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.

 

Is it possible Life is nothing more than a complex simulation? Feedback

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
its just a thought i had earlier and i wanted peoples opinion and possible evidence or theories i mean this could all just be one big test for every individual or the human race as a whole. i don't know thinking about is makes my brain hurt.




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
it is just a simulation. exactly like a computer game, only with self aware beings and much, much more complexity.

there are two worlds, but most only see one. the first world consists of particles zooming around and interacting. that's all it is. the second world is based off of our perception and brain structure. what most people refer to as reality is actually farthest from it.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Do you visit this site much? Because this has been done to death on here at least a hundred threads on the same subject.

If this is a simulation then its a REPETITIVE one.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Physics of God


Originally posted by Doax919
its just a thought i had earlier and i wanted peoples opinion and possible evidence or theories i mean this could all just be one big test for every individual or the human race as a whole. i don't know thinking about is makes my brain hurt.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I humbly submit that you spend your precious brainpower on questions that can actually be verified as True/False instead of squandering your mind on untestable, unknowable and unverifiable mental jerkoffs. (for lack of a less crude term)

If youre asking these questions (which are indeed valuable to ponder as long as you dont expend your entire limited life into them) you must by default have a powerful mind, and wondering if you exist or not is simply a dead end. (as descartes madness illustrates) If it is indeed true on an ontological level that you are a brain floating in a tank somewhere, but the illusion you are subject to is perfect and flawless, you indeed have no means by which to know that you are an illusion. You have no way of testing, verifying or knowing objectively in any manner that your existence is fundamentally illusory. Thus the non illusory and illusory world are perfectly indistinguishable to you, and I, and everyone, and thus no amount of mental input could ever confirm or deny our potentially false existence.

Thus even if we are actually living in the matrix (even in the matrix there was some sort of feedback to those suspended in illusion in the form of a general unease about the reality of existence and people from 'reality' could interact with those in fantasy) you have no way of knowing or proving unreality, and you and I never could say for certain that reality is unreal because there is no criteria for proving the illusory nature of reality. Therefor to go through life forever questioning if you or I exist would be an exercise in extreme futility and a huge waste of a most perceptive mind - a mind that could be brought to bear on the real, provable and verifiable objective reality that we 'seem' to occupy. ('seem' to in the sense that our entire waking life is spent in objective reality.)

So to sum up, if I were you I wouldnt waste my time on the 'I think therefor I am' nonsense because if you cannot establish that you are real, and know that reality is real, then nothing can be real and therefor no real growth or wisdom is possible. (as wisdom and growth might be illusory.) And growth and wisdom seems to be what youre questions are really aimed at.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


your argument is flawed because nothing is truly knowable. what is the point of anything? there is great value in questioning the world.

life is about being happy, and philosophical questions bring happiness to some. there is more to life than practicality. actually, i would say many times practicality limits beauty. what is the point of art or music? so you can make money to get better (and completely arbitrary) things, or to add some indefinable quality of emotion to life?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   


your argument is flawed because nothing is truly knowable.


Do you know this to be true?



what is the point of anything? there is great value in questioning the world.


Of course. But there is no point in asking questions that are impossible to answer, since the point of a question is to know its answer.



life is about being happy, and philosophical questions bring happiness to some.


Im with Aristotle on this one - true happiness is only attainable through truth, and truth is only knowable through rational and empirical philosophy.



there is more to life than practicality. actually, i would say many times practicality limits beauty.


Im not sure how youre using the term 'practicality' so I cant comment.



what is the point of art or music? so you can make money to get better (and completely arbitrary) things, or to add some indefinable quality of emotion to life?


Again Im a little confused as to what youre saying, so maybe you could provide some context, or site specifically what you disagree with in my post?

edit on 6-8-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Doax919
 

My feedback is:

Research before you start a new thread. We expect new threads to add new data. You can get a LOT of feedback by visiting all the other threads on this topic!

Think about the ramifications of the idea a bit before you post. If your new thread doesn't contain new data then it should at least contain a new viewpoint on the old data. Something that's been thought through a bit.

So: Say life is basically just a simulation. Well, what "software" is generating this simulation? What "machine" is it running on? How much input do participants have in how the story plays out? And specifically: Is it possible for a being to invent a game, then turn around and start playing that game, and end up forgetting who invented it, thus becoming, essentially, "trapped" in it?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
The raw math i encounter on a daily basis, suggests exceptionally biased results based upon the conscious and subconscious desires of the mind experiencing "life".

What does that mean in English?

I posit gamblers, we literally believe in lucky streaks, and unlucky streaks like gamblers. Why does god make my life miserable, or why does god make my life so good. Or remove god from the equation, why is blah happening to me so much, good or bad.

this is not random, and so life is not random, its an interactive simulation.

please reference: this link on influencing random dice rolls.
www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...

love and peace fellow brain vats.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   


Research before you start a new thread. We expect new threads to add new data. You can get a LOT of feedback by visiting all the other threads on this topic!


If new data was the criteria for new threads, most if not all of the posts on the board might be deleted.

Since this question is as old as Descartes and perhaps older, I dont think breaking this poor guys balls over his redundancy really applies, as if we held the Wachowskis to this standard they may have never produced The Matrix!

Silly example I know, but the guy is genuinely curious, and were both responding to his thread. The concept might be genuinely new and mindblowing to him, and I dont think we, as thinkers, should chastise him for that.

Sure its a little sloppy to ask a 200+ year old question as if it were original, but responding to it in exasperation probably wont stoke the guys thirst for answers, and instead might steer him towards not asking. Maybe Im wrong and he should have done his homework. *shrug*.



Think about the ramifications of the idea a bit before you post. If your new thread doesn't contain new data then it should at least contain a new viewpoint on the old data. Something that's been thought through a bit.


Perhaps you could point our poor, lost traveler towards the road instead of berating him for not having a map? Besides, Ive been thinking seriously for a decade and I dont think Ive come up with an original idea yet. Maybe im just slow...

Youre clearly a seasoned and trained thinker, and our friend clearly is not, but is showing a deep interest in some pretty fundamental questions that more brilliant men than us have poured their entire lives into. Perhaps us more wizened and experienced thinkers could think back to a time before we learned to think and have a little empathy for our fellow truth seekers.



So: Say life is basically just a simulation. Well, what "software" is generating this simulation? What "machine" is it running on? How much input do participants have in how the story plays out? And specifically: Is it possible for a being to invent a game, then turn around and start playing that game, and end up forgetting who invented it, thus becoming, essentially, "trapped" in it?


Or perhaps more fundamentally, does it even matter, if this simulation is seamless, and totally and completely indistinguishable from what we experience as objective reality?

If there is no null hypothesis, isnt this quest to prove the unprovable a shameful waste of what would otherwise be productive brainpower?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf


your argument is flawed because nothing is truly knowable.


Do you know this to be true?



what is the point of anything? there is great value in questioning the world.


Of course. But there is no point in asking questions that are impossible to answer, since the point of a question is to know its answer.



life is about being happy, and philosophical questions bring happiness to some.


Im with Aristotle on this one - true happiness is only attainable through truth, and truth is only knowable through rational and empirical philosophy.



there is more to life than practicality. actually, i would say many times practicality limits beauty.


Im not sure how youre using the term 'practicality' so I cant comment.



what is the point of art or music? so you can make money to get better (and completely arbitrary) things, or to add some indefinable quality of emotion to life?


Again Im a little confused as to what youre saying, so maybe you could provide some context, or site specifically what you disagree with in my post?

edit on 6-8-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)


there are absolutes, but no one can prove them. how fast am i moving right now? there is no real all encompassing answer. relative to the floor and walls, i'm not moving at all, but relative to the sun i'm moving pretty fast. what should be the absolute we base everything off of? there isn't one that we can know, unless you believe in a god.

there are many reasons for asking questions. the OP's reason is the search for an answer and the experience it brings. everywhere is a destination, is it not?

happiness is chemically induced. plato's belief that everything here is a shadow of the true form holds true. does knowing that thousands of people around the world are dying right now make you happy? that's truth, and its sad. truth is truth, it has many flavors, but only one color.

practicality is only asking questions that have definite answers. what is the point to art and music if only questions that have answers are worth asking? there is more to life than practical gains.



I humbly submit that you spend your precious brainpower on questions that can actually be verified as True/False instead of squandering your mind on untestable, unknowable and unverifiable mental jerkoffs.


are the arts a pointless exercise, or is there value in the emotions they trigger? if i understand you right, they are the same type of waste as the OP's question.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   


there are absolutes, but no one can prove them.


Would you say the above is absolutely true?

How about 2+2=4? Is this absolutely unprovable, in your mind?



how fast am i moving right now? there is no real all encompassing answer. relative to the floor and walls, i'm not moving at all, but relative to the sun i'm moving pretty fast. what should be the absolute we base everything off of? there isn't one that we can know, unless you believe in a god.


Rate of movement boils down to an approximation that is roughly true, in the same way Newtonian physics gives a rough but useful approximation of the movement of planets. So no, as technology currently exists, (and perhaps due to the laws of nature, we dont know yet) the measurement of movement can not be said to be perfectly knowable.

But the knowledge that we *are* moving can certainly be said to be true.



there are many reasons for asking questions. the OP's reason is the search for an answer and the experience it brings. everywhere is a destination, is it not?


Hmm pretty vague. In my experience, asking implies answering. As an example, asking how hot the sun is might be a useful question as it can be answered, whereas asking what existed before the universe is not, as it is unanswerable. (in my understanding)



happiness is chemically induced. plato's belief that everything here is a shadow of the true form holds true.


Happiness is not chemically 'induced', imo, but chemicals do indeed facilitate happiness. The source of that happiness, again imo, is not the chemicals themselves, but instead is a result of virtuous action guided by truthseeking.

That you hold Platos ramblings of forms and other imaginary and non empirical 'feelings' to be true, above what is sensual and measurable says a great deal to me as to where youre 'reasoning' from. (and I use the word reason in quotations because Plutonic forms can hardly be said to be a result of any reasoning)



does knowing that thousands of people around the world are dying right now make you happy? that's truth, and its sad. truth is truth, it has many flavors, but only one color.


Are you implying that Im some sort of sadist? what impulse would lead you to ask if I find the pain and suffering of others to be pleasurable?

I would say as an aside that only truth can stop their suffering, and the potential of that does make me happy.



practicality is only asking questions that have definite answers. what is the point to art and music if only questions that have answers are worth asking? there is more to life than practical gains.


Im reeeally not sure how you tie in questions with music and art. Clearly the two are expressions of perceived truth and serve a practical function in their transmission of what is perceived as real.



are the arts a pointless exercise, or is there value in the emotions they trigger? if i understand you right, they are the same type of waste as the OP's question.


Emotions are surely the signposts of life and, if understood correctly, will lead you to the deepest understanding possible. Nowhere did I state that emotions are meaningless in any way, and I will state now that the ideal state of being, imho, is the synchronicity between reason, feeling, and action. *That* is happiness, imo. Thus happiness cannot exclude an objective view of reality, and cannot include irrationality. (irrationality such as no truth is true)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Well if it is then the program is corrupted. Time for a software upgrade.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
speaking hypothetically if this was a simulation who ever crated it for reasons unknown would probably be monitoring it constantly if not interacting with it. they or it would probably have some sort of fail safe built into the simulation which would probably be way beyond our realm or perception speaking hypothetically of course. yeah sorry about not searching the threading for this topic i was eating taco and was to lazy to click the search thing. from now own ill search first. another idea popped into my head we could all be in some kind of interactive stasis chamber or like on that episode of south park one big intergalactic reality show.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   


simulation which would probably be way beyond our realm or perception


The definition of non existence is that which is unknowable, imperceptible, non provable and non sensual.

Anything that is ultimately beyond our perception, by definition, does not exist.

Dont waste yer time bro.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


i suppose you are right thank you for saving me major headache adhd makes my mind race like 10 miles a second.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Doax919
 


Do you feel as if you should be dead and the fact that you are not is a lie that you cannot escape? The reason I ask this is I know people who feel this way. They have explained to me that their soul is telling them they dont belong here and have actually left some time ago, and that what they percieve as being alive and reality is all just a lie, that they cannot escape. As if its a never ending movie called life.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Doax919
 


There is no more a challenging path than philosophy bro, it really is the full contact sport of the mind. If you are truly interested in the quest for truth, I strongly recommend you start here:

feeds.feedburner.com...

This is the largest and most popular philosophical discussion to ever exist in history, and I think youll find a lot of answers, and even more questions in the link provided above. Happy thinking!~



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
yes, i would say that is true in theory, but can you demonstrate it? two apples plus two apples is technically a huge amount of atoms, and an even larger amount of subatomic particles, then a (possibly) incalculable number of quarks. the math is correct only if things are oversimplified. 1=uno=one=I all of those are ways to denote a single unit of something. an imperfect expression of a perfect idea. that's what a form is. what you hold as "real" is a poor expression of what truly is real.

lets say you add 2+2 apples. you get 4. now get 4 different apples and weight them. you have 2 sets of 4 apples that don't have the same value.

asking implies the search for an answer. whether or not you find one is a different story. i'm trying to say that the search for an answer can be as valuable as an answer itself. if you go on a trip, do you only find value at the destination? doesn't traveling to your destination have value? every place along the way is a destination in and of itself.



Are you implying that Im some sort of sadist? what impulse would lead you to ask if I find the pain and suffering of others to be pleasurable?


no. i'm not implying that. my point was that more than truth is required for happiness. people are dying, that is truth, yet it does not make you or me happy to know it.



Nowhere did I state that emotions are meaningless in any way



That you hold Platos ramblings of forms and other imaginary and non empirical 'feelings' to be true

was i wrong in assuming that you hold "feelings" to be less than real, and therefore not valuable?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Magantice
 


Whoa that just took my mind for a spin.and no i don't feel like that except for when i am stuck in traffic. but that's very interesting indeed an endless loop.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join