Anyone who studied physics knows about the mysterious observer effect, which disrupts or alters the state of a system or particle only when that system or particle is being observed. The simply act of observing a phenomenon changes the outcome. Mind-blowing when you think about it, but perfectly logical if you accept my hypothesis.
Your understanding of basic physics is incorrect and is a common misconception. Observing does not “change” (or alter or disrupt) the outcome, rather it determines it and no grounded reality existed before the observation, only a wave function of possibilities.
Your other ramblings about simulated reality are too vague, as in unmathematical and irrefutable, to even be wrong.
I think the argument that we're almost certainly in s simulation comes from the fact that there can only be one real reality, but potentially infinite number of simulations. So it's more likely that we're in one of the many possible simulations than the real one.
Also if you consider that we will at some point be able to create simulations of our own, that makes it even more likely.
I haven't read up on this stuff but I think that's how the reasoning goes. As for OPs reason for why this simulation might be happening,.I personally find that unsatisfying. There are any number of reasons why a simulation might be constructed.
That's also an argument for creationism btw. If we ourselves can be creators of life, and it's certainly looking like that will happen in the future, there's no reason why we ourselves couldn't have been created by some other class of beings. In fact it's quite likely.
I have often thought that if you lead a particularly unusual and 'privileged life' - such as Elon Musk, or a Roman Emperor - then it's much more likely that you are just a random nobody from the future experiencing his life as a form of virtual reality entertainment.
Simulation theory is similar to the multiverse theory in that you can only speculate about it and never prove. You can never ever observe anything outside the simulation or beyond our universe, so it's not a testable theory.
It's basically just religion for people who think they're sophisticated.
simulationists are ethical nihilists. They want to believe nothing they do really matters. Kill someone? No real problem, just a simulation.
they are also hopeless nerds who don't understand consciousness. It's not something that merely observes and perceives. On the contrary, it is self-aware, and perceptions are part of that self-awareness. Consciousness isn't only in the brain, but the entire body and its intereactions with the world. These things are real, and only a neo-Cartesian obsession with doubt can confuse anyone about it.
There is no such thing as a “simulationist”. This is just a silly fad from a YouTube moron.
Simulation theory is similar to the multiverse theory in that you can only speculate about it and never prove. You can never ever observe anything outside the simulation or beyond our universe, so it's not a testable theory.
It's basically just religion for people who think they're sophisticated.
You could say that about all philosophy then.
Also, a lot of scientific beliefs that are based upon 'rational principles' such as the Copernican Principle and statistical reasoning regarding the likelihood of life on Earth being the only life in the vast universe. I know that life elsewhere in the universe could be confirmed, but if it is rare, then for all intents and purposes it may as well be theoretically impossible. I wouldn't call the belief that there is an overwhelming probability that there exists life elsewhere in the universe to be a religious belief for sophisticated people, I'd call it quite rational.
I've never understood the point of the simulation thought experiment. Even if this isn't the objective "base reality," it is our base reality. What difference does it really make if we are are in a simulation? What sort of meaningful implications does that have?
Simulation theory is similar to the multiverse theory in that you can only speculate about it and never prove. You can never ever observe anything outside the simulation or beyond our universe, so it's not a testable theory.
It's basically just religion for people who think they're sophisticated.
You could say that about all philosophy then.
Also, a lot of scientific beliefs that are based upon 'rational principles' such as the Copernican Principle and statistical reasoning regarding the likelihood of life on Earth being the only life in the vast universe. I know that life elsewhere in the universe could be confirmed, but if it is rare, then for all intents and purposes it may as well be theoretically impossible. I wouldn't call the belief that there is an overwhelming probability that there exists life elsewhere in the universe to be a religious belief for sophisticated people, I'd call it quite rational.
Those statistics are based on characteristics of the universe as we understand it. The vast amount of solar systems combined with the common elements that make up our ecosystem means that life elsewhere is probable. Alien life is a reasonable proposition based on our understanding of our own universe.
But when you start looking at things "outside the universe" it falls into the realms of religion as it's simply not possible for us to view things outside the universe.
The more we learn about the universe the farther our "knowledge" shows us how little we know--about it, us, and the whole enchilada. Hey, it could be! But there have been theories, myths, paeans and prophecies through the centuries about the character of the universe, its size and dynamics and our place in it, and the more we look into it, apply quantum principles and relativity of time/space the less we can refute some quite strange theories and beliefs. Which universe? When did it start? What or who started it. But the truth of the matter will likely always evade us. I can live with that.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
if you existed in the era before popular PC use you find such arguments silly.
anyone over 80-ish predates computers? like we have people alive born in 1918.
are you familiar with the power of old computers?
are you familiar with pong? 70s or 80s graphics, even in an arcade?
dial up modems, including when you literally put a phone handset on a modem cradle?
the degree to which old computers used to crash?
You're not getting it, champ.
There is no history before the simulation. Mine, or yours. It's all made up. That's why it's called a simulation.
Are you getting it?
no, because even if we play your game and say it's all pretend, ergo we can make up any pretend, including a pretend where in the simulation folks pre-exist computers...........you still have to seamlessly pull off some of the same tasks i was hinting at. graphics, processing, communications, no glitches or blue screens ever.
there would be various artifacts of being a computer program which never happen.
it is an amusing thought experiment, which, well, to be honest, reeks a little of paranoiac fantasies of being watched at all times, or some sort of pre-religious search for universal meaning. but there is nothing that backs it up. you can just as easily say god made it and is watching, and there's just as much proof that's true.
and you can be dismissive of my breakdown of your foolishness but having lived the transition on computers, this is 20 year old mentalities working backwards. i remember when pong was high tech and only well resourced businesses or universities had computers. it makes more obvious sense i have lived through those fits and starts of tech than that someone outside watching made a somehow seamless, zero-lag, inifinite processing mass sim where billions of bits think they have sensations, lives, and agency.
and that's leaving out various other animals, plants, and life forms which are all programmed in and want to go for a walk.
That's also an argument for creationism btw. If we ourselves can be creators of life, and it's certainly looking like that will happen in the future, there's no reason why we ourselves couldn't have been created by some other class of beings. In fact it's quite likely.
Possible--but "likely" is a stretch. The problem with creationism of any stripe or flavor is that it assumes nothing cannot come out of "nothing," or that "nothing" is a thing. The Maker would have come out of Nothing. Tilt!
yeah, and as our colleague points out, i may even be underselling the complexity. we have visited planets and moons that take years to get to. our solar system. our galaxy. the galaxies near it. the universe. the potential for life elsewhere in the universe of its own degrees of complexity.
at that point it's multiple paranoiac fantasies or programs that run all at once, seamlessly.
there is also this counter-hypothesis -- the get up and take a leak hypothesis. the get bored and shut it off and watch football hypothesis. the computer crash hypothesis.
if there is some life form running a sim, does it really need decades of "me," or anyone else? would it get bored and go watch football? maybe turn this off? or the thing breaks in all these decades of life?
you're implying some observer somewhere watching this that never eats, sleeps, sh*ts, gets bored with this and goes and does something else, or has his machine break down.
There is no history before the simulation. Mine, or yours. It's all made up. That's why it's called a simulation.
Are you getting it?
no, because even if we play your game and say it's all pretend, ergo we can make up any pretend, including a pretend where in the simulation folks pre-exist computers...........you still have to seamlessly pull off some of the same tasks i was hinting at. graphics, processing, communications, no glitches or blue screens ever.
there would be various artifacts of being a computer program which never happen.
it is an amusing thought experiment, which, well, to be honest, reeks a little of paranoiac fantasies of being watched at all times, or some sort of pre-religious search for universal meaning. but there is nothing that backs it up. you can just as easily say god made it and is watching, and there's just as much proof that's true.
and you can be dismissive of my breakdown of your foolishness but having lived the transition on computers, this is 20 year old mentalities working backwards. i remember when pong was high tech and only well resourced businesses or universities had computers. it makes more obvious sense i have lived through those fits and starts of tech than that someone outside watching made a somehow seamless, zero-lag, inifinite processing mass sim where billions of bits think they have sensations, lives, and agency.
and that's leaving out various other animals, plants, and life forms which are all programmed in and want to go for a walk.
First of all, my argument is a philosophical and ontological one, as someone pointed out earlier. It's not meant to be "proven" in an empirical sense. Can you "prove" Plato's allegory of the cave mathematically? Of course not. This once again shows the limitations of our minds. We think everything we don't know can or should be mathematically proven. Hey, maybe one day it will be? But that's not my objective here, nor is it feasible at this time.
Second, I don't understand your point about past technology, glitches, etc...this doesn't at all disprove my argument. You think a super-intelligence, advanced future species of humans couldn't simulate all the little details of technological advancement within our simulation, from pong to AI?
I sense you're still not grasping my argument. You're assuming that the simulation started at a certain point in your life (when technology got sufficiently advanced, or something). I'm saying it was always a simulation, the "primitive" technology of the 80s was already programmed into the narrative. Everything was baked in from the beginning.
Define "simulation." Are you saying that the "us" referenced above lived a non-simulated, organic and authentic life and then somehow came back and created this simulation we are in now? Who are the "we" that created it and how did that happen?
Define "simulation." Are you saying that the "us" referenced above lived a non-simulated, organic and authentic life and then somehow came back and created this simulation we are in now? Who are the "we" that created it and how did that happen?
See 1st page, near the bottom.
I explain everything else in the OP. Read it carefully and come back if you have additional questions.
Not sure what your evidence is. Are you referring to the lazer particle/wave experiment? If so, there are explanations other than it being observed by someone.
Define "simulation." Are you saying that the "us" referenced above lived a non-simulated, organic and authentic life and then somehow came back and created this simulation we are in now? Who are the "we" that created it and how did that happen?
See 1st page, near the bottom.
I explain everything else in the OP. Read it carefully and come back if you have additional questions.
Near the bottom ... that's your reference? I see nothing but conclusions. Not hating or trolling you and if you can't answer or at least expand on what I'm asking, just say so. Or clip and repaste the "near the bottom" explanation(s) I'm missing.
I explain everything else in the OP. Read it carefully and come back if you have additional questions.
Near the bottom ... that's your reference? I see nothing but conclusions. Not hating or trolling you and if you can't answer or at least expand on what I'm asking, just say so. Or clip and repaste the "near the bottom" explanation(s) I'm missing.
Fine...let me answer your question with another question:
Are video games simulations. If so, why? If not, why not?