Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Magical Realist, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Easily, you can play russian roulette. If an when the bullet hits you would know death is not a simulation.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    You can't control the simulation. You get eaten alive. Then you wake up in another room, but the present of being eaten alive is still horrible in the present. Should we be afraid of the present.. yes, but of the future... no.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    You don't wake up in another room because your brain and your memory is destroyed. Death is the ultimate force.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Not in a simulation it isn't.
  8. hardalee Registered Senior Member

    The universe is the ultimate quantum computer.
  9. markl323 Registered Senior Member

    something tells me you have not watched that video.
  10. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    No, it's not.
  11. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    I'm talking about the book not the video. Krauss specifically shows the distinction between hologram and physical body.
  12. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    If our brain programming does not match computer programming, than it's not a computer simulation. It's something else, we don't know exactly what.
  13. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    And information process is a physical process, information is physical, it's not something simulated. We definitely can't see completely objective reality (but at least we see its shape, after all people see this world equally), because the brain doesn't allow us that, but saying other people that your brain sees and detects are brain's simulation (if I understood correctly) is pretty much like saying that you're speaking with simulation of me on the other side, and I'm the real person, not some simulation, but the computer shows my cyber-profile, not the physical me.
  14. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Matrix is the movie, so please skip it, we're dealing with the real world theories.
    Even in Matrix they could die though.
    Obviously the bullets ere real as well (since they killed real persons in the Matrix).
  15. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    If it was true simulation, you would come back from death, but you don't ever come back from death. That's reality.
  16. Pineal Banned Banned

    Why, they could just toss out the 'character'. The huge batch of information and patterns in the simulation that is you could be thrown out.
  17. Pineal Banned Banned

    The bullets would be programs - sort of like fast viruses that destroy the complicated information patterns these people were in the simulation. Of course they were real, but they were not made of metal, for example.
  18. hardalee Registered Senior Member

    “ Originally Posted by hardalee
    The universe is the ultimate quantum computer. ”

    No, it's not.

    Yes it is.

    Every particle in the universe obeys the quatum laws as it computes the probabilities as to were it will be in the next insant.

    The whole universe could be a computer simulation and no one would ever know.
  19. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    extreme ideas require extreme evidences, the question is how sure you're in what you're saying? Would you kill yourself to prove your point? I somehow doubt it.
    The universe may be running in a manner analogous to a quantum
    computer. However, it can not be a simulation by definition. A
    simulation requires something to simulate. A simulation can't simulate
    itself. By definition, the universe contains everything.
    In order for your question to make any sort of sense, you must
    tell us what the universe is simulating. That something must be
    outside the universe.
    How do you know this universe isn't more than a complex version of Sim City, running on some kids Nintendo?
    Well, then. The kid and everything he handles is "the universe".
    The computer and software he uses, including us, is only part of the
    universe. What we observe is the simulation of his universe.
    The concept that you are presenting is called solopsism.
    Solopsists believe that there is no way to determine if our sensory
    data is an illusion. It is not part of science at all. It doesn't
    belong on a physics newsgroup.
    A holographic universe does not entail solopsism. There is no
    absolutely no simulation in the holographic universe.
    There are other issues addressed by a holographic universe. There
    can be more than one representation of the universe around us. I
    prefer to think of the holographic universe theory as stating that
    there is more than one type of representation that one can make of
    the universe.
    Holographic universe theory refers to the nature of a
    representation. You can represent parts of the universe in at least
    two different ways: a high dimensional representation or a low
    dimensional representation. Each is an equally valid representation of
    part of the universe. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
    However, there is an isomorphic mapping between the two. Both types of
    models potentially yield the same information. Thus, there is only one
    universe, which can be represented in different ways.
    A representation in a way is similar a projection. You can
    represent the earth either with a globe, or by a flat projection.
    There are several hundred different types of flat projection. However,
    all these representations are projections. They are all what you would
    call a representation. In a way, the globe is no more accurate than
    the two dimensional projection. Digitally, the surface of the earth
    can be represented by a one dimensional projection.
    A holograph is a particular type of two dimensional projection.
    It involves a Fourier transform. However, it is no more a simulation
    than a Decatur projection, or whatever it is called. A holograph of
    the earth's surface is just as real as a solid globe representing the
    earths surface.
    When you read a map on an Atlas, you don't ask whether it is a
    simulation. You know it is a simulation. However,
    There is no issue of simulation. In order to decide whether that
    something is a simulation, you have to decide what is being
    I prefer the word "representation" to the word "simulation". The
    word representation encompasses some of the concepts that you are
    groping for. However, the word "representation" doesn't imply that
    there is an unseen reality.
    There is no Kid with Divine Intendo who is playing with his
    Holographic Universe.
    As someone already said you can't give brain, the planet and the universe a computer code to exist-there are no codes which can trigger the life, the brain the consciousness, and the universe itself. If that was the case, everyone by now would have the power to shape the entire reality with super-computers with super-computer's super-codes. This is not the case.
    Plus, universe as a simulation would require person A with the hyper-computer who is doing codes for this entire universe, but again there would be someone above person A-a person B with super-hyper-computer who created the person's A entire universe including the person A and the person A's hyper-computer, and this would go to infinity, if you assume that there is someone with computer created this universe.
    It's useless to discuss about the universe as the simulation-one of the dumbest hypothetical theories ever.
  20. hardalee Registered Senior Member


    I suggest you read Brian Green’s “The Hidden Reality”, specifically chapter 10, “Universes, Computers and Mathetmatical Reality, The Simulated and Ulitimate Multiverse.”

    In that chapter, he discusses simulation of a universe.

    The idea, though far out, is not new. It addresses what reality is, much as was done by the ancient philosophers, without the benefits of our current knowledge.

    If you are interested in other than science fiction and games, these links may also be useful:,cf.osb&fp=fe49d561ad75bea3&biw=1360&bih=665–Turing_thesis

    I could go on and on.

    A deep phisolphical question asked in the post.

    I have given you a point of view, not necessarily mine, but one that has merit.

    As to a simulator, maybe there was one. That is a question for religion, not computers and physics.

    Thank you for your “kind and thoughtful reply”.

    I mean that, as always, in the nicest possible way.

    Last edited: Oct 17, 2011
  21. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Who cares what philosophers are saying. The main point is if the universe was a simulation, our computers would be able to create sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, but this is not the case. If they are so smart they could figure out to create code in computer simulation which can create the real atom for example, but they can't. This shows the difference between the simulation and the real universe.
  22. hardalee Registered Senior Member


    The links I posted do not quote philosophers but scientists.

    The universe has all of its own atoms, particles, etc. and at each instant, a probability exists as to what each will do and then it does it. Is that not computation? If not, what is it?

    I again state that the universe may act as the ultimate quantum computer.

    Take or leave it, it doen't matter to me one way or the other. I'm just discussing a post that IMHO has value.

    As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.

  23. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Those scientists are not scientists, otherwise such theory wouldn't exist. It seems to me that this hypothesis fits to those who want to find a prupose of life or God's existence. But anyway, why the idea of quantum computer doesn't work, and it can be disproven as I provided above:

    Machine executes -> encounters paradox -> cannot decide process -> ineffective computational process. That's about as laymen as it gets. There is no way for any machine to decide whether a process takes a very long time to compute or is fundamentally undecidable. Undecidable statements occur on a highly regular basis in the real world if say this were to simulate human beings. Brains alone can do things no machine can. This is a very well known result in computation.

Share This Page