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.
It might be an interesting idea and fun speculation. If true then it would sort of make life meaningless. That's not to say that life has meaning. It does seem in a way antagonistic to life...in the sense that it devalues the life that we have.
Given that if we were in a simulation. Would the very mathematics found in nature actually be code? The Fibonacci sequence? Pi?
Would there not be some sort of code? Cheat code? to allow us to change our destiny? escape? Is that what the elite hold?
www.simulation-argument.com...
ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
Ive always liked the theory because it provokes more philosophical questioning about life and reality.
originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
It might be an interesting idea and fun speculation. If true then it would sort of make life meaningless. That's not to say that life has meaning. It does seem in a way antagonistic to life...in the sense that it devalues the life that we have.
I probably still don't, but I think the reason it seems like a logical perspective for some is down to the fact we can now see the possibilities within our technologies that make the simulation theory an inevitability. If we are already making attempts at ancestor simulations. Not necessarily an antagonism with life.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: woodwardjnr
I probably still don't, but I think the reason it seems like a logical perspective for some is down to the fact we can now see the possibilities within our technologies that make the simulation theory an inevitability. If we are already making attempts at ancestor simulations. Not necessarily an antagonism with life.
I understand. Of course we had the same sort of ideas when we started building watches, and it was stipulated that the universe was like a large watch with a watchmaker. Perhaps it is more a philosophy of technology rather than a philosophy of the universe.
I think things like the video game sims and virtual reality are much easier technologies for people to understand the concept and relate to a simulated universe than that of a watch.