Jump to content
The Corroboree
Yeti101

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Slocombe said:

Period from the Mid-1980's through mid-1990's represented a mini-awakening to Divine Mother and true God.

 

I would like to hear more about this. It may be why a feminine prescence is so strong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that!

 

3 hours ago, courage said:

 

I love lamp

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Slocombe said:

I didn't say that!

 

 

 

That is so much better than what I was going to say. But yes, you didn't say that. Never let reality get in the way of a good conversation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7j15tXU.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the OP, I feel like the argument he gives for the likelihood of simulation (i.e. that the people-hours which would be spent in simulated realities like our own would vastly outnumber the actual people-hours of realities like our own, so if we are a person living in a reality like this, odds are that it's simulation-reality...or at least that was my take-away, feel free to correct) has a couple of huge assumptions, which he may address further on, but I found him to be such a horrific speaker that I gave up listening after the third try to make it all the way through. Is there a transcript or article that covers the same content? Anyway, it seems to assume that: (1)some more-advanced-than-us society will be capable of simulating reality in a way that is totally believable to its inhabitants, and (2) that such a technologically-advanced-society would actually DO this (why?), and (3) that this simulation has no Neo-equivalent. Philip K. Dick also wrote a great short story called Faith of Our Fathers (I think?) on a similar topic. Anyway, I feel like there are a fuckload of really iffy "ifs" that need to be satisfied to fulfill the conditions which make his version of simulation-reality "more likely".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is a great white of our coastline she is a power animal waking up, still a little confused but doing so well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I went for a swim today and talked to her, I showed her the pride of western australia, the fear of our earth, of humankind, and aboriginal shame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will have a read of that Anodyne just not got my thinking cap on. How about those headphones? Do you want them.

 

 

Edited by courage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a horrific speaker because he answers every question with another iteration of his three scenarios, which are almost the three assumptions you listed anodyne.

 

1. The technology is never developed

2. It is developed but its creators lose interest in it.

3. Creators dont lose interest.

 

It is the third scenario in which he claims we are more likely simulated than not.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, so the basic idea is that if there is any chance *at all* of the tech getting developed & used, then the potential simulated reality/ies would *still* be more likely because of the huge potential numbers involved? Hmm. But how do we judge the probabilities of scenarios 1-3?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a squished bug.

 

So my criticism with what he's saying. Moreso - with how I'm picking up on it.

 

First is that he has no operational order from a proper higher context. Thus he is judging our maturity by technological advancement which is a quality of darkness. Our advancement will come thought spiritual learning and evolution in connection with the Earth and Creator of All. Until then there sure will be a filter on it.

 

Yep get that, you are certain you are unaware of a greater reality. I want to differentiate between the original intentions of the Earth, and the fall from grace. I understand it is a fair call to call our situation a simulation in an unconscious state. But that is what it is.. It still carries our original intention so I say how dare you approach it like that.

 

All three are true. It is up to you what you make of it. The future is a potential.

 

Ancestor simulations.. in Atlantis that is correct the human body was a slave simulation as we took on the burden of the darkness ourselves in an effort that they could be reborn into the light.

 

This promise has been kept, and it may involve moving a large portion of humanity into a greater reality that is true. It involves letting go to sweet surrender.

 

I experience me telling you these words. Prove to me you don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 to the horrific speaker comment.

 

Old mate is boring as fuck! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And love this ace community.

 

Gratitude to one and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what use is there for morality if we live in a simulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DiscoStu said:

what use is there for morality if we live in a simulation?

 

Maybe why in our small frame of reference we think God mustnt be very nice. 

 

Im sure yeti could attest that in philosophy the purpose and method of morality has always been debated even without questioning the reality of reality.

 

Simulation is reality afaic.  its the same to me.  Is subjective reality part of reality?  it is to the subject at least.  No diff in this scenario.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot more about this particular argument can be found here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/ - this includes Bostrom's original article: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html I should have posted that, so that people had the option of not actually having to listen to him :)  There's also sexy-looking maths type stuff!

 

As others' have pointed out, this is his basic thing - at least one of the following are 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.

 

Bostrom's argument is about the probability. In order to smash it entirely, we'd need a reason to say that what he is proposing isn't even possible - but I don't have that answer. Lots of things are possible - but we don't generally worry about that. 

 

Any one of those things are possibly true. He doesn't state it in the paper (I think - too early for reading), but he does say in the video that us reaching post-human level, and being interested in running ancestor simulations boosts the probability of (3). I can't quire articulate it, but I can't help but feel that something is wrong with this line of reasoning. Why would the fact that we did something make it more likely that someone else (or maybe posthuman version of ourselves) has done it already? 

 

And if we are in a simulation, then why would we assume that the chances of reaching post-humanity are the same 'in here' as 'out there'? It would be like a character in a Civilisation game making inferences about history in our world - they would almost certainly get it wrong. 

 

So, the higher the probability of (3), the lower the probability is that we can accurately assign probabilities to (1) and (2). I thinks this indicates a contradiction in the argument. At best, Bostrom is back to odds of 1/3 for each.

 

But, as Anodyne said, how do we know that those are the only 3 options? Assume that lots of things are possible.

 

(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.

(4) we are part of a physical computer run by mice.

(5) we are part of an infinite branching multiverse, where every collapsing waveform births a new world-line.

(6) etc.

.....

(n)

 

If we have n possibilities, and we assign equal probability to each possibility, the bigger n gets, the smaller each individual probability becomes. As n approaches infinity, the probability of each possibility becomes infinitely small. 

 

If anything is possible, then everything is improbable! (Take that Oxford!)

 

 

Regarding what living in a simulation might mean, we already face these problems, this just brings them to our attention. What does life mean in a cold, chaotic and/or mechanistic universe? Do we know that other people are real? Am I real? Is there a creator or other supernatural beings and what (if anything) do they want from me? Do my perceptions tell me anything about the 'real' world?

 

Thunder is right too. I used to think that you had to get your metaphysics right before you could have a chance at being ethical. But I'm no longer so sure of that. Personally, I believe in subjective experience. What is the difference between a perfect illusion of pain, and pain? What is the difference between a perfect illusion of joy, and joy? Not much that I can see - especially if I don't know for sure that it is an illusion. And is justice different if it is a simulation or not? Hurting people would still be causing pain to others - (or to yourself if you don't believe in other people). So I see no good reason to take the possibility of being in a simulation as reason to go crazy, or to abandon morality.

Edited by Yeti101
leaving out words. I'm wrinting this up eslewhere, but don't want to link directly - secret identity and all that :) If I manage to get it anywhere near publication, I'll contact some of you for details so I can put you in the acknowledgements.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yeti101 said:

 

And if we are in a simulation, then why would we assume that the chances of reaching post-humanity are the same 'in here' as 'out there'? It would be like a character in a Civilisation game making inferences about history in our world - they would almost certainly get it wrong. 

 

Nice.  So what Bostrom limits to ancestor simulations (simulations loosely match the programmers actual roots) could just as easily be a multiverse of possibilities including tweaked values that arent even possible in the programmers reality, the old "every possible set of starting conditions in every possible configuration of physical laws".  It would likely fall somewhere between the two, since if you start including every possible universe each running simulations of every possible universe then it gets a bit too LSD.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Yeti101 said:

 

Maybe simulation level civilsation is the end of real history

 

And maybe if simulation is processed in realtime by a computerlike means of limited capacity, it cant keep up with a similation being run within its simulation so for the sim people to reach sim stage would mean the end of their history too, or something like it

 

Maybe in a similar way the universe is incapable of supporting simulation, either because of limits to complexity or information

 

If it isnt the end of time maybe simulation is effectively time travel

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ThunderIdeal said:

Maybe simulation level civilsation is the end of real history

 

And maybe if simulation is processed in realtime by a computerlike means of limited capacity, it cant keep up with a similation being run within its simulation so for the sim people to reach sim stage would mean the end of their history too, or something like it

 

Maybe in a similar way the universe is incapable of supporting simulation, either because of limits to complexity or information

 

If it isnt the end of time maybe simulation is effectively time travel

 

Indeed. Some have speculated that reaching the cilivisation level* of running a simulation would have the simulation you are in switched off. If this is the case, then the near- infinite matryoshka of nested simulations that Bostrom implies might be less likely. I'll have to dig out the paper/reference later, after coffee. 

 

I'm sure I saw something about simulations and the multiverse - but it was the other way round - that if simulations are possible the multiverse isn't. Or something - too early for this.

 

*On a different note, what a mad Wonder for a Civ game: Constructing the Ancestor Simulation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here goes.  i sometimes toy with the idea that the order of the universe is guided by something more than physical laws acting on energy, an information element (but not the kind of information referred to by physicists).  well i won't go on about that, it's a problematic idea, but on the topic of information, would anyone want to actually simulate every.single.physical.law acting on every.single.bit.of.energy when the right maths could achieve the same at a fraction of the cost?  fractals m'dear, you may find some experts would suggest that visual reality (or whatever it is!!) could be produced at a fraction of the information using fractals.  i'm not going to bang on about fractals because you either know what i mean or you don't.

 

ok there are two obvious precedents for computer worlds which correlate to possible advanced versions: a computer game (a world which ultimately presents a believable surface for the benefit of its players or lets stay brains in jars) and computer simulation of physics ala evolution of galaxies, black holes, supercomputer stuff (ultimately a depiction of an objective landscape).  ok neither are ACTUALLY entire worlds but approximations intended for specific ends.

 

right so i'll split my words between the two scenarios although there might be crossover, whatever. 

 

brain in a jar, inward facing styles: using myself as an example, when you take LSD everything can appear to be made of fractals visually speaking, but what about sound?  sometimes one has the experience that every sound they hear may as well be coming out of a synthesiser;  indeed, just as the right tiny instruction can be processed to produce any possible image, the right tiny instruction can also be processed (by a synthesiser) to produce any sound imaginable.  the same idea can be applied to timelines and that could account for the experience dubbed synchronicity, maybe, but wrapping the mind around that is a stretch.  we really aren't designed to imagine looking in from outside of time.

 

entire world scenario: well the benefits of economising are drastically greater since it's not a near-seemless sensual experience that is sought but the entire objective environment which observers swim through garnishing but a tiny fraction of the output to produce their rich subjective world.

 

that leads me to the hitherto unshared thought which kicked me off, maya:  the world as an illusion.  i am not exactly sure how or why the yogis decided that the world around us is illusory, so i can't really speak for them, but how illusory is an illusion?  that always differs.  maybe they just meant its kinda illusory lololol, like you see all this vastness of junk but its only the expanded version of something far less.  some have the idea that it all arises from nothing, but lets imagine it arises from something insignificant compared to its output, then it would appear to arise from nothing, a completely hollow reality. 

 

i'm not just saying there's a computer program, which you see when you trip or be a yogi.  energy and information if you define them a certain way are interchangeable, so it could just as well be that the universe chooses an economic manner of manifestation, or only manifests in as much detail as as it deems appropriate.  a simulated universe would certainly be advised to too!

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fractals. The flower of life?

 

Hodor thankyou.

 

If you touch the stove and burn yourself you may see that memory as an illusion considering you don't touch again.

 

Your learning however, still real.

 

My gratitude is inexpressible. There's a poem I just wrote in light of poetry.

 

To be frank I love you all, it is called high love:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThunderIdeal said:

it could just as well be that the universe chooses an economic manner of manifestation, or only manifests in as much detail as as it deems appropriate.

Ooh, I like this. Evolved simulation, eh? If we're thinking of evolution as a system for passing on information in the most energy-efficient way possible, then a system that reaches a stage where we are only information (rather than information-encoding proteins & such) is surely much more efficient than the meat-and-bone kind which requires so much more space & heat & glucose...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of samsara the future is a choice.

 

Potentials are an experience.

 

courtesy of amy

 

 

Edited by courage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×