Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Musk: 'We are probably living in a simulation'


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

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.

We use simulations all the time they are a great way, and becoming increasingly cheap to do, to evaluate hypotheses. But you must understand that a simulation is limited and constrained to the parameters imposed upon it, via it's programming. While leads to a nice segway to the next part of your post.

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

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.

I understand that, that's why I made the comment about the 'lunatic' that can argue our limitations in quantum mechanics are actually limitations in our simulation.

My biggest gripe with this train of thought is, it's all well and good entertaining an idea. My issue is it's basically impossible to get a research grant in the EU, I know it's the same in the US with the crap Trump is doing, when money is getting diverted into notions like this it takes away from other, more based in reality, fields of research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So was the the theory of relativity at one point.

The theory of relativity is, was and always will be falsifiable. I doubt, could be wrong, that this hypothesis is.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

We use simulations all the time they are a great way, and becoming increasingly cheap to do, to evaluate hypotheses. But you must understand that a simulation is limited and constrained to the parameters imposed upon it, via it's programming. While leads to a nice segway to the next part of your post.

I understand that, that's why I made the comment about the 'lunatic' that can argue our limitations in quantum mechanics are actually limitations in our simulation.

My biggest gripe with this train of thought is, it's all well and good entertaining an idea. My issue is it's basically impossible to get a research grant in the EU, I know it's the same in the US with the crap Trump is doing, when money is getting diverted into notions like this it takes away from other, more based in reality, fields of research.

I don't know this but am guessing that most research grants in the US are mainly from private industry.  However someone is putting money into working out how to prove we are simulated or not as they are researching it at the University of Washington.  The sciences programs are pretty reputable at the UW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

We use simulations all the time they are a great way, and becoming increasingly cheap to do, to evaluate hypotheses. But you must understand that a simulation is limited and constrained to the parameters imposed upon it, via it's programming. While leads to a nice segway to the next part of your post.

I understand that, that's why I made the comment about the 'lunatic' that can argue our limitations in quantum mechanics are actually limitations in our simulation.

My biggest gripe with this train of thought is, it's all well and good entertaining an idea. My issue is it's basically impossible to get a research grant in the EU, I know it's the same in the US with the crap Trump is doing, when money is getting diverted into notions like this it takes away from other, more based in reality, fields of research.

Congratulations for being the first in 53 posts to bash our duly elected President, who, "with the crap {he} is doing," is doing so well in the face of our foreign and domestic enemies.

SSDD.

Good job.

Edited by Almighty Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put this point-blank...

There is nothing "simulated" about Reality.

It is what it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Let me put this point-blank...

There is nothing "simulated" about Reality.

It is what it is.

How do you know?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

How do you know?

What else COULD I know?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm  not into psychedelic interpretations of Reality, which currently always fails the test of both scientific rigor as well as emotional sanity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II.

Itself. It never had gender.

That is a Judeo-Christian concept because El (The Judeo-Christian God) was once a personified fire god and part of a pantheon of many gods and goddesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole idea is just a modern re-casting of the God proposition, where creation is replaced by "simulation", and whatever made it, is the "new"  creator. I really don't see what problem it solves, though, even if there are a multiplicity of nested simulations, we are just back to the old problem of the endless regression of causes, which is a question that offers no prospect of an answer. I think it relieves people of a sense of responsibility, they can imagine themselves unwitting pawns of a game they at bottom, have no skin in, created by some unscrupulous trickster. That is bound to feed an "anything goes" mentality. When you have a proposition people can't get their heads around, the riddle of existence, just insert one people are familiar with, a computer simulation. In the end, it really is a worse than useless idea, because it is potentially socially disruptive, in offering an excuse for bad behaviour, after all, "this world is just a game, not real", like where players shoot people by the dozen in computer games, this is just a more elaborate version, but still not real, just a simulation. 

Edited by Habitat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think much of this is God of the gaps. We don't know, for instance, if our reality is simulated or not, so we just say, it is probably a simulation.

All this came out of someone's imagination: if it were possible to simulate a universe, possibly someone did it, if one civilization possibly can do it, possibly many have done it, then there are possibly simulations within simulations, then logically our reality is a simulation.

There is zero evidence of this occurring, it is a hypothesis originating in the imagination. I think we should not automatically jump to the conclusion that our reality therefore must be a simulation. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I think much of this is God of the gaps. We don't know, for instance, if our reality is simulated or not, so we just say, it is probably a simulation.

All this came out of someone's imagination: if it were possible to simulate a universe, possibly someone did it, if one civilization possibly can do it, possibly many have done it, then there are possibly simulations within simulations, then logically our reality is a simulation.

There is zero evidence of this occurring, it is a hypothesis originating in the imagination. I think we should not automatically jump to the conclusion that our reality therefore must be a simulation. 

 

 

It is a way to plug a gap, SMK, and only because we now have computers and computer simulations, as a possible new plug to use, but I don't see what it solves, it appears to me to be potentially harmful socially. It makes whatever is wrong in the world, a programming error , not our doing. In the end, it devolves from there being no answer, in logic, to the riddle of existence, We can distract ourselves briefly with novelties like a simulated universe, but it is only inserting one more cause, where even a million won't get any closer to a satisfying answer. Perhaps the truth dawns, that reason and logic are not God !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, pallidin said:

What else COULD I know?

 

You don't know that.  You believe that.  It's like God.  You believe (or not) there is a God, you don't know it.  But regardless, it's just a fun WHAT IF? thing to discuss.  Why do some people seem threatened by this question?  Is our reality in fact a computer simulation?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Habitat said:

This whole idea is just a modern re-casting of the God proposition, where creation is replaced by "simulation", and whatever made it, is the "new"  creator. I really don't see what problem it solves, though, even if there are a multiplicity of nested simulations, we are just back to the old problem of the endless regression of causes, which is a question that offers no prospect of an answer. I think it relieves people of a sense of responsibility, they can imagine themselves unwitting pawns of a game they at bottom, have no skin in, created by some unscrupulous trickster. That is bound to feed an "anything goes" mentality. When you have a proposition people can't get their heads around, the riddle of existence, just insert one people are familiar with, a computer simulation. In the end, it really is a worse than useless idea, because it is potentially socially disruptive, in offering an excuse for bad behaviour, after all, "this world is just a game, not real", like where players shoot people by the dozen in computer games, this is just a more elaborate version, but still not real, just a simulation. 

I like most of your post except where you read it as potentially bad for society (or whatever) For the people inside a simulation the simulation is their reality.  Nothing has changed even if it's true.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with some of the above posts. This 'simulation' idea, albeit quite fascinating, definitely rings a few bells pertaining to a 'God of the gaps' argument and not much else.

Until there's some evidence to support the theory, anyone who genuinely believes it is acting purely out of blind faith much like other beliefs, religious or otherwise.

To say that it's a possibility is true, just as possible as there being Gods and ghosts. ^_^

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you read the article you see he is just messing around.

By the end of it he says that the universe we are in is probably the real one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

 

By the end of it he says that the universe we are in is probably the real one.

Phew, what a relief ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Phew, what a relief ! 

Some astrophysicist said on the Privy,,, yeah its all just a programmed game all carefully coded
to simulate this splash, thank goodness.
. . .  yeah ... that`s Berkley flowerpower mathematics in the clouds thinking again, how about getting back to reality.

Edited by MWoo7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a theory I can't see any upside to, whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Habitat said:

Right, well he can write us all a cheque, after all, it isn't "real" money !

sounds good to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "The Thirteenth Floor" is a better movie example of living in a simulation than "The Matrix." The inhabitants of the simulation are actually self-contained entities in that movie rather than "jacked-in" bodies as in "The Matrix."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality "is"

No getting around that, that's for sure.

That's all I "know"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Almighty Evan said:

Congratulations for being the first in 53 posts to bash our duly elected President, who, "with the crap {he} is doing," is doing so well in the face of our foreign and domestic enemies.

SSDD.

Good job.

I'm specifically speaking about the 300million cut in funding for the department that approves Scientific research in college's. Mr Trump think college's should be for profit organisations apparently. As in education is a privilege not a human right. Which seems to be his mantra, basic human Rights like health care and education are a privilege, it's ****ing disgusting and disgraceful.

The crap is happening here, your dissertation or thesis must have some viable way to make money now a day's. It's a travesty and stunting Scientific research world wide.

Considering that Scientific research is what keeps America safe you'd expect the government to support it.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHERE THE HELL IS NEO!! I thought we won the war and we were allowed to leave the matrix!!!! Unless I am a program then OMG! I am just a program. SMITH WHERE ART THOU SMITH!

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.