Science Suggests We're Living in the Matrix

ascorbius

Numberwanger
Nov 18, 2009
263
0
0
The_Waspman said:
ascorbius said:
The_Waspman said:
I'm calling bullshit on this.

If videogames have tought me anything its that you cant even enter a building without a fucking loading screen.

No loading screens in real life? Well then its not a fucking simulation, is it?
Think about it, If there were loading screens, you wouldn't see them - your simulation would be paused while more data is loaded. Only those who made the simulation would notice anything happening at all.
Actually, you'd be experiencing time at a completely different rate to what the creators of the simulation were.

I've thought about this before 13th floor kind-of gave me the nudge..

Consider this: we continue to make advances in science, things are becoming more complex from what we remember growing up - It stands to reason that there is a chance that this is because they keep upgrading the simulation machine and over time it can handle more levels of detail, just like most of us do with our PCs.. We're just in something like a massively complex CryEngine or something like that. We don't notice the upgrade because they pause the simulation for perform them.

And if it was God who crated the simulation, think about this... what happens to computer programs on your PC when you close them down? Do their souls go to your hard drive? No, they stop running and the memory they allocated is used by something else... They never spill out onto your desk. They can never leave the digital world.

There is no afterlife if this is a simulation... Even if there is a God, you're going to heaven no more than Gordon Freeman will - and we like Gordon Freeman - He does noble work. When we close Half-Life, Gordon Freeman ceases to exist in memory and remains only on your hard drive as a set of instructions needed to create Gordon Freeman the next time you want to play.

Also, if this is a simulation, there is no free will as we're set on a pre-programmed path where our actions are based on stimulus and reaction - It's just so complex we perceive it as free will. Think about it, when was the last time you made a truly independent decision which wasn't based on outside factors or a learned response to some other stimulus?

Oh lord. I knew, just knew I shouldn't have commented on this topic. Nothing personal against you mate, but We had a lot of debates about this back when I was at university (shortly after the matrix came out) and most of the arguments haven't changed. Besides, I was just attempting to be snarky. Anyway, to respond to some points...

You say things are becoming more complex. I assume from that you mean our technological advances, and our understanding, on a societal level as opposed to everyone being morons when they were kids. So in a similar way to how graphical improvements have been made in video games, yes? Well, I cant really buy that. Just because we now 'understand' more about subatomic behaviour (or whatever) now than we did 200 years ago, wouldn't really mean that this stuff has just been patched in. There is just far too much complexity for this all to be a simulation, basically because:

Daverson said:
Of course, the theory falls apart when you come to the realization that the hardware for said simulation would have a finite amount of computing power available, so wouldn't be able to run infinite nestled simulations (and, realistically speaking, probably wouldn't be able to run even a single nestled simulation)
This. Even if we were all just programs (as opposed to organisms plugged into some huge virtual reality) there are far far too many of us (as well as every other organism, and hell, everything else in the universe) far any computer system to realistically be able to process. Even if we were all part of some amazingly advanced technological system, we would all be existing within it as it ran in real time, without any glitches at all. At all!?

Nope, still not buying it.

As for your point about our decision making abilities, well, none of us have any individuality anyway. If you look at Memetics (actual memetics, not all this internet shit about Chuck Norris being the worlds most badass pony or whatever) then all any of us are, as 'individuals', are collections of a great number of different social and cultural replicators. Thats one of the reasons we have evolved in the way we have. Does that support your - I dont really want to use the word 'argument', because it carries too much confrontational weight, and as I said, I'm not having a go at you, its more this topic - so lets say your supposition, than it does mine? Well, probably.

Captcha: partly to blame. Yeah, thanks captcha, thanks a lot.
Don't worry mate, I'm not serious on this - far too old for that. It is an interesting thought experiment though.

No silicone heaven? Where would all the calculators go?
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Sounds more like philsophy than science, and a demonstration of where they can intersect (despite people claiming they exist seperatly). Basically science has hit a limit and this is one of the reasons people can think of to explain that limit.

Truthfully I think the limits understood by science now, including those established by Einstein, will be disproven given enough time. They are simply our equivilent of the barriers hit by scientists and thinkers from earlier periods.

There is also the issue of motive in any kind of construct of this sort. Arguements about universes being created to learn from them fall apart when you consider the nessicary knowlege to create all the variables and details to begin with. This of course leads back to the whole idea of god being unknowable, albiet in the form of an intelligence to vast as to be alien to us in it's motives and manner of thinking.

In short I don't give much credit to the idea of "The Matrix" or "The Thirteenth Floor" or "Dark City" (another take on the same thing, albiet without the computer simulation, and direct reality control), though they are interesting thought experiments.
 

zefiris

New member
Dec 3, 2011
224
0
0
we would all be existing within it as it ran in real time, without any glitches at all. At all!?
Who says there were no glitches? Maybe that's what caused several of the mass extinctions :) A lot of weird things happen that we still have no clear explanation for. Those might be glitches. Heck, those weird undersea noises? Glitches! Wee!

Just saying.

Your hardware argument also fails, because it assumes computers have to be about as powerful as they are now, which is a pretty asinine argument. It also assumes that our current limits are the limits of any computing ever in any universe with any set of natural laws, which is completely silly.


I don't actually believe that we live in a simulation, but so far, not a single argument in this thread is a logical rebuttal. Most of these are either ignorant, assume things that are untrue (such as your posting), don't understand basic methods of science, or lack internal logic.

fall apart when you consider the nessicary knowlege to create all the variables and details to begin with.
Take this one. This assumes that the universe running us would have our laws. This is a stupid assumption, because it might have ANY laws, including laws totally alien to ours. You can similate anything. You need no knowledge of how things are exactly in a simulation, you just set them as is and see what happens. If this were a simulation, it might simply be one of many random ones.

Cthulhu might be simulating us to amuse his kids (the hellspawn of f'tagn'shay). Lovecraft? Actually his self insert!

Not to burst the bubble, but the GZK is a theoretical upper limit. It hasn't been proven.
Please use proper words. Using "theory" or "theoretical" in a scientific context like you do makes everything you say invalid, because you evidently don't understand basic science and concepts that are at the very core of it.


So if no-one is looking, things don't exist. Sounds an awful lot like they're saving on processing power to me.
No, they still exist, they just are between states.
 

Da Orky Man

Yeah, that's me
Apr 24, 2011
2,107
0
0
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but a quick check on Wikipedia says that, while the limit is about 8 joules, we have detected rays up to 50 joules. Close, but not close enough.

Aegis
Cheese Steak Jimmy's
Bigdaddy

Awww...
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
Leemaster777 said:
Guys, guys, I think all of you are missing the big picture here.

Okay, what do we all use the internet for? That's right, porn. So, theoretically, the beings that created OUR universe would use THEIR internet for porn, too.

I think we all know what needs to be done now. If our universe really IS a giant simulation, then we need to scour the universe for the ancient super-porn made by our creators. And it will be glorious.
All of my Rage.

Does that mean the big bang was someone pressing the power button and the guy who did that is our God?

Because he wanted to see us hump.

I bet he looks nothing like us. And watching us bump uglies is his society's version of Furry porn.
 

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Serously...

The problem I have with this is that it would therefor have to assume that we, as we currently exist, are nothing but computer programs ourselves. If you start a simulation and plug your entire society into it. All the people in the simulation would be virtual representatives of the people outside the simulation in reality. If the virtual representations advanced enough to create another simulation and plug everyone into that, then that would mean that the 2nd simulation is filled with virtual representations of virtual representations. So from that point on, all future simulations would be filled with virtualized virtual beings.

Then there's the question of who the hell started it all? Are we to assume that humans are that ancient of a species? Or that the Reapers created a virtual universe that simulates nature perfectly so that the simulation itself can create entire ficticious species such as humanity just by running the numbers?
Couple of problems here. First is the assumption that you would only create a simulation to "plug" in outsiders. The other is that you could create a simulation of the universe from inside the universe. Without loss in detail you cannot. You can create rules for a system and see what happens. However to simulate every particle in the system your simulator has to be at least the same size as what you are simulating. To an extent of course. There is the possibility that with some new technology you could simulate more than one particle with one particle, but then it turns out you need that information in your perfect simulation and at that point you might as well have built a new universe.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
Yay! This means we could be one digital catalyst away from becoming a Digimon!

... Right! Time to prepare for the day one of us punches a Computerized god in the face!
 

geldonyetich

New member
Aug 2, 2006
3,715
0
0
wildpeaks said:
geldonyetich said:
Sounds like a "chicken or the egg" thing to me.
In the sense that it's already "solved" by now as eggs came first given dinosaurs had eggs long before chickens appeared ?
The riddle implies it's specifically a chicken egg, but hey, what a classic example of forum logic.
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
Scrythe said:
Lectori Salutem said:
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A
IDDQD
greedisgood
it is a good day to die
rosebud
nwcalreadygotone

...

... Well, damn...
SupahGamuh said:
impulse 101
bewareoblivionisathand
thereisnocowlevel
idkfa

...

nothing...

power overwheling
corwin of amber
+zool
Square, Triangle, X, Space, Circle

Well, I'm all out of ideas.
You're all thinking about it wrong, see this universe clearly does have cheats, they're just in the form of scientific equations. Look up quantum levitation, for example. And I'm pretty sure thanks to aeronautics we now have the ability to fly, assisted with the proper tech. Also, a science place recently shot two trillion watt lasers together and created an atom. Sounds like a cheat code to me.
 

The_Waspman

New member
Sep 14, 2011
569
0
0
ascorbius said:
-major snippage-

Don't worry mate, I'm not serious on this - far too old for that. It is an interesting thought experiment though.

No silicone heaven? Where would all the calculators go?
Something else that bugs me about this idea is just... what about all the seemingly pointless shit? Like Jedward, Spiders, and Masturbation? Why would anyone (or anything) create a simulation with these things in them?

Dont get me wrong, if I'm going to look at this discussion seriously, I will readily admit, that from a biological perspective, then yes, all we are are programs. We are vessels run by our genetic and memetic programming, and there is no real point to existance outside of that.

But to consider that everything, everything is inside a technological system that has been artifically constructed? No, I just cant buy that. Because... Chaos.

God damn it science, I love you, but sometimes you're so obsessed with finding the answers you dont realise you're gazing into the abyss!
 

TeletubbiesGolfGun

New member
Sep 7, 2012
187
0
0
Innegativeion said:
TeletubbiesGolfGun said:
Bear in mind you could just as easily wind up on planet alderaan.
O_O

damn you and your pessimistic outlook.

I could just as easily wind up at the jedi temple with lightsaber in hand! Hah, optimism!

captcha: plenty of time

looks like capture is optimistic as well!
 

ascorbius

Numberwanger
Nov 18, 2009
263
0
0
The_Waspman said:
ascorbius said:
-major snippage-

Don't worry mate, I'm not serious on this - far too old for that. It is an interesting thought experiment though.

No silicone heaven? Where would all the calculators go?
Something else that bugs me about this idea is just... what about all the seemingly pointless shit? Like Jedward, Spiders, and Masturbation? Why would anyone (or anything) create a simulation with these things in them?

Dont get me wrong, if I'm going to look at this discussion seriously, I will readily admit, that from a biological perspective, then yes, all we are are programs. We are vessels run by our genetic and memetic programming, and there is no real point to existance outside of that.

But to consider that everything, everything is inside a technological system that has been artifically constructed? No, I just cant buy that. Because... Chaos.

God damn it science, I love you, but sometimes you're so obsessed with finding the answers you dont realise you're gazing into the abyss!
Not just our genetic and mimetic programming, our atomic makeup too... We are as much in control of ourselves as a ball rolling down a hill.

However, if I have your analysis right, We cannot be in a simulation because - What kind of diseased mind would create a simulation which simulates Jedward...? A fair point, I cannot comprehend such sickness - although one should never underestimate a bored programmer.

Can't take up that much run-time though can they? The vapid pair of hair on legs that they are? It could be argued that there can't be a God because... Jedward. :) Why would he bother? Imagine! He made Jedward in his own image?! All those cathedrals got their windows wrong for a start.

Spiders are part of the ecosystem and are just as useful in the world as we are so it makes sense to simulate them, along with flies, bacteria etc.

Masturbation.. well, that's just a side effect of an action which is beneficial to a species so it brings pleasure to ensure the creature does it as much as possible coupled with the intelligence and curiosity to realize an individual can achieve it without actually achieving it. All based on impulses which are triggered by electrical and chemical reactions - all of which can be simulated.


Just because something seems pointless, doesn't actually mean that it is, just that we don't know the reason for it yet.

We can already simulate a cat's brain in a supercomputer... erm maybe not http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/darpas-simulated-cat-brain-project-a-scam-top-neuroscientist/
 

The_Waspman

New member
Sep 14, 2011
569
0
0
ascorbius said:
The_Waspman said:
ascorbius said:
-major snippage-

Don't worry mate, I'm not serious on this - far too old for that. It is an interesting thought experiment though.

No silicone heaven? Where would all the calculators go?
Something else that bugs me about this idea is just... what about all the seemingly pointless shit? Like Jedward, Spiders, and Masturbation? Why would anyone (or anything) create a simulation with these things in them?

Dont get me wrong, if I'm going to look at this discussion seriously, I will readily admit, that from a biological perspective, then yes, all we are are programs. We are vessels run by our genetic and memetic programming, and there is no real point to existance outside of that.

But to consider that everything, everything is inside a technological system that has been artifically constructed? No, I just cant buy that. Because... Chaos.

God damn it science, I love you, but sometimes you're so obsessed with finding the answers you dont realise you're gazing into the abyss!
Not just our genetic and mimetic programming, our atomic makeup too... We are as much in control of ourselves as a ball rolling down a hill.

However, if I have your analysis right, We cannot be in a simulation because - What kind of diseased mind would create a simulation which simulates Jedward...? A fair point, I cannot comprehend such sickness - although one should never underestimate a bored programmer.

Can't take up that much run-time though can they? The vapid pair of hair on legs that they are? It could be argued that there can't be a God because... Jedward. :) Why would he bother? Imagine! He made Jedward in his own image?! All those cathedrals got their windows wrong for a start.

Spiders are part of the ecosystem and are just as useful in the world as we are so it makes sense to simulate them, along with flies, bacteria etc.

Masturbation.. well, that's just a side effect of an action which is beneficial to a species so it brings pleasure to ensure the creature does it as much as possible coupled with the intelligence and curiosity to realize an individual can achieve it without actually achieving it. All based on impulses which are triggered by electrical and chemical reactions - all of which can be simulated.


Just because something seems pointless, doesn't actually mean that it is, just that we don't know the reason for it yet.

We can already simulate a cat's brain in a supercomputer... erm maybe not http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/darpas-simulated-cat-brain-project-a-scam-top-neuroscientist/
So we're (sort of) in agreement. This cant be a simulation because... Jedward.

Oh god, now I actually wish it was, and somehow communicate with Cthulhu or whoever created it to just wipe them. We could all live happier live, ne'st ce pas?

As long as he leaves masturbation.exe alone...
 

Scrythe

Premium Gasoline
Jun 23, 2009
2,368
0
0
Racecarlock said:
You're all thinking about it wrong, see this universe clearly does have cheats, they're just in the form of scientific equations. Look up quantum levitation, for example. And I'm pretty sure thanks to aeronautics we now have the ability to fly, assisted with the proper tech. Also, a science place recently shot two trillion watt lasers together and created an atom. Sounds like a cheat code to me.
So, what you're trying to tell me is the anti-life equation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Life_Equation] is real?

loneliness + alienation + fear + despair + self-worth ÷ mockery ÷ condemnation ÷ misunderstanding × guilt × shame × failure × judgment
[HEADING=1]KNEEL BEFORE ZOD![/HEADING]
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
manaman said:
Couple of problems here. First is the assumption that you would only create a simulation to "plug" in outsiders. The other is that you could create a simulation of the universe from inside the universe. Without loss in detail you cannot. You can create rules for a system and see what happens. However to simulate every particle in the system your simulator has to be at least the same size as what you are simulating. To an extent of course. There is the possibility that with some new technology you could simulate more than one particle with one particle, but then it turns out you need that information in your perfect simulation and at that point you might as well have built a new universe.
Soooooooo how does that not lead to the conclusion that we're simulated copies of simulated copies assuming this theory is true? According to their theory, we're not just in a simulation, but such a simulation can be created within the original simulation itself. Which would imply that an infinite number of simulations could therefor be created.

Which leaves the question of who started the original simulation?

I think we're both in agreement that this theory is BS, but we're just coming at it from two different directions.