Do we live in a self-simulating universe ?

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

But that's not what you said though is it?

What we have here is a phenomenon without a theory. Myself (and many others) have a hypothesis that fits the phenomenon perfectly, but are lacking definitive evidence. The scientific approach to that problem, is to keep looking for evidence to support the hypothesis, and meanwhile accept the hypothesis as the best available answer.
If such an endeavor continues for 1000 years, it is not uncommon, or unscientific, that the hypothesis becomes an accepted fact. We call that "fact" a model.
It is, like all other models, subject to change, should any new evidence emerge.

A famous one, of such models, is the "fact" that the universe started in a tiny hot dense state.

[lightly]

3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

No, not at all. Any variable is possible, as long as the computer is powerful enough to calculate it, without lagging or crashing.

Thanks sci-nerd, I've always wondered about that...if a simulation could actually have variables.  (and still have my doubts to be honest) .  . A simulated universe seems impossible to me...  or even if it were possible it would still be a simulation and therefore .. not real !     It's a mind blowing concept...to me.

[zep73]

15 minutes ago, lightly said:

Thanks sci-nerd, I've always wondered about that...if a simulation could actually have variables.  (and still have my doubts to be honest) .  . A simulated universe seems impossible to me...  or even if it were possible it would still be a simulation and therefore .. not real !     It's a mind blowing concept...to me.

Do you play multi-player computer games? Most guys do. In those games, is it possible for team members to kill each other? It defeats the purpose of the game, and it is a variable that changes the development of the game, but the game allows it, right? You have free will. It's really not that special, is it?

I wouldn't say that we're not real, just because we don't have a physical body. We have what is even more important: Consciousness, intelligence and free will. And we're real to each other. There are 7 billion people who can testify that you're real to them!
Even if this is not a simulation, our bodies are still just information. Energy that appears to be tangible. Quantized bits.

Edited May 6, 2020 by sci-nerd

[lightly]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

Do you play multi-player computer games? Most guys do. In those games, is it possible to kill each other? It defeats the purpose of the game, and it is a variable that changes the development of the game, but the game allows it, right? You have free will. It's really not that special, is it?

I wouldn't say that we're not real, just because we don't have a physical body. We have what is even more important: Consciousness, intelligence and free will. And we're real to each other. There are 7 billion people who can testify that you're real to them!
Even if this is not a simulation, our bodies are still just information.  **Energy that appears to be tangible. Quantized bits.

Nope,. I haven't played a computer game since pac-man and space invaders !  ..(late 1800's)

.  If This is a simulation...we have Simulated conciousness, intelligence ,and free will.  

  yes , **that describes our existence perfectly !  . .real or simulated.

[Rlyeh]

51 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

What we have here is a phenomenon without a theory. Myself (and many others) have a hypothesis that fits the phenomenon perfectly, but are lacking definitive evidence.

Your "hypothesis" isn't even a scientific hypothesis.  Without a way to disprove it all you've got is confirmation bias.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Rlyeh

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

If the universe is a simulation, what natural processes do you have to compare to?  And why can't a simulation simulate nature?

Right on both counts.  If we live in a simulation, there is no such thing as nature.  The only nature we know is the one represented by the simulation.  Now, it seems you don’t like the topic because you consider it “not scientific.”  And that is fine.

However, for some of us, this notion actually explains a lot of things that science can’t explain at this time and may never.  In any event, we - as people- not me, because I don’t know how to produce a sophisticated simulation - but many of us do, like the guy in the second video I posted.  He knows how to create a sophisticated simulation, because he’s a pro at it.  And, according to his view, the “real world” contains elements of a simulation, the type of which people are now beginning to use as our computational capability has evolved.

At this time, virtual reality - a computer simulation - has in some cases become so sophisticated that it can actually fool people into thinking its real.  Since we already have this capability now.....project forward one hundred years, or one thousand years.  With continuing innovation, the type and scale that we ourselves have witnessed in our own lifetimes, it is not unreasonable to think that highly sophisticated computer simulations could exist, and may be the only things left of “real people.”  I’m just saying.

[zep73]

55 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Your "hypothesis" isn't even a scientific hypothesis.  Without a way to disprove it all you've got is confirmation bias.

That's your opinion. A great deal of scientists have no problem defining it as a hypothesis. It's all about what you accept as evidence.

I actively do all I can to avoid being biased. I am aware of the danger of falling into that trap. Can your say the same about your bias against it?

[Rlyeh]

8 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Right on both counts.  If we live in a simulation, there is no such thing as nature.  The only nature we know is the one represented by the simulation.

So we're back to what experiments could falsify the simulation argument?

 

8 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 Now, it seems you don’t like the topic because you consider it “not scientific.”  And that is fine.

Either it satisfies the scientific method or it doesn't.

[Rlyeh]

9 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

That's your opinion. A great deal of scientists have no problem defining it as a hypothesis. It's all about what you accept as evidence.

"The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability"

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

 

9 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I actively do all I can to avoid being biased. I am aware of the danger of falling into that trap. Can your say the same about your bias against it?

By declaring proof because something has not been refuted.  That's as biased as it comes.

As to my bias?  The simulation argument isn't even a scientific hypothesis.

[zep73]

26 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

"The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability"

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

 

As to my bias?  The simulation argument isn't even a scientific hypothesis.

Things I've already established could come in the future + it is a matter of what is accepted/considered as evidence.

All you've really got, is the consensus of some stubborn old men.

Edited May 6, 2020 by sci-nerd

[zep73]

28 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

By declaring proof because something has not been refuted.  That's as biased as it comes.

I hereby withdraw it. I should not have used common sense in that context.

I can, however, prove that I'm not biased, by pointing to the hundreds of scientific replies, I have given here over the latest years, where I don't point to this being a simulation.

Edited May 6, 2020 by sci-nerd

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, lightly said:

Thanks for posting the link to that paper psyche.   It probably won't surprise you if I told you I read (most of)  it...and was incapable of understanding (nearly all of)  it.  

Good for you lightly. Well done. If you have certain questions I suggest you post them. There are many great minds here and I'm sure all would be more than happy to help with any difficult parts. I usually have to read most information like that 3 or 4 times before I begin to grasp it. People like Cormac and Harte are for gems in that regard. It's not easy to understand straight up. The effort is worthy though I assure you. 

The general point in the paper was to how that there is a threshold that's pretty impossible to pass. That's where the idea I feel beaks down. 

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Things I've already established could come in the future + it is a matter of what is accepted/considered as evidence.

All you've really got, is the consensus of some stubborn old men.

Isn't all you really have a Walkerism?

One day, 'A' scientist will make discoveries that prove a personal idea right. 

Guessing future discoveries isn't very productive. Rlyeh is right. A scientific hypothesis isn't your regular garden variety musing. Discoveries like inflation came from scientific hypotheses, not philosophies. Because an idea can fit doesn't make it valid. Particle wave duality seems to be where you hang your hat here, but it's not definitive. Leaving it there is akin to Godidit.

[zep73]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

The general point in the paper was to how that there is a threshold that's pretty impossible to pass. That's where the idea I feel beaks down.

You're probably right, if we keep making computers like we do today, even though they are pretty powerful right now, with multi-core processors. The thing is, though, that we are just at the dawn of the computer age, and that MCP's is only the first step up, in the evolution of computing. What the next step will be, I don't know. I'm not a hardware developer, but I'm pretty sure it will require out-of-the-box thinking. The obvious destination is of course the commercial quantum computer, but that is probably decades - if not a century - ahead. Computing power limitations is a weak argument against the hypothesis. Very weak.

 

38 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Isn't all you really have a Walkerism?

One day, 'A' scientist will make discoveries that prove a personal idea right. 

Guessing future discoveries isn't very productive. Rlyeh is right. A scientific hypothesis isn't your regular garden variety musing. Discoveries like inflation came from scientific hypotheses, not philosophies. Because an idea can fit doesn't make it valid. Particle wave duality seems to be where you hang your hat here, but it's not definitive. Leaving it there is akin to Godidit.

 

Why argue about it? It's pointless. Old schooler's have always set the rules of the game, by determining the definitions, and new thinkers have always challenged them, and won. But they did not only win, because they were right. They eventually won because.... well, like old Max Planck put it...

Quote

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by sci-nerd

[Horta]

8 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

You have free will. It's really not that special, is it?

Quite an assumption that, especially without clear definition of what you are referring to.

Every single piece of experimental data that could shed at least some light on this claim disagrees with the general belief people have about this, as does as every understanding of how the nervous system, nature and our universe works. I would go further and say that it is not only incorrect, but impossible based on any understanding we have so far and it's entirely incoherent even as a concept.

Simulation ideas are interesting but as others have said, not really scientific. It does appear that as an idea (in the logical sense) it requires interpreting facts via bias  and making assumptions (as in the above). Needs more than this.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

You're probably right, if we keep making computers like we do today, even though they are pretty powerful right now, with multi-core processors. The thing is, though, that we are just at the dawn of the computer age, and that MCP's is only the first step up, in the evolution of computing. What the next step will be, I don't know. I'm not a hardware developer, but I'm pretty sure it will require out-of-the-box thinking. The obvious destination is of course the commercial quantum computer, but that is probably decades - if not a century - ahead. Computing power limitations is a weak argument against the hypothesis. Very weak.

It's probably a weak argument, but so is the simulation idea to begin with. It still relies primarily on faith. It's not building a magical computer that's the problem. Douglas Adams already went down that road. As I explained, my understanding bis that it's more like exceeding the speed of light. Proportional excess at the top end. Complexity of the quantum fluctuations exceed the power to program them. That's why I used a dog chasing it's tail as my example.

Quote

Why argue about it? It's pointless. Old schooler's have always set the rules of the game, by determining the definitions, and new thinkers have always challenged them, and won. But they did not only win, because they were right. They eventually won because.... well, like old Max Planck put it...

 

And arrogant know it all's are always trying to rewrite history. They don't often succeed I that either. Standing on the shoulders of giants has a good track record. It's not like the idea hasn't been considerably approached, it's just faith based is all. I'm not sure why that's so hard to recognise. Your looking for evidence to support your conclusion. That's the wrong way to approach the idea.

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by psyche101

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Your looking for evidence to support your conclusion. That's the wrong way to approach the idea.

Outside of movies like The Matrix and Star Trek episodes...how is any 'simulation' theory anything but Sci-fi extrapolations?

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, joc said:

Outside of movies like The Matrix and Star Trek episodes...how is any 'simulation' theory anything but Sci-fi extrapolations?

Exactly. That's why it's just a secular God. 

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Why argue about it? It's pointless. Old schooler's have always set the rules of the game, by determining the definitions, and new thinkers have always challenged them, and won. But they did not only win, because they were right. They eventually won because.... well, like old Max Planck put it...

Because it shows the "hypothesis" has a fundamental problem, it cannot be falsified.  In that regard it is no different to God did it or Intelligent Design.

[zep73]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's probably a weak argument, but so is the simulation idea to begin with.

You're entitled to have that opinion. I respect that.

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It still relies primarily on faith.

I would never have become a proponent, if that was true. Just because something is currently unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean there is no evidence. Researchers are looking for it.
Just because some refuse to accept the evidence as evidence, it doesn't mean it is not evidence.
It's a matter of interpretation.

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And arrogant know it all's are always trying to rewrite history.
.....
Standing on the shoulders of giants has a good track record.

I'm not trying anything. This is not my discovery. I'm standing on the same shoulders you are. We're just looking in different directions.

 

7 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Because it shows the "hypothesis" has a fundamental problem, it cannot be falsified.  In that regard it is no different to God did it or Intelligent Design.

Let me repeat:
Just because something is currently unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean there is no evidence. Researchers are looking for it.
Just because some refuse to accept the evidence as evidence, it doesn't mean it is not evidence.
It's a matter of interpretation.

The "goddidit argument" is nothing but a grumpy denial of something, some people find, unacceptable.
Reality, whatever it may be, does not care what you find acceptable.

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

Let me repeat:

Just because something is currently unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean there is no evidence. Researchers are looking for it.
Just because some refuse to accept the evidence as evidence, it doesn't mean it is not evidence.
It's a matter of interpretation.

The "goddidit argument" is nothing but a grumpy denial of something, some people find, unacceptable.
Reality, whatever it may be, does not care what you find acceptable.

Your evidence is not verifiable.  Because it's unfalsifiable all you have is bias, exactly the same as intelligent design.

[zep73]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

all you have is bias

Not more than you. Less in fact. Check my posts over the latest years. You'll find no simulation-bias.

 

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

exactly the same as intelligent design

ID is possible with the hypothesis, but it's not required.
We know that the universe is fine-tuned, and that fine-tuning is explained by the hypothesis as mathematical rules. That's all.

Edited May 7, 2020 by sci-nerd

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

Not more than you. Less in fact. Check my posts over the latest years. You'll find no simulation-bias.

I've seen the total opposite, you argue for a position we know you cannot support.  You accuse others of bias because they don't accept this unverifiable theory, there is no hypothetical experiment that could possibly verify it. 

 

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

 

ID is possible with the hypothesis, but it's not required.

You're not listening, the simulation argument can be no more verified than ID.

 

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

We know that the universe is fine-tuned, and that fine-tuning is explained by the hypothesis as mathematical rules. That's all.

The universe being fine-tuned only proves the universe is fine-tuned, nothing more.  An explanation in science must be supported.

[zep73]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

I've seen the total opposite

When the subject of a thread is simulated reality, a subject I love to discuss, then I give my opinion about it. That is not bias. It's staying on topic. I only talk simulation in simulation threads.

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

you argue for a position we know you cannot support

I can support it, but everything I say is discredited and rejected by you and a few others.

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

You accuse others of bias because they don't accept this unverifiable theory, there is no hypothetical experiment that could possibly verify it.

No, I accuse You of bias, because You attack, discredit and reject an idea that You hate, in a very unscientific way. There is no real discussion going on, only ridicule and disgust from your side.

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

You're not listening, the simulation argument can be no more verified than ID.

Perhaps. We'll see in the coming years.

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

You're entitled to have that opinion. I respect that.

Thanks. It might seem like you get a hard time sometimes, but I like your posting. I don't always agree but you bring good discussion to the table.

Quote

I would never have become a proponent, if that was true. Just because something is currently unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean there is no evidence. Researchers are looking for it.
Just because some refuse to accept the evidence as evidence, it doesn't mean it is not evidence.
It's a matter of interpretation.

More than that, it's philosophy based. Hypotheses like inflation were the result of known factors, giving them credibility. Whereas simulation didn't follow that path. This is what Rlyeh was referring to as well I think. That's why ID proponents tend to identify with it do well I would assume. It's their method to rely on faith. 

Quote

I'm not trying anything. This is not my discovery. I'm standing on the same shoulders you are. We're just looking in different directions.

Not quite.

Bostroms original argument, from only 2003, postulates several outcomes. One of which was intelligent civilization goes extinct before achieving the ability to engineer such a complex project.

It's anything but universally accepted. Sean Carroll has raised. Basics like atomic structure or the periodic table are universally accepted because they are proven. That's the firm shoulders I'm talking about, starting with a conclusion is more bull in a china shop stuff. You might find what you want, but more likely a mess is going to be the end result. 

Quote

Let me repeat:
Just because something is currently unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean there is no evidence. Researchers are looking for it.
Just because some refuse to accept the evidence as evidence, it doesn't mean it is not evidence.
It's a matter of interpretation.

That's exactly the point I brought up.

One does not start with a conclusion and then look for evidence. That's philosophy. The same method religion works with. Currently there is no evidence. There's an idea and O honestly Gail to see how it's not just an updated watchmaker argument.

Quote

The "goddidit argument" is nothing but a grumpy denial of something, some people find, unacceptable.
Reality, whatever it may be, does not care what you find acceptable.

What's to deny? As you have admitted, there is no proof. Evidence is subjective and philosophical. Reality is what affects us right now. Evidence in the real world is what is required. However, if this was a simulation , then discovering that would mean the simulation has ended, and all would cease to exist. But that's where the simulation idea becomes even more god like and philosophical. 

The Godidit argument is entirely accurate, you have only protested to the contrary and have not illustrated your accusation in any way. From my perspective, strong support of the idea is grumpy denial of the actual current situation and stubborn adherence to human philosophy, which seems to be hubris based to me.