Musk: 'We are probably living in a simulation'

[+OverSword]

5 hours ago, danydandan said:

What a tool.

Do you believe that if we had sufficiently advanced computer technology that we would create simulations, perhaps changing the laws of physics or making it so that the axis had won WWII just to see what would happen?

[Rlyeh]

43 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I have sympathies for this theory but I m not so sure about the use of the word 'computer'. I think of it as Cosmic Consciousness/Brahman/God. In my best understanding, Brahman (the one universal consciousness) separates Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II.

Elon Musk meets the Advaita school of Vedic (Hindu) philosophy!

Advaita: Consciousness is primary and matter is a production of consciousness

Materialists: Matter is primary and consciousness is a production of matter

On so many UM debates, the issues distill  to the difference between the above two schools of thought.

The simulation argument doesn't treat consciousness as special and is part of the simulation. So according to what you wrote it would be closer to materialism.

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

The Great Elon was recently asked a serious question, from a serious business journalist, about the likelihood of Tesla ever making a profit at any time at all in the foreseeable future, or it being able to survive without enormous subsidies. His reply? "Boring, boneheaded questions are not cool. Next!"

Hmmm...Sounds like a certain president.

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

The simulation argument doesn't treat consciousness as special and is part of the simulation. So according to what you wrote it would be closer to materialism.

I agree and should have more strongly stated that the computer simulation theory does not match Advaita all the way.

It seems in this simulation model the Big Questions are still out there. 

[StarMountainKid]

I think the mainstream media is way behind the general population as concerning smoking pot. As if these talking heads don't imbibe legal/illegal substances. 

[Dark_Grey]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Do you believe that if we had sufficiently advanced computer technology that we would create simulations, perhaps changing the laws of physics or making it so that the axis had won WWII just to see what would happen?

100%. That's the biggest draw in creating simulations of anything - it allows you a platform to explore ideas and test theories without destroying the original. A "sandbox" environment, as it's commonly known.

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Do you believe that if we had sufficiently advanced computer technology that we would create simulations, perhaps changing the laws of physics or making it so that the axis had won WWII just to see what would happen?

We already have. But a computer capable of predictions in alternative history is obviously not possible. Due to a number of intangibles and tangibles.

[+OverSword]

8 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

100%. That's the biggest draw in creating simulations of anything - it allows you a platform to explore ideas and test theories without destroying the original. A "sandbox" environment, as it's commonly known.

Good, since you recognize that probability, and I know you're not the person I originally addressed the question to but I will proceed as if you were because I don't think there can honestly or logically be another answer, then a person must admit that there would likely be thousands of these simulations running.  Given that probability, then mathematically the chances of the reality we are living in being the non-simulated reality are remote.  In other words it would be a fools bet to say we are not living in a simulation and Elon Musk is not a fool. 

What really seems to bother some about this is that unlike the Matrix, we are not real people living in a simulated reality but are ourselves simulations.

[+OverSword]

Just now, danydandan said:

We already have. But a computer capable of predictions in alternative history is obviously not possible. Due to a number of intangibles and tangibles.

Obviously not possible?  Care to elaborate? 

Keep in mind that if we are in a simulated reality that we are probably (at this point anyways) less technologically advanced than the creators of the simulation.

[Stiff]

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Given that probability, then mathematically the chances of the reality we are living in being the non-simulated reality are remote.  In other words it would be a fools bet to say we are not living in a simulation and Elon Musk is not a fool. 

And that's exactly what he said in one of his interviews. "1 in billions".

I find it quite intriguing and have watched a few videos on the subject. As mentioned, there are some very reputable people out there laying the claims and explanations as to the possibilities. I don't think any of them think that we are 'definitely' in a simulation but you can't argue with those odds.

Fascinating stuff.

[danydandan]

28 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Obviously not possible?  Care to elaborate? 

Keep in mind that if we are in a simulated reality that we are probably (at this point anyways) less technologically advanced than the creators of the simulation.

We simply don't have enough information to accurately carry it out. As in we need everything knowable in our Universe to accurately depict it in a simulation. In my opinion.

[Dark_Grey]

10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

We simply don't have enough information to accurately carry it out. As in we need everything knowable in our Universe to accurately depict it in a simulation. In my opinion.

We simply don't have the computing power (yet,) to accurately recreate the Universe. But once we do, we can recreate any point in time in such stunning detail it would be as if you were really standing there. 

If that were to happen and it was indistinguishable from reality, how could you be sure where reality begins and the simulation ends? In the immortal words of Morpheus, "what is real? How do you define "real"? If "real" is what you can taste or touch, than "real" is nothing more than electrical signals interpreted by your brain." 

Reality is a helluva lot different for an iguana than it is for you even though you are both living in the same plane of existence. "Real" is a lot more subjective than we were first taught.

[Dark_Grey]

47 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Good, since you recognize that probability, and I know you're not the person I originally addressed the question to but I will proceed as if you were because I don't think there can honestly or logically be another answer, then a person must admit that there would likely be thousands of these simulations running.

For sure. There is no reason, other than computer power, that we should not run multiple simulations simultaneously if we are able to do it at all.

Quote

Given that probability, then mathematically the chances of the reality we are living in being the non-simulated reality are remote. 

Yep

Quote

What really seems to bother some about this is that unlike the Matrix, we are not real people living in a simulated reality but are ourselves simulations.

I refer back to the Morpheus quote in my last post. "Reality" to you or I is simply our brains interpreting electrical signals in to something we can understand. We may not exist at all

[XenoFish]

If all the brains are linked together then the computer part would most likely be life support. The entire simulation could be nothing more than an extremely lucid dream. If anything the computer would basically set limits, the thing would be no different than a cell phone network.

[danydandan]

11 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

We simply don't have the computing power (yet,) to accurately recreate the Universe. But once we do, we can recreate any point in time in such stunning detail it would be as if you were really standing there. 

If that were to happen and it was indistinguishable from reality, how could you be sure where reality begins and the simulation ends? In the immortal words of Morpheus, "what is real? How do you define "real"? If "real" is what you can taste or touch, than "real" is nothing more than electrical signals interpreted by your brain." 

Reality is a helluva lot different for an iguana than it is for you even though you are both living in the same plane of existence. "Real" is a lot more subjective than we were first taught.

It's nothing to do with computer power, we simply cant accurately describe all observations carried out in our Universe. There about 5 different interpretations of quantum mechanics, our standard model is an incomplete mess, we can't accurately describe all the functions of our brains etcetera. It's lack of information is the key issue. You can't accurately depict a reality that you don't know or understand enough.

Edited September 10, 2018 by danydandan

[Dark_Grey]

Just now, danydandan said:

It's nothing to do with computer power, we simply cant accurately describe all observations carried out in our Universe. There about 5 different interpretations of quantum mechanics, our standard model is an incomplete mess, we can't accurately describe all the functions of our brains etcetera. It's lack of information is the key issue.

Ah ok, in that regard I agree. You can't program laws of physics in to the simulation if you don't fully understand them

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Ah ok, in that regard I agree. You can't program laws of physics in to the simulation if you don't fully understand them

I suppose lunatics could argue our difficulty in describing and observing quantum phenomenon, may be the limitations set about by the programming of our simulated Universe.

[StarMountainKid]

In all these kinds of discussions it's assumed it is possible to develop these advanced technologies. I'm not convinced that anything we can imagine is possible. 

Colonizing the galaxy, some human future utopia when we all become enlightened beings, time travel, faster than light speed travel, simulated realities... 

I think the laws of physics may be more restrictive than our imaginations. If all these were possible, I believe we would already know of them, as all these advanced alien cultures that have these technologies would probably be known to us.  Some evidence would be present or observable.

Observing our galaxy, we haven't discovered any advanced civilization with these capabilities. No one likes to place limits on what is possible, but in my view, many of these flights of fancy are just that. Actual reality I think is limited in technological possibilities. 

I know this is an unpopular view, we'd rather imagine all these wonderful things happening. 

 

 

 

[+OverSword]

38 minutes ago, danydandan said:

We simply don't have enough information to accurately carry it out. As in we need everything knowable in our Universe to accurately depict it in a simulation. In my opinion.

It doesn't have to be an accurate depiction of a real world.  Within the simulation, however inaccurate it may be, that will be reality for the populace within that simulation.  You're making too many assumptions

 

7 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I suppose lunatics could argue our difficulty in describing and observing quantum phenomenon, may be the limitations set about by the programming of our simulated Universe.

I don't know why you would say lunatics.  There is an esteemed university looking into the probability.  Perhaps you are just too closed minded or uninformed on the subject to entertain the question.  So far it's obvious that this is either a new subject for you or that your knowledge of the subject is not well versed.

[+OverSword]

The question of this being a simulation or not is obviously a legitimate enough question for esteemed universities to study it

Link

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It doesn't have to be an accurate depiction of a real world.  Within the simulation, however inaccurate it may be, that will be reality for the populace within that simulation.  You're making too many assumptions

 

You asked about a simulation of our world if the Nazi regime won WWII. So I assumed you wanted an actual working model of our world. Considering we don't know everything about our reality, how can we simulate an accurate model with not enough information?

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

don't know why you would say lunatics.  There is an esteemed university looking into the probability.  Perhaps you are just too closed minded or uninformed on the subject to entertain the question.  So far it's obvious that this is either a new subject for you or that your knowledge of the subject is not well versed.

I'm far from closed minded, how can you prove an unfalsifiable notion?

I say this because I hold a PhD in physics, any scientist seriously researching this needs to re-evaluate. You cannot prove something unfalsifiable, it's a similar claim to God, a soul etcetera.

[danydandan]

20 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The question of this being a simulation or not is obviously a legitimate enough question for esteemed universities to study it

Link

Did you read that article, and the actual paper and you accuse me of making assumptions.?

Come on man, the whole paper is based of an assumption, backed up with more assumptions. Jumping to parallel Universe's need to say more. Again its unfalsifiable nonsense.

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

You asked about a simulation of our world if the Nazi regime won WWII. So I assumed you wanted an actual working model of our world. Considering we don't know everything about our reality, how can we simulate an accurate model with not enough information?

That was just one example of possibly why a simulation may be created.  I'm certain the people that would use simulated realities for research would have many reasons to do so and probably to answer questions people like you and I would not even fathom.

12 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm far from closed minded, how can you prove an unfalsifiable notion?

I say this because I hold a PhD in physics, any scientist seriously researching this needs to re-evaluate. You cannot prove something unfalsifiable, it's a similar claim to God, a soul etcetera.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm entertaining the notion that this may be the case. 

So if your a physicist consider this thought for a minute. Perhaps we have been unable to come up with a unified field theory because we are in a simulation in which the laws of physics have been altered to make such a thing impossible.  Perhaps to see how we would react or what kind of physics innovations such a conundrum would create is the entire reason that the simulation exists.

[+OverSword]

Just now, danydandan said:

Did you read that article, and the actual paper and you accuse me of making assumptions.?

Come on man, the whole paper is based of an assumption, backed up with more assumptions. Jumping to parallel Universe's need to say more. Again its unfalsifiable nonsense.

So was the the theory of relativity at one point.

[+OverSword]