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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

We DO live in a simulation even if we don't!

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I almost posted this in 6 different forums.. but I didn't want the baggage from any
of them.. and I imagine that all sorts of rancid metaphysical/religious talk will ensue
.. but this is one of my favorite concepts---something I realized years ago from studying
science..and a friendly chat about it is preferred! No true believer wars hopefully...

--- begin general notion---

Whether we actually directly live in a physical universe or not, is almost academic.

Many scientists think that we live inside a giant quantum computer composed of
the Universe itself. So the "big bang" and all that was real...evolution.. all that..
but FUNCTIONALLY we are still "programs" executing inside this semi-sentient
quantum Universe.

The difference between that, and some aliens or whatever running a simulation
inside the base program (the real physical quantum computer Universe) ---
almost negligible.

I really don't care if I'm executing from "Ring 0 - kernel mode" (computer talk)
or "Ring 1 - user mode".

On some level, in some way, we are all "simulations", whether purposefully
or "accidentally" through blind evolution.

To me, we will never know which is true and it doesn't matter. A simulation
is a simulation is a simulation, whether it evolved purposely or randomly.
And even if we ARE a purposeful simulation.. odds are, the "original
simulator(s)" are a randomly evolved base simulation. It's "simulations all
the way down".

This is my most core intellectual position/observation.

Kev
edit on 13-10-2016 by KellyPrettyBear because: am I the only one eternally fighting with line breaks that don't work?




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Could you think of smaller facets of the Universe, like say "Earth" for example, as simpler, sub-programs (or applications) of the larger "computer model"? Or is everything being ran off of one single program.. that's my question.

To me, it's as if the "Earth" software is malfunctioning from a virus (in the case of human beings, a virus of the "need" for materialism and the lust of power) and that's why psychopaths have taken over and we see so many systemic problems.

Just spitting out ideas here.

Interesting thread, thanks for sharing KPB
edit on 13-10-2016 by FamCore because: added content within parentheses



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Human culture feeds off itself, and we are in a death-spiral of selfish-awfulness.

Now is there some "evil" sub-simulation here on Earth?

I can't say.

In my view, the "Universe" is a single program, but yes, some people can tweak
the "simulation" on various levels by "Feeding back into the control loop".

There are both simple sociological and complex technological ways to do it.
edit on 13-10-2016 by KellyPrettyBear because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

This theory always comes back to the question of WHO created this simulation.

And was that entity in a simulation his/her/itself?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

It does.

I'm not sure that is a fruitful question.. but it's almost impossible not to bring it up!

In my view, even the "folks" who think they are the "core simulators" are probably
also simulated.

So if we must say words like "god" or whatever, I would urge "god" to be humble and
kind (or an equal opportunity ignorer of his/her simulated subjects), as he/she
is almost certainly in the same situation whether he/she knows it or not.

The problem is perceptual barriers (hypervisor rules).

You can only "know" to the extent that you can perceive.

It's impossible to "know" about things on the other side of a sturdy "firewall".

So a person might think that they are "god" and might indeed have awesome
powers.. but they might be 10 levels down in the simulation and not know it.

You can't know, what you can't know.

That's my opinion.

Kev



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
We do live in a simulation. It's called GOD's consciousness, and that consciousness is the "program."



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
We do live in a simulation. It's called GOD's consciousness, and that consciousness is the "program."



This is intellectual laziness. Theists don't want to work the hard problems, so they resort to the "Duct Tape" explanation.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

You too? So sad.
I strongly disagree. The problem is this is just a modern version of the lie: god created it.
The caveman still looks for the acting agent making the sun rise.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

You too? So sad.
I strongly disagree. The problem is this is just a modern version of the lie: god created it.
The caveman still looks for the acting agent making the sun rise.


Are you 100% sure Peeple?

Since none of us really know, the only true position we can take is one of an open mind. Anything else is pure ego.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr

Ah, you identified the heretic now the prosecution starts?

Yes I am 100% sure reality is not a simulation. Just as I'm 100% sure god didn't create the universe.

Do you want to know why?
edit on 13-10-2016 by Peeple because: Add



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

This has nothing to do with your opinion, metapjysics (except in the broadest sense of ontology and epistemogy) and certainly nothing to do with religion or spirituality.

Pure physics and statistics.

Really i first thought about something like this about 40 years ago.

In any case just like a low key discussion.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Id love to hear...



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I agree that we are in a simulation of some sort, but not in the exact way you put it. I believe our own brain is providing the simulation.


Solving the problem of converting light into ideas, of visually understanding features and objects in the world, is a complex task far beyond the abilities of the world's most powerful computers. Vision requires distilling foreground from background, recognizing objects presented in a wide range of orientations, and accurately interpreting spatial cues. The neural mechanisms of visual perception offer rich insight into how the brain handles such computationally complex situations.

Visual perception begins as soon as the eye focuses light onto the retina, where it is absorbed by a layer of photoreceptor cells. These cells convert light into electrochemical signals, and are divided into two types, rods and cones, named for their shape. Rod cells are responsible for our night vision, and respond well to dim light. Rods are found mostly in the peripheral regions of the retina, so most people will find that they can see better at night if they focus their gaze just off to the side of whatever they are observing.


Source: www.brainhq.com...

That being said there is no way to really determine if the images that my brain interprets is the same way your brain interprets them. Sort of like verbal language. In English it's a 'house' in Spanish it's a 'casa', two different ways of saying the same thing, so what's the absolute description of a 'house' ?

I think it's the same thing with the way our brains process what we see... We each have our own interpretations of it, thereby sort of a simulation, but what is the absolute truth of what we see?

Similar to how a computer program is written code using a human readable syntax, but is converted over to machine code and binary which a computer understands. The machine code / binary of our lives is what our brains are processing and interpreting as images, and we all know there are many programming languages out there that can accomplish the same thing many ways.

There are a ton of light wave-lengths that our brains cannot process visually, and optical illusions to trick our brains interpretations which means there are some flaws and limits to our own simulations.

I don't know if any of that made any sense, but that's how I think we're in a simulation.
edit on 13-10-2016 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2016 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: majesticgent

Your point is also pure science.

Yes, our brains are probably the lowest physical hardware (or simulated hardware) in the chain.

Brains are analog chemical/electrical computers running a bayessian decision engine with a tiny splash of room temperature quantum computing.

Kev



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: majesticgent

Your point is also pure science.

Yes, our brains are probably the lowest physical hardware (or simulated hardware) in the chain.

Brains are analog chemical/electrical computers running a bayessian decision engine with a tiny splash of room temperature quantum computing.

Kev


Yes but anything outside of what we perceive, or what is actually there is more philosophy. Is it just a bunch of binary 0 & 1 of a simulation, are we all seeing the same thing and experiencing the same reality, or is there a discrete reality that all of our brains process differently? There is no scientific way to prove it and it's not a scientific question, so now we're in the realm of philosophy. IMHO



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: majesticgent

Scientifically Informed philosophy, yes.

It's the best we can do.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: bluesjr

Ah, you identified the heretic now the prosecution starts?

Yes I am 100% sure reality is not a simulation. Just as I'm 100% sure god didn't create the universe.

Do you want to know why?


Yes, I do.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear & a reply to: bluesjr


Well first: reality has no defined borders, it's basically bottomless, no matter which direction you look. An infinity approaching universe(size) and in the other direction things get smaller and smaller, quanta, strings, etc that's not the end of it, we will be able to split things up ad infinitum (almost) if we dare to. Then the possibility of countless parallel universes. No parameters, no simulation.

And we might be able to create a strong AI, but you can't simulate a biological consciousness in an artificial environment, just as you can't grow an AI inside someones brain. That's an unsolvable paradox.

Besides the whole simulation theory is just lazy, a rip off from a rip off of a rip off...

Also it's not science, it's untestable.


edit on 13-10-2016 by Peeple because: Add



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

I agree that the god concept is 100% intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt for that matter.

Simulation theory is fun to discuss, but probably unprovable. (But not necessary. There are current experiments underway).

I doubt we are really far apart in opinions.

Kev



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear & a reply to: bluesjr


Well first: reality has no defined borders, it's basically bottomless, no matter which direction you look. An infinity approaching universe(size) and in the other direction things get smaller and smaller, quanta, strings, etc that's not the end of it, we will be able to split things up ad infinitum (almost) if we dare to. Then the possibility of countless parallel universes. No parameters, no simulation.

And we might be able to create a strong AI, but you can't simulate a biological consciousness in an artificial environment, just as you can't grow an AI inside someones brain. That's an unsolvable paradox.

Besides the whole simulation theory is just lazy, a rip off from a rip off of a rip off...

Also it's not science, it's untestable.



Thank you. On the first paragraph, I agree that we do not know the limits in either direction or dimension. We also have no idea where our science and proofs fit on the grand scale of infinite knowledge. I tend to think that us humans are pretty far down the chain and therefore could be eons away from being able to 'prove' any position one could have on this subject. So I don't see your position as representing 100% truth. Admitting that we don't know isn't lazy, too me its the only possible correct answer.

On the second paragraph, why does our consciousness have to be biological or AI? I can play a video game and become the consciousness for the role I am playing, but I don't exist inside the computer or 2D screen.

I'm not a religious person, unless you consider keeping an open mind and saying that I don't think we know what we are as a religion. Just want to state that in case this comes across as a science vs. religion position. Its not.




top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join