Simulation Theory Mind Fuck

[Dr Acula]

It's a fun theory. No idea whether or not it's true, but I certainly enjoy teasing my daughter with it: "Wow! OMG!"

There is another good video on YT of scientist who supposedly has a good theoretical case for the world having, at the sub-atomic level, the same coding you would find in computers. A code, in fact, developed by a programmer in, if I remember right, in the 60s. This would certainly tie in with simulation theory. I haven't thought about this in a year, so the details are all a bit fuzzy. If we assume computing power will eventually be infinite, which scientists assure us is a given, then we would have the power. If we also assume that when we think of something, some of us will do it, then the simulation world is not definite but certainly probably. And if we consider that the simulants inside our create world are like us, we can assume they will eventually evolve to create their own simulations. If we extrapolate this, the possibility is easy to swallow: their are infinite universes. So what are the chances we get to be on the organic one? Pretty freaking small. I'm sorry, I didn't watch the video (working), but that sums it up for anyone who doesn't watch it. Groovy stuff!

 

[The Scarlet Pimp]

so is this like plus rep or minus rep?

think about it

what difference, since they don't exist!

 

[illfounded21]

Just got round to watching this. I'm undecided if I enjoyed it or not- definite head fuck.

 

[jazzc]

Not to forget "time" is debatable in itself. There are events that have happened in the past, there are events that will happen in the future, but there only is now. How do you know that time isn't an illusion?

With the same reasoning, space is an illusion as well, so...

What if Matrix isn't just a movie?

What if questions are useless - it 's up to the person who suggests an idea to prove it, not the other way around.

For example, "what if you 're wrong?" - well, I have to prove you are, instead of merely suggesting it, don't I?

 

[jazzc]

It was an awesome theory, that the space-time is quantized. I was myself excited about it, made a perfect connection between "pixel" size, entropy, and black holes (there is a video on Youtube as far as I remember).

Unfortunately, the only prediction they were able to make is that due to quantization short frequency waves will travel slower than long frequency waves. The latter was proven to be wrong about 2 months ago, when NASA registered 2 waves with different frequency, coming from the same pulsar at the same time.

That 's very interesting - my knowledge in physics is that of a layman 's so I thought that this was the mainstream theory today. Nice to hear there 's no hard proof yet

Faith in the cosmos: restored

 

[jazzc]

"Some other physicists propose that the universe is actually a giant hologram with all the action actually occurring on a two-dimensional boundary region."

Translation from fancy talk: "Someone 's watching us on the cinema screen"

 

[ShadeDream]

With the same reasoning, space is an illusion as well, so...

What if questions are useless - it 's up to the person who suggests an idea to prove it, not the other way around.

For example, "what if you 're wrong?" - well, I have to prove you are, instead of merely suggesting it, don't I?

Don't get me wrong I didn't create the thread to prove or disprove anything. I just wanted to share a little mind fuck and maybe make some closed minded people steam up due to their narrow minded beliefs.

Translation from fancy talk: "Someone 's watching us on the cinema screen"

I think it's more like your projecting your reality via your brain...

 

[jazzc]

I just wanted to share a little mind fuck and maybe make some closed minded people steam up due to their narrow minded beliefs.

I think that open minded people are those who follow the scientific method and closed minded people are those who don't.

I think it's more like your projecting your reality via your brain...

Think of a projector and how it sends the light to the wall - the rays travel in 3d space while the image only makes sense on the two-dimensional boundary (the wall surface). That 's why is says all the action is on the boundary

 

[Videodrome]

The simulation argument is a silly theory suitable for acid heads, pseudo-intellectuals, and people who think watching a few You Tube videos, and listening to nonsensical ramblings constitutes as a Science background. More specifically a Science background in fields that are primarily equations on paper: or on a computer. Physicists laugh at this stuff. I have witnessed it 2 times. Once with Lawrence Krauss at Caltech in Pasadena, and again from Neil Degrass Tyson at the Hayden Planetarium. It's a joke. It gets brought up in the context that the theory about as deep as a baby pool.

Despite it's attempt to utilize complex Science, it's nothing more than implying a designer. Which leads you where? Endless regression. Using String Theory to prove there's a designer (or team of them) is not any better than any of the Abrahamic religions. I do hope this crap stays around for a while, because these people are some of the best candidates for harassment in most social settings. They get so fucking angry, and act so irrational it's hilarious.

 

[Seankearns]

Gotta love Joe Rogan. He gets stoned, blows his own mind, then works for the UFC.

 

[carlikito]

Any of you watched BattleStar Galactica?

The "Cylons" are AI created by humanity that gained "consciousness" and self-awareness.

As the show progresses, they keep on taking about how "Everything that was before, will be again" and how "The cycle repeats again and again" .

And one of the main plots in the show is when one of the Cylons dies his "consciousness" gets downloaded to another Cylon and his memories and consciousness continues as it was before.

That why I love Sci-Fi, it gets you thinking about the possibilities.

 

[jazzc]

The simulation argument is a silly theory suitable for acid heads, pseudo-intellectuals, and people who think watching a few You Tube videos, and listening to nonsensical ramblings constitutes as a Science background.

Not Really. It 's a theory. A theory requires proof, and all they have to do is prove it. The fact that you are trying to attack the followers of the theyory instead of the theory itself, is a sign that you are totally unaware of the scientific process and you 're simply acting as a sports fan.

More specifically a Science background in fields that are primarily equations on paper: or on a computer.

String theory is a very respected theory and it 's a set of 12-dimensional differential equations - on paper. No experimental proof exists and none is expected to be found. It is respected though because it is elegant and has gotten traction.

Physicists laugh at this stuff. I have witnessed it 2 times. Once with Lawrence Krauss at Caltech in Pasadena, and again from Neil Degrass Tyson at the Hayden Planetarium. It's a joke.

Is that your idea of the scientific process? You think the way to prove things in physics is via a poll?

implying a designer

So what?

Which leads you where? Endless regression.

Why? Did you get endless regression when you played the Sims?

 

[bertbaby]

The simulation argument is a silly theory suitable for acid heads, pseudo-intellectuals, and people who think watching a few You Tube videos, and listening to nonsensical ramblings constitutes as a Science background. More specifically a Science background in fields that are primarily equations on paper: or on a computer. Physicists laugh at this stuff. I have witnessed it 2 times. Once with Lawrence Krauss at Caltech in Pasadena, and again from Neil Degrass Tyson at the Hayden Planetarium. It's a joke. It gets brought up in the context that the theory about as deep as a baby pool.

Despite it's attempt to utilize complex Science, it's nothing more than implying a designer. Which leads you where? Endless regression. Using String Theory to prove there's a designer (or team of them) is not any better than any of the Abrahamic religions. I do hope this crap stays around for a while, because these people are some of the best candidates for harassment in most social settings. They get so fucking angry, and act so irrational it's hilarious.

Dude take a chill pill, we are just having some psuedo-intellectual fun. As to using string theory scientists are just starting to formulate theories to prove the existence of the multi-verse by measuring the effects of gravitational waves caused by a parallel universe.

Two of my best childhood friends were nuclear physicists so I enjoyed shooting the breeze with them and imagining worlds we can barely understand. Take EPR/particle entanglement, which had Einstein scratching his head and now they are building quantum computers using entanglement. In fifty years those computers will be imbedded within our heads and then this will really get trippy. Boy are you going to be pissed off then!

 

[Videodrome]

Not Really. It 's a theory. A theory requires proof, and all they have to do is prove it. The fact that you are trying to attack the followers of the theyory instead of the theory itself, is a sign that you are totally unaware of the scientific process and you 're simply acting as a sports fan.

Thank you for bringing up to speed on what a theory is. However, do you seriously think something like this will ever accumulate a staggering amount of Evidence as something like Evolution? I am also not "trying" to attack followers of this silliness: I am attacking them. It's not an attempt. There's no sense in myself wasting time being articulate, over-complex, or even rational in my criticism of this theory. The audience dictates the type of criticism. And I am telling you that the people I've encountered, and "debated" with in various social situations have been the pseudo-scientific, spiritual, and You Tube education types. A lot of them are also avid users of hallucinogens, and sound an awful lot like Deepak Chopra. Your experience is no doubt different, but this is mine.

I've formed my opinion on the theory and it's subscribers based on observation and several social experiments. I get the same result every time. Does that sound familiar to you?

String theory is a very respected theory and it 's a set of 12-dimensional differential equations - on paper. No experimental proof exists and none is expected to be found. It is respected though because it is elegant and has gotten traction.

I am well aware of this, but thank you for the reiteration. This is why String Theorists have no problem getting funding: pen and paper. Done.

Is that your idea of the scientific process? You think the way to prove things in physics is via a poll?

A lovely assumption, but not quite. That being said, we can place my encounters at Cal Tech & The Hayden Planetarium under "observation".

So what?

Are you looking for a designer? Does anything in the Universe imply a grand design? Or a prime mover? If that's the case, then you've got a lot more explaining to do than someone like myself
who takes the position that there isn't a God or a design. The simulation theory will not get you anywhere and frankly will require much more than you think you are dealing with.

Why? Did you get endless regression when you played the Sims?

You've missed my point, and I've never played The Sims anyhow. To be more specific the simulation argument is like God. It get's you nowhere, and in fact has to explain even more than
the usual God created the Cosmos business. I mean, have you really thought this thing out? It's biting off way more than it can chew, and it's fundamentally rooted in a very convenient field.

I'm sure you'll understand what I mean in saying that. Thank you for your post though. I never thought I'd have this type of debate on a forum like this. It's great.

 

[LakeForest]

Despite it's attempt to utilize complex Science, it's nothing more than implying a designer. Which leads you where? Endless regression. Using String Theory to prove there's a designer (or team of them) is not any better than any of the Abrahamic religions. I do hope this crap stays around for a while, because these people are some of the best candidates for harassment in most social settings. They get so fucking angry, and act so irrational it's hilarious.

What exactly is the scientific problem with implying design or a designer?

At our present understanding, we can't use string theory to prove anything other than itself, so extrapolating further now that we can use it to prove anything else, like a designer, is taking a few leaps of faith ahead what observation and testing has shown. Please don't attach your religious conclusions to string theory.

As for prime movement, is the reason for placement and cause of a centralized explosion sending all matter outward not a good start?

 

[Videodrome]

What exactly is the scientific problem with implying design or a designer?

At our present understanding, we can't use string theory to prove anything other than itself, so extrapolating further now that we can use it to prove anything else, like a designer, is taking a few leaps of faith ahead what observation and testing has shown. Please don't attach your religious conclusions to string theory.

As for prime movement, the reason for placement and case of a centralized explosion sending all matter outward isn't a good start?

Most Cosmologists and Physicists aren't looking for a designer or a prime mover, and I'm certainly not one of those "The Big Bang happened, but I know who banged it" types. Besides, with the developments in Cosmic Inflation, we very well might be making some astronomically large revisions.

 

[Videodrome]

Please don't attach your religious conclusions to string theory.

Holy shit. I just saw this. Really? Does anything I wrote in this thread give you the slightest indication that I believe in God?
I don't even take Spinoza's God (the Deist position) into consideration. I am a little baffled as to why you would assume something like that.

 

[mickyfu]

This is what you get when you mix LSD with watching the Matrix.

 

[jazzc]

I 'll start by apologising because I 'm going to be a bit rough in my response. I have a natural anger against anti-scientific thought and get irritated on the subject easily.

However, do you seriously think something like this will ever accumulate a staggering amount of Evidence as something like Evolution?

Have you realised you used your assertion as a fact in the question?

As for the question itself, they will, or they won't. It doesn't matter to the scientific process - in both cases science wins.

I am also not "trying" to attack followers of this silliness: I am attacking them. It's not an attempt.

Thank you for verifying your anti scientific predisposition.

There's no sense in myself wasting time being articulate, over-complex, or even rational in my criticism of this theory.

And we care about what you do with your time because... ?

The audience dictates the type of criticism.

You have the same moral ground as the Inquisition.

And I am telling you that the people I've encountered, and "debated" with in various social situations have been the pseudo-scientific, spiritual, and You Tube education types.

So you hang with the wrong crowd. What does that say about you and your precious time?

A lot of them are also avid users of hallucinogens, and sound an awful lot like Deepak Chopra. Your experience is no doubt different, but this is mine.

My (anyone 's) experience is irrelevant. A scientist does not care about the hosts of the ideas, but of the ideas themselves. A scientist begins with the assumption he does not know and is out there to discover. Not the other way around.

I've formed my opinion on the theory and it's subscribers based on observation and several social

experiments. I get the same result every time. Does that sound familiar to you?

Yes, very much. Every backwards caveman uses the same argument.

I am well aware of this, but thank you for the reiteration. This is why String Theorists have no problem getting funding: pen and paper. Done.

Butthurt much?

A lovely assumption, but not quite. That being said, we can place my encounters at Cal Tech & The Hayden Planetarium under "observation".

You are using one of the most anti-scientific arguments ever - the authority argument.

People like you are more dangerous to science than those you "fight".

Are you looking for a designer? Does anything in the Universe imply a grand design? Or a prime mover? If that's the case, then you've got a lot more explaining to do than someone like myself
who takes the position that there isn't a God or a design.

I am not looking for anything. I go out with the assumption I know nothing. Not with the desire to prove what I believe is correct.

On the contrary, you seem to be and that 's utterly disgusting.

To be more specific the simulation argument is like God.

Not really. It 's simply arguing over a designed reality we live in. It doesn't have to go recursively. It 's like we somehow get so technologically advanced that we could create a super complex simulation on computers. Doesn't prove God, although I 'm sure most of the "people" in the computer would think of us as super beings

 

[Videodrome]

Your post wasn't abrasive or "rough". It was disappointing. I wanted something I could actually reply to. Re-read my posts. Anti-scientific? You've misconstrued just about everything I said. Your post is littered with non sequiturs. Are we having a debate? or do you just want "get me" online?

You quoted nothing but the subtext. Not any of the points. Are you sure you don't have a natural anger towards developing basic comprehension skills?