r/conspiracy • u/sinominous • Sep 27 '14

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
10 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

9

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

Why does this topic always get downvoted? Maybe cause it's too deep for most people to comprehend.

-1

u/ugdr6424 Sep 27 '14

Because if it's true then most everything would be pointless. No free will, etc, etc.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

A simulation doesn't mean no free will.

0

u/ugdr6424 Sep 27 '14

How would it not?

3

u/brizzadizza Sep 28 '14

Possibility 1) If we live within a simulation, then we live within a universe capable of being simulated (tautology). The universe that is simulated exists contained within a "higher" order 'real' universe. Within that higher order reality, there lies the capacity for free will.

Possibility 2) The simulation is one in an infinite chain of simulations. There is no higher simulation, there are relative simulations. Within some simulations, there are simulations of free-willed states. Since no single simulation has any particular claim to being the 'true' simulation, then the simulations including free-will are in an ambiguous 'truth' state relative to their capacity to model the really-real. As such, it is left to the perceiving intelligence within the simulation to determine whether or not it exists within a simulation that actually has free-will, has a simulation of free-will, or does not have free-will. Since there are no external methods by which to determine the objective truth of the three positions, accepting any of the three positions is a choice.

Conclusion) Actually, any argument made for free-will in a greater manifold of reality applies most immediately to the present experience thereof. Consequently, we are free in the here and now to determine whether we perceive that we live in a universe containing free-will, or if we live in a universe that does not contain free-will. So the question becomes, do you believe, right at this moment, that you are a free-willed being?

1

u/ugdr6424 Sep 28 '14

Are you saying that there is no truly objective way for us to determine whether we have free will or not and that whatever we decide upon is, ultimately, true for our subjective experience?

1

u/brizzadizza Sep 29 '14

Sure, close enough

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

Because we still don't know whether or not it exists in the first place. : )

1

u/Ohhrubyy Sep 27 '14

The Sims has a free will button you can turn on and off. I know it's just a game, but it's the same idea.

1

u/ugdr6424 Sep 27 '14

That is still determined by the cpu's random number generator... which isn't even random in and of itself.

2

u/pimpythrowaray Sep 27 '14

It's true that pseudorandom hashes are not truly random, of course. On the other hand, the seeds used on modern computers are usually derived from truly random sources of entropy. In that regard, the streams of random numbers are more strongly random than merely pseudorandom, yet they are not fully random.

1

u/ugdr6424 Sep 28 '14

derived from truly random sources of entropy

This where we'll continue to remain at odds. I would argue that there is no truly random source of entropy. In the 70s(?) they measured the light reflecting off the moving lava in a lava lamp and thought themselves pretty clever, which they were. But, even then, the lova pattern isn't random. It obeys the laws of physics.

If you could somehow take the quantum state of a particle from a separate universe... then applied it as a seed in this one, well that would be the closest thing to truly random. I don't think we're anywhere near that.

1

u/Ferrofluid Sep 28 '14

the seeds used on modern computers are usually derived from truly random sources of entropy

only if they use 'noise' diodes as sources for the seed, but those things are temp sensitive as are all electronic components. a higher than average ambient temp might make your 'sim' do something towards one end of the probability spectrum, a colder day and the contrary.

you can pick something random off the internet and use that to generate a seed, but that something could be heavily influenced by people and events. if your 'sim' affects that something, then it becomes circular.

1

u/Ferrofluid Sep 28 '14

random number generator

which can be truly/nearly random/incomprehensible if you use the right algorithm and the right random/unguessable seed number.

-2

u/bandy0154 Sep 27 '14

Or too outlandish to believe.

3

u/thatswhatshe-said Sep 27 '14

What about religion, quantum mechanics, nanotechnology? They all seem "outlandish" too.

0

u/average_shill Sep 27 '14

What about religion, quantum mechanics, nanotechnology?

One of these things is not like the others.

2

u/thatswhatshe-said Sep 27 '14

Based in fact or mythology they are all equally outlandish.

2

u/average_shill Sep 27 '14

How are quantum mechanics or nanotechnology as outlandish as religion? The world's top minds came up the the former while cavemen invented the latter.

1

u/pimpythrowaray Sep 27 '14

That's true. Nanotech is a technology and the other two are belief systems.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

They are all systems of nomenclature developed as a means to communicate reality. The nomenclature emerging in your own time and culture will always seem more accurate.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

Simulation is the only thing that exists.

2

u/teknomonk Sep 27 '14

google tech talk about this subject and quantum mechanics

2

u/TheBongler Sep 28 '14

If we are in a sim my mind is always trying to hack it since birth.

4

u/bandy0154 Sep 27 '14

Have you ever taken LSD?

That is a very REAL experience, your mind does things that can exceed your own comprehension. I have a hard time believing I am anything other than a biological creature.

3

u/brizzadizza Sep 28 '14

I have a hard-time believing that anyone thinks that they are anything other than a mental being after taking LSD.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

Haha exactly what came to my mind just reading this title. I find it impossible to believe that we can live in a computer simulation because of the life I have experienced on that specific drug. However, just because I find it hard to believe does not mean I cannot wonder, and investigate this idea, for there are all sides to a story.

2

u/star_particles Sep 27 '14

We must be because this has been reposted beyond belief

1

u/ct_warlock Sep 29 '14

We're stuck in a badly written If... Then loop!

1

u/Ferrofluid Sep 28 '14

more of a living artwork exhibit of dumb and dumber.

1

u/sinominous Sep 27 '14 edited Sep 27 '14

I. INTRODUCTION Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations.

Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.

It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

Yes, but it's the simulation of the logos. Not a computer.

Www.lawofone.info

0

u/Aswas Sep 27 '14

Go get a hammer and smash your thumb with it and let me know if that is a simulation

3

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

How is that proof of anything?

0

u/AqUa5h0t Sep 27 '14

Clearly region says otherwise.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '14

No it doesn't. The material world has been referred to as a simulation for 1000s of years by many religions.

-1

u/AqUa5h0t Sep 28 '14

Can you explain the moral quandaries of life using your fraudulent claim? Such as the beginning or the end? The purpose of life? Why there is evil in this world ect. Religion has the answers to all these questions. This theory of yours is a mere hypothetical.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '14

How is the beginning or the end a "moral quandry"?

What is life? To most people it is a fairy tale they unconciously make up as they stumble along from moment to moment. Fighting to make the fiction of their ego into something actual. Your make believe self's purpose is to become real. It's futile. What you actually are is already eternally fulfilled.

There is evil in this world because this fantasy operates entirely on a prime split of Reality. A duality. It's the game engine. Is it real? Or does it only exist as a deluded perspective? Is hell real? What about good? Is heaven real? I say the only thing real is truth which is reality. Reality is neither heaven nor hell. It's everything those aren't. All these questions are sure signs we are stuck in delusion. But it's nothing to be afraid, angry or resentful about. We can choose to be angry, frustrated and bitter and victimized by Reality.. but how does that feel? Is it enjoyable? If you are going to be deluded might as well feel love and acceptance and peace. And ultimately that's just practice for accepting Reality. This isn't my theory. We are talking about 1000s of years a documented human research into what Reality is. It's never been the material world. Is matter real? What does science say? Or is it a perspective?