This may be stupid questions. How does anyone know if we are a pc program ..... - Page 3

Daald · 12th July 2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

I have not made a cent.

That is called "giving".

In this context "the selling" referred to you providing your idea.

My "not buying" implied that I did not accept your idea.

Your "not having made a cent" implies that no one has accepted your idea.

Is that where you were going with this?

cyborg · 12th July 2012, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

I have not made a cent.

That is called "giving".

Please - cut the pretension. No one is going to be impressed by you taking a metaphor literally as if it is some grand statement about pecuniary remuneration systems.

Navigator · 12th July 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Daald

Yes you are. Reality can have nothing to do with my consciousness. It existed before me and will after me. It is not depended upon me. My interpretation of reality is my conscious choice.

This is true but also what is true is that consciousness is like a river and in relation to this game level Earth it is in continual flow as human life is born and dies.

The consciousness you are saying is you, is only defined by your experience as a human from birth (slowly becoming conscious of your dominant reality) until death - so within those parameters within the experience of being the human game piece your reality is determined by that consciousness. Your interpretation of that reality is determined by a number of factors including external egos which shape the you that you identify with, which is also ego. This is how ego has been able to reproduce itself from ancient times.

If we trace Ego back to its source, we end up in an ancient time.

When tribes were scattered over the game board and never even knew of each others existence.

The dominating Egos persisted and stamped their authority on other Egos – educating those Egos through various show and tell examples (which is where ‘gods’ were born) and these Egos have persisted through the ages refining themselves and controlling the human collective path.

So the default human condition is the baby. The ego develops as the conscious awareness increases and that ego is shaped by other egos.

Your interpretation of reality is a taught thing.

Originally Posted by Daald

I am my consciousness and my interpretation of reality is part of my consciousness. Reality itself is apart from that. With that definition, my dream is most definitely not real but my interpretation of it is.

If consciousness was not within this universe or even outside this universe (as with the Players dominant reality) then this universe would not exist because for anything to exist it requires consciousness in order to say so.

It could be argued that even without consciousness witnessing it, this universe could still exist...but this would require consciousness imagining a hypothetical universe which is likely how this game was created in the first place.

Even if you were able to remove consciousness from this universe, it has already been witnessed so you would also have to find a way to delete the memory of consciousness having ever been here.

Alternatively we could imagine a hypothetical universe which we have not consciously witnessed - say the ol' proverbial one with pink unicorns fairies and by your argument, it could exist as a reality because its existence is not dependent on our consciousness.

Originally Posted by Daald

I am my consciousness and my interpretation of reality is part of my consciousness. Reality itself is apart from that. With that definition, my dream is most definitely not real but my interpretation of it is.

Your interpretation of anything is not necessarily 'real' as in 'truth'.

It depends on many factors including the ego interpretation.

Originally Posted by Daald

I would say there is something to be said about facts and rationality.

I would agree but our interpretation of facts and rationality can be based on different things.

Originally Posted by Daald

Well how different? Were you a chicken for example or were you like your "dominant personality" but with a few tweaks that your mind guessed?

I have not dreamed of being anything other than a human being (to the best of my recall knowledge) but have dreamed of being a female which is not my dominant reality gender.

Mostly nowadays I am me in my dreams and behave the same and understand the same as in my dominant reality.
The environment is different but my reactions/interactions to the environment are not.

Originally Posted by Daald

Anyway you would have to explain what your mind playing tricks on itself says about anything.

There is no reason why I would play tricks on myself.

Or as you say - my 'mind' would play tricks on itself.

What you see as 'tricks' I see as clues.

Originally Posted by Daald

Ahh. I see. Do you have any objective proof for Astral projection or what happens after death? This site offers one million dollars if you do. I look forward to you claiming that prize.

The prize is a kind of straw man.

You saying you look forward to me claiming that prize is not honest. I don't think you believe it is even possible, although there is an outside chance that you hope it is.

There is not objective proof. That is the nature of the simulation. The astral is part of the simulation. Another level. The proof you require will come to you either through subjective experience or when your body expires.

As an individual you can investigate but you are extremely limited by your belief systems and thus very unlikely to try.

Inevitably though, it is this dominant reality to which the focus is on and as a player you are either useful in building the prison or in building the paradise and your beliefs determine which of these options is your dominant preference.

What comes after the expiry date of your body is simply another level of the game being played.

Navigator · 12th July 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Daald

In this context "the selling" referred to you providing your idea.

My "not buying" implied that I did not accept your idea.

Your "not having made a cent" implies that no one has accepted your idea.

Is that where you were going with this?

Ah metaphorical. You are suggesting then that I am more in favour of the paradise team than the prison one, this is true – and if by sharing the idea helps to motivate others to consciously put their life energy into co-creating this as a reality then yes.

I still don’t see it as selling anything. It is an offering which can be rejected (as you have done) or accepted and even passed on.
Your use of the saying ‘I am not buying what you are selling’ is revealing. The truer description has to be that you are rejecting what I am offering, because selling this idea for monetary reward is simply delusion. Money is part of the prison system and that system would see no value in this idea…it would see the idea as a threat to its own agenda. This idea would never sell well at all. It is only really able to be offered as a gift and received as such.

Daald · 12th July 2012, 02:39 PM

Navigator,

I could go through your points one by one but let's stick to what is most important.

How do you know that what you say is true. What is your standard for evidence and can you provide that evidence to others.

You are asking me to accept something that you simply say is so. I will not do that. You have to prove it to me. You have to show me that this is not simply your delusion. I have to apply some standard to differentiate between evidence and delusion otherwise nothing will make sense. My standard of proof is that which is used by the JREF so you might as well win a million while you are at it.

Halfcentaur · 12th July 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Daald

Navigator,

I could go through your points one by one but let's stick to what is most important.

How do you know that what you say is true. What is your standard for evidence and can you provide that evidence to others.

You are asking me to accept something that you simply say is so. I will not do that. You have to prove it to me. You have to show me that this is not simply your delusion. I have to apply some standard to differentiate between evidence and delusion otherwise nothing will make sense. My standard of proof is that which is used by the JREF so you might as well win a million while you are at it.

But,..but,... he's so specific.

tsig · 12th July 2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Daald

I don't think you can know that but it is useless since you as a program would still have to live within your world.

The movie "The 13th Floor" suggested a mechanism to find out if you were in a program. In that movie you figured out you were in a program by going somewhere where you never thought to go before and kept going. Eventually you reached a boundary where you knew it shouldn't end. So the only reason I would have against this being a program is that it seems quite wasteful to create a whole universe just to keep us fooled. Us being an accidental byproduct of some natural process appeals more to me than positing deliberate design.

Originally Posted by Daald

I had to look up Calvinism in Wikipedia since I have not dealt with it before. Yes, you could make a case that "The Matrix" is Calvinism.

You can also make a case that any story which has an oppressed people looking for a savior a new and old testament story. I am sure such stories have existed before Calvinism and the bible.

What does this have to do with what I said though?

I thought the hilited sentence expressed what Calvinism is all about, that is that god created the whole universe just to fool humans into acting out a predetermined script.

If I read more into your post than was there then I apologize.

levi · 12th July 2012, 04:33 PM

Could einstein's relativity be false in the real universe but true in the false simulated universe?

If they discover many world theory in a simulated universe could the real universe operate without many world theory?

If the real universe had free will would the simulated universe have free will?

If we live in a simulated universe would the program run in a way that past, present and future all exist at the same time? Also would all combination on possible path taken all run simultaneous? To better illustrate imagine a player moves right, left, right, jump. Instead at the same save point a player could go right, right, left, eat? And this assuming the original instruction was not saved. Would both be loaded into the game and both exist at the same time? And all possible combination that could happen in the game exist simultaneous?if someone changes the cd than all possible combinations exist on other cd? The cd is the same game just on a second disk.

Navigator · 12th July 2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Daald

Navigator,

I could go through your points one by one but let's stick to what is most important.

How do you know that what you say is true. What is your standard for evidence and can you provide that evidence to others.

You are asking me to accept something that you simply say is so. I will not do that. You have to prove it to me. You have to show me that this is not simply your delusion. I have to apply some standard to differentiate between evidence and delusion otherwise nothing will make sense. My standard of proof is that which is used by the JREF so you might as well win a million while you are at it.

Daald I am not asking anything of you.
You will get the evidence you need either by investigating for yourself or when you depart this mortal realm.

Your fear of what you consider delusion holds you back from investigating and you believe in the answers you have been provided but you for some reason do not see the sense in helping to create a paradise on Earth.

That is perhaps a delusion for you too.

I have already explained to you my understanding of that 'million' - it is simple an illusionists trick. It qualifies the presumed stand that is being taken regarding the foundations dim view of religious/paranormal shysters while at the same time disregarding just as serious moral crimes against humanity - and if you have to ask what those are, well evidence is not your objective any more than making sense of life (what you call reality) is.

I can guarantee you this. A world full off people who all have 'non belief' will be no better than the world as it presently is. The objectives of the Prison Game Players will make this a certainty and you will help them in their objective as sure as there is breath in your lungs and as long as those lungs operate...or you will come to your senses...

But whatever...it's just a game right?

I have offered a model to the 'if' question that the OP asks. It is a model that incorporates all things that can be known and all things that can be experienced (inclusive of those things that you and others might regard as delusion or mind tricks).

Darth Rotor · 12th July 2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

A PC program? Easy.

We can't be a PC simulation. There has been no Blue Screen Of Death.

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

Oh, wait, you can't, they already had their Blue Screen (Asteroid?) of Death

To answer the OP, please consider this: we are not a bug, we are a feature.

levi · 12th July 2012, 06:34 PM

Why will no one answer my questions from my previous post?

Smackety · 12th July 2012, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

No evidence points, or even hints, towards the worldview suggested by OP.

pretty suspicious huh? I think he is on to something there!

Pulvinar · 12th July 2012, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by levi

Could einstein's relativity be false in the real universe but true in the false simulated universe? ...

The answer to all your questions is yes: if this is a simulated universe, there are an infinite number of possibilities for the parent universe.

Puppycow · 12th July 2012, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

As for how we could tell if we were in a simulation: Look for inconsistencies. Clipping, rounding errors, boundaries, exploitable bugs.

That was my thought too. Look for bugs in the program.

In The Matrix there were some bugs, right?

Navigator · 12th July 2012, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

Oh, wait, you can't, they already had their Blue Screen (Asteroid?) of Death

To answer the OP, please consider this: we are not a bug, we are a feature.

As sure as the dinosaurs were. A feature. (only two feet you are) :P

I was thinking either maybe a combo of asteroid, monster farts and eating themselves out of house and home...demise - on with the next project (says Mother-evolution) oops...there goes eye... Anthropomorphisation

Navigator · 12th July 2012, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

That was my thought too. Look for bugs in the program.

In The Matrix there were some bugs, right?

The 'bugs' are considered 'junk science' - do you really want to go there?

HansMustermann · 13th July 2012, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Daald

I don't think you can know that but it is useless since you as a program would still have to live within your world.

The movie "The 13th Floor" suggested a mechanism to find out if you were in a program. In that movie you figured out you were in a program by going somewhere where you never thought to go before and kept going. Eventually you reached a boundary where you knew it shouldn't end. So the only reason I would have against this being a program is that it seems quite wasteful to create a whole universe just to keep us fooled. Us being an accidental byproduct of some natural process appeals more to me than positing deliberate design.

It depends.

1. It's trivial to just allow coordinates to go on and on, in a zone that effectively has no triangles to render or objects or anything.

E.g., if I were to make a game set on an ocean, I can assure you that it would cost exactly nothing to let you swim as far as you wish from the shore, into a featureless ocean. There's exactly zero extra information I need to store, to let you swim another mile. The game will just fill everything in that direction with a tiling ocean texture, rendered at coordinate Y = 0.

In fact, so trivial it is to have an infinite ocean, that some games didn't even bother removing it from where they put land over it. IIRC Far Cry 2 made the news when it turned out that a lot of the graphics power it needed wasn't because it's such an awesome graphics engine, but because they rendered a water surface under the land.

Anyway, the maximum number you can store in an IEEE 754 double-precision binary floating-point on a computer is 10¹⁰²³ IIRC. If coordinates are stored in cm or close enough (in Bethesda games it's 0.55 inch per unit, so even coarser than that), let's just say that the radius of the observable universe is just 8.8×10²⁸ cm. I could let you swim literally trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions times more than the size of the frikken universe, and still not even come close to overflowing the coordinates

Good luck testing it that way.

But in a planet setting, we already got a name for that. There's a big void all around us. It's so big that even light would take billions of years to get there, a rocket even more. So, yeah, good luck with that testing.

2. Actually, filling a huge map with some fractal-generated scenery is cheap. Now making meaningful quests, and interesting places and all, is more work-intensive, but just the terrain and some vegetation is cheap. And if you just let the players build the interesting parts like cities and villages, you can make it as big as you wish.

"The Elder Scrolls: Arena" had IIRC EIGHTY MILLION square miles of terrain, and that was a DOS game. You know, fitting on some floppies and into 640k RAM. That's not even megabytes, but kilobytes.

You could literally walk in some direction for hours on end, and still find terrain, trees, even villages, NPCs to talk to, get randomly generated side-quests from those NPCs... and then you'd look at the map, and you had maybe moved one pixel in that direction. Good luck testing it that way

3. But even that isn't necessarily going to be a way to test it, because you can make the map wrap around. So when you walk in one direction farther than they were bothered to give you generated terrain, it would just seamlessly connect to the other side of the map and you could keep going. I.e., make that world be a sphere. Hmm, I wonder where have we seen that before?

Daald · 13th July 2012, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

I thought the hilited sentence expressed what Calvinism is all about, that is that god created the whole universe just to fool humans into acting out a predetermined script.

If I read more into your post than was there then I apologize.

Ahh. Ok. No worries. I got confused when you mentioned the matrix. My statement is just that personally the whole thing being created just for us seems too arrogant for me to accept. It's just a personal opinion.

Daald · 13th July 2012, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Hans,

Yes...there can be a simulation out there that is fine and good enough that it can keep us fooled. The point in that movie however is that when you push something at some point you will find a problem with the system where you don't expect it. Don't get hung up on the single point that in that movie they just kept on driving. The idea behind it is sound I think.

In your examples we could shoot lasers, we could divide matter down more, we could put robots everywhere etc etc etc, and if the simulation is not good enough we would break some simulation law and then we might discover it. I think there has been an effort by physicists to figure out if the universe is digital for example.

Even if we do not find that proof it does not mean that we are not in a simulation but thinking about it with out the proof is simple intellectual masturbation.

Daald · 13th July 2012, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by levi

Why will no one answer my questions from my previous post?

Because the answer is "I don't know".

Daald · 13th July 2012, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Daald I am not asking anything of you.
You will get the evidence you need either by investigating for yourself or when you depart this mortal realm.

But that is just it. You are asking something of me. You are asking me to accept what you are saying or at least consider it more that just lunacy. My question to you is why should I? What makes your theory different from any other possibility out there?

Quote:

<snip>

I can guarantee you this. A world full off people who all have 'non belief' will be no better than the world as it presently is. The objectives of the Prison Game Players will make this a certainty and you will help them in their objective as sure as there is breath in your lungs and as long as those lungs operate...or you will come to your senses...
<snip>

How though? How can you guarantee me anything? Where is your proof?

I keep asking you this but you just engage in sophistry and unsupported claims.

You could simply ignore me though and rely on your belief that I will know when I will die.

Imagine this though. Imagine you are wrong. Imagine that you just wasted your entire life chasing a delusion. Doesn't that worry you? Wouldn't you want to believe in something that you can prove to yourself and others? Wouldn't you want to be sure?

Sideroxylon · 13th July 2012, 07:59 AM

Have you experienced any apparent glitches that might suggest such an explanation or is this a simulation so perfect that no one could suspect it? But then you could come up with any number of unfalsifiable hypotheses. A hypothesis that accommodates every possible observation and excludes nothing is valueless as it explains nothing.

You might want to examine Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy." Your simulation is a variation on his evil demon^WP.

cosmicaug · 13th July 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Daald

Originally Posted by Navigator

I can guarantee you this. A world full off people who all have 'non belief' will be no better than the world as it presently is. The objectives of the Prison Game Players will make this a certainty and you will help them in their objective as sure as there is breath in your lungs and as long as those lungs operate...or you will come to your senses...

How though? How can you guarantee me anything? Where is your proof?

For that matter, even if he is right, he can't even guarantee that he knows what the objectives are or even that the objectives isn't a "world full of people who have 'non belief'". Maybe his acceptance of what he is trying to share with us is exactly what is meant to turn the world into a prison. If it is a game, we are all playing the game without knowing the rules. He is not special and in a privileged position of knowing the rules (or, at the very least, if he is special in that he knows the rules he has no way of knowing that he is special in that he knows the rules).

tsig · 13th July 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

It depends.

1. It's trivial to just allow coordinates to go on and on, in a zone that effectively has no triangles to render or objects or anything.

E.g., if I were to make a game set on an ocean, I can assure you that it would cost exactly nothing to let you swim as far as you wish from the shore, into a featureless ocean. There's exactly zero extra information I need to store, to let you swim another mile. The game will just fill everything in that direction with a tiling ocean texture, rendered at coordinate Y = 0.

In fact, so trivial it is to have an infinite ocean, that some games didn't even bother removing it from where they put land over it. IIRC Far Cry 2 made the news when it turned out that a lot of the graphics power it needed wasn't because it's such an awesome graphics engine, but because they rendered a water surface under the land.

Anyway, the maximum number you can store in an IEEE 754 double-precision binary floating-point on a computer is 10¹⁰²³ IIRC. If coordinates are stored in cm or close enough (in Bethesda games it's 0.55 inch per unit, so even coarser than that), let's just say that the radius of the observable universe is just 8.8×10²⁸ cm. I could let you swim literally trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions times more than the size of the frikken universe, and still not even come close to overflowing the coordinates

Good luck testing it that way.

But in a planet setting, we already got a name for that. There's a big void all around us. It's so big that even light would take billions of years to get there, a rocket even more. So, yeah, good luck with that testing.

2. Actually, filling a huge map with some fractal-generated scenery is cheap. Now making meaningful quests, and interesting places and all, is more work-intensive, but just the terrain and some vegetation is cheap. And if you just let the players build the interesting parts like cities and villages, you can make it as big as you wish.

"The Elder Scrolls: Arena" had IIRC EIGHTY MILLION square miles of terrain, and that was a DOS game. You know, fitting on some floppies and into 640k RAM. That's not even megabytes, but kilobytes.

You could literally walk in some direction for hours on end, and still find terrain, trees, even villages, NPCs to talk to, get randomly generated side-quests from those NPCs... and then you'd look at the map, and you had maybe moved one pixel in that direction. Good luck testing it that way

3. But even that isn't necessarily going to be a way to test it, because you can make the map wrap around. So when you walk in one direction farther than they were bothered to give you generated terrain, it would just seamlessly connect to the other side of the map and you could keep going. I.e., make that world be a sphere. Hmm, I wonder where have we seen that before?

Seems it would be simpler for the entity to just create the universe rather than a simulation.

HansMustermann · 13th July 2012, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Seems it would be simpler for the entity to just create the universe rather than a simulation.

Probably, yes. I wasn't addressing which is easier. (Although I suppose I could point out that it's easier and cheaper to code a Sim City or Cities XL clone than to actually build a city of 2 million inhabitants.) And of course, the simpler argument is that Occam says that, essentially, we don't need the whole extra entity layer of that simulation, as long as there isn't any data that needs such extra entities to explain.

All I was saying was basically how trivial it is from a programmer's point of view to defeat a test like just going in a direction to see if you run into a glitch or invisible wall. It's not something that's harder to do than a universe, it's something that is pretty much the default state if you DON'T do the extra step of placing invisible walls

And that's not even going into alternatives to invisible walls that have been used by GM's all over the world since the first role-playing games. Think "We want to go east." "There is an ancient dragon in the middle of the road to the east."

Or if you're even less obsessive about free-will than the OT god, the more trivial solution is to make sure your NPCs never actually want to go out of the map. The characters in The Sims 1 and 2 are like that. Not only it never occurs to them to try to go into the half of the town that doesn't actually exist, but your Sims don't even think of leaving the house lot except to go directly to work and back, unless the player explicitly tells them to.

So, you know, for a 'God'... err... I mean Game Designer who gives about as much a damn about free will as the OT God in Exodus, you can make people not even try to go into the parts that you don't have a map for. If some city like Bielefeld doesn't actually exist in the game (there's actually a mock conspiracy theory over here that Bielefeld doesn't exist), like Cyrodiil doesn't actually exist in the game Skyrim, you can simply make sure that all the NPCs in the game never get the idea to go to Bielefeld. Or change their mind at the last moment, miss the train, get their vacation canceled by the boss, forget they wanted to go there, etc.

Again, that's not to say that one SHOULD believe in the Great Game Designer in the sky. I'm just saying that one particular test wouldn't work to prove it, and even a novice programmer can defeat that test. That's all.

NoahFence · 13th July 2012, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

I have been through an MRI, where they pass you through very intense magnetic fields. Had I been a PC program, I'd have been scrambled, or at least corrupted.

I think maybe you hav....

Moderator

Oh. Nevermind.

JoeBentley · 14th July 2012, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by cyborg

The problem I present is semantic - our reality is our reality. It is not really relevant how it operates in this context.

And internet level "OMG Is dis da Matrix WTF BBQ?!1!!!" faux-solipsism is yet another silly word game parading itself about as it if is some armor piercing question.

At its core what's being asking is "What would reality be like if reality wasn't real?" Well it wouldn't, problem solved. It's like asking what's north of the north pole.

People really need to get over this idea that questions that can't be answer are inherently useful and make them "clever" for asking them. Meaningless questions can't be answered. "How much would the color blue pay for a lapdance?" No one can answer that question. But it doesn't make me some kind of sage for asking it.

PiedPiper · 14th July 2012, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by levi

Could einstein's relativity be false in the real universe but true in the false simulated universe?

If they discover many world theory in a simulated universe could the real universe operate without many world theory?

You know, the above statements remind me of that horrible History channel show, Ancient Aliens. Or if you like, some of Graham Hancocks work.

"Could it be that we were visited by aliens in our distant past?"

"Is it possible that the real universe could operate without many world theory?"

Not a dig against the poster, just thought I'd point out that particular pet peeve of mine. Watch one of these "provocative" shows or some of the fringe books, and just count how many times they use the above sentence structure ("Is it possible that...", etc).

Yes, it's possible. I'm convinced that there's very little in the Universe (multiverse?) that can be ruled completely impossible. Is it likely? That's another story. I hate it when presenters use that sentence structure to give false authority to their statement.

westprog · 14th July 2012, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by levi

Why will no one answer my questions from my previous post?

Probably because you haven't quoted them or referenced them, and nobody's going to go back to look for them to see what they were.

westprog · 14th July 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

That was my thought too. Look for bugs in the program.

In The Matrix there were some bugs, right?

Like, say, the difficulty in reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Theory.

cyborg · 14th July 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And internet level "OMG Is dis da Matrix WTF BBQ?!1!!!" faux-solipsism is yet another silly word game parading itself about as it if is some armor piercing question..

Which is why I say is has entertainment value only. By all means ask these questions and come up with fantabulous answers whether or not you're under the influence - but epistemological value will not be found.

levi · 14th July 2012, 12:49 PM

Here are my questions. I would just like to add one thing the maximum speed of the simualated and the real universe I think could be different. Correct? But would time dialation still exist in both?

Originally Posted by levi

Could einstein's relativity be false in the real universe but true in the false simulated universe?

If they discover many world theory in a simulated universe could the real universe operate without many world theory?

If the real universe had free will would the simulated universe have free will?

If we live in a simulated universe would the program run in a way that past, present and future all exist at the same time? Also would all combination on possible path taken all run simultaneous? To better illustrate imagine a player moves right, left, right, jump. Instead at the same save point a player could go right, right, left, eat? And this assuming the original instruction was not save. Would both be loaded into the game and both exist at the same time? And all possible combination that could happen in the game exist simultaneous?

cyborg · 14th July 2012, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by levi

Here are my questions. I would just like to add one thing the speed of the simualated and the real universe I think could be different. Correct? But would time dialation still exist in both?

Time is relative - if it takes you 10x as long to perceive time as me then it seems 10x as long. If we're both in a simulation where "real" time is 1000x, 10000x or 1x faster is doesn't really matter - to you and I time is relative to the maximum speed of the simulation.

Time dilation is a property of information propagation - in a simulation where information propagation is not a fixed speed time dilation would work differently. I.e. time dilation is a property of the speed of light but there's nothing that says that this has to be fixed. People used to believe the speed of light was infinite - if this were true time dilation would not exist. Can you write a universe simulator where this is true? Absolutely.

levi · 14th July 2012, 03:19 PM

I am going to phrase it a little differently. Time varies between one object and the other object. One object could experience aging faster and another object could experience aging slower. I am making a big assumptions but if we live in a simulation would the real world have the same prinicipal that objects age slower and faster in there world?

Navigator · 14th July 2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Daald

But that is just it. You are asking something of me. You are asking me to accept what you are saying or at least consider it more that just lunacy. My question to you is why should I?

My answer (again) is that you should or shouldn’t do anything you don’t want to. Obviously you consider it lunacy and that is enough reason for you to not want go investigate for yourself.

Once upon a time people believed it was lunacy to think other than the world was flat.

Originally Posted by Daald

What makes your theory different from any other possibility out there?

It is not in opposition to any other theory – it incorporates all.

Originally Posted by Daald

How though? How can you guarantee me anything? Where is your proof?

Hey Daald – have a look around you. Unless you are living on some other planet, the evidence is in plain sight.
You are contributing to it as well.
You can take away the aspect of the Players and even that this is a simulation, and you are still left with your breath in – your energetic contribution to either prison or paradise for all – and your breath out.

Some think that because they believe that the whole universe is a Magic accident and there is no ‘goal’ in relation to Life on Earth, that this gives licence to lifestyle choices which are based on winners and losers?

Prison by any other name.

The evidence is all around you Daald – something has convinced you that to acknowledge it is to be a lunatic.

Originally Posted by Daald

You could simply ignore me though and rely on your belief that I will know when I will die.

Nope. I will most likely be engaged in something else.
Others may be there when you die to help you sort out the impossible situation you find yourself in…
No biggy.

Originally Posted by Daald

Imagine this though. Imagine you are wrong. Imagine that you just wasted your entire life chasing a delusion. Doesn't that worry you? Wouldn't you want to believe in something that you can prove to yourself and others? Wouldn't you want to be sure?

I am sure Daald. We all imagine what we will.

I haven’t wasted my life either. I don’t believe in anything but I have proved to myself and understand how that evidence compels me to continue understanding the human potential to create a paradise on this planet – even while others would think that this is a lunatic understanding – a pointless dream.
It matters not. I don’t have any particular belief on what life after death will be. Only that it is possible.
It is an inevitable we each will experience. It is not the central issue – it is the inevitable one.
The central issue has to do with this life now.
There are many individuals that believe that when they die, that is the end.
Unfortunately they thus see little harm in using others for their own gain. What does it matter?
I am pretty certain you would agree with me that it does matter.

The aspect to your argument here is that your beliefs suggest that there is nothing else to experience after you have died.

If you want anyone to believe what you do, then your evidence also needs to show – not just a convincing argument – but exact irrefutable science and you can’t produce this for the same reason. Not because it doesn’t exist but because it is not possible to produce such evidence. It is a con either way to demand such evidence.

Are you sure Daald?

Now you are so sure that you will try to convince others that their journey is over when they die.
You will continue to preach that message of belief as if it were certain fact?

So what is life really that it can be ‘wasted’ whatever beliefs and non beliefs anyone chooses?

I think a life is wasted if it lives to create a lifestyle at the disadvantage of others – using others to make that lifestyle possible.

I don’t care that this kind of personality would call itself ‘this or that’ – their actions show me clearly what they are and they are all the same, even if they work in opposing camps

That is a waste of life. Really.

epepke · 14th July 2012, 04:45 PM

This is the old hard solipsism answer.

We can't know if we are programs running on sufficiently advanced and reliable hardware. Or, no matter what, we are, if the hardware is the universe.

We know that we aren't PC programs because we live for longer than a couple of years. On a sufficiently advanced system, we might crash and have our states saved and not know it, but nobody at Microsoft would even consider doing that.

Halfcentaur · 14th July 2012, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And internet level "OMG Is dis da Matrix WTF BBQ?!1!!!" faux-solipsism is yet another silly word game parading itself about as it if is some armor piercing question.

At its core what's being asking is "What would reality be like if reality wasn't real?" Well it wouldn't, problem solved. It's like asking what's north of the north pole.

People really need to get over this idea that questions that can't be answer are inherently useful and make them "clever" for asking them. Meaningless questions can't be answered. "How much would the color blue pay for a lapdance?" No one can answer that question. But it doesn't make me some kind of sage for asking it.

It's good mental exercise for staving off dementia as well as good fun on psychedelics.

cyborg · 15th July 2012, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by levi

I am going to phrase it a little differently. Time varies between one object and the other object. One object could experience aging faster and another object could experience aging slower. I am making a big assumptions but if we live in a simulation would the real world have the same prinicipal that objects age slower and faster in there world?

A simulation is a construct of a model designed to produce an analogue of something else. Hence if you can describe it in a consistent manner (i.e. construct a mathematical model implemented by a machine to produce the simulation) then you can have that behaviour.

You cannot infer things about "the real" world from the simulated world because the simulated world works to the model constructed for it regardless of how "the real world" implements it. This should be obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with the concept of saving and loading a file: the operation of the simulation is dependent only on its data and function, not a particular expression of it on a particular machine, at a particular time by a particular person. These are not relevant factors because they are defined not to be relevant factors. The simulation is defined not to have any artifacts of the "real world" in it therefore it does not. This is just how it works.

cyborg · 15th July 2012, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Once upon a time people believed it was lunacy to think other than the world was flat.

No. Just no. You are not in the position of standing on a high hill and inferring a particular model of the world around you. You are not in the position of measuring the length of shadows to get an idea of the size of the Earth. You are not coordinating transit observations of Venus to measure the size of the solar system.

People didn't come to these conclusions just by spraying random words about - but you seem to think that's how it works.

You get to start comparing your ideas in this way when you've got something of substance to them. It may take actual work and rigor - why not start by finding out how the ideas about the shape of the Earth and the solar system actually came about? Then at least you might have some idea of the work that is actually involved - it's not about calling people lunatics.

HansMustermann · 15th July 2012, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by levi

I am going to phrase it a little differently. Time varies between one object and the other object. One object could experience aging faster and another object could experience aging slower. I am making a big assumptions but if we live in a simulation would the real world have the same prinicipal that objects age slower and faster in there world?

It's actually quite trivial, and a crude proof of concept has already been done and sold.

E.g., in The Sims 1 and The Sims 2, time doesn't pass at all for the families you don't play. The "trick" is that each household has its own time. For the Newbie family it may be Friday afternoon (yay!

), while for the Goth family it's still Monday morning (sucks to be them

).

While that game just simply stopped the clock for some of those, it's not the only thing you can do. Once you have separate variables for each of them, it's trivial to increment them at different speeds.

12th July 2012, 01:51 PM	#82
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	Originally Posted by Navigator I have not made a cent. That is called "giving". Please - cut the pretension. No one is going to be impressed by you taking a metaphor literally as if it is some grand statement about pecuniary remuneration systems.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...

12th July 2012, 02:24 PM	#83
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Daald Yes you are. Reality can have nothing to do with my consciousness. It existed before me and will after me. It is not depended upon me. My interpretation of reality is my conscious choice. This is true but also what is true is that consciousness is like a river and in relation to this game level Earth it is in continual flow as human life is born and dies. The consciousness you are saying is you, is only defined by your experience as a human from birth (slowly becoming conscious of your dominant reality) until death - so within those parameters within the experience of being the human game piece your reality is determined by that consciousness. Your interpretation of that reality is determined by a number of factors including external egos which shape the you that you identify with, which is also ego. This is how ego has been able to reproduce itself from ancient times. If we trace Ego back to its source, we end up in an ancient time. When tribes were scattered over the game board and never even knew of each others existence. The dominating Egos persisted and stamped their authority on other Egos – educating those Egos through various show and tell examples (which is where ‘gods’ were born) and these Egos have persisted through the ages refining themselves and controlling the human collective path. So the default human condition is the baby. The ego develops as the conscious awareness increases and that ego is shaped by other egos. Your interpretation of reality is a taught thing. Originally Posted by Daald I am my consciousness and my interpretation of reality is part of my consciousness. Reality itself is apart from that. With that definition, my dream is most definitely not real but my interpretation of it is. If consciousness was not within this universe or even outside this universe (as with the Players dominant reality) then this universe would not exist because for anything to exist it requires consciousness in order to say so. It could be argued that even without consciousness witnessing it, this universe could still exist...but this would require consciousness imagining a hypothetical universe which is likely how this game was created in the first place. Even if you were able to remove consciousness from this universe, it has already been witnessed so you would also have to find a way to delete the memory of consciousness having ever been here. Alternatively we could imagine a hypothetical universe which we have not consciously witnessed - say the ol' proverbial one with pink unicorns fairies and by your argument, it could exist as a reality because its existence is not dependent on our consciousness. Originally Posted by Daald I am my consciousness and my interpretation of reality is part of my consciousness. Reality itself is apart from that. With that definition, my dream is most definitely not real but my interpretation of it is. Your interpretation of anything is not necessarily 'real' as in 'truth'. It depends on many factors including the ego interpretation. Originally Posted by Daald I would say there is something to be said about facts and rationality. I would agree but our interpretation of facts and rationality can be based on different things. Originally Posted by Daald Well how different? Were you a chicken for example or were you like your "dominant personality" but with a few tweaks that your mind guessed? I have not dreamed of being anything other than a human being (to the best of my recall knowledge) but have dreamed of being a female which is not my dominant reality gender. Mostly nowadays I am me in my dreams and behave the same and understand the same as in my dominant reality. The environment is different but my reactions/interactions to the environment are not. Originally Posted by Daald Anyway you would have to explain what your mind playing tricks on itself says about anything. There is no reason why I would play tricks on myself. Or as you say - my 'mind' would play tricks on itself. What you see as 'tricks' I see as clues. Originally Posted by Daald Ahh. I see. Do you have any objective proof for Astral projection or what happens after death? This site offers one million dollars if you do. I look forward to you claiming that prize. The prize is a kind of straw man. You saying you look forward to me claiming that prize is not honest. I don't think you believe it is even possible, although there is an outside chance that you hope it is. There is not objective proof. That is the nature of the simulation. The astral is part of the simulation. Another level. The proof you require will come to you either through subjective experience or when your body expires. As an individual you can investigate but you are extremely limited by your belief systems and thus very unlikely to try. Inevitably though, it is this dominant reality to which the focus is on and as a player you are either useful in building the prison or in building the paradise and your beliefs determine which of these options is your dominant preference. What comes after the expiry date of your body is simply another level of the game being played.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

12th July 2012, 02:36 PM	#84
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Daald In this context "the selling" referred to you providing your idea. My "not buying" implied that I did not accept your idea. Your "not having made a cent" implies that no one has accepted your idea. Is that where you were going with this? Ah metaphorical. You are suggesting then that I am more in favour of the paradise team than the prison one, this is true – and if by sharing the idea helps to motivate others to consciously put their life energy into co-creating this as a reality then yes. I still don’t see it as selling anything. It is an offering which can be rejected (as you have done) or accepted and even passed on. Your use of the saying ‘I am not buying what you are selling’ is revealing. The truer description has to be that you are rejecting what I am offering, because selling this idea for monetary reward is simply delusion. Money is part of the prison system and that system would see no value in this idea…it would see the idea as a threat to its own agenda. This idea would never sell well at all. It is only really able to be offered as a gift and received as such.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

12th July 2012, 02:52 PM	#86
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,958	Originally Posted by Daald Navigator, I could go through your points one by one but let's stick to what is most important. How do you know that what you say is true. What is your standard for evidence and can you provide that evidence to others. You are asking me to accept something that you simply say is so. I will not do that. You have to prove it to me. You have to show me that this is not simply your delusion. I have to apply some standard to differentiate between evidence and delusion otherwise nothing will make sense. My standard of proof is that which is used by the JREF so you might as well win a million while you are at it. But,..but,... he's so specific.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,958

12th July 2012, 04:33 PM	#88
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Could einstein's relativity be false in the real universe but true in the false simulated universe? If they discover many world theory in a simulated universe could the real universe operate without many world theory? If the real universe had free will would the simulated universe have free will? If we live in a simulated universe would the program run in a way that past, present and future all exist at the same time? Also would all combination on possible path taken all run simultaneous? To better illustrate imagine a player moves right, left, right, jump. Instead at the same save point a player could go right, right, left, eat? And this assuming the original instruction was not saved. Would both be loaded into the game and both exist at the same time? And all possible combination that could happen in the game exist simultaneous?if someone changes the cd than all possible combinations exist on other cd? The cd is the same game just on a second disk.
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472

12th July 2012, 01:47 PM	#81
Daald Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 423	Originally Posted by Navigator I have not made a cent. That is called "giving". In this context "the selling" referred to you providing your idea. My "not buying" implied that I did not accept your idea. Your "not having made a cent" implies that no one has accepted your idea. Is that where you were going with this?

12th July 2012, 02:39 PM	#85
Daald Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 423	Navigator, I could go through your points one by one but let's stick to what is most important. How do you know that what you say is true. What is your standard for evidence and can you provide that evidence to others. You are asking me to accept something that you simply say is so. I will not do that. You have to prove it to me. You have to show me that this is not simply your delusion. I have to apply some standard to differentiate between evidence and delusion otherwise nothing will make sense. My standard of proof is that which is used by the JREF so you might as well win a million while you are at it.

12th July 2012, 03:22 PM	#87
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by Daald I don't think you can know that but it is useless since you as a program would still have to live within your world. The movie "The 13th Floor" suggested a mechanism to find out if you were in a program. In that movie you figured out you were in a program by going somewhere where you never thought to go before and kept going. Eventually you reached a boundary where you knew it shouldn't end. So the only reason I would have against this being a program is that it seems quite wasteful to create a whole universe just to keep us fooled. Us being an accidental byproduct of some natural process appeals more to me than positing deliberate design. Originally Posted by Daald I had to look up Calvinism in Wikipedia since I have not dealt with it before. Yes, you could make a case that "The Matrix" is Calvinism. You can also make a case that any story which has an oppressed people looking for a savior a new and old testament story. I am sure such stories have existed before Calvinism and the bible. What does this have to do with what I said though? I thought the hilited sentence expressed what Calvinism is all about, that is that god created the whole universe just to fool humans into acting out a predetermined script. If I read more into your post than was there then I apologize.

12th July 2012, 05:02 PM	#89
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Daald Navigator, I could go through your points one by one but let's stick to what is most important. How do you know that what you say is true. What is your standard for evidence and can you provide that evidence to others. You are asking me to accept something that you simply say is so. I will not do that. You have to prove it to me. You have to show me that this is not simply your delusion. I have to apply some standard to differentiate between evidence and delusion otherwise nothing will make sense. My standard of proof is that which is used by the JREF so you might as well win a million while you are at it. Daald I am not asking anything of you. You will get the evidence you need either by investigating for yourself or when you depart this mortal realm. Your fear of what you consider delusion holds you back from investigating and you believe in the answers you have been provided but you for some reason do not see the sense in helping to create a paradise on Earth. That is perhaps a delusion for you too. I have already explained to you my understanding of that 'million' - it is simple an illusionists trick. It qualifies the presumed stand that is being taken regarding the foundations dim view of religious/paranormal shysters while at the same time disregarding just as serious moral crimes against humanity - and if you have to ask what those are, well evidence is not your objective any more than making sense of life (what you call reality) is. I can guarantee you this. A world full off people who all have 'non belief' will be no better than the world as it presently is. The objectives of the Prison Game Players will make this a certainty and you will help them in their objective as sure as there is breath in your lungs and as long as those lungs operate...or you will come to your senses... But whatever...it's just a game right? I have offered a model to the 'if' question that the OP asks. It is a model that incorporates all things that can be known and all things that can be experienced (inclusive of those things that you and others might regard as delusion or mind tricks).
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

12th July 2012, 05:52 PM	#90
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,264	Originally Posted by Upchurch A PC program? Easy. We can't be a PC simulation. There has been no Blue Screen Of Death. Tell that to the dinosaurs. Oh, wait, you can't, they already had their Blue Screen (Asteroid?) of Death To answer the OP, please consider this: we are not a bug, we are a feature.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 12th July 2012 at 05:59 PM.

12th July 2012, 06:34 PM	#91
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Why will no one answer my questions from my previous post?
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472

12th July 2012, 07:02 PM	#92
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	Originally Posted by JJM 777 No evidence points, or even hints, towards the worldview suggested by OP. pretty suspicious huh? I think he is on to something there!

12th July 2012, 09:59 PM	#93
Pulvinar Muse Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 819	Originally Posted by levi Could einstein's relativity be false in the real universe but true in the false simulated universe? ... The answer to all your questions is yes: if this is a simulated universe, there are an infinite number of possibilities for the parent universe.
Pulvinar Muse Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 819

12th July 2012, 10:29 PM	#94
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,775	Originally Posted by PixyMisa As for how we could tell if we were in a simulation: Look for inconsistencies. Clipping, rounding errors, boundaries, exploitable bugs. That was my thought too. Look for bugs in the program. In The Matrix there were some bugs, right?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

12th July 2012, 10:49 PM	#95
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Tell that to the dinosaurs. Oh, wait, you can't, they already had their Blue Screen (Asteroid?) of Death To answer the OP, please consider this: we are not a bug, we are a feature. As sure as the dinosaurs were. A feature. (only two feet you are) :P I was thinking either maybe a combo of asteroid, monster farts and eating themselves out of house and home...demise - on with the next project (says Mother-evolution) oops...there goes eye... Anthropomorphisation
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

12th July 2012, 10:51 PM	#96
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Puppycow That was my thought too. Look for bugs in the program. In The Matrix there were some bugs, right? The 'bugs' are considered 'junk science' - do you really want to go there?
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

13th July 2012, 03:07 AM	#97
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,847	Originally Posted by Daald I don't think you can know that but it is useless since you as a program would still have to live within your world. The movie "The 13th Floor" suggested a mechanism to find out if you were in a program. In that movie you figured out you were in a program by going somewhere where you never thought to go before and kept going. Eventually you reached a boundary where you knew it shouldn't end. So the only reason I would have against this being a program is that it seems quite wasteful to create a whole universe just to keep us fooled. Us being an accidental byproduct of some natural process appeals more to me than positing deliberate design. It depends. 1. It's trivial to just allow coordinates to go on and on, in a zone that effectively has no triangles to render or objects or anything. E.g., if I were to make a game set on an ocean, I can assure you that it would cost exactly nothing to let you swim as far as you wish from the shore, into a featureless ocean. There's exactly zero extra information I need to store, to let you swim another mile. The game will just fill everything in that direction with a tiling ocean texture, rendered at coordinate Y = 0. In fact, so trivial it is to have an infinite ocean, that some games didn't even bother removing it from where they put land over it. IIRC Far Cry 2 made the news when it turned out that a lot of the graphics power it needed wasn't because it's such an awesome graphics engine, but because they rendered a water surface under the land. Anyway, the maximum number you can store in an IEEE 754 double-precision binary floating-point on a computer is 10¹⁰²³ IIRC. If coordinates are stored in cm or close enough (in Bethesda games it's 0.55 inch per unit, so even coarser than that), let's just say that the radius of the observable universe is just 8.8×10²⁸ cm. I could let you swim literally trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions times more than the size of the frikken universe, and still not even come close to overflowing the coordinates Good luck testing it that way. But in a planet setting, we already got a name for that. There's a big void all around us. It's so big that even light would take billions of years to get there, a rocket even more. So, yeah, good luck with that testing. 2. Actually, filling a huge map with some fractal-generated scenery is cheap. Now making meaningful quests, and interesting places and all, is more work-intensive, but just the terrain and some vegetation is cheap. And if you just let the players build the interesting parts like cities and villages, you can make it as big as you wish. "The Elder Scrolls: Arena" had IIRC EIGHTY MILLION square miles of terrain, and that was a DOS game. You know, fitting on some floppies and into 640k RAM. That's not even megabytes, but kilobytes. You could literally walk in some direction for hours on end, and still find terrain, trees, even villages, NPCs to talk to, get randomly generated side-quests from those NPCs... and then you'd look at the map, and you had maybe moved one pixel in that direction. Good luck testing it that way 3. But even that isn't necessarily going to be a way to test it, because you can make the map wrap around. So when you walk in one direction farther than they were bothered to give you generated terrain, it would just seamlessly connect to the other side of the map and you could keep going. I.e., make that world be a sphere. Hmm, I wonder where have we seen that before?

13th July 2012, 07:37 AM	#98
Daald Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 423	Originally Posted by tsig I thought the hilited sentence expressed what Calvinism is all about, that is that god created the whole universe just to fool humans into acting out a predetermined script. If I read more into your post than was there then I apologize. Ahh. Ok. No worries. I got confused when you mentioned the matrix. My statement is just that personally the whole thing being created just for us seems too arrogant for me to accept. It's just a personal opinion.

13th July 2012, 07:45 AM	#99
Daald Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 423	Originally Posted by HansMustermann <sniped> Hans, Yes...there can be a simulation out there that is fine and good enough that it can keep us fooled. The point in that movie however is that when you push something at some point you will find a problem with the system where you don't expect it. Don't get hung up on the single point that in that movie they just kept on driving. The idea behind it is sound I think. In your examples we could shoot lasers, we could divide matter down more, we could put robots everywhere etc etc etc, and if the simulation is not good enough we would break some simulation law and then we might discover it. I think there has been an effort by physicists to figure out if the universe is digital for example. Even if we do not find that proof it does not mean that we are not in a simulation but thinking about it with out the proof is simple intellectual masturbation.

13th July 2012, 07:50 AM	#100
Daald Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 423	Originally Posted by levi Why will no one answer my questions from my previous post? Because the answer is "I don't know".

13th July 2012, 07:56 AM	#101
Daald Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 423	Originally Posted by Navigator Daald I am not asking anything of you. You will get the evidence you need either by investigating for yourself or when you depart this mortal realm. But that is just it. You are asking something of me. You are asking me to accept what you are saying or at least consider it more that just lunacy. My question to you is why should I? What makes your theory different from any other possibility out there? Quote: <snip> I can guarantee you this. A world full off people who all have 'non belief' will be no better than the world as it presently is. The objectives of the Prison Game Players will make this a certainty and you will help them in their objective as sure as there is breath in your lungs and as long as those lungs operate...or you will come to your senses... <snip> How though? How can you guarantee me anything? Where is your proof? I keep asking you this but you just engage in sophistry and unsupported claims. You could simply ignore me though and rely on your belief that I will know when I will die. Imagine this though. Imagine you are wrong. Imagine that you just wasted your entire life chasing a delusion. Doesn't that worry you? Wouldn't you want to believe in something that you can prove to yourself and others? Wouldn't you want to be sure?

13th July 2012, 07:59 AM	#102
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,630	Have you experienced any apparent glitches that might suggest such an explanation or is this a simulation so perfect that no one could suspect it? But then you could come up with any number of unfalsifiable hypotheses. A hypothesis that accommodates every possible observation and excludes nothing is valueless as it explains nothing. You might want to examine Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy." Your simulation is a variation on his evil demon^WP.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

13th July 2012, 08:18 AM	#103
cosmicaug Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by Daald Originally Posted by Navigator I can guarantee you this. A world full off people who all have 'non belief' will be no better than the world as it presently is. The objectives of the Prison Game Players will make this a certainty and you will help them in their objective as sure as there is breath in your lungs and as long as those lungs operate...or you will come to your senses... How though? How can you guarantee me anything? Where is your proof? For that matter, even if he is right, he can't even guarantee that he knows what the objectives are or even that the objectives isn't a "world full of people who have 'non belief'". Maybe his acceptance of what he is trying to share with us is exactly what is meant to turn the world into a prison. If it is a game, we are all playing the game without knowing the rules. He is not special and in a privileged position of knowing the rules (or, at the very least, if he is special in that he knows the rules he has no way of knowing that he is special in that he knows the rules).

13th July 2012, 08:26 AM	#104
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,776	Originally Posted by HansMustermann It depends. 1. It's trivial to just allow coordinates to go on and on, in a zone that effectively has no triangles to render or objects or anything. E.g., if I were to make a game set on an ocean, I can assure you that it would cost exactly nothing to let you swim as far as you wish from the shore, into a featureless ocean. There's exactly zero extra information I need to store, to let you swim another mile. The game will just fill everything in that direction with a tiling ocean texture, rendered at coordinate Y = 0. In fact, so trivial it is to have an infinite ocean, that some games didn't even bother removing it from where they put land over it. IIRC Far Cry 2 made the news when it turned out that a lot of the graphics power it needed wasn't because it's such an awesome graphics engine, but because they rendered a water surface under the land. Anyway, the maximum number you can store in an IEEE 754 double-precision binary floating-point on a computer is 10¹⁰²³ IIRC. If coordinates are stored in cm or close enough (in Bethesda games it's 0.55 inch per unit, so even coarser than that), let's just say that the radius of the observable universe is just 8.8×10²⁸ cm. I could let you swim literally trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions times more than the size of the frikken universe, and still not even come close to overflowing the coordinates Good luck testing it that way. But in a planet setting, we already got a name for that. There's a big void all around us. It's so big that even light would take billions of years to get there, a rocket even more. So, yeah, good luck with that testing. 2. Actually, filling a huge map with some fractal-generated scenery is cheap. Now making meaningful quests, and interesting places and all, is more work-intensive, but just the terrain and some vegetation is cheap. And if you just let the players build the interesting parts like cities and villages, you can make it as big as you wish. "The Elder Scrolls: Arena" had IIRC EIGHTY MILLION square miles of terrain, and that was a DOS game. You know, fitting on some floppies and into 640k RAM. That's not even megabytes, but kilobytes. You could literally walk in some direction for hours on end, and still find terrain, trees, even villages, NPCs to talk to, get randomly generated side-quests from those NPCs... and then you'd look at the map, and you had maybe moved one pixel in that direction. Good luck testing it that way 3. But even that isn't necessarily going to be a way to test it, because you can make the map wrap around. So when you walk in one direction farther than they were bothered to give you generated terrain, it would just seamlessly connect to the other side of the map and you could keep going. I.e., make that world be a sphere. Hmm, I wonder where have we seen that before? Seems it would be simpler for the entity to just create the universe rather than a simulation.

13th July 2012, 10:41 AM	#105
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,847	Originally Posted by tsig Seems it would be simpler for the entity to just create the universe rather than a simulation. Probably, yes. I wasn't addressing which is easier. (Although I suppose I could point out that it's easier and cheaper to code a Sim City or Cities XL clone than to actually build a city of 2 million inhabitants.) And of course, the simpler argument is that Occam says that, essentially, we don't need the whole extra entity layer of that simulation, as long as there isn't any data that needs such extra entities to explain. All I was saying was basically how trivial it is from a programmer's point of view to defeat a test like just going in a direction to see if you run into a glitch or invisible wall. It's not something that's harder to do than a universe, it's something that is pretty much the default state if you DON'T do the extra step of placing invisible walls And that's not even going into alternatives to invisible walls that have been used by GM's all over the world since the first role-playing games. Think "We want to go east." "There is an ancient dragon in the middle of the road to the east." Or if you're even less obsessive about free-will than the OT god, the more trivial solution is to make sure your NPCs never actually want to go out of the map. The characters in The Sims 1 and 2 are like that. Not only it never occurs to them to try to go into the half of the town that doesn't actually exist, but your Sims don't even think of leaving the house lot except to go directly to work and back, unless the player explicitly tells them to. So, you know, for a 'God'... err... I mean Game Designer who gives about as much a damn about free will as the OT God in Exodus, you can make people not even try to go into the parts that you don't have a map for. If some city like Bielefeld doesn't actually exist in the game (there's actually a mock conspiracy theory over here that Bielefeld doesn't exist), like Cyrodiil doesn't actually exist in the game Skyrim, you can simply make sure that all the NPCs in the game never get the idea to go to Bielefeld. Or change their mind at the last moment, miss the train, get their vacation canceled by the boss, forget they wanted to go there, etc. Again, that's not to say that one SHOULD believe in the Great Game Designer in the sky. I'm just saying that one particular test wouldn't work to prove it, and even a novice programmer can defeat that test. That's all.
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 13th July 2012 at 10:42 AM.

13th July 2012, 11:22 AM	#106
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,322	Originally Posted by Tricky I have been through an MRI, where they pass you through very intense magnetic fields. Had I been a PC program, I'd have been scrambled, or at least corrupted. I think maybe you hav.... Moderator Oh. Nevermind.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

14th July 2012, 03:58 AM	#107
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,766	Originally Posted by cyborg The problem I present is semantic - our reality is our reality. It is not really relevant how it operates in this context. And internet level "OMG Is dis da Matrix WTF BBQ?!1!!!" faux-solipsism is yet another silly word game parading itself about as it if is some armor piercing question. At its core what's being asking is "What would reality be like if reality wasn't real?" Well it wouldn't, problem solved. It's like asking what's north of the north pole. People really need to get over this idea that questions that can't be answer are inherently useful and make them "clever" for asking them. Meaningless questions can't be answered. "How much would the color blue pay for a lapdance?" No one can answer that question. But it doesn't make me some kind of sage for asking it.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

14th July 2012, 04:10 AM	#108
PiedPiper Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 98	Originally Posted by levi Could einstein's relativity be false in the real universe but true in the false simulated universe? If they discover many world theory in a simulated universe could the real universe operate without many world theory? You know, the above statements remind me of that horrible History channel show, Ancient Aliens. Or if you like, some of Graham Hancocks work. "Could it be that we were visited by aliens in our distant past?" "Is it possible that the real universe could operate without many world theory?" Not a dig against the poster, just thought I'd point out that particular pet peeve of mine. Watch one of these "provocative" shows or some of the fringe books, and just count how many times they use the above sentence structure ("Is it possible that...", etc). Yes, it's possible. I'm convinced that there's very little in the Universe (multiverse?) that can be ruled completely impossible. Is it likely? That's another story. I hate it when presenters use that sentence structure to give false authority to their statement.
PiedPiper Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 98

14th July 2012, 05:33 AM	#109
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by levi Why will no one answer my questions from my previous post? Probably because you haven't quoted them or referenced them, and nobody's going to go back to look for them to see what they were.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

14th July 2012, 05:36 AM	#110
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Puppycow That was my thought too. Look for bugs in the program. In The Matrix there were some bugs, right? Like, say, the difficulty in reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Theory.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

14th July 2012, 12:48 PM	#111
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	Originally Posted by JoeBentley And internet level "OMG Is dis da Matrix WTF BBQ?!1!!!" faux-solipsism is yet another silly word game parading itself about as it if is some armor piercing question.. Which is why I say is has entertainment value only. By all means ask these questions and come up with fantabulous answers whether or not you're under the influence - but epistemological value will not be found.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...

14th July 2012, 12:49 PM	#112
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Here are my questions. I would just like to add one thing the maximum speed of the simualated and the real universe I think could be different. Correct? But would time dialation still exist in both? Originally Posted by levi Could einstein's relativity be false in the real universe but true in the false simulated universe? If they discover many world theory in a simulated universe could the real universe operate without many world theory? If the real universe had free will would the simulated universe have free will? If we live in a simulated universe would the program run in a way that past, present and future all exist at the same time? Also would all combination on possible path taken all run simultaneous? To better illustrate imagine a player moves right, left, right, jump. Instead at the same save point a player could go right, right, left, eat? And this assuming the original instruction was not save. Would both be loaded into the game and both exist at the same time? And all possible combination that could happen in the game exist simultaneous?
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 14th July 2012 at 12:52 PM.

14th July 2012, 12:55 PM	#113
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	Originally Posted by levi Here are my questions. I would just like to add one thing the speed of the simualated and the real universe I think could be different. Correct? But would time dialation still exist in both? Time is relative - if it takes you 10x as long to perceive time as me then it seems 10x as long. If we're both in a simulation where "real" time is 1000x, 10000x or 1x faster is doesn't really matter - to you and I time is relative to the maximum speed of the simulation. Time dilation is a property of information propagation - in a simulation where information propagation is not a fixed speed time dilation would work differently. I.e. time dilation is a property of the speed of light but there's nothing that says that this has to be fixed. People used to believe the speed of light was infinite - if this were true time dilation would not exist. Can you write a universe simulator where this is true? Absolutely.
cyborg deus ex machina Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974	__________________ The phrase deus ex machina (literally "god out of a machine") describes an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot...

14th July 2012, 03:19 PM	#114
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	I am going to phrase it a little differently. Time varies between one object and the other object. One object could experience aging faster and another object could experience aging slower. I am making a big assumptions but if we live in a simulation would the real world have the same prinicipal that objects age slower and faster in there world?
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472

14th July 2012, 03:28 PM	#115
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Daald But that is just it. You are asking something of me. You are asking me to accept what you are saying or at least consider it more that just lunacy. My question to you is why should I? My answer (again) is that you should or shouldn’t do anything you don’t want to. Obviously you consider it lunacy and that is enough reason for you to not want go investigate for yourself. Once upon a time people believed it was lunacy to think other than the world was flat. Originally Posted by Daald What makes your theory different from any other possibility out there? It is not in opposition to any other theory – it incorporates all. Originally Posted by Daald How though? How can you guarantee me anything? Where is your proof? Hey Daald – have a look around you. Unless you are living on some other planet, the evidence is in plain sight. You are contributing to it as well. You can take away the aspect of the Players and even that this is a simulation, and you are still left with your breath in – your energetic contribution to either prison or paradise for all – and your breath out. Some think that because they believe that the whole universe is a Magic accident and there is no ‘goal’ in relation to Life on Earth, that this gives licence to lifestyle choices which are based on winners and losers? Prison by any other name. The evidence is all around you Daald – something has convinced you that to acknowledge it is to be a lunatic. Originally Posted by Daald You could simply ignore me though and rely on your belief that I will know when I will die. Nope. I will most likely be engaged in something else. Others may be there when you die to help you sort out the impossible situation you find yourself in… No biggy. Originally Posted by Daald Imagine this though. Imagine you are wrong. Imagine that you just wasted your entire life chasing a delusion. Doesn't that worry you? Wouldn't you want to believe in something that you can prove to yourself and others? Wouldn't you want to be sure? I am sure Daald. We all imagine what we will. I haven’t wasted my life either. I don’t believe in anything but I have proved to myself and understand how that evidence compels me to continue understanding the human potential to create a paradise on this planet – even while others would think that this is a lunatic understanding – a pointless dream. It matters not. I don’t have any particular belief on what life after death will be. Only that it is possible. It is an inevitable we each will experience. It is not the central issue – it is the inevitable one. The central issue has to do with this life now. There are many individuals that believe that when they die, that is the end. Unfortunately they thus see little harm in using others for their own gain. What does it matter? I am pretty certain you would agree with me that it does matter. The aspect to your argument here is that your beliefs suggest that there is nothing else to experience after you have died. If you want anyone to believe what you do, then your evidence also needs to show – not just a convincing argument – but exact irrefutable science and you can’t produce this for the same reason. Not because it doesn’t exist but because it is not possible to produce such evidence. It is a con either way to demand such evidence. Are you sure Daald? Now you are so sure that you will try to convince others that their journey is over when they die. You will continue to preach that message of belief as if it were certain fact? So what is life really that it can be ‘wasted’ whatever beliefs and non beliefs anyone chooses? I think a life is wasted if it lives to create a lifestyle at the disadvantage of others – using others to make that lifestyle possible. I don’t care that this kind of personality would call itself ‘this or that’ – their actions show me clearly what they are and they are all the same, even if they work in opposing camps That is a waste of life. Really.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες