does it make even sense talking about whether we live in computer simulation or not, how could we ever know ?

[empleat]

Elon musk was saying something, that we are living in computer simulation in 2016, than there were some counter arguments and i read some article from 2017, that current scientific knowledge and studies disputed it. I mean if we lived in computer simulation how we could ever know ? Why it would have to be computer simulation in the first place ? What if someone in laboratory was poking in your brain and what you are experiencing isn't even real. Even bill nye said, it would be to complex to detect. I think if we live in some sorf of simulation, there is no way for us to detect it, unless our creators allowed it, or made some mistakes. It is like software on computer, can never know how computer works. Like does it make even sense to ask this question, how we could ever know ?

[StringJunky]

We'll find out  if it cra

[Achilles]

I think you can believe we are living in any type of simulation since we don't know anything for certain.  

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Achilles said:

I think you can believe we are living in any type of simulation since we don't know anything for certain.  

It's a 21st century way of asking if a god or higher being exists or not. 

[Endy0816]

Used to have artificial lifeforms that would find bugs in their simulation. Getting outside the world's supposed boundaries, gaining infinite resources, etc.

[empleat]

Yet you could get outside worlds boundaries, but it could be still a simulation  or not the ultimate reality. My opinion is, that it is utterly pointless to ask whether we are, or not in simulation. Because you could never know. What if you found bugs and they would just delete your memories or something. What if bugs was not because we live in simulation, but how actual reality is. Like some artifact, like you could pass through wall, if you were lucky enough - like 1:quantilition or more. It would seem like a bugg: "wait what i just passed the wall, what is going on ?" - you would be telling yourself, if you didn't know about quantum tunneling... Or even at microscopic scale, if you didn't know about that, it could seem like bug i guess, this may not be best example, i am terrible at presenting examples. What if there are some boundaries you can't cross, we probably die in this gallaxy, because of inflation, but it may not be true, roger penrose is making some theory, kinda like eternal return and doesn't like inflation: link. Ye in essence everything is based on guess, what if solipsism is true, or biocentrism was true, because it is unfalsifiable, you can't know anything for sure, what if last thursdayism is true ? Okay... Science is based on axiom of materialism, that this is ultimate reality, we can observe - thanks to causality and physical laws. If same results are repeating enough times, we say it is fact, but it showed faulty, for example physical laws are deterministic and irreversible - so you may say everything is predetermined, but it is not true - due to incomplete information and axiom that your information, on which is based your logic, is valid. But in quantum world everything is not predetermined. But you couldn't know that yet in times of newton, they didn't have tech, like philosophers contemplating about love, didn't have mri and biology and couldn't know how it works - for example  But it doesn't mean we ever will know how it is, as we gain more knowledge and it doesn't mean it is even possible to know more about nature of this world than is set, we can go extinct for example. I don't like much abductive reasoning, but logic isn't any better, again based on some axiom. I came into existence after 15 bilions years and what do we know if big bang  is actually beginning of universe, because of singularity, there are alternative theories. I mean we are so negligible and to young, knowledge takes time and we don't affect almost anything and given determinism, or randomness on quantum level, free will is probably just an illusion, we are just slaves.

Do you agree that it is pointless to even ask whether we are in simulation, or no ? That was my point from the start. I ask, because it seems funny to me - like some scientists from computer science making arguments about computer simulation with relation to quantum mechanics, without knowledge about physics. Than elon musk says something, that it is 1:bilion against us, that we aren't in computer simulation. He isn't probably engaging in simulation argument 24/7 and i don't know if he has phd from physics, quantum mechanics and computer science at the same time :DDDD, because it is probably not question of one field solely and he has business to run and he is overconfident, he says stuff sometimes, which has no clue about. But isn't all of that just random guessing ? Like give me proof right now, it is not entirely guessing game to postulate, that we live, or not it simulation and than even hypothetically we may someday know,(note not necessarily in a computer simulation). If you can't than i guess it is just guessing. That's why it seems so hilarious to me: chasing unanswerable question, it is sorta like absurdism, even posting this is question absurd, i am expecting to get answer, which is unanswerable, but i guess i am determined to do so  But what if, i am not sure. Like if is true, we can never know, because it is perfect, or they will just delete our memories, than i guess i have my answer and this is already guess. But i already put so much effort to this post i don't want to delete. So i would rather i ask, do you agree, that everything is blatant guessing, whether we can't disprove, dualism, solipsism and such things ? Like everything seems so dumb to me, it is just predetermined and random and yet free will seems real, like a time, but it is just illusion and even guessing is illusion, because it is predetermined, i don't even...

[TheSim]

To my mind there are two entirely different ways of interpreting  the under-determination of  theory by evidence depending on one's interpretation of causality.

-The standard  skeptical and epistemological interpretation is that there exists a hidden matter-of-fact concerning how the universe operates beyond our  perception, which our understanding based on evidence can  approach but never fully determine:

   Note that if we are living in a quantum universe, then according to this interpretation it is trivial to claim  that we are  indeed living in a 'Classical Physics' simulation on a simulator whose hidden operations are actually quantum mechanical.   Of course one might argue that our quantum mechanical laws might be simulated by a classical Turing machine on an even lower level of simulation that we have not, and perhaps could never determine.   

  So in a nutshell this skeptical interpretation  assumes that the nature of the universe is forever hidden from  us and unknowable to us  due to it's operations being under-determined by any finite amount of observational evidence we have of them.   We as it were, only know what the software has shown us up until now,  yet we assume  that the software must be the result of  hidden hardware operations lurking behind the scenes which we can never determine precisely. 

-By contrast, ,a nonstandard and non-skeptical interpretation of theory under-determination,  is there does not exist a hidden matter-of-fact concerning how the universe operates. 

    The universe being as  it were, a superficial movie  rather than a piece of  virtual reality software.   According to this interpretation there exists nothing apart from our observations.  Any laws of causation and hidden variables that we propose  in response to our observations are merely convenient ways of re-describing our observations and our behavioral reactions to them,  such that laws of causation have no  culturally independent existence or prescriptive value.   Here under-determination  is interpreted non-epistemologically  to refer to the under-determination of our cultural policies that we find ourselves proposing *in response to* our observations, rather than as referring to the under-determination of a "thing in itself" that is  considered to be responsible for our observations.

Edited September 25, 2018 by TheSim

[Reg Prescott]

On 9/4/2018 at 12:09 PM, empleat said:

Elon musk was saying something, that we are living in computer simulation in 2016, than there were some counter arguments and i read some article from 2017, that current scientific knowledge and studies disputed it. I mean if we lived in computer simulation how we could ever know ? Why it would have to be computer simulation in the first place ? What if someone in laboratory was poking in your brain and what you are experiencing isn't even real. Even bill nye said, it would be to complex to detect. I think if we live in some sorf of simulation, there is no way for us to detect it, unless our creators allowed it, or made some mistakes. It is like software on computer, can never know how computer works. Like does it make even sense to ask this question, how we could ever know ?

The most famous attempt in philosophy to refute the the brain-in-a-vat scenario was proposed by Hilary Putnam. 

Putnam's argument is based on semantic externalism; the somewhat counterintuitive, though currently dominant, position nowadays, I hazard, that meanings are not (entirely) in the head. In other words, if you think you are infallible about what you mean -- "I know what I mean, dammit!" -- think again.

The externalist school of thought was later extended to cover all mental/psychological (I'll use the terms interchangeably hereafter) states with "intentionality" such as beliefs, desires, hopes, etc. That is to say, and taking the example of beliefs, that the content of our beliefs is not entirely determined by what's between your ears; the environment plays a role, too.

Put another way, two brains might be exact physical duplicates, yet not be identical mentally. Same brain, different minds.

(To be more precise than "same brain" we should say: two tokens of the same brain type)

Putnam illustrates his externalism by way of a celebrated "Twin Earth" thought experiment. Read all about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Earth_thought_experiment

So, let's suppose you, Empleat, have a molecular doppelgänger on Twin Earth. He's also called Empleat, but we'll call him Twempleat for clarity. And when we say "water", they do too (we'll call their word "twater"), but our word refers to H20, while theirs refers to XYZ.

Now, on Putnam's account, when you entertain the thought (i.e., belief), or utter the statement, "Water quenches thirst", Twempleat does so too, but the propositions expressed by the statements are different.

The proposition Empleat expresses by the statement/thought, "Water quenches thirst" is "H2O quenches thirst ". 
The proposition Twempleat expresses by the statement/thought, "Water quenches thirst" is "XYZ quenches thirst". 

Your brains are (type) identical; your thoughts are not. Your thought (belief) is about water (H20); his is about twater (XYZ).

Putnam uses the same kind of reasoning to argue that an envatted brain would be psychologically distinguished from an identical brain properly embodied, as I assume yours is.

If you buy into the externalist school of thought -- and not everyone does -- then I think Putnam does indeed prove that your thought (belief) "We are all brains in vats" is distinct from your twin envatted brain's thought "We are all brains in vats" -- though, of course, this difference could never be discovered by probing around in your respective grey matter. They are, after all, physically identical, by hypothesis.

The difference lies, as with the Twin Earth scenario, in your causal relationships with the environment. In the jargon of the externalists, your thoughts would have the same narrow content, but different wide content.

Putnam goes further, though, in claiming you can know you are not a brain in a vat. This was your concern in the OP. Whether or not he succeeds in this remains unclear. Seems to me he does not.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/

Edited October 21, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[pavelcherepan]

21 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Your brains are (type) identical; your thoughts are not.

Or as they said it in wiki article:

Quote

Ex hypothesi, their brains are molecule-for-molecule identical.

Is pretty dumb IMO, since if Twin Earth has no water, this is simply impossible. With the absence of water their brains are bound to be different from ours and the entire argument falls apart.

[Reg Prescott]

15 minutes ago, pavelcherepan said:

Or as they said it in wiki article:

Is pretty dumb IMO, since if Twin Earth has no water, this is simply impossible. With the absence of water their brains are bound to be different from ours and the entire argument falls apart.

 

You're right that the presence of water (or twater) in the brain ushers in an unwanted complication, as others have pointed out. It's not catastrophic to the argument, though, as you suggest.

If complications raised by water bother you, just choose another natural substance that is not found in the brain. If there is no such substance, then just stipulate that there is. Hey, if it's your thought experiment you can stipulate anything you like.

The purpose of thought experiments is to bring to light conceptual issues. The guy who objects to Einstein's "riding on a light beam" thought experiment on the grounds "Hey! You'd fall off!" is, I would suggest, kinda missing the point.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Ten oz]

A simulated universe wouldn't be able to exist equal to or larger than the universe it was created within. Identifying artificial, designed, or otherwise imposed limits would be a clue. 

[Silvestru]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Identifying artificial, designed, or otherwise imposed limits would be a clue. 

Hmm like how the speed of massless particles in a vacuum is always c?  Also gravitational waves. Also EMR.... suspicious 

 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Hmm like how the speed of massless particles in a vacuum is always c?  Also gravitational waves. Also EMR.... suspicious 

 

There is a difference between the limits of what humans understand and the true limits of the universe. Models aside I think the real tests of speed, gravity, and so on will be done when human colonies are physically separated by larger distances than we have yet achieved. For example on its closet approach Mars is merely 3 minutes away at light speed. 

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

A simulated universe wouldn't be able to exist equal to or larger than the universe it was created within. Identifying artificial, designed, or otherwise imposed limits would be a clue. 

Is that true. We use computers to simulate more complex processors when we design them. 

[Ten oz]

Just now, Strange said:

Is that true. We use computers to simulate more complex processors when we design them. 

Our computers have more processing power than our conscious minds but not more than the Universe. Which isn't to say the Universe is a computer but rather is to say that our computers are not capable of running our Universe as a simulations. Not even close. For example 5.5 petabits ( 1 petabit = 1015bits = 1000000000000000bits = 1000 terabits) can be stored in each cubic millimeter of DNA. Our computers could produce an in-depth simulation of us much less the whole universe.  

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Our computers have more processing power than our conscious minds but not more than the Universe.

But that isn’t what you said

[Silvestru]

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Models aside I think the real tests of speed, gravity, and so on will be done when human colonies are physically separated by larger distances than we have yet achieved.

What do you mean models? There is concrete observational evidence for both. We don't need a colony in another galaxy to calculate the speed of photons in a vacuum. 

But I feel this is a bit off topic here.

Spoiler

One of the last and most accurate time of flight measurements, Michelson, Pease and Pearson's 1930–35 experiment used a rotating mirror and a one-mile (1.6 km) long vacuum chamber which the light beam traversed 10 times. It achieved accuracy of ±11 km/s

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Silvestru

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

What do you mean models? There is concrete observational evidence for both. We don't need a colony in another galaxy to calculate the speed of photons in a vacuum. 

But I feel this is a bit off topic here.

  Reveal hidden contents

One of the last and most accurate time of flight measurements, Michelson, Pease and Pearson's 1930–35 experiment used a rotating mirror and a one-mile (1.6 km) long vacuum chamber which the light beam traversed 10 times. It achieved accuracy of ±11 km/s

 

No, not in a vacuum but between galaxies. We have models which can predict this but predictions do still need to be proved. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

A simulated universe wouldn't be able to exist equal to or larger than the universe it was created within. Identifying artificial, designed, or otherwise imposed limits would be a clue. 

 

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Our computers have more processing power than our conscious minds but not more than the Universe. Which isn't to say the Universe is a computer but rather is to say that our computers are not capable of running our Universe as a simulations. Not even close. For example 5.5 petabits ( 1 petabit = 1015bits = 1000000000000000bits = 1000 terabits) can be stored in each cubic millimeter of DNA. Our computers could produce an in-depth simulation of us much less the whole universe.  

 

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

But that isn’t what you said

I am not sure what you mean. Computer created by humans exist in our universe and not inside of our minds. They exist within in same universe as we exist in. I don't understand the relevance able to out process a person.  

[Silvestru]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, not in a vacuum but between galaxies. We have models which can predict this but predictions do still need to be proved. 

I really don't understand what you mean. Do you doubt the value of c or you think it is not constant and could possible "slow down" during longer travel?

We have so many methods to measure c:

• Astronomical measurements
• Cavity resonance
• Interferometry

We can explain any "delays" from our colony by gravitational lensing maybe? There are also other factors like redshit, blueshift but we are able to explain these factors. I really don't know what you are hinting at   What would "between galaxies" change?

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am not sure what you mean. Computer created by humans exist in our universe and not inside of our minds. They exist within in same universe as we exist in. I don't understand the relevance able to out process a person.  

You said nothing larger than the universe could be simulated in the universe, but we routinely simulate larger computers in computers. So I don't see any basis for your argument.

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

You said nothing larger than the universe could be simulated in the universe, but we routinely simulate larger computers in computers. So I don't see any basis for your argument.

Larger computers are not the entire universe itself. I don't understand the comparison. 

5 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

really don't understand what you mean. Do you doubt the value of c or you think it is not constant and could possible "slow down" during longer travel?

Doubt is the wrong word. Something is known till it is known. We can accept certian concepts as highly probable And still concede they are known for sure. 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Larger computers are not the entire universe itself. I don't understand the comparison. 

You said you can't simulate something larger than X inside an X.

I gave you an example of simulating something larger than X in an X.

I can't make it any clearer.

[Silvestru]

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Doubt is the wrong word. Something is known till it is known. We can accept certian concepts as highly probable And still concede they are known for sure. 

• Nothing is taken for granted in physics but when measuring a value in many different ways by many different parties and that value is consistent with the model .... actually it's not even about GR... we just measured c many times.
• Second, how would a colony in a different galaxy help convince you of c? 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Models aside I think the real tests of speed, gravity, and so on will be done when human colonies are physically separated by larger distances than we have yet achieved.

This is what I don't get.

Maybe you prefer a funny gizmodo argument .(if this is what it takes) 
 

Quote

The speed of light in a vacuum stands at “exactly 299,792,458 metres per second“. The reason today we can put an exact figure on it is because the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant that has been measured with lasers; and when an experiment involves lasers, it's hard to argue with the results.

Lasers Oz...

Edited October 26, 2018 by Silvestru

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

This is what I don't get.

Humans have never been able to generate an experiment where we have sent anything out and measured over a galaxy sized distance. We measure on our end and are able to calculate what we receive but point of origin values are often assumed. By assumed I am not implying without solid reason. We are discussing  a simulated universe though. To know for sure we have to get out. If you and I are simulations who is to say MACS0647 (furthest known Galaxy) isn't just a signal within the simulations program mimicking a distance Galaxy which isn't actually there?  

[Silvestru]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Humans have never been able to generate an experiment where we have sent anything out and measured over a galaxy sized distance. We measure on our end and are able to calculate what we receive but point of origin values are often assumed. By assumed I am not implying without solid reason. We are discussing  a simulated universe though.

I also used to make confusing statements in the physics section and then explain half way that I was actually talking about a simulated universe and that they got me all wrong.

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

To know for sure we have to get out. If you and I are simulations who is to say MACS0647 (furthest known Galaxy) isn't just a signal within the simulations program mimicking a distance Galaxy which isn't actually there?  

This is a straw-man argument.  If we live in a simulation then I could be giving you a back-rub and still could be "just a signal within the simulations program mimicking a polar bear"

Also if you would go to MACS0647 and send me a tweet it would make no difference in your argument. We detected it that means we know where it was billions of years ago. In relation to how long ago the photons we receive were emitted and the expansion of the universe and other different factors. But we are aware of these factors.
So explain please how would we better measure c if you were in MACS0647.