If we are in a simulated universe...

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
A) how much information would that take?
B) what would be the purpose?
C) if we are created in a simulated universe, have our creators been created?
D) if not, are are our creators part of the same eternal paradigm? If so, are they part of a simulation themselves?

To simulate our universe, even just the known universe it would take an amount of information that even our strongest super-computers couldn't even understand. We can't possibly comprehend the amount of information it would take for our universe to exist.

After that, let's assume we are all computer-generated. If we were, and if we were the sole-purpose for that computer modeling, why is there a vast expanse of billions of other galaxies to accompany our own? And if we're not, what is the point of all the seemingly needless space that we can all observe from earth?

If we all are created as a scientific experiment for those vastly more intelligent than us, should our creators have a god? Should we stop at them, or ask, "who created you?"

These are questions that I've had trouble with regarding the simulation theory.
Please respond. If we are all created in a simulation, then it has to be possible that our creators are facing the same conundrum.

Where does it stop? At one point reality has to be... Reality.




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I don't think it's simulated............everything seems to be agitated and cohersed beyond recognition.You live your life,You make it what it is



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SarnholeOntarable
 


In a simulated universe that could still all be true. I'm asking why do people choose to believe in a simulated universe vs. a god created universe vs. a random universe.

Can either be disproved?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


To simulate the entire physical universe would take an amount of data beyond comprehension.

to simulate the entire conscious experience of the "physical universe" (which doesn't really exist) by beings with limited brain power like us, wouldn't take too much data at all.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 



Where does it stop? At one point reality has to be... Reality.

Here's a question I often pose when faced with this question: what is a "real reality"?

Can you truly tell me what a real reality is? What actually makes it "real"? What would make anything real? Even if our Universe isn't simulated, scientists still think everything in existence probably just popped out of no where in a single instant known as the big bang... is stuff that comes from the void real? Wow I just blew my own mind with that last sentence, I think watching ChäoS;HEAd the other day has messed with my head.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockintitz
reply to post by SarnholeOntarable
 


In a simulated universe that could still all be true. I'm asking why do people choose to believe in a simulated universe vs. a god created universe vs. a random universe.

Can either be disproved?


How far small can you look. Imagine the most powerful microscopic equipment possible. How small.

Everything has to contain that infinity. If there is as much reality in front of me as there is you, then we both share that level of infinitely small data. And as far as they eye can see. How far?

Even empty space contains information bursting in and out of reality at the quantum level.

Is it that we start to see the mechanics of what design any simulated reality must exist within, separate from the program running that defines interaction that can be repeated and recorded? Are we allowed to see it?

I am with Sarn. It's too reactive and for a long time the little beakers on a little planet didn't even exist to ponder the intricacies of it all. Equilibrium, entropy.. At least on this little island.

We are no less a miracle of evolution and all life shares that. I don't need to be in fear or worship of things simply because I do not have the comprehension of all things physical.

I seek to understand these things, and not wash it away with a created and unproven concept simply because it fills in the blanks from a time when man needed the gods, and because it takes care of the after life.

People are just changing the variables. Now god, is a simulated program. All the answers left unanswered. All the questions left hanging. Who? Why? Where? How? So it becomes entangled with religion.

I think the absolute unthinking nature of nature, and that in all areas where life exists it is not in harmony or comfort, but a constant state of discomfort, has given rise to intelligence..

No god required, no intricate simulation needed. Just infinity and time.

edit on 20-5-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


I think for most people it comes down to personal belief. " Are you a man of science or a man of faith Jack? "



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


There better be a god - I do have one thing to say of importance - and once I pass 20 postings I can do so.


I'll wait. It must wait.

Jo.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockintitzAfter that, let's assume we are all computer-generated. If we were, and if we were the sole-purpose for that computer modeling, why is there a vast expanse of billions of other galaxies to accompany our own? And if we're not, what is the point of all the seemingly needless space that we can all observe from earth?


They would not have designed Earth and then "everything else." They would have designed the lattice, chosen the simulation rate (Planck time), tweaked a bunch of parametric values for the starting (Big Bang) conditions, and let it rip. Probably have countless running in parallel. Probably haven't even discovered us yet. Probably have their own SETI-like agents scouring the simulations for intelligent emergent life.

Go read about the supposed from-nothing Big Bang, and the estimated theorized expansion rates (how fast the universe must have come into existence under these theories), and tell me it doesn't sound like it was new()'ed/constructed up in a computer...
edit on 5/20/2013 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Oops double post
edit on 5/20/2013 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


no - reality can get so much lower

Jo



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 

Let me tell you now...because humanity has been grasped for the last couple centuries.Do I need to go into details?Last time I explained it my head ached.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


The computer simulation seems to be... strangely enough... a possibility. Is it a computer simulation, however, or is it just acting like a computer simulation?

I can think of another scenario that would test like it was a computer simulation when it isn't.

As for the purpose, I believe the purpose is cultural. There are those of us who think in binary (duality) and those of us who think in terms of cause-and-effect / situationally (complex?).

I read an article about error-correcting code being found in the universe, and my immediate thought (that probably hasn't occurred to the researchers yet) is that this code could possibly represent certain humans who are the observers, the ones outside of the duality.

The ones banded together, or in the duality, cannot see their effect on the world, themselves or others.

At any rate, the whole idea of the simulation would be to learn how to interact in a healthy manner when there are multiple perspectives involved. Like a social learning tool for some advanced civilization waiting for answers on how to run their society, or a advanced being wanting to know how to interact with his mate
etc.

As for your purpose in life? The same thing! To learn how to interact with yourself and others in a healthy manner, to find yourself, etc. There could even be reincarnation for all we know, in order to allow you to keep learning through multiple lives.
edit on 20-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockintitz
A) how much information would that take?

The amount of information it would take to simulate the universe of that particular size.



B) what would be the purpose?

The purpose would be to simulate it. I wouldn't mind doing it purely for fun. Does it matter?



C) if we are created in a simulated universe, have our creators been created?

What does that got to do with anything? Surely that cannot be deduced from this.



D) if not, are are our creators part of the same eternal paradigm? If so, are they part of a simulation themselves?

Cannot be deduced.



To simulate our universe, even just the known universe it would take an amount of information that even our strongest super-computers couldn't even understand. We can't possibly comprehend the amount of information it would take for our universe to exist.

We cannot precisely simulate our own universe. We can make small models of course, but we can't simulate this.



After that, let's assume we are all computer-generated. If we were, and if we were the sole-purpose for that computer modeling, why is there a vast expanse of billions of other galaxies to accompany our own? And if we're not, what is the point of all the seemingly needless space that we can all observe from earth?

Making the assumption in bold is troubling. Why did you?



If we all are created as a scientific experiment for those vastly more intelligent than us, should our creators have a god? Should we stop at them, or ask, "who created you?"

Cannot be deduced. Also, what difference would it make?



These are questions that I've had trouble with regarding the simulation theory.

I was unaware that there was such a "theory". Thought experiment yes.



Please respond. If we are all created in a simulation, then it has to be possible that our creators are facing the same conundrum.

Of course. It could also be possible that they need to dedicate their lives to creating and eating (without chewing) chewing-gum.



Where does it stop? At one point reality has to be... Reality.

This question can be asked without mentioning simulations.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I seem to agree...But what about apathy?...how can one not endulge with morals and dogma.Thinking is keeping me up.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Is it just a thought experiment?
someone's Theory Of Everything



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kkrattiger
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Is it just a thought experiment?
someone's Theory Of Everything



Based on Mysticism and thoughts from an illiterate India?
I don't know how this is applicable to anything than mental masturbation of the ignorant?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Making the assumption in bold is troubling. Why did you?


I didn't, I have no idea why when you quoted me it did that. I understand things can be so far away from comprehension that they can't be deduced.

Still doesn't mean you can't ask the questions.
edit on 20-5-2013 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-5-2013 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockintitz

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Making the assumption in bold is troubling. Why did you?


I didn't, I have no idea why when you quoted me it did that. I understand things can be so far away from comprehension that they can't be deduced.

Still doesn't mean you can't ask the questions.
edit on 20-5-2013 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-5-2013 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)


I highlighted the assumption.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Oh I see. My op was composed of an assortment of what-ifs. Obviously.
I don't think the computer simulation theory can be proven nor disproven, I was just posing a few questions.






top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join