one motivated by a desire for wealth, power, or achievement...certainly a capitalist entrepreneur would see exploiting others as a fair dinkum way of making a living...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
We are living in a simulation
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
A scoundrel I say, a scoundrel! A barefaced rogue in priest's clothing.
For me, the world is to complex and ever changing to be a simulation. Think of the most complex simulation we have created and compare it to our reality, it wont be even close. The only way possible is if the programers are constantly writing new code or the code self writes.
Well as far as i can tell deepak gets warm fuzzy feelings, and writes to a particular sector of culture, that is overly confused themselves. thats why i tend to stick to Muir. I appreciate the scent of mountain and forest air in his writings. Chopras writings are stale urbane nonsense.
Which btw you just tossed in another reason, and pointed out why simulation theory is wrong headed. Recursion and self referentialism. The seeds that grow into mental illness.
Ever notice how most theories never connect us to the wilderness or just the act to breathe!!!
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
I am more into Thoreau
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
We don't even know if it's empty space.
It only looks that way because there's a threshold to our technology that prevents us from looking further in.
leov
Well-Known Member
That is also true.
Well, as to whether or not "reality" is just some sort of simulation, I don't really know. Either we live in a simulation or we don't. If we don't live in a simulation, what are we living in?
The interesting thing about The Matrix is that the "reality" created was near-perfect, but not completely so. It was implied that it was due to human imperfections that no simulation could ever be perfect. But it was close enough and satisfactory for their purposes, even though there's an expected "anomaly" every 100 years. There were also those who had the power to hack into the system and perform actions which would be otherwise impossible in the "real" world.
The other side of it is that, outside of the Matrix, it was a pretty crappy existence.
If this is a simulation, then it appears that we're in a rather large universe, yet purposely confined to an infinitesimal part of it. If this were a video game, we'd be stuck on World 1-1.
Well Muir had a dogged ear version of walden pond for sure. I think being so directly in the same landscape here on the oregon coast effects my being drawn to Muir. Maybe if i grew up in Concord i would be of a different opinion. At some point we may be dissussing something like pre recorded folk tunes which most folks arent even aware of!!! I cant argue with your preference at all.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Even if any type of evidence came about that we're in some type of simulation it wouldn't matter because simulation is a form of reality hence the reality of being in a simulation.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I have to say I find this very unlikely due to several reasons, first of all it doesn't really explain anything.
The first problem you run into, which will eventually as far as I see it, bring everything down is who or how did the first simulation get started?
Next the issue is regarding computer power which seems to be based on a wrong assumption. Which have to do with there only being one reality, that is those who created the first simulation. Therefore computer power doesn't work as it is outlined in the paper, but is most likely an exponential factor of unimaginable proportions. The reason for this is that the computer power needed will have to be calculated solely based on the original creators capacity of running all simulations they created, including all the simulations that those simulations created until potential infinity.
So if the original creators created 50 simulations, which each also create 50 simulations each, would require the original creators to having to run 2500 simulations at the same time, as these are the only ones with actually energy and computer power that is not an illusion/simulation.
The paper assumes that we would be running ancestor simulations and therefore its also likely to assume that these simulations look like the Universe we live in or at least with the same complexity. So having to calculate the total amount of computer processing power needed for simply running 2500 simulation, where infinity is "maximum", would be considered fairly few simulations, but the power required astronomical even for that.
If each of these simulations are controlled individual by the "simulation" that created them and being unaware of where in the chain of simulation we are, it would also mean that the chance of our simulation being terminated would be extremely high, unless we are at the top of chain.
Furthermore you have to look at the complexity of the simulation it self, even though we can not observe everything in details at a given point in time, all the variables that controls our Universe would need to be updated or calculated down to every single detail or we would find errors in it. So the argument that it is not necessary to keep track of unobserved things or matters, would only reduce the amount of computer power needed slightly. But when so much is already needed it would be surprising why the simulation would not run this constantly.
So to me at least, it seems fairly unreasonable for this to be correct and also makes no attempt to explain how the first humans created their first simulation. Last what on Earth is "posthuman stage"?
Last edited:
Well, just like the song goes "...life is but a dream." So, I guess all we can do is row, row, row our boats gently down the stream.
After reading Nick Bostrom’s paper once, I feel that we got to invite @Willamena, @Sunstone and @Skwim and other philosophers to this thread. I hope they oblige.
I have to say I find this very unlikely due to several reasons, first of all it doesn't really explain anything.
The first problem you run into, which will eventually as far as I see it, bring everything down is who or how did the first simulation get started?
Next the issue is regarding computer power which seems to be based on a wrong assumption. Which have to do with there only being one reality, that is those who created the first simulation. Therefore computer power doesn't work as it is outlined in the paper, but is most likely an exponential factor of unimaginable proportions. The reason for this is that the computer power needed will have to be calculated solely based on the original creators capacity of running all simulations they created, including all the simulations that those simulations created until potential infinity.
So if the original creators created 50 simulations, which each also create 50 simulations each, would require the original creators to having to run 2500 simulations at the same time, as these are the only ones with actually energy and computer power that is not an illusion/simulation.
The paper assumes that we would be running ancestor simulations and therefore its also likely to assume that these simulations look like the Universe we live in or at least with the same complexity. So having to calculate the total amount of computer processing power needed for simply running 2500 simulation, where infinity is "maximum", would be considered fairly few simulations, but the power required astronomical even for that.
If each of these simulations are controlled individual by the "simulation" that created them and being unaware of where in the chain of simulation we are, it would also mean that the chance of our simulation being terminated would be extremely high, unless we are at the top of chain.
Furthermore you have to look at the complexity of the simulation it self, even though we can not observe everything in details at a given point in time, all the variables that controls our Universe would need to be updated or calculated down to every single detail or we would find errors in it. So the argument that it is not necessary to keep track of unobserved things or matters, would only reduce the amount of computer power needed slightly. But when so much is already needed it would be surprising why the simulation would not run this constantly.
So to me at least, it seems fairly unreasonable for this to be correct and also makes no attempt to explain how the first humans created their first simulation. Last what on Earth is "posthuman stage"?
Posthuman stage, imo, is godly stage and there may be many layers of posthumans, leading down to a base level of posthuman/s.
I think that the paper is just stupendous (or crazy).
That would not be the base reality. That would not be Nibbana.
What does it mean to live in a simulation? What is it that is supposed to live in a simulation?
I think, computations engendering consciousness/s that experience simulated nature.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
To me I think the paper means that posthumans are some humans in the future or some later stage of human evolution, that is no longer humans or something. It doesn't really make sense. it would have been a good idea if it had explained what exactly were meant by it, I think.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There really isn't anything artificial to speak of. There isn't a fake reality and a real reality, they're both realities in their own right for which the experiences can be regarded as multifaceted.