Are we living in an Immersive Virtual Reality?

[immortal]

Virtual reality applications can be of two types. In non-immersive virtual reality such simulations are used to simulate destroyed cities or other things like Titanic etc where as in Immersive virtual reality individuals see the world through the eyes of a virtual body which exists in a virtual reality environment. See Immersion (virtual reality)

 

 

With the kind of advancements that is taking place in developing new synthesizing haptic, visual and auditory physical models achieving realism which is indistinguishable from the actual reality we are not far away from having our own virtual bodies in cyberspace.

Natural Interactive Walking Project- video clips.

 

While such advancements are inevitable the question arises are we living in an Immersive virtual reality itself?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

 

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/01/vr-hypothesis.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

 

 

The same hypothesis can be used as a God hypothesis since there are many religions who teach that we are living in an virtual reality.

 

I think such a hypothesis is outside of science.

[Joatmon]

This is a quote from an earlier, similar, topic made by TonyMcC.

 

"Let us consider for a moment the possibility that our life is a test to see if we are suitable for some reward. Let us also accept that the person or being setting the test has the qualities that are being sought in us e.g. kindness, fairness, love of others etc. Let us assume that the person or being setting the test is all powerful and can do anything. Can we be tested for our attitude to things like suffering, unfairness in life such as the death of infants etc. without such experiences actually happening ?

Well, one solution to this problem is that I am in a simulator and everything I have "experienced" is not at all real. Perhaps the rest of you do not exist and any response to this post will have been generated using artificial intelligence in a program within a computer that is more powerful than I am presently allowed to consider possible.

Just a thought! "

Edited April 23, 2012 by Joatmon

[qsa]

http://www.idsia.ch/...eruniverse.html

 

My theory seems to indicate that it is possible (at least a small universe). I have made a rough estimate that we need to cannibalize one galaxy to produce enough computers at today's power to it. How hard is that? It depends.

 

But I keep wondering if this universe produced a conscious being should we help him with his troubles, or should we ignore him since little simulation hurt nobody!!

Edited April 24, 2012 by qsa

[questionposter]

I don't really see a reason for the universe to exist for that purpose, you'd need a computer infinitely complex therefore requiring infinite memory therefore requiring infinite mass and energy anyway.

And if we are in a computer that complex, it's not like we'd be able to actually tell.

If you actually research and gain some knowledge on quantum mechanics, there are many logical reasons for those properties existing the way they do.

Edited April 24, 2012 by questionposter

[immortal]

I think the real Universe is non-computable, there is a connection between mathematical truths and the way the human mind understands through intuition, a small glitch. Kurt Godel said "I don't believe in natural science" and also "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine", he was really very doubtful about the external reality.

 

Roger Penrose doesn't take the strong Platonist view of Godel but he makes similar arguments in his three books.

 

It is highly inaccurate and inappropriate to speculate on the exact nature of the universe based on our common notions of computers while viewing the universe as a processing mechanistic computer.

 

If we can simulate the creaking sounds of walking on frozen ice and the crumpling sounds of walking on snow, metals and wood on normal flat tiles then we can imagine how the exact nature of the universe might be completely different than what is being given to us in a simulated reality.

[qsa]

I think the real Universe is non-computable, there is a connection between mathematical truths and the way the human mind understands through intuition, a small glitch. Kurt Godel said "I don't believe in natural science" and also "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine", he was really very doubtful about the external reality.

 

Roger Penrose doesn't take the strong Platonist view of Godel but he makes similar arguments in his three books.

 

It is highly inaccurate and inappropriate to speculate on the exact nature of the universe based on our common notions of computers while viewing the universe as a processing mechanistic computer.

 

If we can simulate the creaking sounds of walking on frozen ice and the crumpling sounds of walking on snow, metals and wood on normal flat tiles then we can imagine how the exact nature of the universe might be completely different than what is being given to us in a simulated reality.

 

quote from wiki

 

Since most physicists would consider the statement of the underlying rules to suffice as the definition of a "theory of everything", most physicists argue that Gödel's Theorem does not mean that a TOE cannot exist.

 

http://en.wikipedia....y_of_everything

 

 

however, my definition of TOE is more loaded than JUST unifying forces. But it is still less than tackling consciousness, which I think it is not fundamental. Also, Penrose comments are misinterpreted. The idea of simulating the universe did not just come from VR, but from many other considerations. The latest being quantum computing.

 

Nobody said it is simple or can be done for sure. It is just a conjecture from many evidences that one day in the distant future it MIGHT be possible. Of course the type of TOE that we will have in hand will greatly influence that possibility.

Edited April 24, 2012 by qsa

[questionposter]

I think in order to have any chance of saying that the universe is a computer, we need to re-create the universe from scratch in a computer ourselves.

Edited April 25, 2012 by questionposter

[qsa]

I think in order to have any chance of saying that the universe is a computer, we need to re-create the universe from scratch in a computer ourselves.

 

That is ultimately what we want to do. But in science most of the time we do approximations to overcome the difficulty of complex systems. Typically we take the fundamental equations and we derive emperical equations for multiparticle systems. this done to study materials for instance. I think a first step will be of this type probably.

[immortal]

I think in order to have any chance of saying that the universe is a computer, we need to re-create the universe from scratch in a computer ourselves.

 

If the real universe is a Penrose's non-computable toy universe then the universe is not a computer but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are not in a simulated immersive virtual reality, the real non-computable universe can be anything and perfectly deterministic yet non-computable. Its outside of science.

[questionposter]

If the real universe is a Penrose's non-computable toy universe then the universe is not a computer but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are not in a simulated immersive virtual reality, the real non-computable universe can be anything and perfectly deterministic yet non-computable. Its outside of science.

 

It would also raise the question though of how that universe that made the computer we are in started existing. It wouldn't really make sense to have an infinite simulations paradox.

If we are in a simulation, what made the computer that's simulating us? How do they know they aren't in a simulation? Paradox.

Edited April 28, 2012 by questionposter

[Moontanman]

Virtual reality applications can be of two types. In non-immersive virtual reality such simulations are used to simulate destroyed cities or other things like Titanic etc where as in Immersive virtual reality individuals see the world through the eyes of a virtual body which exists in a virtual reality environment. See Immersion (virtual reality)

 

 

With the kind of advancements that is taking place in developing new synthesizing haptic, visual and auditory physical models achieving realism which is indistinguishable from the actual reality we are not far away from having our own virtual bodies in cyberspace.

Natural Interactive Walking Project- video clips.

 

While such advancements are inevitable the question arises are we living in an Immersive virtual reality itself?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

 

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/01/vr-hypothesis.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

 

 

The same hypothesis can be used as a God hypothesis since there are many religions who teach that we are living in an virtual reality.

 

I think such a hypothesis is outside of science.

 

 

If we are i want my money back, this ride sucks...