Scientific Proof that Life is Real

[3____344340095e33-2]

I can prove that water removes dirt from my skin scientifically.

I can prove that music vibrates a glass in my hand by touching it.

I can prove that this forum exists by writing in it scientifically.

I can scientifically prove that Larry The Cable Guy is funny to me by laughing when I don't want to laugh at it as it's funny.

But has anyone proven scientifically that this life we are all living is not a perfect computer simulation or an augmented reality experience and that we are truly in reality?  Is there any project that tries to prove this fact?  How do you all know we aren't on a Ferengi-stolen holodeck after the Enterprise crashed and they are extracting all humanity's knowledge from all of us???   Just askin'... because you say you can prove how the brain works for many conditions but well, that would depend entirely on the proof that life is real and that all your tools of proof aren't virtual tools, right?  In minecraft, I can prove that giant blocks can be moved by a little pick axe but in real life they can not be. So if life is artificial then many proofs about time travel and so forth are all actually proof of the internal logic of the sim and not of reality.  In reality time travel is obviously impossible.  But if it is proven possible then I believe this is proof that we are in a simulation.  Just one of the theorem's major points.  But has anyone done any real work on this?

[geordief]

9 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

I can prove that water removes dirt from my skin scientifically.

I can prove that music vibrates a glass in my hand by touching it.

I can prove that this forum exists by writing in it scientifically.

I can scientifically prove that Larry The Cable Guy is funny to me by laughing when I don't want to laugh at it as it's funny.

But has anyone proven scientifically that this life we are all living is not a perfect computer simulation or an augmented reality experience and that we are truly in reality?  Is there any project that tries to prove this fact?  How do you all know we aren't on a Ferengi-stolen holodeck after the Enterprise crashed and they are extracting all humanity's knowledge from all of us???   Just askin'... because you say you can prove how the brain works for many conditions but well, that would depend entirely on the proof that life is real and that all your tools of proof aren't virtual tools, right?  In minecraft, I can prove that giant blocks can be moved by a little pick axe but in real life they can not be. So if life is artificial then many proofs about time travel and so forth are all actually proof of the internal logic of the sim and not of reality.  In reality time travel is obviously impossible.  But if it is proven possible then I believe this is proof that we are in a simulation.  Just one of the theorem's major points.  But has anyone done any real work on this?

What do you mean by "real work"?

[3____344340095e33-2]

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

What do you mean by "real work"?

hahaha ... that's really funny bro!!  If we are in a sim than the work is sim work proving it is a sim.. so it is still real work for we are using our real conscience within the sim to test if it is a sim.  However, we can only do so within the envelope permitted by the admins (Gods).  If it is real life than it is real work and we can actually figure it out.  Either way, if we have freedom to fully think logically and do safe experiments in the sim as we obviously would in the real world (maybe maybe not) then we can do real work in either one and test the envelope as much as permissable by safety limits or control limits of some sort.

real work as opposed to "I believe magic spells work because the beans fall in a voodoo pattern #5 on the floor"... y'know?  Something with real results without foolery.  Don't ask what is foolery.   For example I can prove that sex with Britney Spears is incredible... but no sex with Britney Spears is not really quite easily, whether it is a sim or not... Similarly I can prove is BigMacs taste good.  Similar proofs should be possible to satisfy Elon Musk's beliefs about this very concept.

I want to see papers and journal articles on the nature of reality.  Otherwise all this research into space and time travel is merely research into how the sim works.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

But has anyone proven scientifically that this life we are all living is not a perfect computer simulation or an augmented reality experience and that we are truly in reality?  

It is impossible to disprove any ideas like that (see also solipsism). As such, you can't actually prove any of the things you stated before. All you can do is confirm that they appear to be real to you. 

[Phi for All]

"Scientific proof" is like "iridium glider" or "library tuba" or "poisoned vitamins". If you're looking for any of these things, you're missing the point completely.

[Outrider]

7 hours ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

I want to see papers and journal articles on the nature of reality.  Otherwise all this research into space and time travel is merely research into how the sim works.

Here LMGTFY.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

BTW this is a very old idea some Mayan texts indicate that they thought we exist in the dreams of gods. And in the 3rd century BC Zhuangzi Zhou wondered if he was a man who dreamed of being a butterfly or a butterfly who dreamed of being a man.

Also Houman Owhadi, Tom Campbell, Joe Sauvageau and David Watkinson have proposed some experiments. 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00058

Quote

Can the theory that reality is a simulation be tested? We investigate this question based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite (i.e. has limited resources), then to achieve low computational complexity, such a system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality server before rendering content to the player). Guided by this principle we describe conceptual wave/particle duality experiments aimed at testing the simulation theory.

As for me? Much like the question of free will I can't see what difference it makes so its just easiest to assume reality is real.

Read the first link first its a pretty comprehensive overview on the subject. 

[Strange]

8 hours ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

I want to see papers and journal articles on the nature of reality.  Otherwise all this research into space and time travel is merely research into how the sim works

We can never know what "reality" really is, or even if any such things exists. 

Even if an experiment told us that we were part of a simulation, all that would tell us is that our observations make it appear that way. It wouldn't tell us if that was reality or not. 

And, in the end, it doesn't matter. Science is about constructing models based on what we observe and then testing them against what we observe. While these observations and models continue to be consistent it doesn't matter what is "really" out there.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Strange

[3____344340095e33-2]

None of you people sound like scientists in the vaguest of senses.  I sure hope "real scientists" don't think in their minds this way or else we're all screwed.  You've all responded thus far with "I think this so it won't matter" or "if we prove this it won't matter" without so much as a paragraph of text to explain and rationalize it.  Are you all Gods whose mere opinion makes a thing true or not true?  That's not scientific, nor even human.  That's oppresive almost dictatorial opinionatings.  "We can never know what this is..." is bullshit.  People used to say "man can never fly over the ocean" with the same certainty.  Or "I can't see a difference so it's easiest to assume".. that's dictatorial.. "I can't see whether you are guilty or innocent, and I need a salary as a cop, so off you go to prison".. yeah.. good luck with that one, bro.

There is a difference, and it does matter, if you're a scientist.  If it's a sim, whether we can know depends on the admins (Gods).  If it's real and no sim component involved, then we can know the difference.  In a sim we can only know if the admins let us, or if the admins did not block that knowledge.  For example, if in Halo the coders allowed you to change your helmet colour, then you can.  if they didn't, then you can not.  Same rules apply for all sims.  So if the sim is a full reality sim without a Chinese firewall, then we can figure out reality vs. sim.  But if it's crippled-sim then we can't get that data.  If it's reality, we can know the difference by building a sim or figuring it out.

This is a part of the scientific mind.  I hope you all learned something

[DrP]

You are totally missing the points presented to you.

[3____344340095e33-2]

Yes... I couldn't agree more.  Especially with a one phrase accusation which has no validation nor explanation you have definintely proven that you are right and that I am wrong.  So i will delete my whole thread.  Thanks for letting me know I was wasting my time here.

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

You've all responded thus far with "I think this so it won't matter" or "if we prove this it won't matter" without so much as a paragraph of text to explain and rationalize it.

I tried to explain why it doesn't matter. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Let me try again. Let's take an example. Say we do some experiments to confirm some basic aspect of physics, for example Newton's F=ma (force = mass times acceleration).

So we set up our lab bench with instruments that measure the force applied to a variety of object and measure the resulting speed (and how it changes with time). We also have a precision scale to measure the mass of each object. We can do hundreds (with automation, maybe millions) of such experiments and plot the results. Taking into account errors in our measurements we will find the numbers all match Newton's equation.

Does this tell us that mass is "real" and that Newton's law says something about "reality"? No. Does it disprove (or prove) that we are in a simulation? No. Does it disprove solipsism (that all these experiments and results take place purely in our own mind)? No. 

All it tells us is that if we do those experiments and make those measurements, we will get those results. That could be because we are part of a simulation set up to produce those results. It could be because our mind has dreamt up the lab bench, the instruments, the concept of mass and Newton's law.

It doesn't matter what the nature of reality is, or whether it even exists. As long as we continue to make measurements and get consistent results, we can "do science". We may not be studying the "real world"; we may only be studying a figment of our mind; we may only be probing an alien simulation. It makes no different to that science does.

27 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

"We can never know what this is..." is bullshit.

As we can only ever probe "reality" by using our sense, we can't know what reality "is" beyond what our senses tell us.

But if you have a way of knowing things without relying on our senses, then (instead of having a little tantrum) explain what that is.

29 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

There is a difference, and it does matter, if you're a scientist.  If it's a sim, whether we can know depends on the admins (Gods).  If it's real and no sim component involved, then we can know the difference.  In a sim we can only know if the admins let us, or if the admins did not block that knowledge.

That implies you know the difference between a simulated world and a real world. But how would you now that? If we are in a sim, that is all we know and so that is our reality. You ca't step outside the sim and see what reality looks like to compare it to what we experience.

We experience one thing. It may be a sim or it may be reality. Without something else to compare it to, you can't tell which.

[Full disclosure. I am a naive realist. We are obviously not in a sim. That is a stupid idea. What we perceive is what the world is really like (more or less). There is nothing else beyond the physical world that we see around us.]

33 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

None of you people sound like scientists in the vaguest of senses.

You asked a question of philosophy in the Philosophy section of the forum. You got appropriate answers, not scientific ones.

[interested]

On 11/26/2017 at 11:49 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

I can prove that water removes dirt from my skin scientifically.

I can prove that music vibrates a glass in my hand by touching it.

I can prove that this forum exists by writing in it scientifically.

I can scientifically prove that Larry The Cable Guy is funny to me by laughing when I don't want to laugh at it as it's funny.

But has anyone proven scientifically that this life we are all living is not a perfect computer simulation or an augmented reality experience and that we are truly in reality?  Is there any project that tries to prove this fact?  How do you all know we aren't on a Ferengi-stolen holodeck after the Enterprise crashed and they are extracting all humanity's knowledge from all of us???   Just askin'... because you say you can prove how the brain works for many conditions but well, that would depend entirely on the proof that life is real and that all your tools of proof aren't virtual tools, right?  In minecraft, I can prove that giant blocks can be moved by a little pick axe but in real life they can not be. So if life is artificial then many proofs about time travel and so forth are all actually proof of the internal logic of the sim and not of reality.  In reality time travel is obviously impossible.  But if it is proven possible then I believe this is proof that we are in a simulation.  Just one of the theorem's major points.  But has anyone done any real work on this?

This might amuse you https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html or not as the case me be.

[3____344340095e33-2]

" I am a naive realist. We are obviously not in a sim. That is a stupid idea. "

That perspective and the conclusion of it being a "stupid idea" along with the word "obviously" is what dictator-mindsets are made of.  If you wrote what you wrote above that we can not test one way or another, you can not afterwards conclude with "obviously ... because other thinking is stupid".  That's contradictory.  As in "My wife loves me... I can't check if she cheated on me.. but obviously she didn't... thinking otherwise is a stupid idea".  And if it is a stupid idea, why are there a million books on the contrary and detectives and accusations and divorce proceedings?

The suggestion that we can not test if we are in a sim amuses me.  But I prefer the scientific method.  All those who claim we can not test are too scared to attempt.  And many nations are so oppresive that they abuse those who claim reality, this one, is not real, or that it is, or that it is perhaps even augmented reality with sim.  There are many possibilities.  To imply it is stupid to wonder is an insult and a form of oppression.  If we have the freedom of speech, implying a thought is stupid is way worse than oppressing speech.

But let me posit this for you: if it is a sim, there would have to be a physical being.  If it is reality, there would have to be a physical being, too, right?  See the difference that can be tested yet?  It's very obvious.....   It's like detecting real Versaci and Chinese knock-offs.... there is a difference.

[DrP]

2 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

Yes... I couldn't agree more.  Especially with a one phrase accusation which has no validation nor explanation you have definintely proven that you are right and that I am wrong.  So i will delete my whole thread.  Thanks for letting me know I was wasting my time here.

Have you any idea of how to hold a discussion?  Engage Strange in conversation instead of hurling insults. Quote the bits of his writing that you disagree with and challenge those points with facts and evidence backing up those facts. He has made some good points about solipsism and things. Phi mentioned that science was about building models rather than finding concrete proof (as 'proof' of anything is only within our own understanding and limits anyway... see the solipsism stuff).

39 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

None of you people sound like scientists in the vaguest of senses.  I sure hope "real scientists" don't think in their minds this way or else we're all screwed.

What exactly is it that you have the problem with?  'being able to fly over an ocean' and proving the existence of spiritual beings are VERY different things.

[3____344340095e33-2]

Once again you are saying I did a thing without backing it up.  You say I should quote but then quoted me out of context entierly.  You say along with that that I insulted someone but you did not quote even though in the same breath you said I should quote yet you failed to do it yourself.  Interesting...any explanation?

Was my insult my words of "you are not scientists if..."?  Because that's not an insult.  Because I explained what I thought and why it didn't remind me of scientists.  However, your response of "You don't know how to hold discussion".. without a single shred of backup nor quoting is way worse than what I did.  So please stop and think a little.  I merely asked a question and expressed what I thought without direct insults like you did.

[DrP]

Just now, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

Once again you are saying I did a thing without backing it up.  You say I should quote but then quoted me out of context entierly.  You say along with that that I insulted someone but you did not quote even though in the same breath you said I should quote yet you failed to do it yourself.  Interesting...any explanation?

So what did you mean when you said

 

6 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

That perspective and the conclusion of it being a "stupid idea"

45 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

None of you people sound like scientists in the vaguest of senses.  I sure hope "real scientists" don't think in their minds this way or else we're all screwed.  

...and this, in answer to a sensible and real question

On ‎26‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 12:10 PM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

hahaha ... that's really funny bro!!

Hey - sorry - maybe I misread the tone of your writing - sorry if so.  It sounded derogatory and condescending...  and seemed to ignore all the good points made in an attempt to engage you in conversation about the topic you started.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

That perspective and the conclusion of it being a "stupid idea" along with the word "obviously" is what dictator-mindsets are made of.

I added that as my personal opinion. Not as a rational argument. I should have added: "This is purely an irrational belief with no logical or evidential basis." Sorry about that.

7 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

That perspective and the conclusion of it being a "stupid idea" along with the word "obviously" is what dictator-mindsets are made of.  If you wrote what you wrote above that we can not test one way or another, you can not afterwards conclude with "obviously ... because other thinking is stupid".  That's contradictory.

Exactly. That is why I don't usually mention my personal belief about this. It is irrelevant and irrational. (But probably quite a common one.)

8 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

The suggestion that we can not test if we are in a sim amuses me.  But I prefer the scientific method.

Then explain exactly how you would test this, using the scientific method.

9 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

But let me posit this for you: if it is a sim, there would have to be a physical being.  If it is reality, there would have to be a physical being, too, right?  See the difference that can be tested yet?

Nope. Can you provide a little more detail? What would you measure? What would you compare it with to test if it is real or sim?

10 minutes ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

It's like detecting real Versaci and Chinese knock-offs.... there is a difference.

The difference is that in that case, we can compare the two items and we can compare them both with a sample of the real thing (and / or a sample knock-off).

A more accurate analogy would be that I give you one sample of an object (for example, a coin from a country you have never been to) and ask you if it is genuine, a forgery or just a toy. How do you tell which it is? Scientifically.

[3____344340095e33-2]

The coin analogy is brilliant man!!!!  Thank you very much for that one!!!! Brilliant!!!  I don't know.... further more, what if it's a country on an alien homeworld that you claim as an alien to have brought to Earth.  And we don't even know of the planet nor of your species.  How would I test?  Check metal components?  But they could be the same because your people might believe in traditional metalurgy..etc.  That is a great question!!!

As for Earth-only sim, well if a physical being exists, in both scenarios, than the sim would either use more or less resources than the real world, but never the same.  If I play soccer in the real world it uses x resources.  But in a sim it may use far less because it's all mental, or if it's an augmented sim thing it may use more or less, depending on who coded the sim and for what purpose.  I think the key is some sort of resource allocation of the physical beings utilization of food and heat and so forth.  But I'm not a scientist.  Just a concept I'm playing with for a story.  You obviously, for example, couldn't test the physics as they would be identical in an identical-sim.

So yeah you are right.  If we can not test it, then it doesn't matter.  I think that's the gist we both agree on?  So you're right, it is a "stupid" idea in that it's irrelevant as it can not be tested.  Obviously the dude in Minecraft can not test what I as the player am doing or thinking, right?  So it is dumb.  But, if the admins of the sim and if it is a sim have an agenda against the player(s) then it is worth knowing if it is a sim by whatever method is available to the player.

I guess in essence it's a question of if you're an agent is the system against you?  Hahahaha

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

None of you people sound like scientists in the vaguest of senses.  I sure hope "real scientists" don't think in their minds this way or else we're all screwed.

I'll keep it short since it sounds like you aren't going to listen anyway. Science works with theory rather than proof because we stop looking when we think we've found answers, but we constantly have to keep updating theory to give us our best current explanations about phenomena in nature. It's this constant testing and re-testing against what's known that keeps science from being hidebound and dictatorial.

[3____344340095e33-2]

"'it sounds like you aren't going to listen anyway.".... "we stop looking when we think we've found answers, ".... and... "that keeps science from being hidebound and dictatorial"

In other words, here's what you wrote: "I know you inside and out, and I've stopped reading as I know everything about everyone even you but I am not a dictator I am just smarter than your average bear".

next... these are your words, bro..

 

[Strange]

I'm guessing that was supposed to be "we don't stop looking when we think we've found answers" (as would be obvious from the rest of the post).

[3____344340095e33-2]

it is obvious that using the phrase "it is obvious that the reader is supposed to correct poorly written, poorly spelled, poorly thought out and poorly planned written work" is a passive-aggressive method of covering for people who do not even bother to proof read their work, let alone think things through in a logically consistent fashion.  I know people who do not complete sentences and say things like "I would like.... " and it is obvious you're supposed to read minds bro.  Is it really obvious, or shouldn't you say "the author made a mistake perhaps, but I'm not sure".  Because obviously if an entire word made of five characters was absent then perhaps so was this possible: "we don't stop looking when we think we've arrived at an answer" as opposed to found the answer.  See the slight difference in choice of word but a galaxy apart from the actual answer that is needed?  One is answers, the other is an answer.  What is obvious man?

[Silvestru]

6 hours ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

"I am just smarter than your average bear".

Let's keep bears out of this. Also 3____344340095e33-2,  please learn how to quote as it's a bit difficult to follow the thread. I want to understand exactly what points/arguments you don't agree with. You just select the paragraph that you want to quote and a small option should appear "Quote this". Click that and below you can comment on a specific part of someones post.

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

"'it sounds like you aren't going to listen anyway.".... "we stop looking when we think we've found answers, ".... and... "that keeps science from being hidebound and dictatorial"

In other words, here's what you wrote: "I know you inside and out, and I've stopped reading as I know everything about everyone even you but I am not a dictator I am just smarter than your average bear".

next... these are your words, bro..

I never mentioned you once, on purpose. This isn't a subjective argument. These are my words, bro. Lose your defensive filter, since this isn't about you, it's about your ideas.

6 hours ago, Strange said:

I'm guessing that was supposed to be "we don't stop looking when we think we've found answers" (as would be obvious from the rest of the post).

I meant that if we look for "answers" or "proof", when we think we've found them we stop looking any further. That's a big part of why science works with theory instead, so it's constantly refreshed, tested, and updated. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

it is obvious that using the phrase "it is obvious that the reader is supposed to correct poorly written, poorly spelled, poorly thought out and poorly planned written work"

Who are you quoting, there?

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I meant that if we look for "answers" or "proof", when we think we've found them we stop looking any further. That's a big part of why science works with theory instead, so it's constantly refreshed, tested, and updated.

Ah, yes. That makes sense.