Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Godsnmbr1

If it is possible to create a false reality

29 posts in this topic

Does anyone disagree with this statement? If so, why?

It's the basis of the Simulation Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument

So far I can't recall seeing any of the intelligent arguments against it so I was hoping some of you might help. But ignore the problem of simulations in simulations, ad infinitum. That doesn't matter right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think a "false" reality can be created. Reality is Real... and therefore cannot be false. A Simulation imitates the appearance or character of Reality.

simulate |ˈsimyəˌlāt|

verb [ with obj. ]

imitate the appearance or character of:

reality |rēˈalətē|

noun ( pl. realities )

1 the world or the state of things as they actually exist,

*

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its called Facebook

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Does anyone disagree with this statement? If so, why?

It's the basis of the Simulation Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia....lation_argument

So far I can't recall seeing any of the intelligent arguments against it so I was hoping some of you might help. But ignore the problem of simulations in simulations, ad infinitum. That doesn't matter right now.

As much as I'd love to say that reality is real. The quantum physics facts says other wise. I really hate to admit it, but yes we are all sharing one big illusion. It is because of this, that I am seeking the ending of my soul. This is just completely redicoulous. And yes the bible has written that our souls are immortal. We are all immortals sharing and living together temporary in one giant illusion. After several lifetimes it becomes a joke

Edited by pitchp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your own perception is a simulation based on sensory data collected by various organs. If you're interested in stuff like that I greatly recommend reading Philip K Dick.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd love to say that reality is real. The quantum physics facts says other wise. I really hate to admit it, but yes we are all sharing one big illusion. It is because of this, that I am seeking the ending of my soul. This is just completely redicoulous. And yes the bible has written that our souls are immortal. We are all immortals sharing and living together temporary in one giant illusion. After several lifetimes it becomes a joke

Actually the holographic universe principal is far from being sound enough to call a fact as is string theory on which it is based. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. But it certianly isn't a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd love to say that reality is real. The quantum physics facts says other wise. I really hate to admit it, but yes we are all sharing one big illusion. It is because of this, that I am seeking the ending of my soul. This is just completely redicoulous. And yes the bible has written that our souls are immortal. We are all immortals sharing and living together temporary in one giant illusion. After several lifetimes it becomes a joke

The holographic universe has nothing to do with the simulation argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Does anyone disagree with this statement? If so, why?

It's the basis of the Simulation Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia....lation_argument

So far I can't recall seeing any of the intelligent arguments against it so I was hoping some of you might help. But ignore the problem of simulations in simulations, ad infinitum. That doesn't matter right now.

There is no reason why it couldn't be possible, we would likely have the technology to do so ourselves at some point in the near future. We can already take MRI scans and construct a realativly accurate picture of what someone is thinking about, turning the information around and feeding it into a brain shouldn't be that much more difficult. The hardest part of a simulation like that I belive would be keeping all the sensory data in tune with what the person thinks they are doing.

http://pinktentacle....tly-from-brain/

Edited by awest
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know whether a false reality can be simulated but certainly the mass culture of capitalist societies can create a false perception of reality in reducing social dynamics to market forces which perpetrates the latent competitiveness of our culture which is a catalyst for the social injustice and intolerance that is widely exhibited throughout overtly capitalist societies.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, Number One.

Probabilstic reasoning is difficult even for people who work with it. I could tell stories :) . Anyway, let us assume that the calculations actually do support that

There are many simulations and exactly one (real) reality.

So, it is true

Most things that are either simulations or reality are simulations.

In what sense(s), then, can we conclude

It is probable that some chosen object which is either a simulation or a reality is a simulation.

?

Well, let's think back to St Patrick's Day, when there were only two kinds of people in the world:

20,000,000 Irish (Eire definition: someone born in Ireland, or with at least one parent or grandparent born there), and 6,980,000,000 simulated Irish.

So, 349 out of 350 people on Earth that day were simulated Irish.

Does it follow then, that I am probably not Irish?

Um, no. I am in fact Irish. "The" probability that I am Irish is exactly one: I am Irish. At least one of the required events, a birth in Ireland of one or more among seven designated people, actually happened.

But there are other low-probability statements that work fine, such as:

A randomly selected person from Earth is probably not Irish.

Quite so, it's objectively 349: 1 against.

So how can it be simultaneously true that I am certainly Irish, and also true that I am (or may be said to be) unlikely to be Irish?

Well, for one thing, I may be haphazardly selected, but I am not randomly selected. I only brought up the attribute of Irishness because I am Irish. I "selected" the category (something about myself which I share with relatively few people), I wasn't selected from the world's people and tested for membership among the world's Irish. My being Irish is not independent of my proposing that people be classified according to their Irishness.

The difference between the Irishness case and the reality case is that we don't know how this reality was selected for undergoing this examination of it real-ness. In particular, we don't know that being real is or is not independent of trying to test the reality for its real-ness "from inside." In fact. we doubt it. If this guy with plenty of time on his hands, who is paid for spining puzzles, had thought about this, and couldn't have spun it, then we wouldn't be discussing it.

Finally, there is no "The" probability of any contingency whatsoever. There are probabilities, plural, depending on what information is taken into account in estimating the probability. Furthermore, if the meaning of the probability is to represent a person's confidence in an uncertain statement, then when the same information is taken into account, there can be as many probabilities as there people estimating the probability, all of them "valid."

Example: That genuine Irishness is rare is a reason for you to doubt my statement that I am Irish. If so, "one in 350" accurately represents your state of belief about my ethnicity. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I am, in fact, Irish. But, that cuts both ways; my being irish has nothing to do with your doubt about it.

I hope that these remarks are of some help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are logical arguments that our reality is a simulation, but to simulate an entire universe may not be as easy as we think. A simulation would have to be based on the behavior of a natural universe. At what depth of a natural reality would a simulation have to be based on?

For instance, if we just simulate how the universe behaves at the quantum scale and combine this with how the universe behaves on the largest scale (relativity), would that computer program create a 'real' universe?

A simulation I think would have to be based on a more fundamental level of reality than these two mechanisms. Of course a species with greater intelligence than ours may have discovered how the universe works on a level beyond quantum mechanics and relativity theory.

I think a simulation to create a 'real' universe would would be required to create 'the thing itself'. In other words, it would have to simulate not only behavior but what is behaving.

This may not be possible, because even a superior species may not be able to define what is behaving. It's like the brain trying to understand itself. The part of the brain trying to understand the brain is part of the brain itself, and therefore lies external to the attempted understanding. A complete understanding is therefore not possible.

I think similarly, a complete or successful simulation would always be just that: a simulation and not the actual thing in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know whether a false reality can be simulated but certainly the mass culture of capitalist societies can create a false perception of reality in reducing social dynamics to market forces which perpetrates the latent competitiveness of our culture which is a catalyst for the social injustice and intolerance that is widely exhibited throughout overtly capitalist societies.

These are generally externalities. Capitalism is not followed properly in most capitalist country's. If it were externalities would be heavily regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone disagree with this statement? If so, why?

It's the basis of the Simulation Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia....lation_argument

So far I can't recall seeing any of the intelligent arguments against it so I was hoping some of you might help. But ignore the problem of simulations in simulations, ad infinitum. That doesn't matter right now.

Does is being a 3d expression of 2d information in black holes represent a simulation?

"This is a real disconnect and it's very hard to get your head around," said Susskind in the first episode of NOVA's The Fabric of the Cosmos with Brian Greene. But the concept of the universe as a hologram arises from the mathematical study of black holes. When an object - say a red rubber ball - gets sucked into a black hole, it passes the event horizon and is lost. The distinctions that make that object unique, however, do not disappear. Instead, information about the ball's redness and spherical shape spreads over the surface of the event horizon, forming a two-dimensional shell of information. Theoretically, a computer could even use that shell to reconstruct a duplicate of the original ball.

The math that describes the black hole's information shell matches the math describing the universe as a hologram. Although the concept seems utterly alien, Susskind says, "I think it's already reached a consensus" in the theoretical physics community. Still, the theory could be proven wrong - except any experiment devised to do so would be too complex for our technology to implement.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone disagree with this statement? If so, why?

It's the basis of the Simulation Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia....lation_argument

So far I can't recall seeing any of the intelligent arguments against it so I was hoping some of you might help. But ignore the problem of simulations in simulations, ad infinitum. That doesn't matter right now.

The hypothesis is illogical and unlikely to be true. It is remotely "possible" that it is true but certainly not probable.

Here is my reasoning. As an evolutionist i understand and acknowledge how i came to be, and how my conscious self awreness evolved to the point it is now. I know that i could theoretically create an artifical simulationion using technologies of the near future; BUT there is a diosconnect between my abilty to do so given my evolved past, and the proven or even likely ability of any other sapient entity to have already done it.

It requires the same sort of belief/creative thinking needed to accept creation as plausible. If we managed to create such a reality and were able to observe the reactions repsonses and understandings of any beings within it, we might have a more accurate knowledge of their existence and beliefs /understandings. This might be applicable to understanding our own, but it does not mean we are, or are even likely to be, a similar construct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Your own perception is a simulation based on sensory data collected by various organs. If you're interested in stuff like that I greatly recommend reading Philip K Dick.

But the objective reality exists indpendent of us and our senses or perceptions, and would continue to exist in entirely the same form if we disappeared. eg a dog does not walk through a rock that a human bumps into. A tree would continue to shelter the ground even if were were not standing under it and observing this.

We may artificially and consciously alter both our external objective reality, and internal perceived reality, but this does not deny their objective existence. Even our perceived reality is a physical/ objective construct of our brains. like a knife is a physicla objective construct of our hands. It physically exists within neurons and synapses in our brain, and can be observed, created altered copied and destroyed, just like things in the physical world.

Hhere is an interesting observation Say my mind can be transferred using technology to another human being. But if that human being has perfect colour sight I will suddenly see and understand subtleties of colours which my old self never did. In other words while our human body controls our perceptions via our senses, our mind can connect with and understand multiple realities if it is allowed to do so via an extension of our senses. When a blind person is made able to see, or a deaf person to hear , their perception of reality changes. So does their internal reality; but the external reality remains unchanged and unchanging.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this guy with plenty of time on his hands, who is paid for spining puzzles, had thought about this, and couldn't have spun it, then we wouldn't be discussing it.

Which guy? I'm sorry, I couldn't figure out who you were talking about here.

I've gotten so out of the habit of this place that I forgot I had made this post. Better late than never though, eh?

A lot of you guys seem to be thinking about this in terms of simulating our universe but that's sort of missing the little picture in this problem. We don't experience the universe. We only experience our tiny little windows of it, and the information we're lucky enough to glean with our senses. You need only think about what it would take to recreate an experience like ours. Do that and you're simulating the universe, only one piece at a time.

The hypothesis is illogical and unlikely to be true. It is remotely "possible" that it is true but certainly not probable.

Here is my reasoning. As an evolutionist i understand and acknowledge how i came to be, and how my conscious self awreness evolved to the point it is now. I know that i could theoretically create an artifical simulationion using technologies of the near future; BUT there is a diosconnect between my abilty to do so given my evolved past, and the proven or even likely ability of any other sapient entity to have already done it.

Case in point. I'm not quite sure what's meant by a disconnect between your ability to simulate and everyone's who has been able to simulate before you but you're acting like there's still some doubt about the inevitability of it. It's already been done. The only thing we're doing now is working on the graphics, and getting rid of the edge of the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I think we probably live in a simulation. Whether its educational or for entertainment I don't know, but I suspect the first, as too often I'm not entertained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which guy? I'm sorry, I couldn't figure out who you were talking about here.

Nick Bostrom: "If it is possible to create a false reality, then we must admit that our reality is probably false." In your link, many aspects of simulation hypotheses are discussed, but Bostrom is the only person named there who offered a near-certain probablility estimate that we are simulated. The attribution is fair, IMO, he is whom I think of as the "author" of the thread title statement, or at least far and away its most active and best known proponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which guy? I'm sorry, I couldn't figure out who you were talking about here.

I've gotten so out of the habit of this place that I forgot I had made this post. Better late than never though, eh?

A lot of you guys seem to be thinking about this in terms of simulating our universe but that's sort of missing the little picture in this problem. We don't experience the universe. We only experience our tiny little windows of it, and the information we're lucky enough to glean with our senses. You need only think about what it would take to recreate an experience like ours. Do that and you're simulating the universe, only one piece at a time.

Case in point. I'm not quite sure what's meant by a disconnect between your ability to simulate and everyone's who has been able to simulate before you but you're acting like there's still some doubt about the inevitability of it. It's already been done. The only thing we're doing now is working on the graphics, and getting rid of the edge of the screen.

Just because we, as evloved beings have the capacity to create simulcra or virtual realities does not mean that we are living in one, or even likeley to be one.

We are, as far as I know, the product of a long period of evolutionary development and at this point in time have developed the capacities to create artificial relaities. SO? That is no reason whats over to think, suspect, or believe, that we are the product of someone esle's This is the disconnect I am speaking of One thing does not lead to the other or even the probability of the other ronly a remote possibilty. To believe we live in a created virtual reality is like believing in creation, and requires disregarding all the evidences we have for how we came to be here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A false reality -- no.

A false interpretation of reality, though sensory distortion or cognitive inability -- yes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A false reality -- no.

A false interpretation of reality, though sensory distortion or cognitive inability -- yes.

Why label it false? As beings evolved as integrated components of reality, and connected intimately to it, our perception of reality is more likely to represent it accurately than falsely. And this allows us to live succesfully within our environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why label it false? As beings evolved as integrated components of reality, and connected intimately to it, our perception of reality is more likely to represent it accurately than falsely. And this allows us to live succesfully within our environment.

I have had a seizure disorder for most of my life. On a few rare occasions I have experienced hallucinations while coming out of a sever seizure. During those brief moments (probably only lasting for a few seconds but feeling like hours) the world around me disappeared and was replaced with bizarre landscapes and populated with beings who could not possibly exist.

I was not experiencing them through any senses, such as seeing or touching them, yet those images were definitely in my mind.

Put another way, for a brief moment my mind believed those images to be real, but in fact, they did not exist. It was a false reality.

Edited by theSOURCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given an assumption that NO-ONE knows what true reality is, it seems reasonably plausible that all of us interact with ourselves and the rest of "existance" based upon our own "dominant" perspective of "reality".

In other words, we're all confused and some dysfunctionally insane. :w00t:

Of course, that's just my opinion, and can only speak for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not the first to ask these kind of questions the ancient Eastern Sages considered it ALL to be a dream, here’s a quote from the sage Chuang Tzu (500 BC)

“How can I tell if the love of life is not a delusion? How can I tell whether a man who fears death is not like a man who has left home and dreads returning? Lady Li was the daughter of a border guard of Ai, when the Duke of Chin first took her, she wept until her dress was soaked with tears but once she was living in the Dukes palace, sharing his bed and eating delicious food she wondered why she had ever cried. How can I tell if the dead are not amazed they ever clung to life?

Those who dream of a great feast may weep the next morning. Those who dream of weeping may enjoy the hunt the next day. While they dream they do not know they are dreaming, they may even interpret their dreams while they are dreaming. Only after they awake do they know it was a dream. By and by there will be a great awakening, and then we will know that this is all a great dream. All the while the fools think they are awake, appearing to understand things calling this man ruler and this man herdsman! How stupid! You and Confucius are both dreaming and when I say you are dreaming I am dreaming too.” Chuang Tzu from ‘The Inner Chapters’

That’s why the Buddha said, “I am awake”.

‘Everything we call REAL is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If Quantum Mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet’. Niels Bohr

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a seizure disorder for most of my life. On a few rare occasions I have experienced hallucinations while coming out of a sever seizure. During those brief moments (probably only lasting for a few seconds but feeling like hours) the world around me disappeared and was replaced with bizarre landscapes and populated with beings who could not possibly exist.

I was not experiencing them through any senses, such as seeing or touching them, yet those images were definitely in my mind.

Put another way, for a brief moment my mind believed those images to be real, but in fact, they did not exist. It was a false reality.

Fair enough. But you were suffering from an illness and thus WERE NOT integrating with, or connecting to, your environment as we are evolved to do. Tha tis unfortunate but an aberration from the norm.

If one's mind and body is functioning well, then one is naturally integrated into, and perceiving accurately, one's external environment. It is how we learn. Other wise we would walk into doors and off cliffs, or continue to eat everything in front of us as babies do.

I would add that the only time I have had such hallucinations was under very strong pain killing medication. I knew they were unreal even though i could see them, because of the context in whch they occured and I used reality checkers to test them. I treated them like any other failure of vision, such as floaties, and just studied them as a phenomenum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.