so what? The substrate isn't inside the simulation. How do you get to "simulations all the way up"?


" It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects". Yes of course, but so what?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#16  Postby GrahamH » Nov 06, 2018 10:53 am

Cito di Pense wrote:Oh, shut up. I'm not interested in your speculations.


Having a bad day?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#17  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 06, 2018 10:54 am

GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:Simulations, computer language compilers and spoken languages are all emergent phenomena. It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects: they are demonstrably not the 'fundamental' objects of a physical universe.


What a strange statement to make. WHo do you think is suggesting otherwise. It's a given. The proposition discussed is whether what we take to be a physical universe is in fact a simulation of one. If it's a simulation there are no "fundamental objects" in it, only representations that seem to be fundamental.

What a strange reply. If this were a simulation it would require a substrate. For all the same reasoning that produced the conclusion that we are simulants, that substrate would be a simulation at the "next level" and it would be simulations all the way up - ad absurdum.


So there is a substrate, so what? The substrate isn't inside the simulation. How do you get to "simulations all the way up"?


" It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects". Yes of course, but so what?


What, Graham? Did you just pull a substrate out of your ass? All you can manage is a hierarchy of substrates, whatever the fuck that is. Go home on this one, until you can specify 'simulation' in some other terms than 'simulation on a substrate of simulation'. That's a recursive definition, OK?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26756
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#18  Postby GrahamH » Nov 06, 2018 11:04 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:

What a strange statement to make. WHo do you think is suggesting otherwise. It's a given. The proposition discussed is whether what we take to be a physical universe is in fact a simulation of one. If it's a simulation there are no "fundamental objects" in it, only representations that seem to be fundamental.

What a strange reply. If this were a simulation it would require a substrate. For all the same reasoning that produced the conclusion that we are simulants, that substrate would be a simulation at the "next level" and it would be simulations all the way up - ad absurdum.


So there is a substrate, so what? The substrate isn't inside the simulation. How do you get to "simulations all the way up"?


" It is not the case that simulations are 'fundamental' objects". Yes of course, but so what?


What, Graham? Did you just pull a substrate out of your ass? All you can manage is a hierarchy of substrates, whatever the fuck that is. Go home on this one, until you can specify 'simulation' in some other terms than 'simulation on a substrate of simulation'. That's a recursive definition, OK?


What? Did you want define simulation in terms of simulations?. Now that's a recursive definition.
We use physical substrates to run simulations. We can't tell if those substrates are "fundamental" but, as ever, we are staring in the midst of something that at least gives us something to think about. We don't need to, and we are unable to, start with fundamentals. All I'm saying there is we don't have to assume a recursive definition, either simulations all the way down or substrates all the way down. Leave that metaphysical foundation crap to jamest.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#19  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 06, 2018 11:09 am

GrahamH wrote:We use physical substrates to run simulations. We can't tell if those substrates are "fundamental


Oh, fine. Now you have to specify 'fundamental' into the bargain. If there's a 'fundamental', what is its 'substrate', other than 'nothing'? It's the same problem as 'simulation', but now you're calling it 'substrate'. Just stop bullshitting, Graham. We use only one 'substrate' to simulate. Did you want to speculate about other 'kinds'?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26756
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#20  Postby GrahamH » Nov 06, 2018 11:24 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:We use physical substrates to run simulations. We can't tell if those substrates are "fundamental


Oh, fine. Now you have to specify 'fundamental' into the bargain. If there's a 'fundamental', what is its 'substrate', other than 'nothing'? It's the same problem as 'simulation', but now you're calling it 'substrate'. Just stop bullshitting, Graham. We use only one 'substrate' to simulate. Did you want to speculate about other 'kinds'?


Why are you going on about "fundamental" anything or "substrate"? newolder brought up both. I don't object if either of you want to say
Cito di Pense wrote:We use only one 'substrate' to simulate
or
newolder wrote:If this were a simulation it would require a substrate.

but it doesn't seem useful to the highly abstract topic "is our world a simulation?"
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Next

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest