Aren't you a bit too young for viagra boi??
Comment has been collapsed.
You're only supposed to choose the blue pill if you can be someone important, like an actor.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm on my way to be a famous improviser actually :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel let down, I was hoping you were one of those guys. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
Matrix Spoiler but who hasn't seen the Matrix
When Cipher is eating his steak while meeting with Agent Smith he says "I want to be somebody important.....like an actor"
Comment has been collapsed.
I've heard it was a clever reference to Ronald Reagan. And there were also references to another USA president made by Cypher.
Comment has been collapsed.
It wouldn't surprise me.
Tell me Future boy, who's president in 1985?
Comment has been collapsed.
I wish I could remember all the movies which make fun of actors, comedians, and sports figures becoming politicians, but there are too many of them and they sort of "blur" together in my mind. P
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it considering how many movies and television shows are out there.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was a clever reference to the fact that the man who actually said it, Joe Pantoliano - who played Cypher - is, in fact, an actor IRL. Thereby suggesting that our reality is the Matrix, and Joe Pantoliano is merely living out the payment for the services rendered by Cypher to the Machines.
Comment has been collapsed.
I caught your reference the first time, although you seem to have missed mine. That's OK, though, since it was fairly tongue-in-cheek.
Comment has been collapsed.
I personally think that we are living in a simulation as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd say he was clearly being mislead by the clever tricks that computer game developers put in to make a world feel real, without actually doing all the work needed. It is true that computers have advanced spectacularly in the past 40 years - but games and simulations still make huge simplifications compared to the "real world" to enable them to work.
Comment has been collapsed.
He doesn't talk about playing simulators. He's saying this whole thing called Life is actually a computer program.
And we are Sims playing Sims (but his argument that "just look how quickly computer games are changing" is kinda stupid).
Comment has been collapsed.
The point is that in a hundred years simulations can become so complex, they would imitate real life. Plus you have to think with the head of someone, who lives inside the simulation. Your brain makes it seem real, what ever you do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. You wouldn't think gravity is a bug, or missing feature, you'd find it... normal. Something to explain no matter what, not something to fix.
Comment has been collapsed.
While the simulated universe theory in itself holds some pretty interesting ideas (mainly about our universe being some kind of experiment to generate / gather data), Musk's arguments as they're presented in that article are beyond idiotic. Simulations did not begin 40 years ago with Pong, he's ignoring hundreds of years of games, movies, theater representations, literature and whatnot. During all these years it was pretty much established that the point of simulations was not to "be indistinguishable from reality" but more about the use of reality as a basis to develop alternate situations. And then there's the whole anthropocentric crap about humanity and civilization, like these things are more than a replaceable cog in the machine.
Comment has been collapsed.
I should try to jump off the building to wake up from this dream. Animatrix reference
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, it worked for the Kid and got him an appearance in The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. Turns out, the best Matrix movie wasn't in the trilogy :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I agree. Its a must watch for grasping the various concepts of matrix if anyone gets confused about the movie.
Comment has been collapsed.
If that's the “strongest argument” then it's total bullshit. Yes, we made a way from pong to modern games, but look - we are still pressing buttons and looking at the display, and listening to the speakers. NOTHING changed. We still can't smell in games. We still can't touch in games. We still can't feel acceleration (and gravity in particular). Yes, controlling based on neural activity is in development, but it's just appeared, and still far from being usable. So, once again - NOTHING changed in the ways of interaction with games since Pong. And it would not change anytime soon.
And, even if it would be possible in a long term - it still can't be a proof that we are living in VR now. Hey, look - it's totally possible for me to be a billionaire, there is already all means for that. Does it proves that I'm a billionaire? Bullshit. Possibility does not means inevitability. This "strongest argument" is very lame at best.
Comment has been collapsed.
List of facts:
There are already man-machine interfaces being tested.
We already have ways to pass information directly to specific areas of the brain.
We're already working on TRUE VR, it's only a matter of time now.
Comment has been collapsed.
We are also working on thermonuclear fusion power plants. Work started long before I was born, and of course before internet appeared too. And still we don't have it. So, WORKING on something is not the same as ACHIEVING something. And, even if in hundreds or thousands of years we will achieve it, it still can't be proof that we live in matrix-style simulation now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the closest we have.
We have a lot of stuff they simply don't want the public to know about, like optical camoflauge, rail guns, planes that can't carry any weaponry as they'll fly into their own bullets due to being so fast.
Working on something is just letting the public know that shit is about to change.
Comment has been collapsed.
And between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, but they just don't letting the public know about it!
Comment has been collapsed.
I think, if we can develop life like simulations that does constitue as a form of proof, that we may already be inside one.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's entirely circumstantial evidence. Something being possible is clearly not the same as something being true. Our whole legal system is based on that.
We know that billionaires exist. It's possible that I am a billionaire. Therefore I am almost definitely a billionaire.
...I wish
Comment has been collapsed.
It's circumstantial, yes, but the example you used doesn't fit this. It's not possible that you are billionaire, because we have empirical evidence to prove it.
This is about chance. If we can develop life-like simulations, it is very very likely, we are already living in one. I misspoke, it's not definite proof.
Comment has been collapsed.
One day we might be able to splice rhino DNA with a horse, and develop micro-sized anti-gravity devices.
Therefore, magical flying unicorns are very, very likely to almost definitely already live among us now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, you are using a bad example.
Again, this is about chance.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is the chance of us living in a simulation any different to the possibility of unicorns existing? Why is the chance of us being in a simulation any greater than the chance we are not in a simulation What's the rationale behind that? So far the only idea you've presented is that because we might develop a technology in future to simulate reality, that we must therefore almost definitely be living in a simulation ourselves already. That's just the Means. The possibility of something being true does not in any way influence its likelihood of being true. There has to be some other factor: some other correlating evidence, a Motive or Opportunity.
If I have 2 possible theories (we are either living in a simulation or we are not), and I have no way of determining if one is more likely than the other, the chances are 50/50. That's a far cry from "almost definitely". And even that relies on the assumption that at some arbitrary point in time we will have developed a simulation as realistic as our universe, which is also debatable. You/Musk are taking the last 40 years of digital technology development and extrapolating out to the future, which history shows us never works. Until we reach that point, the odds are significantly less than 50% for us being in a simulation.
Honestly, it's like you're flipping a coin and telling me "It's almost definitely going to be heads." And I say "Isn't it equally likely to be tails?" And your reply is "No, that's a bad example. It's about chance!". When in reality the 'heads' side of the coin hasn't even been molded on yet...
I'm just expected to take your word for it that it's almost definitely going to be heads, but you've not given me any reason to believe that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am trying to point out that it's not a 50/50 whether we live in a simulation based on the data we have today. At this point we have not developed a simulation like that, but it's reasonable to assume, that in the foreseeable future we will, wouldn't you agree?
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed, it's not 50/50. The chance of us living in a simulation is much less than 50%. That's not "almost definitely". The data we have today says we can't simulate the universe. Its chance is effectively zero, based on today's knowledge.
No, it's not reasonable to assume that in the foreseeable future we will develop a simulation as complex as the Universe. For a start, it would require quantum computers at the least*, and we're not even sure they can be built in the way that we envision and would be required to run a basic simulation. And you're still missing leptons and bosons. Keep in mind that most of these particles are theoretical, we're currently not even sure if they exist, let alone how we'd simulate them. So we really have no idea if or how such a simulator would be built, so assuming one must exist in the future is just silly. It's not going to be just a super powerful version of the computers we have today, or the quantum computers we imagine.
*Not because quantum computers are special in any way, but because quarks are (one of three of) the smallest unit we know of, and thus need a technology that operates at the same level to simulate it. If we discover something smaller than quarks, let's call it "fuzzle", we'd need a technology operating at 'fuzzle' level to simulate it.
Secondly, the resources of said simulator must at the very least be equal to the states you're trying to simulate, most certainly more. In other words, for every qubit in the simuniverse, we need at least a qubit of storage to persist that state in the simulator. The simulator expends all of its resources just trying to simulate its own state...and then it still has to simulate the rest of the universe. Oh yeah, and store and process all the rules that govern the universe. Also, the simulator must have finite resources, so you're throwing out all the irrational numbers, like Pi or root 2. Mathematicians won't be happy about that one.
TL;DR, it's not possible to build a simulation of our universe, within the constraints of our own universe. Therefore we will never do so. Therefore we will never know if it's possible or not. Therefore we will never reach 50% certainty that we are in a simulation. And even if we ever could, we still have no further evidence or even any compelling logical argument that we ourselves are in a simulation, so both outcomes have equal probability, at best, if and when a universe simulator proves possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Straight-up stupid and worrying that someone like Elon Musk would have such a limited philosophical understanding of things. For our universe to be a simulation it would take way more than technology and what we know of science or even consciousness, these are very simplistic shortcuts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Elon Musk says a lot of stupid shit tbh. He acts like he's a scientist and comments on a bunch of different matters he's got very little expertize on. And people take it at face value just because he's a well known business man
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you think you are so resistant/dismissive of this?
P.S. This proposal is not an Elon Musk original; therefore, one need not "take it at face value just because he's a well known business man". You can simply read the originally published treatise.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not resistant to the idea that it's possible (although I don't really believe it is), I'm dismissive of people calling it the ultimate truth. This "we are almost definitely living in a simulation" stuff is "almost definitely bullshit"
PS: I know Elon Musk didn't make this up, I'm just saying people are more inclined to believe him just because he's well know. Also, just because something got published doesn't make it true, there's tons of factually incorrect publications coming out in well known scientific journal like Nature or Science
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry I wasn't attempting to make an a simple appeal to authority by referencing the article. I was hoping that by pointing to the original well articulated argument, then you might attack it rather than the people entertaining the notion. I think Nick Bostrom puts forward a rather elegant argument , which is easy enough for a layperson, such as myself, to understand. It need not be truth with a capital T and it goes a step further than a traditional metaphysical argument in that if offers falsifiable avenues of study.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the main problem with the theory is that it paints itself as a logical conclusion to a statistical problem when it is none of those things. I'd even go as far as to call it a logical fallacy. Just looking at the 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.
This is not how logical reasoning works (and I'm following a course on Mathematical Logic this semester so I have at least some authority on this). Too many suppositions that aren't really provable. And the main one (that we'll someday have enough computing to simulate a whole universe) is pretty easily be rendered invalid since simulating a whole universe would quite literally require infinite computing power, which is physically impossible.
I don't really have a problem with the theory itself, it might be true, it might not be, doesn't really change anything for me. What really bugs me is people saying that it's more probable that we are living in a simulation because "basic logic" or "simple math"
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't taken that class, so I wouldn't know about all that, but I do know that proofs begin with postulates - suppositions are unavoidable in math. Many, famously Bertrand Russell, tried to make it not so. Mr. Bostrom's reasoning here appears sound.
Simulating a universe would require infinite computing power only if A) the simulated universe is infinite and B) the simulation attempted to emulate infinite processes with complete equivalence and/or C) the simulation erroneously uses infinite functions to emulate finite processes. A is unknown, but also avoided programmatically, so long as the speed of light remains a boundary condition, because it prevents the unobservable universe from affecting the observable universe. Current emulators employ B and C to avoid the problem of infinite computing power, so why not continue to do so?
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you think you are so resistant/dismissive of this?
You can read the original proposition, if you don't like how Musk presented it.
Comment has been collapsed.
First of all, I don't like the world "resistant", that's either a very dangerous word you're playing with, or you are indeed dangerous.
Second, I'm dismissive because I've read and thought on it for years, and it's clear (and in fact I share this though with both physicians and philosopher friends) that this idea that we're living in a computer simulation is only appealing to "kids" or rather people with a very limited spiritual, philosophical or scientific knowledge.
And the problem with this, is the arrogance: I have no problem with pretentious, or dreams or crazy, but arrogance, now that's very fucking dangerous, because it's characterised by the misplaced confidence that you're unproven belief is true, even though it is either wrong in it's logic, or "wrong" in it's result.
For exemple Transhumanism is doomed to completely destroy humanity if it's led by arrogant people, because their ignorance and arrogance makes them think we're at a technological point we're we can mimic and do better than nature, even though we're so far from it, that the most likely things to happen is kill the human.
Comment has been collapsed.
You feel threatened by this line of inquiry, because you foresee it leading to the destruction of humanity?
Comment has been collapsed.
So, in better terms, I feel humanity being threatened, not me, I'm intelligent, I'm a dev, and I have a good understanding of things. In fact, in congruence with that, it means I'm not dumb, ignorant and arrogant enough to think that transhumanist extensions will bring anything more, important or significant to humans, and it also means that I know why.
But to be fair I'm not 100% against transhumanism, like everything else, I think it can either equalise humanity towards the continuation of the future or in the opposite case most certainly destroy us. Unfortunately in every current account and support of transhumanism I see only the latter scenario being drawn.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps I'm being naive for eating the forbidden fruit and thinking the forbidden thoughts; I just think it's fun to think about things.
Comment has been collapsed.
The forbidden fruit was never meant to be "fun", it was meant to be "fun" and painful in what you learn. If it's too easy and too straight-forward it probably means you're completely beside the rail and complexity of "it".
Comment has been collapsed.
I wish I had your certainty about predicting the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, long story short, instead of God we have Big Developer?
Well, at least we're not published by Ubisoft... (seen any melting faces lately? see, not an Ubisoft's Life™).
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't be so sure about that (link is kinda NSWL)
Comment has been collapsed.
But you didn't had to throw acid into people's faces in AssCreed...
Should have added "spontaneously" I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
Statiscally speaking it's way more likely that we are living in simulation than that we are not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh come on.. Don't be silly (I'll never get sick of making that joke)
Honestly though, I don't see how it's statistically more probable for us to be living in a simulation. There's literally no data in favor or against that theory, except for what we live and feel on a daily basis (which, in my case, goes against it)
Comment has been collapsed.
Easy. When we simulate, we try to copy the real world. So let's assume that if this is a simulation, it is based on the real world. The universe is so vast, there must be intelligent life on other planets. If there is, they will develop mathematics, and in time, computers (something, that is capable of efficiently computing huge mathematical problems), and in some time, the will develop simulations. Why? Why do we develop simulations? Just for fun, experiments, models of the universe, etc. So, if we assume that most living, intelligent beings will develop simulations - because of simulations requiring only sufficient computing power to be almost limitless in scale, and numbers - real world to simulated world ratio could be something like minuscule to infinite. Just now, on Earth, there are countless of simulations running. Some are crude, some are sophisticated, but this is only us. Imagine our computers like a 100.000 years later. So, if you roll a dice with infinite sides (number of simulations) vs a few thousand billion (real worlds) sides, your chances are bigger to be living in a simulation, than not. And for a simulated being to know that he/she is living in a simulation, is nearly impossible, because it would lack the knowledge of the outside world, to be able to make any deductions on this. So, the theory is very much feasible.
(my main language is not English, so I edited this a few times)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry if I sound condescending but none of this is science, it's science fiction. Too many assumptions, not enough facts.You're using statistics to prove your point but you don't have any data to back it. I can tell you that it's statistically highly probable that there is a god because if there was, we wouldn't know it. That doesn't make it true.
We don't know that there is life out there, let alone that there's advanced life forms. We don't know if actual AI is possible and if our computers, even in a billion years, will be able to simulate real worlds with thinking beings. This is just hypotheticals.
Obviously, you believe what you want but it's just not something I can get behind
Comment has been collapsed.
We do know, as a fact, that every god were created by humans. But I get what you say, yes, this is a lot of "what if" and no "this is a fact thing". Still, it's very feasible. But not a real theory, no. As in, you can't have any facts for this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I'm not saying it's not possible. I just don't see it as more (or less for that matter) possible than the fact that we're just living in a regular old universe :p
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the beauty of this age old question, millions of answers. But as I wrote lower for an answer, I would not try to quit the simulation, or constantly check for bugs. But it's still a big possibility, with zero chance to prove it of course :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, and no it's not condescending. It's a great thing to ponder about :) Everyone has the same questions: who are we, why are we. So many answers, but no one has the "right" answer. And infinite conversations can spring by this.
Comment has been collapsed.
I definitely agree that it's an interesting conversation to have, but more because it shows how different people think than because of the actual content of the conversation. Because, for me at least, it's ultimately kind of a moot point. What really matters to me is what I see and feel on a daily basis and that's not really affected by the fact that my world is real or not. Unless you think that we're just programmed to be the way we are (ie. not real AIs but just simulated intelligence) but that's a whole different discussion I don't think I want to get into :')
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I agree, it does not matter what is the basis of our reality, only to enjoy life, whether it may be simulated, created, or it just sprang into being by itself. But that's what we do when we play games too. We're not worrying that it's a procedurally generated game, or the levels are pre-made, or whether it was made in Unity, or any other engine. Is it fun? That is probably the only question here. Is life fun? Well, sadly, not to everyone, but the majority of people would say yes, I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, and thanks for the nice conversation. See, this is why I still love this place, although I don't comment too much lately.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks yourself! Rational conversations are a rare thing on the internet these days.. I can't fully blame everyone else for it though, I can get into some pretty heated discussions myself :p
Comment has been collapsed.
It's neither science nor science fiction. It's basic logic. The only assumption in this argument is that it's not very likely that humans are somehow special. It's not very realistic to think that in all Universe, there cannot be any other intelligent life except here on Earth. Likewise, it's not very realistic to think that our "thinking" is so special that only biological machines can "think" while artificially created machines cannot.
When Giordano Bruno proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets, he didn't have any hard facts. Your comment could be easily edited to target his theory. However, he didn't need many assumptions to arrive at his ideas. He only needed to get rid of the assumption that humans are some special beings located at the center of the universe with the whole universe rotating around them. From where we stand 400 years later, this "humans are special" assumption looks even more stupid than it was then.
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright let's start at the top. I don't believe that humans are somehow special and I do think it's highly probably that there are other life form in the universe. I probably shouldn't have that in there because, even if we don't know it, there's still data pointing towards the existence of other life forms (us existing in the first place points in that direction).
I cannot agree with your second point though. At least not in the way you phrased it. "Biological machines" and mechanical one are extremely different in the way they work. We don't even fully comprehend how brains work yet, let alone simulate something resembling it. What I don't doubt though, is that an artificially created biological machine could think. But that's a whole different question.
As for Giordano Bruno, he based himself on what he could see. The planetary spheres model didn't make any sense and he could see that by simply looking at the sky. Can you look at the world around you and see a simulation?
I do get your point though, about indoctrination preventing us from thinking outside of what we know, but I personally don't think it really applies here
Comment has been collapsed.
- Biological machines are the most perfect machines. They service themselves, reproduce, improve...
- Just because we don't know how to simulate something doesn't mean someone didn't know how to simulate us.
- In theory, we could see the simulation if we knew what to look for.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've said it in other comments, I'm not saying the theory is completely implausible. I'm just saying that there's nothing to really back it, which makes it as probable (or improbable) as any other theory, including the one where our universe is actually real
Like your second point for example. That's absolutely true, I can't tell you for a fact that someone can't simulate human consciousness. But you can't tell me for a fact that they can either. I think which one we choose to believe just shows how we look at life differently
Comment has been collapsed.
Biological "machines" are as imperfect as any other machines, if not more. They've got to deal with illness, lack of easily available replaceable parts, etc. If they were so "perfect" there would be no evolution among living organisms.
Comment has been collapsed.
They are imperfect if you look at us and say, we're the machines. BUT if all the living things are machines, and evolution is a way to improve them... make a mechanical robot, stays the same, end of life comes... make a biological robot, let it evolve and adapt... well, end with biomachines making their own robots.
Comment has been collapsed.
What exactly prevents a full-mechanical robot from improving, fixing, or even replicating itself, providing it has an AI telling it to do so?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing. But it needs parts, usually highly sophisticated parts that need to be made. Living machines can just eat less or more sophisticated living machines to replenish energy. It's like a car that'd buy it's own gas every time it's below 15% of a tank... but also have other cars pump that oil out of the ground, transport it across ocean, fabricate it into gas and so on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Living organisms are harder to fix though. If your car has a broken light, you can get it fixed easily, or even fix it yourself if you bought a spare and know how it's done. If a living organism loses an eye, it's a lot harder to implant a new one (and not even guaranteed to work), even if you have access to compatible / cloned eyes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but a car is on the level of rainworm. Think about replicant from blade runner fixing it's sophisticated subsistem without a tech factory available.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but why we're assuming that other species are the same as we - humans. It's like a chicken would try to understand a human in the way the chicken thinks: "this human is running so he has to be in danger because we run when we're in danger" while somebody's jogging. "Other species has to make simulations because we do simulations". Just like the chicken don't even know of existence of math and our lives are more complex than chickens', just we might be not aware of something better to describe a world than math and simulations. Therefore if there are more intelligent forms of life they might think in completely different way than we do and they might not need simulations at all. So chances we're living in a simulations are 50/50 and it's more like just a guessing game than a real science to me :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, this is a guessing game. But we can go around the alien part like this: don't worry about other species, think of only our simulations in a 100.000 years. Smaller numbers, but real world - simulation ratio would be still higher for the simulation part.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh dont be a simpleton. ( ill never get tired of making this joke).
"They would probably have the ability to run many, many such simulations, to the point where the vast majority of minds would actually be artificial ones within such simulations, rather than the original ancestral minds. So simple statistics suggest it is much more likely that we are among the simulated minds."
Simple math,boi.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is you're using skewed mathematics, you're basing your argument in a situation where the odds are already in you favor. That's not math, it's a philosophical thought experiment disguised as math..
First of all, simulating our universe would require literally infinite computing power and we don't if that's even possible.
That aside, who's to say that it would become widespread? There's no way of calculating an actual probability on that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not possible, it's just that I don't think it's any more probable than this just being a real universe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh.
Edit: To elaborate, I don't know why his thoughts are paid so much attention to. From what I've seen of them, he doesn't have any real insights worth sharing.
Comment has been collapsed.
He really doesn't. But he thinks he does so everyone else believes him
Comment has been collapsed.
gee, if this is a simulation then the level design could do some rework, as well as the NPC-s
Comment has been collapsed.
Not to mention the lack of achievable goals.
And the species suck, I mean where are the catgirls?
Comment has been collapsed.
There's always been an option for catgirls, but because humans are too OP, everyone just plays as humans. The next patch is coming soon that will allow the world war three simulation to run that will reduce the human population and allow other 'species' to become more viable choices.
Comment has been collapsed.
I always find this theory hilarious, because it's very hard to disprove and if it were true it would make both the evolutionists and theists right and wrong at the same time. The evolutionists look at the evidence presented in this world and conclude it must be old, and they're right because the 'game world' we are living in is designed to look that way and the 'in-game' science points to this. The theists look at the intricacies involved in even the smallest atom and conclude there must be a creator, because it's too complex to have happened by chance and they're right because the simulation was indeed created by a higher power.
The evolutionists can never convincingly prove there's no creator because they are always limited by what is presented to them in the world, so all their evidence would be 'manufactured' to appear that way. In the same way a game world is turned on and instantly worlds are built that have a certain appearance, the world could have been turned on 200 years ago with all our history and archaeology programmed in by a skilled set-designer and so even though the pyramids look to be thousands of years old, they could have been created 200 years ago, and we'd have no way of proving the truth. Think about how detailed some game worlds are.
The theists can never prove a 'god' because he's the programmer and is outside the scope of what we can see. It would be like an NPC in the sims realising they were characters in a game being controlled by you. They aren't programmed to do that, and in the same way this theory can never be disproved because it's outside the scope of the 'programming'. You are playing with stacked odds, using the tools allowed 'in-game' to demonstrate something outside of the programming.
Anyway I don't want a debate, I just amuse myself sometimes thinking about these things and how reality could be something very different to how it appears and we'd have no way of knowing. I think it's an interesting, purely philosophical discussion that can be had amongst any reasonable people.
EDIT: Oh and despite Elon's crappy reasoning, the theory has been around for a while, it's only because he mentioned it that it got any coverage
Comment has been collapsed.
Easiest way to please both parties: We were created but we have evolved along the way. That shuts them all up (from experience)
Comment has been collapsed.
I love dropping this one into the middle of those explosive origin debates the internet is famous for. Neither side can successfully show the idea isn't possible, so those who are able to stop and think will eventually admit, that "yes, it's a possibility". Then I'll take the fact that they can't actually prove themselves against a relatively simple explanation, and suggest maybe they should dial back on the dogma for their chosen side and just accept that maybe there is an explanation that covers both and they are just seeing the problem from two different sides. Yes believe in something, but don't be aggressive to others who don't think the same, because the odds are pretty high that every body is wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is still more like an antitheistic argumenr, than an anti-evolutionist one. Because it implies that the creators of the simulation had to follow an evolutionary principles while developing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not at all. Because they didn't 'have' to follow any principles. They made it that way. Maybe the signature style of the 'coding' used, presents as evolution? Like they took a base 'class' for a monkey like creature, and used that as the basis for a set of 'in game models'. To an evolutionist, looking at what is presented, they may see that it looks as if things followed an evolutionary process. That process is still a part of the simulation that was created.
But to a theist, it only looks like that because it was made to look like that. They'll say the commonality in how animals are designed is because of a common creator. Some thing still created the evidence that the evolutionist interprets as being in support of their theory. If anything it play stronger to the theist side, as most scientists would eventually concede that there would be no way for us to prove the theory wrong, because it's a hypothesis that is impossible to test in the confines of what we have. We are only seeing what we're allowed to see. And once the concession is made by someone who is scientifically minded that we would have no way to prove otherwise, the theist can say 'Aha! So if you concede that aliens could be running our universe as a simulation, what's to say that these aliens aren't "God", as we call them?'. So you see why I say it's an interesting thing to sit and ponder.
And going even further, there's no way to even prove that this universe is not merely seconds old. Maybe the simulation was just turned on and all the memories I have are just part of the program. "I think, therefore I am", but what if I was programmed to think this way? What if the simulation just started up 5 seconds ago with me imagining that I'd just drunk a cup of coffee. Every piece of evidence suggests I did just have coffee, the empty cup, the taste on my mouth, but is that proof if there lies the possibility that it was just made to look that way? It's ludicrous to think like that of course, and because it's impossible to test using any scientific means, most scientists will naturally keep working on what is actually 'real' to them, but I've always thought it was an amusing prospect.
Comment has been collapsed.
You misunderstood me. I was talking about the creators of the simulation. If we evolved in a darwinian manner, and we except that as fact in our simulation, that it's perfectly reasonable to assume, the same applies to the creators of the simulation.
Because, just like us, the creators of the simulation had to come fro somewhere as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh ok 'followed' as in the creators followed. Well again, it's impossible to say because we're trapped in a 'lower' system. But that's also an interesting point to consider
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't say impossible. Ina few years time, we are probably going to be able to develop simulations like the ones we might reside in. That would make us the creators and would prove, that evolution isn't only on the lowest system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah.. maybe, but what's to say time isn't an invention only used in our simulation? What if the creators always were there and just existed forever. There was no evolution involved, because they just were. Our minds cannot really grasp that concept, because so much of our existence revolves around the passage of time. And if our creators aren't the highest on the chain, and did indeed also follow a seemingly similar path (per their world), then at some point you must reach the top of the chain and find some thing that was never 'created' but simply 'exists'. An 'uncreated one', so to say. So again it could be an argument for the existence of God, but at the same time it doesn't nullify the work of scientists who are still learning new things through their experiments in this world. I just wish I could find the equivalent of "Motherlode" for real life.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not sure why you say, that the top of the chain has to be something that just "exists". Wouldn't that kinda nullify the argument? I mean we know evolution is working model, we don't know that theism is one. That would logically conclude, that it's more likely that evolution applies to every part of the chain, wouldn't it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well theism and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive, and that's why I love this discussion. Evolution is a 'working model' based on what we observe and yes, for many people it seems to apply. (But if it is indeed a simulation, it's also possible it was only created to look that way.) Regardless, even if all the 'creators' to infinity up the chain did in fact 'evolve', they do still exist, and that is a theist view. If you are willing to admit that it's possible the world was created, even as a simulation from an alien entity who uses evolution for it's ends, then you are by definition admitting there's a creator.
Who that creator is and what their involvement in our lives may be is a topic for a different discussion altogether of course, but do you see now why I say this discussion makes both 'sides' right and wrong at the same time?
Comment has been collapsed.
Creator is undefined in this case. In a sense, when you make a game, you are a creator as well. Or let's say you create an AI. Would you call this AI's concept of you theism?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure. To the AI in that game, I am their god. Now maybe they don't realise I'm there and within the game I coded they may never be able to prove I do exist, but that doesn't mean I'm not there. :-) On a very basic level that is all that theism is, the idea that there's a higher power.
Comment has been collapsed.
In that case, I agree with what you said earlier!:)
However, many people would add other aspects to theism, such as an omnipotent , benevolent god or gods, as well as some sort of afterlife and moral standing from this higher being and also a way to worship the being in question.
It's not in the description, but I'd say that's what most people would say about theism.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, everybody has their own ideas about who the 'creator' may be, if they even exist. And there does exist the chance that maybe some of the ideas are right. That's not really the discussion at hand, but I do find the simulation theory is a great counter point to both sides that has calmed down the arguing on more than one occasion. Point being, there's far more chance that you're wrong in at least some of your thinking than of being right about everything, so rather than being angry or rude to other people, just take the time to have a civil conversation and be humble enough to know that you don't know everything.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha no no, you were cool to talk to! I meant in general, why I use this theory in discussions where people are being rude, not this specific talk. Ie: I'll use this theory as a way for both side to admit the way they see the world could have another explanation, and that based on the fact they could be wrong, there's no need for them to be aggressive to each other.
Anyway thanks for the chat, I'm always happy to talk to people who are willing to think of other possibilities rather than just being stuck in what it is they believe. And I appreciate you at least see the possibility of other explanations.
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment section is far far better than the comment section of Youtube:)
Comment has been collapsed.
I KNOW IT, god is a cruel the Sim , simcity player
Comment has been collapsed.
Welcome to philosophy, Elon. Now go and catch up on the last three millenia then we'll talk again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, he's a little "shallow" on this. But the idea seems so weird for some people, that this can be news. But in the meantime, no one can fully say, "This can not be the truth".
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed. But until you wake up on the other side, it's much easier to just assume it is real.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand the concept, and would like to add that I too think that the simulation idea (not even a theory, as we have zero evidence?) can not be proven, but it can be highly likely. So that's what I tried to communicate. Sorry, English is not my main language, so maybe I was not clear on this. So it's the perfect catch 22 situation, that to prove anything, you would have to be outside of the simulation. From the simulation, no one could know, because any point of reference to the "real" world, is outside of the simulation "area".
Comment has been collapsed.
Not true, you can prove that you're inside the simulation by proving that things in nature essentially contain rounding errors. Something scientists are actually testing right now. If this turns out to be true, you have a pretty good case.
Comment has been collapsed.
Elon Musk just jumped that train for PR or personal interest - anyway
he isn't related to it other than promotion. Its Nick Bostrom's Hypothesis.
- limited speed (speed of light) then again why should there be anything faster?
- limited depth (resolution of matter) ... why should it be infinite?
- big bang theory (from nothing to something) ... yeah of course science knows that one for sure
- literally computer code being found in string theory ... this ones nasty, maybe its the dog biting its own tail
- single particle double slit experiment ... getting scary at this point - no idea, but far from anything definite
For all i know it won't ever be proven or known as once the "simulation" would end, we would end.
In addition, the blabber about humans in the future being able to run their own ancestor sim. would crush their
sim due to the load > makes no fucking sense ... how about just making "us" not pursue it in a manner that would?
Any program would have measures to keep itself running and steady.
Many mindfucks but all boiling down to "we don't know and likely never will".
Comment has been collapsed.
I like to think if I was in a simulation things would be a bit smoother from day to day living. Like that one simulation scene with Jerry from Rick and Morty.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole thing here is, you need to provide evidence for that claim. Saying something sounds reasonable or makes sense is not an argument. Lots of things in the world do not make sense (quantum physics, dark energy, etc.).
Comment has been collapsed.
There's nothing wrong with faith-based beliefs as long as they don't infringe on others. To each his/her own.
Comment has been collapsed.
Umm ... why are we listening to a guy just because he has a lot of money? Wouldn't it be more interesting to hear the arguments coming from a philosopher instead?
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean capitalism isn't the end-all, be-all?!?!?!?!!!11one
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I was planning on going to grad school but fuck it. I'll just become rich/famous and start asserting my "authority" instead :D.
Comment has been collapsed.
Money speaks. Sometimes it talks crap, but being as the apparent 'win state' is to be rich, those who have become rich, especially through their own actions, tend to have an audience when they speak. Philosophers are great, but they generally aren't rich, so they are obviously losing the game and we don't need to hear what they think. Same goes for historians. On the other hand Kim Kardashian has a fat butt and is super rich, so we must aim to have fat butts if we wish to emulate her success.
Comment has been collapsed.
What I got out of that is that we are becoming more like another movie, Idiocracy =P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup and as per the movie, I think the stupid people will out breed the smart ones. Just a quick look at who is popular with kids and I really do worry about what the world's going to be like in 20 years time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think this is entirely true... He might be more qualified in this area than a philosopher at least at a technical level.
If you look at his wiki page, he has 2 degrees physics and economics. He even went to Stanford for his phd in applied physics which he quit shortly after.
In addition to his space technology and electric car companies, he also created OpenAI (a not-for-profit artificial intelligence research company) and Neuralink (neurotechnology startup company, to integrate the human brain with artificial intelligence)...
The director of "Iron Man", says Musk is the inspiration for the film version of Tony Stark.
He is also known to be an avid reader, a very hard worker, someone with an extraordinary memory and a high IQ.
Not sure how much of this is made up with capitalism propaganda BS, but he doesn't look like some totally unqualified fool with a big mouth. For instance, he doesn't look like the characters from the movie, Idiocracy, or even worse Kim Kardashian, like those are mentined in the comments below :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Being smart is not the same thing as being knowledge or an expert in a particular field. This is still within the realm of philosophy and someone who has studied it for years would be better suited to explain the pro's and cons of such a topic instead of Musk.
Just because someone is smart does not mean they are knowledgeable about every field they come across. Experience is a key factor and with it comes the ability to draw upon a wealth of knowledge that a casual or amateur reader of the subject may not know about. This is something that Musk is missing. He may be well versed on some texts, but it will pale in comparison to someone with a Ph.D. in the field who has spent their life studying it. This is why we should take his argument with a good chunk of salt.
Comment has been collapsed.
PhD takes 3 to 5 years (or a bit longer depending on the field and location), it doesn't take a lifetime of study. Musk has been in science & tech field way longer than that. I think sometimes, being (extremely) smart, hard-working and passionate can mean a lot more than an academic title. There are several examples of that particular case, I'd just say Ramanujan just to give a random example here.
He's working with some tech leaders in the industry like NASA and Google, he owns multi billion dollar companies in AI and Neurotechnology, Engineering, Space tech etc.. I assume he has access to the cutting edge technology and research data, industry information which is not easily accessible to the public.
I doubt if a philosopher can give you more technically accurate and up-to-date data on AI simulation results, the current state and the future of the technological possibilities.
Comment has been collapsed.
Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and founder of Space X, Tesla and Paypal, has told an interviewer there is only a “one in billions” chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.
Speaking at San Francisco’s Code Conference this week, Musk said that he has had “so many simulation discussions it’s crazy”, and that it got to the point where “every conversation [he had] was the AI/simulation conversation”.
He also claimed that, if we’re not living in a simulation, we could be approaching the end of the world.
Putting forward what he described as the “strongest argument” for consensus reality being in a simulation, Musky said: “Forty years ago we had Pong. Like, two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were.
“Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it's getting better every year. Soon we'll have virtual reality, augmented reality.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/03/we-are-almost-definitely-living-in-a-matrix-style-simulation-cla/
Comment has been collapsed.