Musk: 'We are probably living in a simulation'

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Yeah but....just.....how much deeper? It's like taking shrooms, then acid, then drinking a score of cans, then doing more acid how do you know which hallucinations are the real hallucinations?

[XenoFish]

From what I gather from the article is that we create a mental model of reality. From all the information that surrounds us. This is the visual and sensory experience we call reality. It's a lot like I say, we are subjectively experiencing objective reality. Never directly, only through our senses. A wall is still a wall and running into it will still hurt. But is my blue your blue are do we different hues? 

Perhaps it's like a game map without the textures?

[zep73]

10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yeah but....just.....how much deeper? It's like taking shrooms, then acid, then drinking a score of cans, then doing more acid how do you know which hallucinations are the real hallucinations?

A subsystem can never be better than the system it is a part of. But the above system can improve with updates.

That means we can never imitate our own reality fully. It will always be less good.

So if you think this reality sucks, you now have the answer why!

I think this reality is very convincing! So I suspect it is a primary simulation. Not perfect, but convincing.

Edited September 11, 2018 by sci-nerd

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

From what I gather from the article is that we create a mental model of reality. From all the information that surrounds us. This is the visual and sensory experience we call reality. It's a lot like I say, we are subjectively experiencing objective reality. Never directly, only through our senses. A wall is still a wall and running into it will still hurt. But is my blue your blue are do we different hues? 

Perhaps it's like a game map without the textures?

I thought the article ended rather abruptly. Just getting into it and stopped lol. All he says is true, which can lead to strange philosophical debates with oneself.

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yeah but....just.....how much deeper? It's like taking shrooms, then acid, then drinking a score of cans, then doing more acid how do you know which hallucinations are the real hallucinations?

Um, they're all real hallucinations?

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I thought the article ended rather abruptly. Just getting into it and stopped lol. All he says is true, which can lead to strange philosophical debates with oneself.

https://theweekenduniversity.com/blog/3-experiments-from-neuroscience-which-prove-reality-is-a-hallucination/

[zep73]

12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

https://theweekenduniversity.com/blog/3-experiments-from-neuroscience-which-prove-reality-is-a-hallucination/

The only difference between hallucination and simulation is the source of the data.

[XenoFish]

Even if we are in a simulation it wouldn't matter. For all we know we just NPC's. 

[zep73]

What I find interesting is, if they went to so much trouble to invent AI on our level, and a reality down to the particle scale, what do they want with us?

They obviously went far to make us and this! Why?

Could we become intelligent servants, after we've lived here, and shown who we are?
Some soldiers, some butlers, some romantic synthetics, some just plain friends?

In our own world there is a desire for all those!

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

What I find interesting is, if they went to so much trouble to invent AI on our level, and a reality down to the particle scale, what do they want with us?

They obviously went far to make us and this! Why?

If it is a simulation then I assume it didn't take effort for this amount of detail.  That was all just automatically filled in with existing data.

[zep73]

17 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If it is a simulation then I assume it didn't take effort for this amount of detail.  That was all just automatically filled in with existing data.

You might be right, but I sense that they are very proud that they made us conscious. It's a pinnacle for them.

Edited September 11, 2018 by sci-nerd

[Stiff]

16 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Even if we are in a simulation it wouldn't matter. For all we know we just NPC's. 

That's quite likely. But... maybe we're not. Maybe everyone around us is. Maybe we're all in different simulations and we're being role-played and the people we interact with are NPC's.

[Habitat]

5 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I disagree. God is not replaced with a simulation. The Big Bang is. It's replaced by new options/knowledge and technology. Instead of a mysterious big expansion out of nothing, we now have a source. The source is data from a "higher dimension" (if you will). Miracles, wonders and chance are gone, and replaced with a simple, logic answer/solution.

An "anything goes" mentality would be very stupid to adapt, because no matter how little you believe that policemen and prisons are real, they will get you and put you in one. People who entertain this hypothesis are usually a bit smarter than that.

A strange analysis, in my opinion. Who said the Big Bang created the laws of physics ? And I don't imagine too many people think police are not real, but I do believe in a world where people slaughter one another in computer games ( is there much else going on in all those games ?), it isn't a stretch to think that if we are just in a more sophisticated computer simulation, morality isn't really something to be taken to heart.

[StarMountainKid]

The Simulators, having modified their genome as well as merging partially with AI, have become far removed from their biological origin. So they have created simulated realities such as ours to temporarily experience what it is to be biological life.

A sort of historical nostalgia for their distant past. 

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Who said the Big Bang created the laws of physics ?

Science

[+OverSword]

33 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

You might be right, but I sense that they are very proud that they made us conscious. It's a pinnacle for them.

Just one in millions of simulations.

[zep73]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Just one in millions of simulations.

Well, you don't have to run a universe simulation to create consciousness. You'd probably make it separately and insert it.

Edited September 11, 2018 by sci-nerd

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Science

No, there is no science to say that the Big Bang created the laws of physics, or that  the laws of physics created the Big Bang, you are guessing ! It is a matter of speculation.

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Well, you don't have to run a universe simulation to create consciousness. You'd probably make it seperately and insert it.

There is a novel by Walter Jon Williams titled Implied Spaces in which humanity has learned how to create pocket universes.  And one of the things the inventor of these universes discovers is that things evolve that you didn't necessarily put into the universe because the existence of the universe "implies" that these elements will be there. Eventually one of the things which is implied is consciousness.  At the end of the novel he discovers that our universe is a gigantic pocket universe and goes to confront the people that accidentally created us.

 

Link

Edited September 11, 2018 by OverSword

[zep73]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No, there is no science to say that the Big Bang created the laws of physics, or that  the laws of physics created the Big Bang, you are guessing ! It is a matter of speculation.

I know that the charge of each particle was set at TBB. Those charges are the basics for the laws of nature. Thus the laws of nature was set at TBB.

[zep73]

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

There is a novel by Walter Jon Williams titled Implied Spaces in which humanity has learned how to create pocket universes.  And one of the things the inventor of these universes discovers is that things evolve that you didn't necessarily put into the universe because the existence of the universe "implies" that these elements will be there. Eventually one of the things which is implied is consciousness.  At the end of the novel he discovers that our universe is a gigantic pocket universe and goes to confront the people that accidentally created us.

I realise I have alot of reading to do. But first let me kick my kids into living their own lives. It's hard to concentrate when they make drama every now and then.

[Habitat]

Just now, sci-nerd said:

I know that the charge of each particle was set at TBB. Those charges are the basics for the laws of nature. Thus the laws of nature was set at TBB.

You are guessing, you don't know what was set, or what set it, so why kid yourself. You assume too much, you even invoke a "they" creating a simulated universe, with pride of achieving a "pinnacle" of inserting consciousness. lol ! You are just anthropomorphizing here, if it makes you feel good, good for you, it isn't much different to an anthropomorphized "God" though.

[zep73]

15 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are guessing, you don't know what was set, or what set it, so why kid yourself. You assume too much, you even invoke a "they" creating a simulated universe, with pride of achieving a "pinnacle" of inserting consciousness. lol ! You are just anthropomorphizing here, if it makes you feel good, good for you, it isn't much different to an anthropomorphized "God" though.

No I'm not guessing. I'm estimating based on valid calculations.
Regarding my proposals about the makers of a hypothetical simulation, it's just suggestions. I'm entertaining the idea.
If I had to write "this is not what I believe, or something that is proven" before I write about the subject, I'd have blisters on my fingers by now.

Edited September 11, 2018 by sci-nerd

[Habitat]

Of course you are guessing, like people who speculate on the "nature" of God. In your scenario, "they" are The Creator. It is in the nature of the enquiring mind, to rarely admit that it might be operating beyond its capacity, but in this instance, we can see, as I mentioned earlier, that this just becomes an addition to the altogether unsatisfactory field of candidates, that try, but never answer, the riddle of existence. It just postpones the  "first cause" by adding another stage. More than anything else, it is just an echo of the modern pre-occupation with computers, and computer simulations.

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Of course you are guessing, like people who speculate on the "nature" of God. In your scenario, "they" are The Creator. It is in the nature of the enquiring mind, to rarely admit that it might be operating beyond its capacity, but in this instance, we can see, as I mentioned earlier, that this just becomes an addition to the altogether unsatisfactory field of candidates, that try, but never answer, the riddle of existence. It just postpones the  "first cause" by adding another stage. More than anything else, it is just an echo of the modern pre-occupation with computers, and computer simulations.

A real God could be in their universe. But not in ours! No way!