Convince me I'm not in a Simulation.

[chenGOD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyzIau5dBao

[schlucharski]

your asking a rather classical question, one that has been described by Plato's allegory of the cave, and has been worked through with german precision by Immanuel Kant arround 1780 in "Critique of Pure Reason". Its a modernized, youth coloured version of it, but is still the same.

 

also: what kind of simulation do I get by taking 20mg of prozac ?

[tokn]

Descartes does use the phrase "I think, therefore I am" in the Discourse on Method, but not in the Meditations on First Philosophy. The Meditations puts it better, though, when he says something like, 'whenever I think that I think, it must be true that I (know that I) exist.'

 

Good one. He doesn't say, I think, therefore I am, he only says whenever I think that I think p, it is true, that I think p. The link to thinking furthermore "therefore I exist" is very critical and not a valid agrument in my opinion. Many philsophers also think like me, many think like Descartes. I personally hate Descartes for enslaving our minds. It's dangerous stuff! By the way he also "proves" that there is a god and a reality. Still think he's a bad-ass?

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

I really feel the need to add two:

 

5) We shouldn't care about living in a simulation or not

 

or what encey wanted to say (if I understood it his way)

 

6) Wheter we liver in a simulation or not, and whether we can prove it or not, is not a vaild question. We should only ask valid questions.

 

I would really hope that in the future we do not ask us these dangerous questions because answering them makes no difference but enslaving our minds. It is much to ask to let these questions drop, but as Wittgenstein says: " A philosopher treats a question like a disease.

 

 

 

your asking a rather classical question, one that has been described by Plato's allegory of the cave, and has been worked through with german precision by Immanuel Kant arround 1780 in "Critique of Pure Reason". Its a modernized, youth coloured version of it, but is still the same.

 

also: what kind of simulation do I get by taking 20mg of prozac ?

 

yeah, as I already pointed out. hilary putnam is one of the most modern philosophers to answer the question. but a lot of philosophers have done.

[tokn]

“For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be expressed.

The riddle does not exist.

If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.”

 

Wittgenstein

[encey]

Fred: Let's say you really are just a simulation of a person in a simulation of a world, even though you experience things as if you are a human being in a physical world. You know how to use the words 'simulated person' and 'simulated world' meaningfully, so that you can think the thought, and express the thought in language, that 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world.'

 

But what do these terms mean? What do they refer to?

 

If you are not a simulated person in a simulated world, but just a real, ordinary person in a real, ordinary world, then 'simulated person' and 'simulated world' refer to kinds of computer programs, let's say. This is because 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world' is true if and only if those terms in that sentence refer to computer programs that exist and are running. And since you are not a computer program in this case, 'I am a simulated person in a simulated world' is false.

 

In contrast, if you are a simulated person in a simulated world, then these terms mean something different, because they are used truly in sentences if and only if they refer to something different than in the ordinary case. The reason why is a little complicated because you have proposed an especially clever version of the 'brain in a vat' hypothesis (the thought that I am not a person, but a brain in a jar hooked up to electrodes, being stimulated by a computer program to have experiences as if I am in a real world, when in fact I am not). So let's take that case first.

 

If you are a brain a vat, then the words you use refer not to things in the 'real world,' but instead to the things that the computer stimulates your brain in order to experience (or, more precisely, to the features of the computer program that cause you to have those experiences). So then, 'brain' refers not to brains as we ordinarily understand it, but instead, to features of computer programs that stimulate our brain so as to cause experiences that seem to us just like ordinary experiences of brains (even though they are not really brains that we are seeming to experience). Right? In other words, if you, the brain in a vat, say 'There is a brain,' when is that sentence true? Not when there is a real brain in front of you, but instead, when there is a computer simulation of a brain. So 'brain,' in the language that you, the brain in a vat, speak, does not mean real brain but instead simulation of a brain. The same goes for 'vat' -- it doesn't mean a real jar filled with liquid, but instead the simulation of one, or the features of the computer program that cause you to have an experience as if there is one in front of you that you are talking about.

 

However, you yourself are a computer simulation of a person--you seem to yourself as if you're a normal, 'real-life' human being, and so it is false for you to say, 'I am a brain in a vat,' given the meaning of the terms in that sentence--for you are not a computer program that causes experiences as of brains and as of vats, but instead you're a computer program that causes experiences as of being a person.

 

If you were to say 'I am a real brain in a real vat, then you'd have to use different words with different meanings than the words 'brain' and 'vat' as you use them--call them 'r-brain' and 'r-vat.' But you are in a simulation, so who would teach them to you? How would you ever experience a real brain and a real vat so as to understand that 'r-brain' and 'r-vat' refer to those real things? You can't, ex hypothesi.

 

Now, the reason your version is tricky is because your claim is not that you are a real brain in a real vat, but that you are just a part of a (real) computer program. But the argument works the same: Your use of the term 'computer program' (or 'simulation') doesn't refer to real computer programs; it refers to whatever it is that causes you to have an experience that seems to you like you are looking at, reading, writing, a computer program, when in fact you are not.

 

I dunno if that makes it clear enough, but the bottom line is that if you were really in a simulation, you could not truly and meaningfully say or think that you are in a simulation, because you would not be referring to a real computer program but instead to the simulation of a computer program.

 

*farts*

 

i have a soft spot for the semantic externalist response too, but, as i'm sure you know, it only works against long-term skeptical hypotheses. if, for instance, i live my life as a normal person for 20+ years and then one night i am kidnapped and turned into a brain in a vat, then presumably the causal relationships (or whatever the externalist constraints are) that fix the interpretation of my utterances are such that by 'brain' i really do mean brains and not brains-in-the-image (e.g. the relevant aspects of the computer program). maybe over time the proper interpretation will shift and then your (putnam's) story will work, but this response can't refute the skeptical scenario where one has only recently become a b.i.v.

grue, my homey!

 

Yeah, and I think it's interesting that this mirrors the exact same problem you can raise about Descartes' cogito argument -- that he only knows he exists for as long as he is thinking, which leaves open the epistemic status of his memories as giving him knowledge that he has existed in the past.

 

In the class I'm TAing for, students asked a good question about his method of radical doubt: They said, 'But wouldn't he have to doubt his knowledge of the laws of logic, for the same reason that he doubted his knowledge of arithmetic and geometry? in which case, his argument that he exists and that God exists and gives him clear and distinct ideas to found his knowledge of arithmetic and geometry couldn't even get off the ground!

 

I don't know a lot of Descartes scholarship, but it definitely got me wondering whether anyone has written about that.

 

 

----------

 

 

Related, but different issue: I'm teaching a class on dreaming, and next week we'll talk about an article by Ernest Sosa where he says that 'I'm dreaming' cannot be true because there would be no such thought that we are thinking; we would only be dreaming that we think it. But I just can't find that convincing. My experience of dreaming seems to 'clearly and distinctly' include conscious thought sometimes -- especially when I have been able to lucid dream ... although the thought in question quickly changed from 'I'm dreaming' to 'I'm fucking this girl in the ass,' but that's another story, as censor-worthy as the epic muff-diving tale I never got to read. (Someone PM me!)

[Guest EleminoP]

Original simulation would run on energy

 

Energy consumption is directly proportional to complexity of the simulation and processor power required to run it

 

Infinite regression of equally complex simulations possible to run within each hypothetical simulation

 

Infinite complexity held within original simulation

 

Original simulation requires infinite energy to power the infinite complexity held within

 

Simulation of this sort would require infinite energy

 

Infinite energy is impossible

 

Simulation of this sort is impossible

Why do you think the rules of energy consumption that we seem to be limited by would at all reflect how "energy" works in "the real world?"

[Guest Adam]

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

 

no.

 

a dog, for instance, would have consciousness but it is not self-aware. it cannot recognize that it has a self (ex. mirror test).

 

a person, for instance, has consciousness and is self-aware.

 

self-consciousness is not relevant to this discussion, because it's more of the degree to which you notice your actions and analyze them (often overanalyze them). i've never heard it related to ai. it's more psychological.

 

thank you.

So a dog is conscious because it experiences some kind of inner life (has feelings etc). What about a lizard ? An ant ? A computer program ? Where's the limit ?

 

 

also : who the fuck is Holy Cow ? How does he fucking know about my awe-fucking-some shoes. Seriously?. SERIOUSLY azoh hdz oalhjdza Am I being stalked ?

paranoia score : 2/10

paranoia relevancy : 2/100

 

i think it's entirely possible that there are different levels of consciousness. it's difficult to imagine, because we've only ever experienced one type of consciousness and it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time. that doesn't mean it's not conscious though. the easy way out is saying, "only humans and cute mammals are conscious." well, why? the problem is, we haven't really found a criteria for consciousness yet (what does this organism/system require to have consciousness?). you could say EVERYTHING has consciousness, but then you get into the predicament where everything really does have consciousness (even the system called "my ass and the chair i'm sitting on"). it doesn't functionally get you anywhere.

 

 

no, those who have a part of the brain that is responsible for consiousness have consiousness (isn't it everyone who has brains?, im not sure.).

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

And if so, please say why.

 

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

 

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

 

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

 

if we were a simulation, whatever was simulating us would need a computer as big as our universe because, for every sub-atomic particle in our universe, they would need a couple of bits of data representing things about it (i'm not big on physics, but it would need to know its spin and location in the simulation, right?). that would be a very large computer, not to mention that if they actually want to record our universe as it progresses in time... well, forget it. then again, maybe their universe is infinite and they can afford to do something like that.

 

not really, they might want to simulate only the parts of universe where consiousness beings are living and just make everything else lower resoulion. They might also not need to simulate everything on atomic or even molecular level, except the cases where there is a consciouss observer. A big planet sized computer could do it.

[Fred McGriff]

 

 

"The Way that can be described is not the true Way." - Lao Tzu

 

 

 

Chuch. Love this line of thought. Also:

 

"Not ideas about the thing but the thing itself." - Wallace Stevens

[Velazquez]

*presupposes a bunch shit, none which is a priori*

[Guest Rambo]

It's all cool with people citing how this is an old idea and all that jive but there is something fundamentally different to this idea when it is discussed now and Fred sums it up perfectly in the first post. In this era we are being SHOWN how this might be possible. We see technology advance and begin to grasp where it might lead. The idea that actually we could eventually simulate a universe seems less and less crazy as time goes on. We see how programs that could only be run on the most ridiculously powerful (and rare) computers previously, become available to the pocket sized computers of the masses which obviously supports the idea that if simulating a universe/environment were ever acheived in the history of this universe we could expect millions of them to be created eventually unless there are some fundamental limits that mean only so many could be created. You can philosophise all you want but the point is that we are being shown how this could be possible.

[Hoodie]

So where are we in this thread so far? Let me ask a question: is there anyone who thinks one of the following:

 

(A) We are definitely living in a simulation

(2) We are definitely not living in a simulation

(D) It is possible to refute the notion that we are living in a simulation

(4) It is impossible to verify that we are living in a simulation

 

And if so, please say why.

 

I think (4) is definitely false. We could realize we are in a simulation in one of several ways. We could derive the "correct" laws of physics from some other more fundamental theory, and discover that there is a discrepancy between those laws and the ones we see, or more generally we could find an Easter Egg.

 

People interested in this thread should read Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Permutation City", and the writings of Nick Bostrom.

 

I have concluded that we are definitely not living in a simulation because it is impossible to capture the infinitecimally small continuity in "stuff" that is necessary for consciousness. This of course is based on absolutely zero science.

 

if we were a simulation, whatever was simulating us would need a computer as big as our universe because, for every sub-atomic particle in our universe, they would need a couple of bits of data representing things about it (i'm not big on physics, but it would need to know its spin and location in the simulation, right?). that would be a very large computer, not to mention that if they actually want to record our universe as it progresses in time... well, forget it. then again, maybe their universe is infinite and they can afford to do something like that.

No, if they had a consistent laws of physics they could just specify those laws and the initial conditions, no need to artificially push every atom around by hand

 

i really don't understand why this is the case. it's going over my head. i realize that we're talking about simulations, but i don't understand why the computer running the "universe" simulation would be able to overlook individual atoms... wouldn't that mean they don't exist if they aren't constantly being processed/rendered? (oh god, i don't know computer terminology, sorry)

 

They could be managed through some forms of functions

 

Imagine a grid of 10x10x10 dots

 

Does it take less memory to store information similar to this?

Dot(1,1,1)

Dot(1,1,2)

Dot(1,1,3)

 

And so on for every single dot?

 

Or does it take less memory to store it in a simplified type of language similar to

Cube(s=10)

 

this makes sense. if our universe was a simulation, do you think this could possibly explain quantum entanglement?

[Hoodie]

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

 

no.

 

a dog, for instance, would have consciousness but it is not self-aware. it cannot recognize that it has a self (ex. mirror test).

 

a person, for instance, has consciousness and is self-aware.

 

self-consciousness is not relevant to this discussion, because it's more of the degree to which you notice your actions and analyze them (often overanalyze them). i've never heard it related to ai. it's more psychological.

 

thank you.

So a dog is conscious because it experiences some kind of inner life (has feelings etc). What about a lizard ? An ant ? A computer program ? Where's the limit ?

 

 

also : who the fuck is Holy Cow ? How does he fucking know about my awe-fucking-some shoes. Seriously?. SERIOUSLY azoh hdz oalhjdza Am I being stalked ?

paranoia score : 2/10

paranoia relevancy : 2/100

 

i think it's entirely possible that there are different levels of consciousness. it's difficult to imagine, because we've only ever experienced one type of consciousness and it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time. that doesn't mean it's not conscious though. the easy way out is saying, "only humans and cute mammals are conscious." well, why? the problem is, we haven't really found a criteria for consciousness yet (what does this organism/system require to have consciousness?). you could say EVERYTHING has consciousness, but then you get into the predicament where everything really does have consciousness (even the system called "my ass and the chair i'm sitting on"). it doesn't functionally get you anywhere.

 

 

no, those who have a part of the brain that is responsible for consiousness have consiousness (isn't it everyone who has brains?, im not sure.).

 

 

that's incredibly anthropocentric. the question is, what is about those parts of the brain that give us consciousness and can those same principles be used to examine other systems and determine whether or not they have consciousness?

 

it's not just "oh yeah, well, if you have a developed nervous system, you're obviously conscious. end of discussion."

[Fred McGriff]

It's all cool with people citing how this is an old idea and all that jive but there is something fundamentally different to this idea when it is discussed now and Fred sums it up perfectly in the first post. In this era we are being SHOWN how this might be possible. We see technology advance and begin to grasp where it might lead. The idea that actually we could eventually simulate a universe seems less and less crazy as time goes on. We see how programs that could only be run on the most ridiculously powerful (and rare) computers previously, become available to the pocket sized computers of the masses which obviously supports the idea that if simulating a universe/environment were ever acheived in the history of this universe we could expect millions of them to be created eventually unless there are some fundamental limits that mean only so many could be created. You can philosophise all you want but the point is that we are being shown how this could be possible.

 

also my primary argument is based on probability. I'm saying it is more likely to be in a simulation than not, if simulating consciousness is indeed possible. no one has philosamasized that into meaninglessness yet. i'm still pretty convinced i'm in a simulated fart chamber.

[Guest Rambo]

It's all cool with people citing how this is an old idea and all that jive but there is something fundamentally different to this idea when it is discussed now and Fred sums it up perfectly in the first post. In this era we are being SHOWN how this might be possible. We see technology advance and begin to grasp where it might lead. The idea that actually we could eventually simulate a universe seems less and less crazy as time goes on. We see how programs that could only be run on the most ridiculously powerful (and rare) computers previously, become available to the pocket sized computers of the masses which obviously supports the idea that if simulating a universe/environment were ever acheived in the history of this universe we could expect millions of them to be created eventually unless there are some fundamental limits that mean only so many could be created. You can philosophise all you want but the point is that we are being shown how this could be possible.

 

also my primary argument is based on probability. I'm saying it is more likely to be in a simulation than not, if simulating consciousness is indeed possible.

 

 

Yep i agree. As i said, even the most stupendous programs to date eventually becomes widespread and if a universe sim were to ever become doable, it seems highly unlikely that only one would ever be created. I actually find a lot of similarities to this argument with the argument in favour of the existence of aliens.

[Guest Adam]

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

 

no.

 

a dog, for instance, would have consciousness but it is not self-aware. it cannot recognize that it has a self (ex. mirror test).

 

a person, for instance, has consciousness and is self-aware.

 

self-consciousness is not relevant to this discussion, because it's more of the degree to which you notice your actions and analyze them (often overanalyze them). i've never heard it related to ai. it's more psychological.

 

thank you.

So a dog is conscious because it experiences some kind of inner life (has feelings etc). What about a lizard ? An ant ? A computer program ? Where's the limit ?

 

 

also : who the fuck is Holy Cow ? How does he fucking know about my awe-fucking-some shoes. Seriously?. SERIOUSLY azoh hdz oalhjdza Am I being stalked ?

paranoia score : 2/10

paranoia relevancy : 2/100

 

i think it's entirely possible that there are different levels of consciousness. it's difficult to imagine, because we've only ever experienced one type of consciousness and it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time. that doesn't mean it's not conscious though. the easy way out is saying, "only humans and cute mammals are conscious." well, why? the problem is, we haven't really found a criteria for consciousness yet (what does this organism/system require to have consciousness?). you could say EVERYTHING has consciousness, but then you get into the predicament where everything really does have consciousness (even the system called "my ass and the chair i'm sitting on"). it doesn't functionally get you anywhere.

 

 

no, those who have a part of the brain that is responsible for consiousness have consiousness (isn't it everyone who has brains?, im not sure.).

 

 

that's incredibly anthropocentric. the question is, what is about those parts of the brain that give us consciousness and can those same principles be used to examine other systems and determine whether or not they have consciousness?

 

it's not just "oh yeah, well, if you have a developed nervous system, you're obviously conscious. end of discussion."

 

well, why not? Where else do you think is consiousness? And are there any uncoscious beings with developed nervous systems?

[Fred McGriff]

It's all cool with people citing how this is an old idea and all that jive but there is something fundamentally different to this idea when it is discussed now and Fred sums it up perfectly in the first post. In this era we are being SHOWN how this might be possible. We see technology advance and begin to grasp where it might lead. The idea that actually we could eventually simulate a universe seems less and less crazy as time goes on. We see how programs that could only be run on the most ridiculously powerful (and rare) computers previously, become available to the pocket sized computers of the masses which obviously supports the idea that if simulating a universe/environment were ever acheived in the history of this universe we could expect millions of them to be created eventually unless there are some fundamental limits that mean only so many could be created. You can philosophise all you want but the point is that we are being shown how this could be possible.

 

also my primary argument is based on probability. I'm saying it is more likely to be in a simulation than not, if simulating consciousness is indeed possible.

 

 

Yep i agree. As i said, even the most stupendous programs to date eventually becomes widespread and if a universe sim were to ever become doable, it seems highly unlikely that only one would ever be created. I actually find a lot of similarities to this argument with the argument in favour of the existence of aliens.

 

I agree with you too, Brother Rambo.

[Hoodie]

question: what's the difference between self-awareness, self-consciousness and consciousness. We don't have equivalent words in french, just, conscience

 

yeah exactly. it's a fucking joke, isn't it?

 

no.

 

a dog, for instance, would have consciousness but it is not self-aware. it cannot recognize that it has a self (ex. mirror test).

 

a person, for instance, has consciousness and is self-aware.

 

self-consciousness is not relevant to this discussion, because it's more of the degree to which you notice your actions and analyze them (often overanalyze them). i've never heard it related to ai. it's more psychological.

 

thank you.

So a dog is conscious because it experiences some kind of inner life (has feelings etc). What about a lizard ? An ant ? A computer program ? Where's the limit ?

 

 

also : who the fuck is Holy Cow ? How does he fucking know about my awe-fucking-some shoes. Seriously?. SERIOUSLY azoh hdz oalhjdza Am I being stalked ?

paranoia score : 2/10

paranoia relevancy : 2/100

 

i think it's entirely possible that there are different levels of consciousness. it's difficult to imagine, because we've only ever experienced one type of consciousness and it's difficult to think about what thought would be like if you were only a little ant that was controlled by pheromones and instinct and had no conception of self or time. that doesn't mean it's not conscious though. the easy way out is saying, "only humans and cute mammals are conscious." well, why? the problem is, we haven't really found a criteria for consciousness yet (what does this organism/system require to have consciousness?). you could say EVERYTHING has consciousness, but then you get into the predicament where everything really does have consciousness (even the system called "my ass and the chair i'm sitting on"). it doesn't functionally get you anywhere.

 

 

no, those who have a part of the brain that is responsible for consiousness have consiousness (isn't it everyone who has brains?, im not sure.).

 

 

that's incredibly anthropocentric. the question is, what is about those parts of the brain that give us consciousness and can those same principles be used to examine other systems and determine whether or not they have consciousness?

 

it's not just "oh yeah, well, if you have a developed nervous system, you're obviously conscious. end of discussion."

 

well, why not? Where else do you think is consiousness? And are there any uncoscious beings with developed nervous systems?

 

well, yeah. think about sleep.

 

i think you're asking the wrong question. a better one is "are there any conscious beings without developed nervous systems?" because finding one example would mean that having a super developed human brain is not a prerequisite for consciousness.

 

however, i don't know because we don't even know what consciousness is yet, so we can't exactly go looking for it.

[keltoi]

It's all cool with people citing how this is an old idea and all that jive but there is something fundamentally different to this idea when it is discussed now and Fred sums it up perfectly in the first post. In this era we are being SHOWN how this might be possible. We see technology advance and begin to grasp where it might lead. The idea that actually we could eventually simulate a universe seems less and less crazy as time goes on. We see how programs that could only be run on the most ridiculously powerful (and rare) computers previously, become available to the pocket sized computers of the masses which obviously supports the idea that if simulating a universe/environment were ever acheived in the history of this universe we could expect millions of them to be created eventually unless there are some fundamental limits that mean only so many could be created. You can philosophise all you want but the point is that we are being shown how this could be possible.

 

also my primary argument is based on probability. I'm saying it is more likely to be in a simulation than not, if simulating consciousness is indeed possible.

 

 

Yep i agree. As i said, even the most stupendous programs to date eventually becomes widespread and if a universe sim were to ever become doable, it seems highly unlikely that only one would ever be created. I actually find a lot of similarities to this argument with the argument in favour of the existence of aliens.

 

I agree with you too, Brother Rambo.

 

essay on the exact stuff you guys are agreeing on...

 

http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/is_life_a_computer_simulation.htm

[SR4]

can we have a "deep thoughts" subforum or something? i like reading this stuff.

 

 

i thought i knew a good bit o' descartes but a lot of people in here are putting me to shame, and im loving it.

[chenGOD]

"The Way that can be described is not the true Way." - Lao Tzu

 

 

 

Chuch. Love this line of thought. Also:

 

"Not ideas about the thing but the thing itself." - Wallace Stevens

 

yeah but Zhuangzi - (he should be considered the most famous Daoist philosopher - there is serious doubt as to the existence of Lao Tzu) said - “A path is made by walking on it.”

[Guest boo]

i don't get this stuff about not thinking you're in a simulation if you actually are in a simulation *confused*

 

i'm going to go back and read encey's post and try my hardest to make sense of it (it was about to go to work when i read it so wasn't completely focused and was just thinking.. 'what if i mentioned this stuff to my colleagues? that wouldn't go down well.')

[skotosa]

I think its only a matter of time where our hardware and programs become sophisticated enough where we create programs that generate their own story lines and one asks "Who created me?".

 

Just looking at all the current Video Game Technologies like the Euphoria Engine, which for those who don't know

 

Euphoria is a game animation engine created by NaturalMotion based on Dynamic Motion Synthesis, NaturalMotion's proprietary technology for animating 3D characters on-the-fly "based on a full simulation of the 3D character, including body, muscles and motornervous system".^[2] Instead of using predefined animations, the characters' actions and reactions are synthesized in real-time;

 

 

Just imagine in a few more years what we will have, we won't have predefined anything. Soon we will create consciousness in the virtual world life like us that will convince us that we too are a simulation. Once are hardware can support it, we will code it. Who's to say the Simulation we make won't make a game and then on later a simulation of their own. Perhaps we could even join the very world we created for them.

[triachus]

If I wished to make a vast life simulation I would make sure the simulations I would simulate would never have any thoughts about whether or not they are simulated or not, since that might distrupt the simulation I wished to simulate.

 

 

*implodes*

[skotosa]

If I wished to make a vast life simulation I would make sure the simulations I would simulate would never have any thoughts about whether or not they are simulated or not, since that might distrupt the simulation I wished to simulate.

 

 

*implodes*

 

Clearly then in our simulation that is not the case. And if a simulation did exist with the above properties then the very question wouldn't exist and thus no issues would be at hand.

 

Also I'd like to add, with the whole rendering. Take not of this game engine called Unlimited Detail. Still in the works, but it would allow for unlimited amount of detail in the game engine only limited by how much effort one is willing to put in.

[Guest theSun]

oops