The Nature of Reality

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


Unfortunately this post reveals a childlike lack of understanding of simulated universes and a very inflexible way of thinking that makes it very tiresome an energy sapping to discuss further. You are making assumptions and prescriping motives where you can't possibly make any such categorical statements.

How can you know for certain that a video game character does not have consciousness? I can't even know for sure that you are a conscious being. It sounds ridiculous but you can not prove the negative or the positive in this regard. I'm sorry if this offends you but you need to expand your knowledge and try not to become blinkered. In a simulated universe anything is possible and the simulation itself can alter and change and create and break any arbitrary rules created at any time. Thems the shakes.

Edit: There's a lot to be learned from philosophy in regards to simulated realities.

edit on 12-2-2013 by merkins because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by merkins
 


So rather than discuss the subject matter you brush of my questions about the simulated reality as childlike despite the fact that we are using a discussion forum and that you don't have the energy to continue the discussion with me! Fair enough do as you please however that would seem to me like a child who doesn't want to play anymore when they are faced with more questions they don't think they can answer so they give up !

To that I say get over yourself mate if you don't want to continue then don't you don't have to make statements about how childlike the comments are as if you are the master of simulated reality and discussions there of !

I would make an assumption about your ego but I will let it slide for that is no way to continue the discussion
and to add I take no offense, I'm more offended that you don't want to continue the discussion because its a great topic however had you really intended no offense your response would have stated my questions showed "a basic understanding" yet you chose to classify my understanding as "childlike" asserting your intellectual superiority over my basic understanding. To add I admit I know that I know little of the subject other than what I have read and don't proclaim to hold the same level of understanding as those who excel in the fields of quantum mechanics , philosophy or maths in relation to the simulated reality of the universe " I know I know nothing " my ignorance of the subject matter offends me ! yet I try to understand more and ask questions.

If you feel you are wasting your time then don't let me stop you from replying to me or continuing in the discussion of the OP

My questions about simulated reality are not childlike , they are questions none the less children ask important questions too ! I'm making assumptions about the simulation theory because its just a theory how else would one try to figure it out without at least making a few assumptions !
The first assumption made by the scientists who came up with the theory is that our future selves would simulate their past !

If computer characters had consciousness , they would surely ask me to stop having them die repeatedly when I miss that jump , crash that car , or get fragged by another player online.
Im sure you will agree that science and philosophy state that in order to have to have consciousness the subject must become self aware ! and as it stands our current technology does not exhibit self awareness and neither do the characters of computer games !

@ Chaotic yeh I could see that it would be an evolutionary simulation if that was the idea of the simulation itself to see how the evolution of a universe might occur. As I suggested though , to run a simulation of such grand imagining would require the most complex computing ever to be conceived one that would allow each individual with a conscious in the simulation to imagine and create and ask questions! such a thing would be a beauty indeed.

edit on 13-2-2013 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-2-2013 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Interesting topic! S&F from me.

I'd like to discuss the amount of computing power that would be needed to simulate our universe in real time, as we experience it now. We can never do it if we are indeed simulated ourselves. Assuming we are simulated, then our inventions are simulated as well. This implies that whatever powerful computer we invent, it will never be able to be more powerful than our simulator's potential, since it's contained in it. I.e. we are restricted to our simulator's capacity. Therefore, we can never create anything as powerful as to simulate our universe in real time. The most powerful computer we can ever make is as powerful as the unused resources of our simulator (again, assuming we are simulated ourselves).

If we are not simulated, then this constraint is not applicable in this sense. For this believe alone I keep a close eye on developments in computing power. If we ever hit an upper limit in computing power, than that may be proof that we live in a simulation. A limit that we cannot exceed no matter how many super quantum computers we link together; when theoretically the computing power should be greater than what we observe and we cannot explain this, nor improve on it. That would be exciting!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


effectively hitting the singularity of computing it could indicate this , I agree though if we are a simulation thats some simulation and what a complex simulation indeed , one that allows the subjects of the simulation what would seem like endless free will and creative power



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Mobidinc
 


If the person traveling close to the speed of light and all matter traveling with them slows down bar light, how does the clock time slow down, the clock relying on the frequency of light to keep time, from my understanding quantum clocks still use light (laser) to function?

You're asking to have the theory of special relativity explained to you. That's a tall order.

But time dilation effects have nothing to do with the actual operations of clocks. In physics, a 'clock' is anything that you can keep time by—any regularly spaced sequence of events will do. You could use a pulsar, a star that gets brighter and dimmer in a regularly timed cycle, or the vibrations of caesium atoms, or cogs and wheels powered by watchsprings, or the motion of the Sun round Earth. Time dilation would always be observed.


Personally I believe some of the facts we have been told about time strangeness are far from facts, just lil lies to keep us stupid, occupied and listening to the boss.

It doesn't have to be 'facts we have been told'. You can learn this stuff for yourself and see it proved by experiment. The best place to do that is at a university, because universities have access to sophisticated experimental equipment that let you see the facts for yourself—astronomical observatories, for example, where you can observe relativity in action through telescopes—but obviously that's not always possible. Still, if you're willing to take the word of the millions of people round the world who have done these experiments and found the results to be the ones predicted, you can still learn the theory part on your own, with a little help from those who have studied further than you. There is certainly no need to take physics on trust.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 

I'm far from convinced we live in a simulation (and besides, what does it matter whether or not we do?) but I think that idea of yours is admirably creative. Only I think the theoretical limit on processing capacity—i.e. the processing capacity of the universe—probably can't be reached without building a computer the size of the universe.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Cheers heaps, I will definitely be looking more into this, thank you for the direction.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I too think to create such a simulation would indeed be possibly the greatest scientific / engineering feat of any species !
However if reality also exists outside of this simulation wouldn't it be easier just to take direct results from reality instead of a simulated reality ?

If we think of the simulation being infinite in possibility wouldn't that tie in with the golden ratio and fractals and the holographic theory of the universe ?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


I too think to create such a simulation would indeed be possibly the greatest scientific / engineering feat of any species!

Yes, they could pat each other on the back and go 'we're gods now, us.'


However if reality also exists outside of this simulation wouldn't it be easier just to take direct results from reality instead of a simulated reality?

The point of a simulation is that you can limit the number of parameters and variables inside it in a way you cannot do in reality because, in reality, extraneous factors intrude. A simulation is basically an experiment run under controlled conditions.

A simulated universe that was as complicated as a real universe would therefore be pretty useless. If our universe is a simulation, then the 'real' universe it simulates must be even more complicated than this. The mind boggles.

Anyway, wondering whether we live in a simulation or not is absolutely futile. To us, the hypothetical simulation is our reality. We are designed for it. If we were to emerge into some kind of 'real' reality beyond the simulation, it would make no sense to us. Most likely we could not exist in it except as ideas.

Of course, there are those who think we're 'real' beings trapped in a simulation. Sort of like Scientology, only multi-dimensional. Or like—of course—The Matrix. Well, I don't see what the point of that might be. All the possible explanations—galactic wars we lost, malefic pan-dimensional beings 'feeding on our energy', attempts to find the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question about Life, the Universe and Everything, and so on—seem pretty silly to me. Perhaps you have some fresher, and better, ideas?





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join