I didn't watch Paycheck and I don't get your reference, sorry.

But you do bring up a good point; we're also assuming the people running the simulation are human, which isn't a fair one.

(We also are assuming that every consciousness ever in human history is being run, which also is not necessarily a fair assumption.)

In reply to katisara (msg # 14):

No worries about the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=284kahCx42s  <--- Trailor, you see for a moment when he makes the display "holographic" as it were no longer taking a 'screen' ... that was the small reference.

Good flick, by the way.

--> So let me pop off a few of the things which I think support simulation.

1) The Reticular activation system.  (Selective attention)

2) The "phenomena" where "knowledge" seems to appear "many places" (if not everywhere) at the same time (the number 0, the calculus, etc.)

3) The times when intuition works (maybe even also the times it doesn't) -- which makes it a fairly weak point.

4) The "retroactive" quality of quantum physics.  (First we theorize a particle.  Then we find it, and it conforms to our predictions for it. Then we think on this and say, actually it should weigh less (interestingly often within uncertainty) and there shouldn't be only one particle but two.  Run the experiment, find two, both conform to our predictions...that contradict -- again within uncertainty -- previous predictions)

Not sure I understand what you mean here, can you rephrase it?  If you're saying "we can't put any constraints on what might be" that sort of just means (to me at least) "we can make up anything we want and say "ya never know, right?" at the end.  Doesn't really make it very convincing to me.


I don't really get what you're saying here.  I also didn't say PayCheck, so that might be the holdup.


Hmm, also not sure what you feel this (the dream bit) implies.  The point about the "out there" not having to be anything like us need to cut both ways, though.  You can't say "well, if WE could do this, then WE would, and WE would do it a gazillion times, so obviously "the out there" would do the same, if it could," and then turn around and say "we can't put any constraints on what the 'out there' is like, since it could be completely different from anything we've ever imagined."  If they're so different from us that we can't even imagine what they could or couldn't do, we probably shouldn't be speculating on what they would or wouldn't do, no?  I feel like we need to have some level of grounding or were just making stuff up without any constraint, which to me makes all the outputs more or less equal.  "We're all in a simulation" would be on par with "we're just sprakle particles in magical fairy dust shot out the hind end of a giant pink unicorn but just don't realize it because of the magic."


Why do you feel that would be evidence for simulation?


Er..., calculus didn't appear many places at once.  It was a couple of guys in europe, who were working on similar (in a broad sense) types of math problems.  There were others much earlier than who came up with bits and pieces of it too.  As far as I know (and I may be wrong on this), the discovery of the number zero took place centuries apart on different continents, not all at once everywhere.  Besides all that, even if these discoveries happened many places at similar times, why does that indicate simulation, rather than just indicate that people were working on similar problems in different places?


Don't really follow you on that one, care to rephrase?


Which experiment are you talking about here?  Or are you just meaning the general weirdness of quantum mechanics?  And, again, why do you feel it is evidence of simulation?

Thanks for the question.

I'm not say we can't put any constants on it.  But I am saying things like saying: "Look at the trouble in the Middle East" no way we'd survive long enough.

But that ignores that this simulation may well be the one where the Middle Eastern Conflict is created by having Xianity surive the middle ages.  Or having Hilter not exterminate all the Jews...etc.

There's no way we can know anything about "deep reality" from our present position.

So yes, I'm saying, WE Don't KNOW, not that we can never know.  Not that "ever knowing" (yes or no) has any bearing on what we know now.

When you saying it's not convincing, I have to ask "Of what."

I've already said this is a case for 'radical doubt'.

The whole "the entire universe could have just popped into existence right now" with complete sense of time and history ...and how could we know it.

Having made that claim is not about "convincing" anyone of the veracity of that claim, it's about identifying where one is on the scale of radical doubt vs "reasonable" doubt.

The only problem with "Carteasian Demons" is in how we interpret the consequences. But yes, there's no way to PROVE or actually "disprove" the claim.

I tried to set that as the start...




Thank you for a second chance.  My point was to suggest that a dream (which is sort of a simulation inside the stuff that also creates the 'perception' of consciousness--as well as, potentially the sense of consciousness itself) world can seem to have any "rules, contexts, people -- living, dead, fictional, composite, etc.  I see no reason the simulation abilities of the brain would be any harder to generate with a system that has sufficiency for what we call consciousness.

Dare I allude?  Do robots dream of electric sheep.





Yes, I accept that and would be happy to swap "we" for some other term.  The collectivist nature was a problem, admittedly.




Yes, and no. There are minimal inferences about "what" / "how" / "who" based on what's here. And what is required for what is "here" to seem to be "here" at all via a simulation.

AND it's even okay if we're wrong.

In the same way that during the time we might call the industrial revolution we viewed labour as "machines" and during the information age we view labour as "knowledge systems" etc.

Of course we "can only use" the metaphors we have... and they will also be "wrong" but not wrong in a way that makes them totally unhelpful.

I'm appreciative of your comments here and I will have to ponder it more.



I play the sims.

I get Sims sports

Suddenly "sports" are all over my sim's life

It wasn't there before.

So it's not that ...the car we bought... was always all around the place and we just started to notice it, it's ...that the cars wasn't all around until it was added to our simulation.  There's no reason things can't be added "finished" as it were.



I might be able to find it, I believe the PIon was figured because of spin angular momentum which wasn't being conserved based on what was found.  And that the PIon would have mass, which would be a problem since mass needed to be conserved and I believe (memory servers?) that it was the Boson that had to "weight less" to account for the pion.

When the pion was found it was hailed as a great triumph and consistency within the law of conservations.

So no, no general weirdness.

And why?  Because it would make for the possibility of an upgrade to our simulation.

Total advert, but New Scientist is coming out with a magazine about this topic this week and I just had to share:
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...ible-to-forsake.html

There's a few articles off there that require you to log in to read, but an account is free. If I remember what my password is, maybe I'll post them up :P

this is exciting:

http://io9.com/5950543/physici...-computer-simulation

I love it, it's TURTLES all the way down!
This message was last edited by the player at 23:51, Wed 10 Oct 2012.

'Turtles all the way down' is at least falsifiable...

To be clear, "turtles all the way down" is not a part of the "analysis" or theory.  it's sort of my personal "excitement" and "silly statement" of enthusiasm.

Physicists are making universes now :)  YEAH.

I know.  'Turtles all the way down' is one of my most favorite stories, even if it isn't true (the story of how the phrase came to be that is)

I saw this last night. Funny enough, another game I'm running, the player just escaped from 'the box', a full, magical simulation device. She's struggling with the fact she can't prove (or disprove) whether she's still in that box.

In reply to katisara (msg # 23):

Is it a game on RPOL?

No, it's a 1-on-1 I run IRL with my wife. It's also my test-bed for my crazier ideas (for instance, her character's husband is from the future, running backwards in time).

I liked it until near the end.  For most of it, it actually seemed like they were actually proposing a way to test the theory, an "if we see X, we're in a simulation, but if we don't see X, we're not," which is exactly the kind of thing I said was lacking in the original idea.  But at the very end they say  the old, 'oh, we can't rule out that the simulation uses a completely different model so we can't be sure' line, and thus rule their idea unfalsifiable.

Or that the designers designed a system that would NOT return 'X' so as to fool us into thinking we were not in a simulation.

I feel the same way about this simulation stuff as Revolution feels about God ;)

There is disequilibrium.  While we may not be able to absolutely know we're not in a simulation no matter what, (I've talked more than once abut this issue of radical doubt, we really can't know for 'absolute certainity" the universe didn't pop into existence right this second with a bunch of 'fake' memories in tact (including my memory of having mentioned these Carteasian Demons before :) )which is why it's not a communication of anything but radical doubt.

BUT this test is saying that we might be able to find evidence that we ARE IN a simulation.

Knowing we are is actually more valuable than thinking we're not, because we could be fooled.

It's not terribly unlike science history. Looking for phigiston or aether.

I didn't read anything in the article that convinced me they could detect anything meaningful at all to be honest (at least in terms of being in a simulation).

And why should I believe if I posted something about the search for the Higgs Bozon (either popular media or scientific media) that you would have been able to have any trustworthy opinions about it?

Even with my two natural science degrees I often have to read a methodology several times to form any opinion.

So, okay, great, you don't like the idea and you doubt the tests.  And my Dad thinks Obama raised his taxes :)
This message was last edited by the player at 04:57, Fri 12 Oct 2012.

You don't have to believe a word I say.  Just stating my opinion based on the reading of the article.  I think the very idea of a simulated universe is fascinating science fiction but horrific science.

I would appreciate if you keep the insulting of my intelligence to yourself though.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 31):

Dude, allow me to retort by suggesting you check your sensitivity.

I didn't insult your intelligence.  I acknowledged the intelligence of scientists.

the mere fact that real scientists are doing the research, mean it's real science.  you've said you don't get it, not me ...bucko.

This claim to some kind of "grievance" against you is fuckin' bull shit.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:55, Fri 12 Oct 2012.

Simply because I disagree with the study doesn't mean that I 'don't get it'.  I disagree that it is scientific just because scientists are involved.  A lot of crap comes from people performing bad science.

Again, this is nothing more than science fiction in my books, and I use the term "science" very loosely.  A universe that contains individuals who could create a new universe just as a simulation could very reasonably be a universe which does not conform to the same realities that ours does.

The fact that we can't ever test for this makes this entire idea complete nonsense.  Fun nonsense that is totally awesome to discuss around a few drinks with sme friends, but not near the realm of reality.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:12, Fri 12 Oct 2012.

Just a note, you don't have to be a scientist to do science; if a test is valid, it can be verified by anybody following the instructions lain out in the experiment.

Being a scientist also doesn't mean you don't have an agenda or bias; that's why peer review exists for the purpose of checks and balances.

This is a non-scientific, philosophical argument. That isn't to say it's nonsensical, but that it's non-testable.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 33):

The assertion that we cant ever test it is a lack of imagination. Feel insulted again? Remember, scientists too made such claims of this and that. There is some far out, bad if you will science. There is othet seemingly philosophic or abstract mathematical science (aka string theory) but to say it is always non testible is false.

To say it is ever un falsifiable is true. But those are different claims

I've already given my side and completely disagree with you here.  Fair enough.  Interesting thought experiment but nothing more.

So far string theory (it's actually a whole bunch of hypotheses, not a single theory) isn't testable or falsifiable.  This is demonstrable by the large number of alternate explanations of the phenomena.  Until they come up with evidence that supports one hypothesis to the exclusion of the other ones, there isn't going to be very much progress.