It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simulated Universe, if it's True What's Next?

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty staunch atheist, but I still find the idea of a simulated reality intriguing. You could go on to say this idea is parallel to the "brain in a jar" thought experiment. Hell, you could even bring Plato's allegory of the cave into this argument.

To me, the idea is more a philosophical thought experiment than it is sound scientific reasoning, even if certain people of the scientific community support this idea.




posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Be a good species for all eternity, so Satans claw won't get you for thinking you guys were smarter then simulation.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
What I find interesting is that even if you are a believer of a traditional monotheistic religion, you must come to the conclusion that the god you believe in must have used some kind of "simulation technology" of his own. If our universe, our reality, exists in a bigger reality, the reality of god, the reality in which god exists, then we live in some kind of simulation, some kind of fake reality inside a "real reality", a reality of higher level.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Moving post to its own thread.
edit on 061031America/ChicagoMon, 27 Oct 2014 14:06:16 -0500up3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The infinite regress is problematic. If it is likely we are in a simulation, then it is just as likely that those who program it are in a simulation, and so on to infinity. Unfortunately, the idea has no grounding upon which it can stop from falling into illogical waters.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Unless were able to surmise that the fundamental laws of physics operate differently for the "simulators" than the "program", you are correct. Of course, one could then argue that if that were true, then the simulators of our simulators must also have different fundamental laws of physics as well, and we're right back to infinite regression.

I need an asprin.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The infinite regress is problematic. If it is likely we are in a simulation, then it is just as likely that those who program it are in a simulation, and so on to infinity. Unfortunately, the idea has no grounding upon which it can stop from falling into illogical waters.



Even if you are 100% correct about that (which makes decent sense to me), it would be neither "problematic" nor "illogical".

Even if there were an infinite regression of realities, what's the problem with that? Why can't that just be the way it is?



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

This is a philosophical question, not a "true" question of physics ...



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
In mathematics(from what I've heard about) the universe was born in a single flash of light, where an empty void became chaotic, then cooled, but there was nothing before the current universe.

Then you got metaphysics saying that probably there was something before the suggested big bang, and that our place in the universe is young, and had to stem of some other system.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum

Good thread and I would say it's more likely that we're in a simulation. There's no evidence that a real objective material reality exists. Let me repeat:

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT AN OBJECTIVE MATERIAL REALITY EXISTS.

The most we can say is that information and energy exists and what we experience as an objective reality is the result of some computation being carried out by the universe.

We tend to think in a egocentric way. So we see ourselves as the sum of all things. That's just nonsense.

Our universe is most likely a simulation and I agree with Professor Seth Lloyd that the universe is a quantum computer. When you understand how quantum computation works then it's easy to see the world in the context of computation vs. the convoluted non answers if it were a objective material reality.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo


Even if there were an infinite regression of realities, what's the problem with that? Why can't that just be the way it is?


The simulation argument is a logical one. If it doesn't have the logic, then it is pure fantasy.
edit on 27-10-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

Wholeheartedly agreed.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I've had chain dreams where I go to bed in a dream and dream a dream, wake back into the dream, then wake again several times before I actually wake back into reality. Saying we can't simulate within a simulation doesn't make sense. Surely there were arcades and video games within the Matrix world. And surely, if we are simulated, we can simulate within our universe because we already have.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum Some may have plans to harvest us for the 150$ worth of gold that humans have in their bodies.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Lynk3


I've had chain dreams where I go to bed in a dream and dream a dream, wake back into the dream, then wake again several times before I actually wake back into reality.


Right.


Saying we can't simulate within a simulation doesn't make sense.


Alright then. How can we simulate within a simulation?



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Cuervo


Even if there were an infinite regression of realities, what's the problem with that? Why can't that just be the way it is?


The simulation argument is a logical one. If it doesn't have the logic, then it is pure fantasy.


But how would an infinite regression make it illogical? Just because it's different? And, besides, an infinite regression isn't something that would even be likely nor required for this to work; you are only talking about the possibility of it. If you think it's illogical, then just hedge your bets on the possibility of there being a finite regression, instead.

To me, any conclusion that this comes to is "logical" because that's where it leads. You are always where you are, no matter how illogical the place is.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Matter/Or some variable of energy coming from no where, where it take more energy to turn energy into an output. Sound like bird hunting in the dark, where there are no bird to hunt.

Next thing you, you got the religions adding 1 apple with another apple, and the scientist saying God did it.

Where it sounds like God pulled a flash of light from its mighty arse, and that flash of light still exploding...Or imploding?

edit on 27-10-2014 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Lynk3


I've had chain dreams where I go to bed in a dream and dream a dream, wake back into the dream, then wake again several times before I actually wake back into reality.


Right.


Saying we can't simulate within a simulation doesn't make sense.


Alright then. How can we simulate within a simulation?


Are you doubting that you can dream in a dream? A lot of people do this. Look up "false awakening" for one example.

As far as a simulation within a simulation, just look at any game with another game inside it. Or how your computer has a DOS emulator in it. How is that not an enclave simulation? We've been doing that for ages.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Well, when I bang my head, or stub my toe, it hurts like hell, and that ain't no simulation.

Some of you take that 'The Matrix' movie (which sucked btw) way too seriously. Reality is a much more acceptable construct that meshes well with Occams razor.
So, who would have created the program we live under?
god?
And who programed and simulated god?

I live in reality. Maybe that's why I like escaping it.

And yes, it's true, I did not like 'The Matrix', I couldn't wait untill it ended when I had to watch it.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Cheat codes and easter eggs!

...and they appear to exist - although, that is subjective...

Are we the projected and avatar-ed sims playing with ourselves and other projected sims? Are we the one 'entity' playing the game through generations and generations of avatars?

Sounds familiar...

Å99




top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join