Spitballing some Simulationism.

[Tatetopa]

If we are living in a simulation, then simulated gravity and mass are all we know.

Planck lengths and volumes are the .smallest possible dimensions based on our understanding of physics.  A Planck length is about 10 ^-20  the size of a proton, so the resolution is pretty good.  You might consider the Planck length the size of a pixel in the universe, or a Planck volume to be the size of a universal voxel (3d pixel)  You can't drill down any further in the universe than a Planck length as far as we currently know.  Planck time goes down to about 10^-43 seconds, the time it would take a photon to travel one Planck length.  Any smaller time or distance is currently precluded by Heisenberg uncertainty. The universe is not like a fractal that has continuity  through  infinite magnification.

Claude  Shannon  had some insights from information theory about black hole event horizons and how the universe might store information on a basic level. It plays well with quantum theory.  You could visualize a photon traveling through space as a packet of all the information it would take to define the particle  A finite number of data would tell one everything there is to know about that specific photon or any other particle.  Plenty of room to spare if a single piece of information can be stored in each Planck volume.

In the sense of pixel resolution, an electron is quite large and would appear to have continuous curves  forming its shape.  It still only contains a finite amount of data.

Consider our progress and distance yet to go on climate and weather models, which do model a complex series of interactions in a finite amount of dimensional cells.  The more computing power, the smaller the cells can be and more of them go into the model making it a more accurate representation of nature.

So if there is a computer that can work with very large amounts of data, and its operators know as much or more than we do about physics, they might build a simulation that would seem like a real universe all the way down past sub  atomic particles.

Are we talking about moon sized computers with stars harnessed for energy input?  Is that 1000 years from our current day human technology?  One can imagine at some point it will be possible for beings even with human limitations, perhaps assisted by AI. 

Perhaps we live in a research simulation designed to record our behavior and provide insights rather than as a game for us.   Maybe we live in one of many running different parameters on the same simulation.

We could be in a very specific simulation in which researchers have gathered data on real people alive at the time the simulation replicates.

They might want to know how we narrowly avoided a collapse of civilization in 2030, or if we didn't how to avoid repeating  it in their future.

Bigfoot and gods would all be  the natural  products of the simulation's faithfully constructed human brains.  No escape for us if that is true and no magic either sadly. Unless of course the Devs were kind and had a sense of humor.  Then we might pass into that play realm  when we have served our purpose and our part in the simulation is complete.  Like @Alchopwn's  murloc, we might manifest right into adventure world.🙂

[lightly]

I suppose someday we might be able to run simulations that are indistinguishable from a Real occurrence?    An AI created video.. (simulated occurrence)  … versus a digitally recorded video of an actual occurrence.     but …the idea of our infinitely variable thoughts and perceptions being parts of a simulation seems impossible to me.    ..maybe I just don’t understand the concept well enough.   …not sure a simulation can be understood..or ,being UN-real,  result in any sort of real understanding.   

[lightly]

Hmm…after re- reading that^    It made me think of people learning to drive ,or even fly, using simulators.  So I guess a simulation can result in   Real?   understanding .?     Anyway, I’ll hush now and let the discussion get more on direct topic.  Simulationism.

Edited August 3 by lightly

[Guyver]

5 hours ago, lightly said:

Hmm…after re- reading that^    It made me think of people learning to drive ,or even fly, using simulators.  So I guess a simulation can result in   Real?   understanding .?     Anyway, I’ll hush now and let the discussion get more on direct topic.  Simulationism.

Learning to drive or fly in a simulator is directly related to this topic.  The idea being that we are creating simulations now, our simulations are becoming more advanced and realistic as time goes by and computer processing power and speed increases over time.  Eventually, it will be likely that we ourselves can create realistic simulations…so, it is possible that we ourselves do live in a simulation.

[lightly]

I can’t swallow simulationism.  (the BELIEF that Everything is part of a simulation)   Everything perceivable and measurable, or even Imaginable!  are part of an interactive simulation??  …except the Simulator/Creator…hidden from us.   Sounds like religion. ?   The workings of the universe are spread out before us. ?  We can see, hear, and feel some of the forces ,and their results. ?

Edited August 3 by lightly

[Alchopwn]

11 hours ago, lightly said:

I can’t swallow simulationism.  (the BELIEF that Everything is part of a simulation)   Everything perceivable and measurable, or even Imaginable!  are part of an interactive simulation??  …except the Simulator/Creator…hidden from us.   Sounds like religion. ?   The workings of the universe are spread out before us. ?  We can see, hear, and feel some of the forces ,and their results. ?

Have you ever played "The SIMs" ?  Just imagine we are the SIMs, except we are in version 44,000 of The SIMs or some-such.  We could be self aware simulations, each one of us a developed A.I. that is navigating a simulated world, unaware that we are doing so for the hidden purpose and amusement of a malignant or benign "user", who is running us.  I think anyone who has gone swimming and suddenly discovered the ladders in the pool removed, and a high fence suddenly built around the swimming pool can identify with this. 😉

[Alchopwn]

On 8/1/2024 at 12:19 AM, papageorge1 said:

In the philosophy I am discussing (Advaita Vedanta) the universe is seen as a great play/drama in which Brahman (God, the One Consciousness) separates Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II. It is play with a happy ending for all with much joy/suffering/drama in the middle scenes.

Why? = To experience the positive experience of going from separate ego ignorance to full Oneness.

Why do humans create plays/drama with no practical purpose? =To Experience

Okay, so here's what I have a problem with...   If you knew that when you turned on a computer game, that the simulations within the game were so real that they would feel the pain, trauma, and horror of the exciting situations they were in, would you still play?  I mean, say you were playing a First Person Shooter, and you were shooting up terrorists...  Do you really want to create a fully simulated life of misery, brainwashing, and trauma to program and inform that SIM you are about to shoot, let alone their anguish as you shoot them?

Presently our simulated enemies are far too simple to feel anything.  What person could claim they were a decent human being if they were playing a First Person Shooter if the SIMs were functionally artificially intelligent?  Who could morally play a God Game like "Rimworld" or "Black and White" if every minute of desperation and suffering happening to your sims was real to them as thinking entities?   No God could ever be moral or good.  Creating a world that was anything other than utterly benign would be a malignant act.  God therefore must be Evil.

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

Okay, so here's what I have a problem with...   If you knew that when you turned on a computer game, that the simulations within the game were so real that they would feel the pain, trauma, and horror of the exciting situations they were in, would you still play?  I mean, say you were playing a First Person Shooter, and you were shooting up terrorists...  Do you really want to create a fully simulated life of misery, brainwashing, and trauma to program and inform that SIM you are about to shoot, let alone their anguish as you shoot them?

Presently our simulated enemies are far too simple to feel anything.  What person could claim they were a decent human being if they were playing a First Person Shooter if the SIMs were functionally artificially intelligent?  Who could morally play a God Game like "Rimworld" or "Black and White" if every minute of desperation and suffering happening to your sims was real to them as thinking entities?   No God could ever be moral or good.  Creating a world that was anything other than utterly benign would be a malignant act.  God therefore must be Evil.

It would be no different than a scientist running an experiment. One where a universe starts and finishes. A program that on "a god" scale could run in seconds. Universes where any tiny factor is figured in. Then again each "human" life is a sapient program. Interacting with other programs. Like an A.I. training tool. This universe might be the right vs wrong program. 

The problem always rises when putting a human persona on a god. We might be no different than a culture in a dish to it.

[lightly]

Nope @Alchopwn , I’ve never played SIMS or any other computer game since the original PONG.      I’m not too savvy on computer powers and capabilities. I still have to think that only a being can Actually Experience.      AE  

Edited August 4 by lightly

[papageorge1]

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Okay, so here's what I have a problem with...   If you knew that when you turned on a computer game, that the simulations within the game were so real that they would feel the pain, trauma, and horror of the exciting situations they were in, would you still play?  I mean, say you were playing a First Person Shooter, and you were shooting up terrorists...  Do you really want to create a fully simulated life of misery, brainwashing, and trauma to program and inform that SIM you are about to shoot, let alone their anguish as you shoot them?

Presently our simulated enemies are far too simple to feel anything.  What person could claim they were a decent human being if they were playing a First Person Shooter if the SIMs were functionally artificially intelligent?  Who could morally play a God Game like "Rimworld" or "Black and White" if every minute of desperation and suffering happening to your sims was real to them as thinking entities?   No God could ever be moral or good.  Creating a world that was anything other than utterly benign would be a malignant act.  God therefore must be Evil.

Here's my comeback as a believer in nonduality and reincarnation. It's a game/play/drama that will have a happy ending for all characters in the game (a return to Oneness and Peace and bliss). Your analogy takes a one-day clip of a million-year story as if that is the whole thing. 

In my view we start in ignorance (separateness in survival mode) and develop to enlightenment and Oneness through spiritual soul growth. Like in a play that has a happy ending there will be the full gambit of temporary good and bad experiences along the way in the early and middle scenes.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Here's my comeback as a believer in nonduality and reincarnation. It's a game/play/drama that will have a happy ending for all characters in the game (a return to Oneness and Peace and bliss). Your analogy takes a one-day clip of a million-year story as if that is the whole thing. 

In my view we start in ignorance (separateness in survival mode) and develop to enlightenment and Oneness through spiritual soul growth. Like in a play that has a happy ending there will be the full gambit of temporary good and bad experiences along the way in the early and middle scenes.

All of which can be a part of the simulation that keeps you distracted. Thus spirituality is one of many misdirections.

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

All of which can be a part of the simulation that keeps you distracted. Thus spirituality is one of many misdirections.

In my view, the player is also the experiencer of the characters and chooses to play the game.

But in your view, what would be the conscious experiencer of the characters in the simulation. In the computer game simulation analogy, only the human player can ever really experience, not the characters.

In my view the game player is (God/Source/Brahman) but that player also experiences all the characters in the game. And chooses to play.

Edited August 4 by papageorge1

[zep73]

On 7/31/2024 at 5:02 PM, MrsGently said:

The only spit-ball you need to destroy SimulationT is: *drumroll* mass

Things wouldn't have mass if they were part of a simulation especially since it developed out of holographic universe theory. So I decided I won't bother with it.

Interestingly though, but don't try to nail me down on where I've found that bit, but the only place were the holographic theory might be useful in a way to describe what is happening is at the event horizon of a Black Hole. as that is where we imagine the spaghetti effect to set in, when you're stretched thin between the singularity approaching core of the Black Hole and the infinity approaching universe.

But as I said holographic shenannigans that's just one aspect of Black Holes encorporated inside the entire universe where we have mass and by this can tell the two "modes of existence" apart.

Mass is an illusion. That's been established long ago. There is only energy. Charges. Radiation. The big bang came out of nowhere, remember?

[XenoFish]

22 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In my view, the player is also the experiencer of the characters and chooses to play the game.

But in your view, what would be the conscious experiencer of the characters in the simulation. In the computer game simulation analogy, only the human player can ever really experience, not the characters.

In my view the game player is (God/Source/Brahman) but that player also experiences all the characters in the game. And chooses to play.

So you're an NPC in the game. Sounds right.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

So you're an NPC in the game. Sounds right.

But I know I experience. That's not NPC.

[zep73]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

But I know I experience. That's not NPC.

The only difference is that the player gets to stand up and walk away from the computer. The NPC is stuck in there.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

But I know I experience. That's not NPC.

The "I" is an illusion. 

[papageorge1]

Just now, XenoFish said:

The "I" is an illusion. 

An NPC that can experience illusions is not an NPC.

[Grey Area]

On 7/28/2024 at 12:09 PM, Alchopwn said:

The ramifications of this are potentially huge,

I completely disagree with this.

If we are in a simulation, the rules of the system are very very clearly the laws of physics.  Nothing changes about our reality, and the truth is wholly unknowable.

The Matrix has a lot to answer for, as awesome as the first film is.

[XenoFish]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

An NPC that can experience illusions is not an NPC.

You're just following your programming is all. Thus designed by the programmer to be who you are. The reality you experience is nothing more than a mental model created by sensory information. An illusion which allows the a.i. you call consciousness to function. 

Neo never escaped the matrix. 

Edited August 4 by XenoFish

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You're just following your programming is all. Thus designed by the programmer to be who you are. The reality you experience is nothing more than a mental model created by sensory information. An illusion which allows the a.i. you call consciousness to function. 

Neo never escaped the matrix. 

(Jumping on the merry-go-round AGAIN) But an NPC cannot experience 'a mental model created by sensory information' and be an NPC.

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

(Jumping on the merry-go-round AGAIN) But an NPC cannot experience 'a mental model created by sensory information' and be an NPC.

You didn't write the simulation. An NPC might be the kind that is required to interact with the environment in order to test out the simulation (for whatever purpose). It would just follow coding with the illusion of choice. You're a meat robot Georgie. We're all trapped in the matrix. Living in a program for a purpose we do not know if there is even one. Claiming we are individuals when we're just crunching numbers. Giving just enough free will to interact successfully, depending on what successful means though. 

You can think of it this way. If we're in the 'mind of god'. We are just thoughts, ideas. Not much different than existing solely within an artificial environment and thinking we exist independent of it. Haven't given this stuff much thought have you.

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You didn't write the simulation. An NPC might be the kind that is required to interact with the environment in order to test out the simulation (for whatever purpose). It would just follow coding with the illusion of choice. You're a meat robot Georgie. We're all trapped in the matrix. Living in a program for a purpose we do not know if there is even one. Claiming we are individuals when we're just crunching numbers. Giving just enough free will to interact successfully, depending on what successful means though. 

You can think of it this way. If we're in the 'mind of god'. We are just thoughts, ideas. Not much different than existing solely within an artificial environment and thinking we exist independent of it. Haven't given this stuff much thought have you.

As I see it, your arguments hit a wall so you then jump over the Hard Problem of Consciousness and move on. What experiences this 'illusion of choice'? We don't grant that experience to NPCs, do we?

"Georgie'? I was waiting for the conversation to descend.

 

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

As I see it, your arguments hit a wall so you then jump over the Hard Problem of Consciousness and move on. What experiences this 'illusion of choice'? We don't grant that experience to NPCs, do we?

"Georgie'? I was waiting for the conversation to descend.

 

You do. The program known as papa george on this forum and whatever people address you in life. My argument didn't hit a wall. It gave you something to think about. I know subjects like this are above your pay grade. You, me, every human on this planet, npc's. Are we in a war simulation? Are we in a life simulation? Is this just some game a child plays in their spare time? None of us can truly know. We just do what the system allows us to do. The limitations placed upon us. Never to really see in or even out of the prison we're programmed in to. Then when we've ran our course, deleted. Are we clumps of lab grown grey matter given the illusion of existence and a dream reality to exist in was we do whatever the computer does? Ghost are just glitches or perhaps intentional. Just to test out the how our 'consciousness' is affected. 

What we taste, smell, feel, see, all just signals. I have no idea what the true taste of an apple is, nor the real color of the sky, what is the heat really warm or is it just what my nerves tell me. Do my nerves even exist? Do I even exist? Is all this just a solipsistic program were one consciousness exist and lives all lives only to experience everything?

Who truly knows Georgie, who knows. 

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You do. The program known as papa george on this forum and whatever people address you in life. My argument didn't hit a wall. It gave you something to think about. I know subjects like this are above your pay grade. You, me, every human on this planet, npc's. Are we in a war simulation? Are we in a life simulation? Is this just some game a child plays in their spare time? None of us can truly know. We just do what the system allows us to do. The limitations placed upon us. Never to really see in or even out of the prison we're programmed in to. Then when we've ran our course, deleted. Are we clumps of lab grown grey matter given the illusion of existence and a dream reality to exist in was we do whatever the computer does? Ghost are just glitches or perhaps intentional. Just to test out the how our 'consciousness' is affected. 

What we taste, smell, feel, see, all just signals. I have no idea what the true taste of an apple is, nor the real color of the sky, what is the heat really warm or is it just what my nerves tell me. Do my nerves even exist? Do I even exist? Is all this just a solipsistic program were one consciousness exist and lives all lives only to experience everything?

Who truly knows Georgie, who knows. 

Hard Problem of Consciousness:

(Wikipedia) In the philosophy of mind, the hard problem of consciousness is to explain why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experience. 

 

So, what is your answer to the problem?