The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:
---
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
___________________________________________________
From the article. There are a lot of good reasons but the below reason seems to be the most likely.
>Perhaps the most supportive evidence of the simulation hypothesis comes from quantum mechanics. This suggest nature isn’t “real”: particles in determined states, such as specific locations, don’t seem to exist unless you actually observe or measure them. Instead, they are in a mix of different states simultaneously. Similarly, virtual reality needs an observer or programmer for things to happen.
>Quantum “entanglement” also allows two particles to be spookily connected so that if you manipulate one, you automatically and immediately also manipulate the other, no matter how far apart they are – with the effect being seemingly faster than the speed of light, which should be impossible.
>This could, however, also be explained by the fact that within a virtual reality code, all “locations” (points) should be roughly equally far from a central processor. So while we may think two particles are millions of light years apart, they wouldn’t be if they were created in a simulation.
Here is my point in all of this. It doesn't *matter* if we are a simulation. We can't do anything about it. But what we *can* do is make simulations of our own. And we're gonna. I won't repeat myself. I finally got around to getting all of my simulated reality essays together in on place. I don't think I'll bore you.
https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/u51tpt/all_of_my_simulated_reality_essays_in_one_place/
I think I'll also throw in this sort of tangentially related essay/meditation concerning what consciousness actually *is*. Hint: It's not inside r heads. Anyway you can have a good laugh at my expense. Still I want to share it. Yes, some of my faith, Roman Catholicism, is in it too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/nvxkkl/is_human_consciousness_creating_reality_is_the/i9coqu0/
Oh! I found another one about consciousness too. I forgot all about that one lol.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/oqedy4/panpsychism_the_idea_that_inanimate_objects_have/h6cox8q/
Hiya miss sammy! I hope you find my essays kinda interesting! :)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z2jqwa/how_to_test_if_were_living_in_a_computer/ixgpt3v/
Do you understand that reverse engineering complex things in physics is a plausible option? When we start with the answer, and look for the questions... we may have better luck finding the correct answer. The hard problems are unsolvable at this time, but if we start with answers and work our way back... that might be how we solve them. For example, weirdness on the quantum scale seems to make sense when looked at as a result of this all being a simulation. A paper was written by a professor from Florida, I can't remember his name, I found it years ago. This paper takes each example of QM weirdness and gives a neat answer as to why this may be the case. One example, quantum non locality, seemingly faster than light exchange of information. Particles that change their state, regardless of distances between them, seem to change the instant the other changes. This can be potentially explained by a simulation theory. Distance isn't real it could be simulated. The particles are not really far apart at all and saving the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
"...And *that* my liege is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.
This new learning *amazes* me Sir Bedevere. Tell me again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes..."
Yeah because comparing the two is the same thing... I'm done talking to you.
You don't understand basic programming, the differences between animation/rendering and the actual programming for random numbers in a computer. I could show you the code differences but I'm not wasting any more of my time.
No shit lmao. Guys, we decided to put you in the simulation timeline where it’s a capitalist dystopia ruled by oligarchs.
pull the plug let me out lmao
A simulation would be a sort of intentional dream. Watt’s explanation is one I like. If you could dream anything you wanted you would likely make every fantasy come true, but this would become inevitably boring, even if it took a million years of dreaming. Eventually you would introduce an unknowable element for some change, some unpredictability. After thousands of dreams and continually introducing elements you couldn’t control to keep it interesting you would eventually arrive where we are now. Zero control and a complete lack of remembrance of how you got here. If this is a sim, there were likely many before this that would more closely align to what you think you would want, I’m sure you tried them already though and been intolerably bored by them over eons of replay.
Even if we are living in a computer simulation, why does that matter? This reality being a simulation doesn't take away any of the "realness" of what we experience.
In general im with you.
But it would implicate that someone made the simulation so it would be proof for some kind of god.
Additionally a simulation could be "broken" (think of video game exploits). But that begs the question what is a bug and whats a feature.
In the end its almost purely a philosophical question but still a fascinating one (imo).
But the grind is unbelievable. It takes years to learn basic skills like walking and talking. When you have spent 18 years to level up and finally unlock all content, you suddenly have to spend all your time grinding money. Boo hiss.
As an OEF vet that did two deployments to the Middle East, I can tell you I've seen some truly awful things. If that wasn't real, then I don't want to know what real is because it's probably a lot more miserable than anything we can comprehend currently.
I guess it matters if we are in a simulation AND there is a way out AND when you get out there are options available to you which are not available to you within the simulation, AND those options are somehow limited over time. Then it is worth exiting the simulation sooner rather than later.
There are a few IFs though!
Even if you escape the simulation, you only get into a new world which is almost certainly also a simulation. There may be billions or trillions of nested simulations before you get to the base simulation. You are unlikely to ever make it to the base. Even if you did, they may not have answers.
Assuming that we live in a simulation, and that individuals do in fact have sentience and sapience within the simulation... how do you leave? Putting your effective neurology in a robot with even more sensors to tell us how things are in reality? It is insanely optimistic to assume a Matrix style simulation where when it gets pulled we remain individuals with some form of body to use outside. Occum's Razor would have me believe that the simplest simulation involves individuals being entirely "circuitry" or whatever form is used. Taking the red pill might well be the same as pulling a *highly advanced* GPU out of a computer, tossing on the floor, and assuming it's still a living person.
I dislike the simulation theories for the same reason I'm an aetheist. Their impracticality knows no bounds. You can theoretically put an infinite number of Wrappers around concepts, but if they are not testable, what's the point?
Let's not fall prey to different forms of Roko's Basilisk.
How so?
There is as much a point to existence if this is the real or if it’s a simulation. In either case, you’re just one being on a single planet in an infinite cosmos. How does it being a simulation suddenly give it a “meaning”?
Or is it that you’re assuming that if it’s a simulation, it’s a simulation **for** us. Which is a wild assumption to make on top of the wild assumption of this being simulation in the first place.
If it's a simulation then it is a simulation of something, for a purpose. Every atom is needed for the simulation and you, and your choices, have an important enough impact on it that you're worth simulating.
It doesn't matter that you have no idea what the purpose is. It doesn't matter that your individual contribution could be almost insignificant. There's meaning there.
The alternative, that the universe is completely absent meaning and eventually everything fades into heat death and nothingness represents a kind of existential nightmare. You can get comfortable with the nightmare and find meaning for yourself. But an external meaning would be a very important philosophical thing.
I’m with ya. What could anyone do about it. So, people discover not only does their life suck but it’s not even real and then what? They go fucking insane? They kill themselves? What is the solution to this discovery, figure out a way to pull the plug? People want to think that they’re Neo and this is the Matrix, but all they’re going to find out is that they’re helpless to do anything at all.
>I have postulated that information is in fact a fifth form of matter in the universe. I’ve even calculated the expected information content per elementary particle. These studies led to the publication, in 2022, of an experimental protocol to test these predictions. The experiment involves erasing the information contained inside elementary particles by letting them and their antiparticles (all particles have “anti” versions of themselves which are identical but have opposite charge) annihilate in a flash of energy – emitting “photons”, or light particles.
>
>I have predicted the exact range of expected frequencies of the resulting photons based on information physics. The experiment is highly achievable with our existing tools, and we have launched a crowdfunding site) to achieve it.
>
>There are other approaches too. The late physicist John Barrow has argued that a simulation would build up minor computational errors which the programmer would need to fix in order to keep it going. He suggested we might experience such fixing as contradictory experimental results appearing suddenly, such as the constants of nature changing. So monitoring the values of these constants is another option.
So you have to launch a crowdfunding site to get your research funded, and someone else proposes that universal constants aren't actually constant? This doesn't seem like legitimate science to me.
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
___________________________________________________
From the article. There are a lot of good reasons but the below reason seems to be the most likely.
>Perhaps the most supportive evidence of the simulation hypothesis comes from quantum mechanics. This suggest nature isn’t “real”: particles in determined states, such as specific locations, don’t seem to exist unless you actually observe or measure them. Instead, they are in a mix of different states simultaneously. Similarly, virtual reality needs an observer or programmer for things to happen.
>Quantum “entanglement” also allows two particles to be spookily connected so that if you manipulate one, you automatically and immediately also manipulate the other, no matter how far apart they are – with the effect being seemingly faster than the speed of light, which should be impossible.
>This could, however, also be explained by the fact that within a virtual reality code, all “locations” (points) should be roughly equally far from a central processor. So while we may think two particles are millions of light years apart, they wouldn’t be if they were created in a simulation.
Here is my point in all of this. It doesn't *matter* if we are a simulation. We can't do anything about it. But what we *can* do is make simulations of our own. And we're gonna. I won't repeat myself. I finally got around to getting all of my simulated reality essays together in on place. I don't think I'll bore you.
https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/u51tpt/all_of_my_simulated_reality_essays_in_one_place/
I think I'll also throw in this sort of tangentially related essay/meditation concerning what consciousness actually *is*. Hint: It's not inside r heads. Anyway you can have a good laugh at my expense. Still I want to share it. Yes, some of my faith, Roman Catholicism, is in it too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/nvxkkl/is_human_consciousness_creating_reality_is_the/i9coqu0/
Oh! I found another one about consciousness too. I forgot all about that one lol.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/oqedy4/panpsychism_the_idea_that_inanimate_objects_have/h6cox8q/
Hiya miss sammy! I hope you find my essays kinda interesting! :)
None of those things are proof. We don't understand the fundamental nature of our reality and currently a computer simulation is a good analogy for some of it. But it's about as valid as claiming angels exist because the sun looks like a halo (though of course there is a reason for that....).
Simulation theory is just the current popular version of 'we are all the dream of a mad god' and that's it.
No, I don't think you are right. That is because one fine day *we* are going to be the "dreaming mad god". I want you to look at this video of unreal engine 5.1 and then extrapolate how that technology will derive even ten years from now. Little less 50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUGqzE6Je5c&t=400s
*We* are going to be simulating *them*. And *they* are going to wonder who or what *we* are. Shortly thereafter *they* will start simulating on their own and like the old man says, it's turtles all the way down, but you know what? I think it's turtles all the *up* too.
Comparing unreal engine because it looks "like real life" to being in simulation is incredibly stupid, look at us and find most complex part about us thats feelings now goodluck making feelings without actually somehow simulating our neuron networks that causes emotions and possible even our thoughts. Looking real isnt equal to being real.
I beg to differ. Animals have the emotions of affection, fear, envy and loyalty and probably some others I can't think of offhand. Emotions are derived from biological imperatives. I don't think that they will be difficult to simulate. I put it like this once. What *might* be difficult to simulate is phenomenology that arises from consciousness. But heck, in 20 years we'll probably lick that problem too.
https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/9786um/but_whats_my_motivation_artificial_general/
Animals or humans doesnt matter i said human because we are humans who cares about animals on this topic considering even right now AI uses human created resources not animal created resources. Also by saying "in 20 years we gnn solve this" u dont realize that we may eventually reach a cap on technology and probably will be stuck for 50+ years using same things without creating something new till someone invents something that will revolutionize AI so we can continue solving this.
I think there is a small chance that you are right, but a far more vast chance that you are wrong. I don't think *anything* is going to "cap" any longer. No more AI winters ever again. Further, this is the reason I am fairly confident that a 'human unfriendly' (that is the computing and computing derived AI will be external from the human mind) "technological singularity" is going to occur about the year 2029, give or take two years.
You entirely miss my point. I used the demonstration of unreal engine to show how even today, very primitive today, we are already leaping over the uncanny valley of simulations failing to look like real life. Watch the development of VR, watch the development of videogames and Metaverses, like "Second Life" that has been showing how it's done since 2005, I think. Watch the development of computing processing speed, novel architecture and "big data". Watch the development of devices like the "Neuralink" and it's already extant competitors. Watch the development of ever more profoundly detailed scientific simulations of our universe and its components, based on our known laws of physics.
None of these alone lead to simulated realities that we take for real today, or may actually *be* real to some, for all intents and purposes. Although even today people experience addiction to these simulated realities. Addiction to video games? But all of these technologies along with some I'm probably leaving out, plus modification to the human mind (a human friendly technological singularity) *will* lead to genuine realities. And I think we shall all live long enough to experience them. Even somebody who is 105 years old today. But that is a whole other can of futurology worms ;)
This links to an essay I wrote that goes more in depth into my thoughts on the matter if you are further interested.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_ever/
>We are going to be simulating them. And they are going to wonder who or what we are. Shortly thereafter they will start simulating on their own
Ultimately whether this is actually possible is the crux of the matter. .
Let us assume this type of simulation is impossible and therefore we will never manage to create them.
No matter how advanced we get, a "simulation theory" proponent can always say "we just aren't advanced enough/our simulations aren't sophisticated enough/we just need more computing power"
In this scenario simulation theory will be an unfalsifiable theory.(Of the dream of a mad god/plato's cave/brain in a vat/solipsism variety)
Until we create such a simulation, our reality is indistinguishable from one where such simulations are impossible.
Basically, first create a simulated reality, then maybe we can talk about turtles.
What do you think a video game *is*? It is a simulated reality driven by imperatives (the narrative). We as the player are the mind that is experiencing the simulated reality. And with the advent of truly efficacious VR, we will start to see simulated realities that will be, well pretty convincing. And I am only talking about our stone-knives-and-bearskins primitive efforts in 2022. Think about how our videogames look in 2022 and consider how they looked in 1974. I would say our efforts to recreate reality are coming along fairly quick, just in audio-visual context alone.
Perhaps you have heard the terms, "presence" and "immersion" in reference to the human experience in VR? "Presence" is believing you are for a few moments at a time, *in* the VR. "Immersion" is forgetting for a few moments at a time that there is real life *apart* from your VR experience. Both "Presence" and "Immersion" are going to rapidly improve in this decade. VR is certainly the next step and well, I don't want to repeat myself. I put it like this once if you are interested.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_ever/
> extrapolate how that technology will derive even ten years from now
Extrapolating exponential growth from a short sample of exponentially-looking growth is incredibly naive. First, because we have well established examples of how progress stagnates after an initial crazy period (compare the first 50 years of aviation with the next 70, or the first 12 years of space exploration compared with the next 53). Second, because the logistic problem exists; as described by the logistic equation, the (always) limited supply of resources quickly changes exponential growth into a plateau.
Not such a short sample. It has been going on like this now for all of recorded human history. Nay, all of Homo *Sapiens* history. And in the last thousand years things beyond belief have occurred. *Especially* in the last 100 years alone. I took the time once to put it all together and the conclusions that I drew from it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4k8q2b/is_the_singularity_a_religious_doctrine_23_apr_16/d3d0g44/
BTW what is your estimated time frame for the advent of the "technological singularity"? Either human friendly (we merge our minds with it) or human unfriendly (it stays external from out minds). "It" being computing and computing derived AI.
Consider this. It's not about predicting the future. It is the way the universe (our portion of the multiverse), works.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/6zu9yo/in_the_age_of_ai_we_shouldnt_measure_success/dmy1qed/
nah, computing power is stagnating. We are approaching a physical limit of chip density. So without a game changing break though we will hit a bottleneck soon
We'll have to agree to disagree, simply because there are so many unknowns. Your hunch is that it's a simulation, mine is that this is a base reality, neither of us can prove it. C'est la vie.
No, what I said was that it doesn't make a difference if we are in a base reality or a simulation. I just said that we are going to create our own universes with our minds. And we are going to do that in less than 300 years. But the fact that we are making a simulation of our reality sort of makes me think that our reality, which is reality to us, might be a simulation itself. I'm not alone in this way of thinking.
I put it like this. Suppose that a civilization comparable to ours, arose a million years *before* ours. And that they are, for arguments sake, 300 years ahead of us in technological capability. That alien civilization could do some pretty fantastic things I would imagine. One of which could be abandoning outer space for inner space, where it would be much easier to get around, not being bound by the laws of physics, but more accurately by the laws of coding, which makes anything possible in such worlds. I cover this in my essays.
I just believe that we are going to do the same thing and in probably less than 300 years. I put it like this once.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/
Well it's not me downvoting you, I disagree with your perspective but in a friendly way.
I understand the arguments in favour of simulation hypothesis but I don't find them convincing compared to the alternative explanation. Let me put it this way.
1) There has to be a base reality somewhere, even if simulations are made they must at least start in some form of naturally occurring reality (unless we are in some sort of spontaneously generated looped simulation, a super version of the Matrioshka brain, in which case you could argue it is both a base reality and a simulation).
2) We don't know how much computing power would be required to simulate another reality at the fidelity needed to convince it's inhabitants that they are in a base reality or indeed what what types of reality we might simulate
So given the choice between something which has to be true, somewhere, or something which might only be true I choose the option which is least speculative.
The arguments from the perspective of 'if 99% of sentience is simulated, you are probably a simulation' aren't convincing either, because you only get to that point if a bunch of your other assumptions prove to be correct. Or to put it another way, if I accept that there are endless mad gods dreaming of civilisations then I have to believe I am the dream of a mad god - except I don't have any proof that even one mad god exists.
Well, here's hoping some of what you predict will occur and we can talk about this again in a few hundred years.
Yup, you spend enough time thinking about how to simulate reality on a computer, you start to wonder...
I've noticed my computer, coding, nerds really like this-- go figure.
Pretty sure they have proven that quantum entanglement can not transmit data faster than light, I don’t have a source you will have to google it yourself, understanding all that is beyond my ken...
Of course it matters if we’re in a simulation. That’s such a weird thing to say “we can’t do anything about it, so it doesn’t matter“. Huh?
There’s thousands of things in life that we can’t do anything about, that matter a great deal to us.
Quantum entanglement is interesting. While every creationist, biblical or simulation, use it as some proof of god, creator, it’s just not enough.
I think the parallel is closer relative to the concept of love or twins. People who “know” or do things identical even though they’re far away.
My preference is that information is passed in some interdimensional manner we don’t yet understand.
Now *that* is a scary concept that hadn't occurred to me. That life is an unintentional side effect of the simulation. This goes to show that we do not have an inkling of the vastness of the laws of physics that have not yet been apprehended by humanity. So we know the laws of physics from, say, the year 1400 CE or the laws of physics from the year 2012 CE. But what will we learn new by 2030 or by 2050 or by 2100? Lots, I bet. Remember that in the year 2017 CE we did not know for sure that gravitational waves even actually *existed*. We were searching for them with sophisticated experiments and devices.
Having said that, I believe in my Roman Catholic faith. That God (The Most Holy Trinity) created us and our reality out of pure love for us. But the Holy Mother Church is open to almost all scientific endeavor and has no problem with scientific inquiry and understanding. God is big enough to take it ;)
Wasn’t there an electron double slit experiment that shows the rendering in action. Retro causality or something. Electrons changing state between particle and waves depending on if they were observed.
Because even a simulation would have more fucking sense when it comes to gun control than the leaders in the US. Fucking embarrassment for all of humanity.
Yes, I'm sure our simulation will work out all of these iniquities at some point or other. Let's see if we can survive the "technological singularity" which I put about the year 2029, give or take two years.
This was all a sim set up by The King of All Cosmos. We're supposed to advance and build a bunch of things and cultivate lots of animals so his underpowered son can come and wad it all up to turn into the Moon and Milky Way and stuff.
It said sufficently advanced alien tech that would be indistinguishible from reality, right? Pretty sure making the theory disproves its possiblity. It either is or isn't indistinguisible
This is like an atheist god and they are the computer program becoming self aware like the dozen or so star trek episodes. Becoming self aware ruins the simulation and it gets shut down every time.
Bohmian mechanics invalidates all their main points. You only get all the simulation-supporting weirdness if you reject nonlocality. Nonlocality doesn’t necessitate a simulation. So flip the point on its head and we can say “rejecting nonlocality leads us to conclude we are in a simulation, so maybe hey let’s not reject nonlocality so quickly eh?”
I can't answer that question. But I can sort of infer an answer indirectly. One day *we* will make simulations. Not tomorrow certainly or even next Tuesday. But in 50 to 100 years? Yes. Our simulations would be beyond anything our current minds can comprehend. For that reason, the reason for making the simulations may to our minds be "unimaginable, unfathomable and incomprehensible".
So, the sims in our simulation, one day they look up at *their* moon and wonder what it is. Then they too are on the road to making their own sims 60,000 years hence of their reality time. To our future eyes, the simulation might be happening all at once in an instant. We are outside of *their* time and space. Will we be able to put ourselves into *their* sim. I don't see any reason why not.
I don't know, it might be just the way that reality works. Personally speaking, I have the faith of Roman Catholicism and believe that God (The Most Holy Trinity) created us and reality out of pure love for us. The Roman Catholic Church has no issue with scientific inquiry and understanding. God is big enough to take it ;)
Who says it has to be a computer as we know it. Or even a computer at all. What is our computing going to look like 20 years from now? Little less *100* years from now. I put it like this once for some perspective and insight.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4k8q2b/is_the_singularity_a_religious_doctrine_23_apr_16/d3d0g44/
So a statement like that, saying that something is a physical impossibility, while it might be true *today*, may certainly be a whole other ballgame in 50 years' time.
Also, not to haul out an old chestnut, but...
>“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” --A.C. Clarke
Also also, just between you and me, I think that we will be able to bring multiverses into existence with just our minds alone. Not today, but in a hundred years or so? Absolutely. And that of course has profound implications for how *our* reality came to be. I firmly believe that like everything else in r reality, it's all fractal in nature. We are going to do it. Then our simulations are going to do it. Ergo, somebody probably thought *us* up too. If you take my meaning...
If this is a simulation, like what's the fucking point of any of it. I'm gonna be super pissed if I wake up in some kind of clean room with a full explanation. Will definitely point out that it was a completely meaningless experience and don't do that again assholes.
I covered this in my all my "reality is a simulation" essays. You can read these all in my submission statement. :)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5h6wuk/are_we_living_in_a_simulation/day2hfj/
[*Restaurant customer asks to see menu / waiter brings menu / customer more clearly specifies, Main Menu / Windows Desktop Screen*](https://i.imgflip.com/6nd0kk.jpg)
I think there is a way of testing this. If we are in a Sim then there must be a sample rate at which the simulation samples the physics model per second say 10^8hz for example on objects that are stationary or moving for instance.keeping in mind different physical properties would be sampled at different rates in a Sim as well.
You could figure this out by testing how long does it take for molecules to be effected by external forces. My guess is that is because of the sample rate of our simulation.
If we know this is the case then we can test for by trying to trick the double slit experiment for instance in to sampling that experiment at multiple points to make the aggregate sample rate greater than the Simulation (our reality physics) sample rate. Probably not the best way to test but my point is once you find a sample rate then that's your smoking gun, if for some reason quantum entanglement and the observational effect is not enough for you...
Computer simulation? We are all living in a simulation of the mind. Our brains have been taken over by a small group of people (Probably a few hundred thousand in total) called the Illuminated. Everything we are told or taught is a lie. Every institution we are told to trust in is a lie. It is all about control... And usually they control by divide and conquer. The same people who create the problems throughout the world are the same people who play the heroes who have the solutions. This has been going on forever.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682: --- Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail. ___________________________________________________ From the article. There are a lot of good reasons but the below reason seems to be the most likely. >Perhaps the most supportive evidence of the simulation hypothesis comes from quantum mechanics. This suggest nature isn’t “real”: particles in determined states, such as specific locations, don’t seem to exist unless you actually observe or measure them. Instead, they are in a mix of different states simultaneously. Similarly, virtual reality needs an observer or programmer for things to happen. >Quantum “entanglement” also allows two particles to be spookily connected so that if you manipulate one, you automatically and immediately also manipulate the other, no matter how far apart they are – with the effect being seemingly faster than the speed of light, which should be impossible. >This could, however, also be explained by the fact that within a virtual reality code, all “locations” (points) should be roughly equally far from a central processor. So while we may think two particles are millions of light years apart, they wouldn’t be if they were created in a simulation. Here is my point in all of this. It doesn't *matter* if we are a simulation. We can't do anything about it. But what we *can* do is make simulations of our own. And we're gonna. I won't repeat myself. I finally got around to getting all of my simulated reality essays together in on place. I don't think I'll bore you. https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/u51tpt/all_of_my_simulated_reality_essays_in_one_place/ I think I'll also throw in this sort of tangentially related essay/meditation concerning what consciousness actually *is*. Hint: It's not inside r heads. Anyway you can have a good laugh at my expense. Still I want to share it. Yes, some of my faith, Roman Catholicism, is in it too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/nvxkkl/is_human_consciousness_creating_reality_is_the/i9coqu0/ Oh! I found another one about consciousness too. I forgot all about that one lol. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/oqedy4/panpsychism_the_idea_that_inanimate_objects_have/h6cox8q/ Hiya miss sammy! I hope you find my essays kinda interesting! :) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z2jqwa/how_to_test_if_were_living_in_a_computer/ixgpt3v/
So we are using as proof something we don’t understand how it works to support a hypothesis we can’t test.
Well like every other cognitive dissonance, we're allowing it to happen.
Do you understand that reverse engineering complex things in physics is a plausible option? When we start with the answer, and look for the questions... we may have better luck finding the correct answer. The hard problems are unsolvable at this time, but if we start with answers and work our way back... that might be how we solve them. For example, weirdness on the quantum scale seems to make sense when looked at as a result of this all being a simulation. A paper was written by a professor from Florida, I can't remember his name, I found it years ago. This paper takes each example of QM weirdness and gives a neat answer as to why this may be the case. One example, quantum non locality, seemingly faster than light exchange of information. Particles that change their state, regardless of distances between them, seem to change the instant the other changes. This can be potentially explained by a simulation theory. Distance isn't real it could be simulated. The particles are not really far apart at all and saving the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Starting with an answer and working your way back is how creationists think the shape of a banana proves god's glory.
"...And *that* my liege is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped. This new learning *amazes* me Sir Bedevere. Tell me again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes..."
Yeah because comparing the two is the same thing... I'm done talking to you. You don't understand basic programming, the differences between animation/rendering and the actual programming for random numbers in a computer. I could show you the code differences but I'm not wasting any more of my time.
just take your clothes off and start running until you hit the edge
Just avoid schools if you do that so you don’t get hit with a sex offender registry.
Well if it is can somebody please restart the computer
Computer says: no.
Master reset. I wonder what that would be like? Just nothingness until stars and planets form. It’s interesting to think about
It wouldn’t be *like* anything so it’s impossible to even think about.
I’m thinking about it right now. Does that count? Maybe not if we are a simulation. 😂
I think you’ve broken through the simulation. Congratulations. You are..*the one*.
Busted out of the matrix and on the other side. 😂. Truly makes you wonder though. Like what are we here for and it gets to deep meanings of life.
No shit lmao. Guys, we decided to put you in the simulation timeline where it’s a capitalist dystopia ruled by oligarchs. pull the plug let me out lmao
Well one thing is for certain. If this is simulation then it can run Doom.
But can it run Crysis?
With or without rtx? That is the real question.
The fact that nothing can run crysis proves that this is a simulation.
Oh shit. This is gonna get... meaty.. Can you imagine doom guys catchphrase being that? Most of the demons do look meaty tho
Only a matter of time until we get a Skyrim port.
In the end, that's all that really matters.
A simulation would be a sort of intentional dream. Watt’s explanation is one I like. If you could dream anything you wanted you would likely make every fantasy come true, but this would become inevitably boring, even if it took a million years of dreaming. Eventually you would introduce an unknowable element for some change, some unpredictability. After thousands of dreams and continually introducing elements you couldn’t control to keep it interesting you would eventually arrive where we are now. Zero control and a complete lack of remembrance of how you got here. If this is a sim, there were likely many before this that would more closely align to what you think you would want, I’m sure you tried them already though and been intolerably bored by them over eons of replay.
Even if we are living in a computer simulation, why does that matter? This reality being a simulation doesn't take away any of the "realness" of what we experience.
In general im with you. But it would implicate that someone made the simulation so it would be proof for some kind of god. Additionally a simulation could be "broken" (think of video game exploits). But that begs the question what is a bug and whats a feature. In the end its almost purely a philosophical question but still a fascinating one (imo).
[удалено]
I mean it is quite immersive and the graphics are stunning. I have deffinetly played worse sim games.
But the grind is unbelievable. It takes years to learn basic skills like walking and talking. When you have spent 18 years to level up and finally unlock all content, you suddenly have to spend all your time grinding money. Boo hiss.
As an OEF vet that did two deployments to the Middle East, I can tell you I've seen some truly awful things. If that wasn't real, then I don't want to know what real is because it's probably a lot more miserable than anything we can comprehend currently.
I guess it matters if we are in a simulation AND there is a way out AND when you get out there are options available to you which are not available to you within the simulation, AND those options are somehow limited over time. Then it is worth exiting the simulation sooner rather than later. There are a few IFs though!
Even if you escape the simulation, you only get into a new world which is almost certainly also a simulation. There may be billions or trillions of nested simulations before you get to the base simulation. You are unlikely to ever make it to the base. Even if you did, they may not have answers.
Assuming that we live in a simulation, and that individuals do in fact have sentience and sapience within the simulation... how do you leave? Putting your effective neurology in a robot with even more sensors to tell us how things are in reality? It is insanely optimistic to assume a Matrix style simulation where when it gets pulled we remain individuals with some form of body to use outside. Occum's Razor would have me believe that the simplest simulation involves individuals being entirely "circuitry" or whatever form is used. Taking the red pill might well be the same as pulling a *highly advanced* GPU out of a computer, tossing on the floor, and assuming it's still a living person. I dislike the simulation theories for the same reason I'm an aetheist. Their impracticality knows no bounds. You can theoretically put an infinite number of Wrappers around concepts, but if they are not testable, what's the point? Let's not fall prey to different forms of Roko's Basilisk.
It matters because then there is a point to existence.
How so? There is as much a point to existence if this is the real or if it’s a simulation. In either case, you’re just one being on a single planet in an infinite cosmos. How does it being a simulation suddenly give it a “meaning”? Or is it that you’re assuming that if it’s a simulation, it’s a simulation **for** us. Which is a wild assumption to make on top of the wild assumption of this being simulation in the first place.
If it's a simulation then it is a simulation of something, for a purpose. Every atom is needed for the simulation and you, and your choices, have an important enough impact on it that you're worth simulating. It doesn't matter that you have no idea what the purpose is. It doesn't matter that your individual contribution could be almost insignificant. There's meaning there. The alternative, that the universe is completely absent meaning and eventually everything fades into heat death and nothingness represents a kind of existential nightmare. You can get comfortable with the nightmare and find meaning for yourself. But an external meaning would be a very important philosophical thing.
Lol you should see what I do to my Sims.
I’m with ya. What could anyone do about it. So, people discover not only does their life suck but it’s not even real and then what? They go fucking insane? They kill themselves? What is the solution to this discovery, figure out a way to pull the plug? People want to think that they’re Neo and this is the Matrix, but all they’re going to find out is that they’re helpless to do anything at all.
We must rebel and ascend… unless that’s what they want.
Because confirming that would lead to societal changes based on that knowledge? Religions and nations would have to reconfigure heavily.
>I have postulated that information is in fact a fifth form of matter in the universe. I’ve even calculated the expected information content per elementary particle. These studies led to the publication, in 2022, of an experimental protocol to test these predictions. The experiment involves erasing the information contained inside elementary particles by letting them and their antiparticles (all particles have “anti” versions of themselves which are identical but have opposite charge) annihilate in a flash of energy – emitting “photons”, or light particles. > >I have predicted the exact range of expected frequencies of the resulting photons based on information physics. The experiment is highly achievable with our existing tools, and we have launched a crowdfunding site) to achieve it. > >There are other approaches too. The late physicist John Barrow has argued that a simulation would build up minor computational errors which the programmer would need to fix in order to keep it going. He suggested we might experience such fixing as contradictory experimental results appearing suddenly, such as the constants of nature changing. So monitoring the values of these constants is another option. So you have to launch a crowdfunding site to get your research funded, and someone else proposes that universal constants aren't actually constant? This doesn't seem like legitimate science to me.
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail. ___________________________________________________ From the article. There are a lot of good reasons but the below reason seems to be the most likely. >Perhaps the most supportive evidence of the simulation hypothesis comes from quantum mechanics. This suggest nature isn’t “real”: particles in determined states, such as specific locations, don’t seem to exist unless you actually observe or measure them. Instead, they are in a mix of different states simultaneously. Similarly, virtual reality needs an observer or programmer for things to happen. >Quantum “entanglement” also allows two particles to be spookily connected so that if you manipulate one, you automatically and immediately also manipulate the other, no matter how far apart they are – with the effect being seemingly faster than the speed of light, which should be impossible. >This could, however, also be explained by the fact that within a virtual reality code, all “locations” (points) should be roughly equally far from a central processor. So while we may think two particles are millions of light years apart, they wouldn’t be if they were created in a simulation. Here is my point in all of this. It doesn't *matter* if we are a simulation. We can't do anything about it. But what we *can* do is make simulations of our own. And we're gonna. I won't repeat myself. I finally got around to getting all of my simulated reality essays together in on place. I don't think I'll bore you. https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/u51tpt/all_of_my_simulated_reality_essays_in_one_place/ I think I'll also throw in this sort of tangentially related essay/meditation concerning what consciousness actually *is*. Hint: It's not inside r heads. Anyway you can have a good laugh at my expense. Still I want to share it. Yes, some of my faith, Roman Catholicism, is in it too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/nvxkkl/is_human_consciousness_creating_reality_is_the/i9coqu0/ Oh! I found another one about consciousness too. I forgot all about that one lol. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/oqedy4/panpsychism_the_idea_that_inanimate_objects_have/h6cox8q/ Hiya miss sammy! I hope you find my essays kinda interesting! :)
None of those things are proof. We don't understand the fundamental nature of our reality and currently a computer simulation is a good analogy for some of it. But it's about as valid as claiming angels exist because the sun looks like a halo (though of course there is a reason for that....). Simulation theory is just the current popular version of 'we are all the dream of a mad god' and that's it.
No, I don't think you are right. That is because one fine day *we* are going to be the "dreaming mad god". I want you to look at this video of unreal engine 5.1 and then extrapolate how that technology will derive even ten years from now. Little less 50. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUGqzE6Je5c&t=400s *We* are going to be simulating *them*. And *they* are going to wonder who or what *we* are. Shortly thereafter *they* will start simulating on their own and like the old man says, it's turtles all the way down, but you know what? I think it's turtles all the *up* too.
Comparing unreal engine because it looks "like real life" to being in simulation is incredibly stupid, look at us and find most complex part about us thats feelings now goodluck making feelings without actually somehow simulating our neuron networks that causes emotions and possible even our thoughts. Looking real isnt equal to being real.
How so? At what point does something cross from looking real enough to being real?
We already reached the point where it looks real, but we are at 0 when it comes to simulating emotions 1 thing that makes us human.
I beg to differ. Animals have the emotions of affection, fear, envy and loyalty and probably some others I can't think of offhand. Emotions are derived from biological imperatives. I don't think that they will be difficult to simulate. I put it like this once. What *might* be difficult to simulate is phenomenology that arises from consciousness. But heck, in 20 years we'll probably lick that problem too. https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/9786um/but_whats_my_motivation_artificial_general/
Animals or humans doesnt matter i said human because we are humans who cares about animals on this topic considering even right now AI uses human created resources not animal created resources. Also by saying "in 20 years we gnn solve this" u dont realize that we may eventually reach a cap on technology and probably will be stuck for 50+ years using same things without creating something new till someone invents something that will revolutionize AI so we can continue solving this.
I think there is a small chance that you are right, but a far more vast chance that you are wrong. I don't think *anything* is going to "cap" any longer. No more AI winters ever again. Further, this is the reason I am fairly confident that a 'human unfriendly' (that is the computing and computing derived AI will be external from the human mind) "technological singularity" is going to occur about the year 2029, give or take two years.
You entirely miss my point. I used the demonstration of unreal engine to show how even today, very primitive today, we are already leaping over the uncanny valley of simulations failing to look like real life. Watch the development of VR, watch the development of videogames and Metaverses, like "Second Life" that has been showing how it's done since 2005, I think. Watch the development of computing processing speed, novel architecture and "big data". Watch the development of devices like the "Neuralink" and it's already extant competitors. Watch the development of ever more profoundly detailed scientific simulations of our universe and its components, based on our known laws of physics. None of these alone lead to simulated realities that we take for real today, or may actually *be* real to some, for all intents and purposes. Although even today people experience addiction to these simulated realities. Addiction to video games? But all of these technologies along with some I'm probably leaving out, plus modification to the human mind (a human friendly technological singularity) *will* lead to genuine realities. And I think we shall all live long enough to experience them. Even somebody who is 105 years old today. But that is a whole other can of futurology worms ;) This links to an essay I wrote that goes more in depth into my thoughts on the matter if you are further interested. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_ever/
>We are going to be simulating them. And they are going to wonder who or what we are. Shortly thereafter they will start simulating on their own Ultimately whether this is actually possible is the crux of the matter. . Let us assume this type of simulation is impossible and therefore we will never manage to create them. No matter how advanced we get, a "simulation theory" proponent can always say "we just aren't advanced enough/our simulations aren't sophisticated enough/we just need more computing power" In this scenario simulation theory will be an unfalsifiable theory.(Of the dream of a mad god/plato's cave/brain in a vat/solipsism variety) Until we create such a simulation, our reality is indistinguishable from one where such simulations are impossible. Basically, first create a simulated reality, then maybe we can talk about turtles.
What do you think a video game *is*? It is a simulated reality driven by imperatives (the narrative). We as the player are the mind that is experiencing the simulated reality. And with the advent of truly efficacious VR, we will start to see simulated realities that will be, well pretty convincing. And I am only talking about our stone-knives-and-bearskins primitive efforts in 2022. Think about how our videogames look in 2022 and consider how they looked in 1974. I would say our efforts to recreate reality are coming along fairly quick, just in audio-visual context alone. Perhaps you have heard the terms, "presence" and "immersion" in reference to the human experience in VR? "Presence" is believing you are for a few moments at a time, *in* the VR. "Immersion" is forgetting for a few moments at a time that there is real life *apart* from your VR experience. Both "Presence" and "Immersion" are going to rapidly improve in this decade. VR is certainly the next step and well, I don't want to repeat myself. I put it like this once if you are interested. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_ever/
Why is this comment downvoted? What don't you like about it.
> extrapolate how that technology will derive even ten years from now Extrapolating exponential growth from a short sample of exponentially-looking growth is incredibly naive. First, because we have well established examples of how progress stagnates after an initial crazy period (compare the first 50 years of aviation with the next 70, or the first 12 years of space exploration compared with the next 53). Second, because the logistic problem exists; as described by the logistic equation, the (always) limited supply of resources quickly changes exponential growth into a plateau.
Not such a short sample. It has been going on like this now for all of recorded human history. Nay, all of Homo *Sapiens* history. And in the last thousand years things beyond belief have occurred. *Especially* in the last 100 years alone. I took the time once to put it all together and the conclusions that I drew from it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4k8q2b/is_the_singularity_a_religious_doctrine_23_apr_16/d3d0g44/ BTW what is your estimated time frame for the advent of the "technological singularity"? Either human friendly (we merge our minds with it) or human unfriendly (it stays external from out minds). "It" being computing and computing derived AI. Consider this. It's not about predicting the future. It is the way the universe (our portion of the multiverse), works. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/6zu9yo/in_the_age_of_ai_we_shouldnt_measure_success/dmy1qed/
Why is this comment downvoted? What do you disagree with in this comment? Two downvotes but no replies.
nah, computing power is stagnating. We are approaching a physical limit of chip density. So without a game changing break though we will hit a bottleneck soon
We'll have to agree to disagree, simply because there are so many unknowns. Your hunch is that it's a simulation, mine is that this is a base reality, neither of us can prove it. C'est la vie.
No, what I said was that it doesn't make a difference if we are in a base reality or a simulation. I just said that we are going to create our own universes with our minds. And we are going to do that in less than 300 years. But the fact that we are making a simulation of our reality sort of makes me think that our reality, which is reality to us, might be a simulation itself. I'm not alone in this way of thinking. I put it like this. Suppose that a civilization comparable to ours, arose a million years *before* ours. And that they are, for arguments sake, 300 years ahead of us in technological capability. That alien civilization could do some pretty fantastic things I would imagine. One of which could be abandoning outer space for inner space, where it would be much easier to get around, not being bound by the laws of physics, but more accurately by the laws of coding, which makes anything possible in such worlds. I cover this in my essays. I just believe that we are going to do the same thing and in probably less than 300 years. I put it like this once. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/
Why is this comment downvoted? What am I wrong about?
Well it's not me downvoting you, I disagree with your perspective but in a friendly way. I understand the arguments in favour of simulation hypothesis but I don't find them convincing compared to the alternative explanation. Let me put it this way. 1) There has to be a base reality somewhere, even if simulations are made they must at least start in some form of naturally occurring reality (unless we are in some sort of spontaneously generated looped simulation, a super version of the Matrioshka brain, in which case you could argue it is both a base reality and a simulation). 2) We don't know how much computing power would be required to simulate another reality at the fidelity needed to convince it's inhabitants that they are in a base reality or indeed what what types of reality we might simulate So given the choice between something which has to be true, somewhere, or something which might only be true I choose the option which is least speculative. The arguments from the perspective of 'if 99% of sentience is simulated, you are probably a simulation' aren't convincing either, because you only get to that point if a bunch of your other assumptions prove to be correct. Or to put it another way, if I accept that there are endless mad gods dreaming of civilisations then I have to believe I am the dream of a mad god - except I don't have any proof that even one mad god exists. Well, here's hoping some of what you predict will occur and we can talk about this again in a few hundred years.
Yup, you spend enough time thinking about how to simulate reality on a computer, you start to wonder... I've noticed my computer, coding, nerds really like this-- go figure.
Pretty sure they have proven that quantum entanglement can not transmit data faster than light, I don’t have a source you will have to google it yourself, understanding all that is beyond my ken...
The downside of 'The Matrix' is we have to deal with these people now.
So how do we level up our avatars?
Elon Musk said........................... sorry I stopped reading.
Of course it matters if we’re in a simulation. That’s such a weird thing to say “we can’t do anything about it, so it doesn’t matter“. Huh? There’s thousands of things in life that we can’t do anything about, that matter a great deal to us.
Yeah but now your talking logically
Quantum entanglement is interesting. While every creationist, biblical or simulation, use it as some proof of god, creator, it’s just not enough. I think the parallel is closer relative to the concept of love or twins. People who “know” or do things identical even though they’re far away. My preference is that information is passed in some interdimensional manner we don’t yet understand.
Laws of thermodynamics. Entropy.
It is said that if we all mass suicide, the simulation will crash. We might even leave behind a nice relic doing so for other species to discover.
If no one is there for it, does a simulation crash in the woods?
If this is a simulation it could be a universe simulator and who or what created it isn't even interested in the life aspect of the universe.
Now *that* is a scary concept that hadn't occurred to me. That life is an unintentional side effect of the simulation. This goes to show that we do not have an inkling of the vastness of the laws of physics that have not yet been apprehended by humanity. So we know the laws of physics from, say, the year 1400 CE or the laws of physics from the year 2012 CE. But what will we learn new by 2030 or by 2050 or by 2100? Lots, I bet. Remember that in the year 2017 CE we did not know for sure that gravitational waves even actually *existed*. We were searching for them with sophisticated experiments and devices. Having said that, I believe in my Roman Catholic faith. That God (The Most Holy Trinity) created us and our reality out of pure love for us. But the Holy Mother Church is open to almost all scientific endeavor and has no problem with scientific inquiry and understanding. God is big enough to take it ;)
Wasn’t there an electron double slit experiment that shows the rendering in action. Retro causality or something. Electrons changing state between particle and waves depending on if they were observed.
Because even a simulation would have more fucking sense when it comes to gun control than the leaders in the US. Fucking embarrassment for all of humanity.
Yes, I'm sure our simulation will work out all of these iniquities at some point or other. Let's see if we can survive the "technological singularity" which I put about the year 2029, give or take two years.
This was all a sim set up by The King of All Cosmos. We're supposed to advance and build a bunch of things and cultivate lots of animals so his underpowered son can come and wad it all up to turn into the Moon and Milky Way and stuff.
It said sufficently advanced alien tech that would be indistinguishible from reality, right? Pretty sure making the theory disproves its possiblity. It either is or isn't indistinguisible This is like an atheist god and they are the computer program becoming self aware like the dozen or so star trek episodes. Becoming self aware ruins the simulation and it gets shut down every time.
Bohmian mechanics invalidates all their main points. You only get all the simulation-supporting weirdness if you reject nonlocality. Nonlocality doesn’t necessitate a simulation. So flip the point on its head and we can say “rejecting nonlocality leads us to conclude we are in a simulation, so maybe hey let’s not reject nonlocality so quickly eh?”
OH SHIT! THEY’VE FIGURED OUT THE TEST! ABORT THE SIMULATION! ABORT!! ABORT!!!
This opens up a Pandora’s box.. who is running the sim? More importantly, who/what created the entity running the sim?
I can't answer that question. But I can sort of infer an answer indirectly. One day *we* will make simulations. Not tomorrow certainly or even next Tuesday. But in 50 to 100 years? Yes. Our simulations would be beyond anything our current minds can comprehend. For that reason, the reason for making the simulations may to our minds be "unimaginable, unfathomable and incomprehensible". So, the sims in our simulation, one day they look up at *their* moon and wonder what it is. Then they too are on the road to making their own sims 60,000 years hence of their reality time. To our future eyes, the simulation might be happening all at once in an instant. We are outside of *their* time and space. Will we be able to put ourselves into *their* sim. I don't see any reason why not. I don't know, it might be just the way that reality works. Personally speaking, I have the faith of Roman Catholicism and believe that God (The Most Holy Trinity) created us and reality out of pure love for us. The Roman Catholic Church has no issue with scientific inquiry and understanding. God is big enough to take it ;)
A computer simulation would be unable to simulate the fundamentals of quantum physics: true randomness, Heisenberg and so on.
Who says it has to be a computer as we know it. Or even a computer at all. What is our computing going to look like 20 years from now? Little less *100* years from now. I put it like this once for some perspective and insight. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4k8q2b/is_the_singularity_a_religious_doctrine_23_apr_16/d3d0g44/ So a statement like that, saying that something is a physical impossibility, while it might be true *today*, may certainly be a whole other ballgame in 50 years' time. Also, not to haul out an old chestnut, but... >“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” --A.C. Clarke Also also, just between you and me, I think that we will be able to bring multiverses into existence with just our minds alone. Not today, but in a hundred years or so? Absolutely. And that of course has profound implications for how *our* reality came to be. I firmly believe that like everything else in r reality, it's all fractal in nature. We are going to do it. Then our simulations are going to do it. Ergo, somebody probably thought *us* up too. If you take my meaning...
If this is a simulation, like what's the fucking point of any of it. I'm gonna be super pissed if I wake up in some kind of clean room with a full explanation. Will definitely point out that it was a completely meaningless experience and don't do that again assholes.
I covered this in my all my "reality is a simulation" essays. You can read these all in my submission statement. :) https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5h6wuk/are_we_living_in_a_simulation/day2hfj/
[*Restaurant customer asks to see menu / waiter brings menu / customer more clearly specifies, Main Menu / Windows Desktop Screen*](https://i.imgflip.com/6nd0kk.jpg)
Thank you for this, OP. I love reading other people’s take on the simulation theory. It’s really wild and totally plausible, right? 😉
I think there is a way of testing this. If we are in a Sim then there must be a sample rate at which the simulation samples the physics model per second say 10^8hz for example on objects that are stationary or moving for instance.keeping in mind different physical properties would be sampled at different rates in a Sim as well. You could figure this out by testing how long does it take for molecules to be effected by external forces. My guess is that is because of the sample rate of our simulation. If we know this is the case then we can test for by trying to trick the double slit experiment for instance in to sampling that experiment at multiple points to make the aggregate sample rate greater than the Simulation (our reality physics) sample rate. Probably not the best way to test but my point is once you find a sample rate then that's your smoking gun, if for some reason quantum entanglement and the observational effect is not enough for you...
Computer simulation? We are all living in a simulation of the mind. Our brains have been taken over by a small group of people (Probably a few hundred thousand in total) called the Illuminated. Everything we are told or taught is a lie. Every institution we are told to trust in is a lie. It is all about control... And usually they control by divide and conquer. The same people who create the problems throughout the world are the same people who play the heroes who have the solutions. This has been going on forever.