Simulated reality

[Randolpin]

Are we living in a simulation? 

[EdEarl]

How would we know?

[Randolpin]

This youtube link would tell us the answer:

 

[EdEarl]

Nonsense.

[Eise]

36 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

How would we know?

Sometimes I see bugs. So we must live in a simulation.

[EdEarl]

Maybe your bugs are a delusion. How would you know?

[Mordred]

my wifes screams tells me she shared the same delusion. Here is the trick, if our universe is a simulation then a multiverse must exist.

Secondly the simulation is our reality.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Mordred

[Sensei]

A lot depends on powerfulness of (pseudo-) random number generator.

If in C/C++ you start program which is using pseudo random numbers, seed value is set to 1, like you would call srand(1);

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/srand/

When seed value is always the same, rand() will return always the same sequence of numbers over and over again.

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/rand/

But if you will call srand(time(NULL)); generated sequence will be changing.

Every simulated version of Universe would be slightly different.

It would be dead boring to have always the same simulation (regardless of what is simulated) over and over again.

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Sensei

[Eise]

16 hours ago, EdEarl said:

Maybe your bugs are a delusion. How would you know?

Aren't delusions bugs?

[EdEarl]

If you are a simulation, the reason for the delusion might be accidental or intended by either developer or hacker.

[Eise]

27 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

If you are a simulation, the reason for the delusion might be accidental or intended by either developer or hacker.

But then you have proved my point...

[EdEarl]

What proof? If you are not a simulation, you may be delusional.

[Eise]

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

What proof? If you are not a simulation, you may be delusional.

Damned! Is that the only choice I have? Being a simulation or being delusional?

What does that mean for the OP? Is he a simulation or is he delusional?

[iNow]

I'm curious how the OP defines simulation. In many ways, we are in one, but in others we're clearly not. Consciousness is a verb, not a noun. So too with the self.

Finally, why is this thread in Physics?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Consciousness is a verb, not a noun. So too with the self.

No, they are both nouns (-ness is a suffix used in English to convert an adjective to a noun).

[EdEarl]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Damned! Is that the only choice I have? Being a simulation or being delusional?

What does that mean for the OP? Is he a simulation or is he delusional?

You may have misunderstood, or perhaps your interpretation is correct. IDK I'm skeptical.

[Randolpin]

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

my wifes screams tells me she shared the same delusion. Here is the trick, if our universe is a simulation then a multiverse must exist.

Secondly the simulation is our reality.

If that multiverse exist, it must also be simulated and so on and we have an infinite regression. This is explained further in the video.

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, they are both nouns (-ness is a suffix used in English to convert an adjective to a noun).

Given my respect for you and your abilities, I'll compromise with you here and suggest instead that they CAN be both. We can both be correct.

To clarify, I was making a different point, namely that consciousness and self are not fixed unchanging things, but instead hugely dynamic constantly changing and evolving processes.

[Area54]

If this is a simulation and someone hits the reset button, will I still be unemployed in the next run?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Given my respect for you and your abilities, I'll compromise with you here and suggest instead that they CAN be both. We can both be correct.

While it is true that many nouns can be used as verbs (*) I struggle to imagine how "consciousness" could be used like that.

"I wasn't sure what was happening until I counsciounessed it" - sounds wrong.

"He is busy selfing himself at the moment" - ???

Quote

To clarify, I was making a different point, namely that consciousness and self are not fixed unchanging things, but instead hugely dynamic constantly changing and evolving processes.

I guessed you might mean it in a metaphorical sense, but I had no idea what that was!

[imatfaal]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

If this is a simulation and someone hits the reset button, will I still be unemployed in the next run?

Some things are hard wired. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I guessed you might mean it in a metaphorical sense, but I had no idea what that was!

In many ways, discussing consciousness and self are like discussing a section of river or waterfall. By the time you point to it, it's no longer where you're pointing. It's changed entirely. I'm on a conference call right now, but will try to return to this thread later if I conceive of a better way to express this point.

[TrevorC]

So what is the conclusion?

[imatfaal]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In many ways, discussing consciousness and self are like discussing a section of river or waterfall. By the time you point to it, it's no longer where you're pointing. It's changed entirely. I'm on a conference call right now, but will try to return to this thread later if I conceive of a better way to express this point.

 

I might claim that consciousness and self are ongoing non-repeating processes - but not linguistically that they must be thought of as verbs

[iNow]

Consciousness and self are both so rooted in a process of continual creation and formation ... dynamic activation and deactivation patterns and cascades... that the idea of calling them a verb for shorthand makes perfect sense to me, but I'm admittedly looking at it from an almost entirely neurocortical and chemistry-based level.

Again, it's a bit like asking to point to the wind...at best, we can see symptoms of the wind. It's the allegory of the cave writ large. We're essentially chasing shadows or ghosts (if you'll allow some poetic license).