Are we Living Inside a Simulated Universe?

[Simulated Science Guy]

(first post) I think we are, because when you look our thirst for scientific knowledge we will quench it by finding the facts or if that is too off we would run a simulation. What better way to know the secrets of how something starts then by observing how it started. If we could run an intense simulation on a quantum computer but a more basic version of it; then could we not have some grounds to show that we are a possible simulation? Maybe these are humans thousands of years ago running a simulation of their early primitive ancestors to see the progress of their primitive ancestors and cite it as proof because of how realistic this simulation is. There are some powerful arguments against this, for one you would have to create free will (or at least what we think is free will) which would require a lot of brain-power but improbable that they could code such a complex thing. However it's still not impossible that we are in one, maybe the ultimate computer could be a brain. This raises a question of if we are a but a flicker of a thought of some being, or our god in some terms. I would love to see what people think of this thought, I will post more of these theories as more of these thoughts become present in my simulated mind. Who do you think created our fabricated universe (if it is)?

Edited June 28, 2017 by Simulated Science Guy

[Daecon]

I like to think that if the Universe is a simulation, then the speed of light is an artefact of processing speed and that time dilatation is just like lag in the RAM. Or whatever the appropriate computer analogy would be.

[rangerx]

A simulation is an emulation of something similar. If this world was a simulation, there would have to be a real world somewhere else.

[Ten oz]

Maybe, but is there any reason to assume it is? If it were I not sure it would matter unless there were a way for us to exist and interact beyond it. I also am not sure free will exists beyond our own conception of it or that it requires greater than noraml amounts of "brain-power" simulation or not.

[dimreepr]

(first post) I think we are, because when you look our thirst for scientific knowledge we will quench it by finding the facts or if that is too off we would run a simulation. What better way to know the secrets of how something starts then by observing how it started. If we could run an intense simulation on a quantum computer but a more basic version of it; then could we not have some grounds to show that we are a possible simulation? Maybe these are humans thousands of years ago running a simulation of their early primitive ancestors to see the progress of their primitive ancestors and cite it as proof because of how realistic this simulation is. There are some powerful arguments against this, for one you would have to create free will (or at least what we think is free will) which would require a lot of brain-power but improbable that they could code such a complex thing. However it's still not impossible that we are in one, maybe the ultimate computer could be a brain. This raises a question of if we are a but a flicker of a thought of some being, or our god in some terms. I would love to see what people think of this thought, I will post more of these theories as more of these thoughts become present in my simulated mind. Who do you think created our fabricated universe (if it is)?

 

No, of course not, why'd you ask?

[Phi for All]

To answer the title question, it's possible of course, but no, not the way simulated universes are usually presented. You've set the scenario up so there's no way to tell the difference between real and simulated. That's no different than proposing there's a god(s), but you can't observe them because they're all powerful.

 

There's no meaning to arguments like these because you've rigged it from the start.

[Thorham]

I don't know, but I certainly hope it's not.

[bimbo36]

One hell of a huge simulation then .

[Moontanman]

If it's a simulation, as with god, who ever did it is an asshole..

[bimbo36]

God i hate to bring up religion in a science related thread . But there is a chapter in quran called , Surah 69 Al-Haqqah (THE REALITY)

 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by bimbo36

[Moontanman]

God i hate to bring up religion in a science related thread . But there is a chapter in quran called , Surah 69 Al-Haqqah (THE REALITY)

 

 

 

 

What would your point be? This video is nothing but baseless assertions...

[bimbo36]

I like this part of the chapter ,

 

What could possibly make us know the Inevitable Reality ?

 

Haqq (Arabic: حقّ‎‎ ḥaqq) is the Arabic word for truth. In Islamic contexts, it is also interpreted as right and reality. Al-Haqq, 'the truth, is one of the names of God in the Qur'an. It is often used to refer to God as the Ultimate Reality in Sufism.

 

The Inevitable Reality

What is the Inevitable Reality?

And what can make you know what is the Inevitable Reality?

I get it , whenever you talk from religious book you get voted down here .

 

OK lets talk about evolution , gravity and all the time it took for us to come into existence , against the age of the space itself we live in

Edited July 11, 2017 by bimbo36

[Moontanman]

I like this part of the chapter ,

 

What could possibly make us know the Inevitable Reality ?

 

Haqq (Arabic: حقّ‎‎ ḥaqq) is the Arabic word for truth. In Islamic contexts, it is also interpreted as right and reality. Al-Haqq, 'the truth, is one of the names of God in the Qur'an. It is often used to refer to God as the Ultimate Reality in Sufism.

 

The Inevitable Reality

What is the Inevitable Reality?

And what can make you know what is the Inevitable Reality?

I get it , whenever you talk from religious book you get voted down here .

 

OK lets talk about evolution , gravity and all the time it took for us to come into existence , against the age of the space itself we live in

 

 

Holy books cannot be proof of anything, they are the claims that require proof..

OK lets talk about evolution , gravity and all the time it took for us to come into existence , against the age of the space itself we live in

 

 

 

Yes, let's do that, but you need to start your own thread this one is not about that...

[TripleA]

This would bring up a lot of questions....some of which

Why are we being simulated?

Are we real or puppets generated by code( or whatever created this simulation)?

Are we a failed example of a perfect world simulator, with the creators waiting for the simulation to destroy itself?(Ok that might have gotten a bit too far)

[Sensei]

Game developers are currently hiring team (hundred or thousands of people) of gfx artists, musicians, programmers, beta testers and so on. And telling them to "build the world" of game. It costs millions/billions and takes now years of programming until game is fully finished.

This is completely not needed.

One can by himself/herself write simulation of the Universe, just interaction of sub-atomic particles, within let's say 6-7 days of programming..

And let spontaneously A.I. appear inside of it, after billions years (of simulation, so in reality it's "blink of eye"), and let them build entire world with the all complexity by them self, every time it'll be different.

Lighter version of it is used by many game developers already. Procedural random generation of landscapes. But it requires having building elements prepared by artists. Every time it's different looking world (every time the same looking would be dead boring).

 

[Daecon]

Why do you think it's the work of only one programmer and not a team of developers?

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Daecon said:

Why do you think it's the work of only one programmer and not a team of developers?

Why does it matter?

[Daecon]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why does it matter?

It's all about questioning assumptions.  If you're going to start with one "primary" assumption, which would logically lead to a hole chain of them, the reasons for deciding the nature of each link in the chain should be questioned just as much as the first link.

 

Premise 1: The Universe is a simulation.  A) Accept the premise.  B) Question the premise.  If (A), goto Premise 2.

 

Premise 2: The simulation was programmed by one single person.   A) Accept the premise.  B) Question the premise.  If (A), goto Premise 3.

 

Premise 3: The programmer is male.  A) Accept the premise.  B) Question the premise.  If (A), goto Premise 4.

 

...And so on.

 

I do like the whole concept of procedural generation.  I think that's basically what the Mathematics is/are to physics.

[Sensei]

19 hours ago, Daecon said:

Why do you think it's the work of only one programmer and not a team of developers?

Application that has modular structure, with one core, and modules/libraries/extensions/device drivers (OS), is easy to develop by team of programmers. Simply one programmer is responsible for writing and maintaining one module. Programmer who wrote code of module/library/extension knows it the best, while other team member doesn't know it and can't modify it.

Application which has no modular structure, is very hard to write by team of programmers. They simply will overlap and interfere work of other member of team.

 

ps. I up voted, unnecessary neg vote..

[how]

I do not consider this a philosophy post nor a scientific one.

I feel like I'm replying on an author's forum for feedback on a novel or movie, but here goes:

 

Going on the premise that a simulation implies an experiment or a series of experiments that create and monitor conditions to make something come about -often to see how something originally came about....

Why would the experiment continue on for so long (your whole life and before or beyond)? Because that sounds more like a Psychology project about humans, rather than a 'determining the moment of creation' experiment.

Importanly, simulations take place in a controlled environment and under lab conditions.

In which case, where are the scientists? How can they even watch everyone ?

Are you applying the idea of an attentive god to a computer mind, perhaps religious lore blending with an information-hungry society?

Do you feel you are under observation?

Are you (unnecessarily) being influenced religious/moral and government fear or movies? 

Does your view make you somehow feel special? 

Or, if the project in your view is not taking place under controlled conditions, do you feel abandoned in this 'free-running' (and thus somewhat unnecessary)  'recreating the past' experiment? Or do you have a group mentality of we're all in the same boat together?

How did you come to have this thought?

Do you play a lot of computer games?

Do you connect enough to your environment, to people and nature?

I would be unhappy with this view.

Why not write a book about it and get it coherent. But there is a difference between the arts and the practical world and not everything needs to be (or can be) integrated at once. World views are not always healthy.

Just because your thoughts involve computers or experiments doesn't mean they are scientific. Innovative, yes. Creative, yes. Playful, yes.

I think you're a writer at heart, but I hope you don't miss out on deep humanity in all your thoughts of a computer and experiments-on-us type society. That hurts me because it makes me think of enslavement - (and in those grounds simulation totally contradicts the concept of free will if participants were not willing to start with.)

The best thing about true scientists is that they are free, with no baggage, partly because they analyse and scrutinise the hell out of everything .

I hope you find a comfortable reality -don't be so quick to give practical reality away to fast adapting ideas, because that is your freedom you could be compromising and your whole stable basis. Create something magical or write that book if you have (like many) outgrown mundanity.

---------------

views expressed here are out of compassion and concern.

I also note your post is a few months old.