14 ms·

Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many a

• tehchromic 10y ago
  haha, I had the exact opposite conclusion: good thing it's all an illusion so I carry on laughing about it all! :P
  • AlexCoventry 10y ago
    That can be a useful perspective as long as you don't let it slide into inconsequentialism.
• DougN7 10y ago
  What is ironic is the amount of blind faith required to accept some of these things that are so completely against everything we experience. It's very nearly a religion.
  • Alex3917 10y ago
    > It's very nearly a religion. I'd argue it is a religion. The word religion means to "bind back" or "yoke" [edited], i.e. to seek an understanding of the universe and our place in it. That's what physicists and cosmologists do. These disciplines also fulfill the needs of scientists for meaning and community and ritual, not unlike Christianity or Islam or whatever. Just because you might happen to believe something doesn't make it not a religion.
    • dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The word religion means to "bind back" or "yolk", No, it doesn't. Less importantly, you mean "yoke" and not "yolk", and more importantly you are confusing the definition of a the Latin word religare from which it is believed the Latin word religio may have been derived (from which, in turn, the Middle English "religion" meaning "life under monastic vows" may have been derived) with the definition of the Modern English word "religion". The Modern English word religion doesn't mean the same thing as Latin religare, or even Latin religio, or even the original Middle English sense of religion.
      • Alex3917 10y ago
        > The Modern English word religion doesn't mean the same thing as Latin religare, or even Latin religio, or even the original Middle English sense of religion. If you look at these lists of 'modern' definitions of religion, the plurality (if not the majority) of the ones from academia seem roughly aligned with the (disputed) etymology. http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Definitions.htm http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Definitions.htm http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln101/definitions.pdf http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln101/defi... E.g. the William James quote: "[Religion is] the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine." That's basically another way of saying what I said, and I don't see any reason not to include scientists under that umbrella. I mean even the phrase from the paper "a quantum state eternally evolving in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space" sounds an awful lot like a conception of "the divine".
        • solipsism 10y ago
          The etymology wasn't disputed. What was disputed is the way you are playing with etymology in order to get it to fit your desired narrative. The word religion means to "bind back" or "yoke" [edited], i.e. to seek an understanding of the universe and our place in it. Here you are retconing. The religio or bond/obligation refers to a monastic vow. It has nothing to do with seeking an understanding of the universe or our place in it. Therefore, the etymology of the word religion is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
          • Alex3917 10y ago
            > Here you are retconing. The religio or bond/obligation refers to a monastic vow. I didn't realize the etymology was in dispute, so my bad. But regardless of whether religare or relegare is the etymological origin of religio, wouldn't either predate the concept of a monastic bond by centuries?
        • ImTalking 10y ago
          > E.g. the William James quote: "[Religion is] the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine." I would say his quote refers to spirituality rather than religion.
    • umanwizard 10y ago
      Arguing based on etymology is a logical fallacy.
      • ianai 10y ago
        says who other than you?
        • chillwaves 10y ago
          Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
        • pluma 10y ago
          Anyone with any knowledge of linguistics? Even when the etymologies are correct (and they rarely are) they're entirely orthogonal to what words actually mean in practice today because language is only defined by its use (and is highly contextual).
      • Alex3917 10y ago
        In this case, as I've documented, the way many modern religious studies people use the word is closely aligned with the etymology I gave. Whether that etymology is historically accurate has been disputed, but the fact that people use the word to mean basically the same thing as the purported etymology is not.
  • RichardCA 10y ago
    Well if you look at the question of why religion is such a prominent trait of the human species, we seem to have an innate bias in favor of the idea that the universe was created to allow for our existence. And it requires a certain amount of mental effort to resist that bias.
    • javajosh 10y ago
      There probably is some utility in the belief of an Inscrutable Creator. We are curious, rational beings and we like to understand causal chains. There is intrinsic value in this understanding, and also extrinsic value, as this sort of understanding is the basis for human innovation in society. God is a pleasant enough non-terminating terminus to all causal chains, and His Inscrutability allows us to not worry too much about difficult questions. Of course, the entire Universe is a single physical process moving through spacetime, an unchanging sculpture embedded in 4 dimensions. Each of us are carving an eternal (if minuscule) shape during our lives. All we ever do, all we ever can do, is move atoms and electrons around (intentional motion of our body against the resisting world) yet we arise from moving atoms (unintentional motion of our body, e.g. at the cellular and atomic level). BTW our self awareness has only one possible good purpose: to do what no other life could do, could ever do, which is escape the bonds of gravity, and spread life beyond earth. If that is not possible, then our species, and all life we know of, will perish on this planet, in the long run if we're smart, in the short run if we're stupid. But space travel, even trips that are very close, are incredibly difficult and expensive. The solar system is likely out of human reach. Interstellar travel is likely out of reach even for hardy, intelligent robots. So you have to come back, once again, to the value of the Inscrutable First Cause, which is: relax. You're gonna die someday, your sculpture will be closed off, but your carving it every day, including right now. Enjoy it! Make fun shapes!
    • pluma 10y ago
      If you believe that the leaves were rustled by a predator and you're wrong, you only waste some energy. If you believe that the leaves were rustled by something inanimate and you're wrong, you get eaten by the predator. There's an evolutionary advantage in expecting agency where there is none. Whether it's rustling leaves, the weather, celestial bodies or life itself. To put it another way: if you see Jesus in your soup doesn't mean there's some divine truth in soup, it's just an artifact of your brain having evolved to recognise faces in a way that encourages false positives over false negatives. Understand the fallibility of every aspect of yourself and a lot of supernaturalist arguments go out of the window.
  • Santosh83 10y ago
    Yup. Science has become somewhat like a religion for those who like to think logically. In the end, they can no more step out of their logical thinking than the zealots can step out of their faith based thinking. Both become dogmatic and a crutch...
    • Noughmad 10y ago
      This is wrong, very wrong. There is a big fundamental difference between science and religion: Scientist can invent new theories and change their mind when new evidence is discovered. Religious people stick to their beliefs no matter what.
      • Santosh83 10y ago
        Both are not inherently true. Just commonly the case. In my experience (with Eastern polytheistic religions) a lot of "religious" people are perfectly fine with science, while conversely many people who swear by science and logic seem viscerally contemptuous of anything not falling within the bounds of their worldview. No doubt religion by and large is detrimental (at least at this point in human evolution) and it has a huge amount of blood on its hands, but the spiritual/mystical core of most religions (admittedly almost completely ignored by the vast majority of its adherents since it is obtuse, ethereal and hard to pursue; not as easy as following orders and conforming) seems to be just as much a way of seeking after the ultimately nature of reality as is science. Just because it is not testable and repeateable like the scientific method doesn't mean it is false, since we still don't know the ultimate nature of reality. So it is good if both sides keep an open mind.
        • sigmaml 10y ago
          But, limiting debates to the observable, testable (falsifiable) and repeatable subset has helped us improve our understanding of the nature of physical reality. Wouldn't you agree?
          • jschwartzi 10y ago
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• stale2002 10y ago
  The simulation argument comes from the fact that there a quite a lot of physics effects that are both surprising, and look an awful lot like dirty hacks that a programmer might put it. Quantum physics looks a lot like lazy evaluation (State doesn't exist until "observed"). The speed of light seems like a hack to prevent an n squared problem of everything in the universe effecting everything at the same time.
  • jacoblambda 10y ago
    Reminded me of this. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5foq14/if_were_all_living_in_a_computer_simulation_there/damxl3r/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5foq14/if_were_a...
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • woofyman 10y ago
    I think it's hubris to suggest that just because something is surprising to us that we explain it based on our experience with our own limited technology.
    • sashagim 10y ago
      Well, that's how god was invented.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      Or: the theories we use to explain the nature of reality are metaphors that rest on the technology of the time.
  • mjrpes 10y ago
    It also seems just as good an argument for the athropic principle.
  • 10y ago
• ebbv 10y ago
  There is no serious evidence for the simulation theory. It is more of a religious belief than a scientific theory since it poses more problems than it answers (who is running the simulation? How did they come to exist? What is their reality like? Etc.)
  • ewzimm 10y ago
    I don't think it's religious. It's more like a conjecture in mathematics, an idea meant to inspire questions. The fact that it poses more problems than it answers is the whole point! We know that systems can be nested. Do we know that the systems we perceive and can test directly compose the most fundamental layer? How can we tell? If we want to have any faith in science and testing our direct experiences, we need to keep those questions in mind.
    • jayajay 10y ago
      What is god, if not a tool to inspire questions?
    • j2kun 10y ago
      It is not a conjecture, it is a valid argument on unsound premises.
  • libraryatnight 10y ago
    Do any of the theories that have evidence pose answers that spawn fewer questions?
  • vidarh 10y ago
    It's not a theory in the scientific sense as it is not substantiated, that is not the point. It is a very limited hypothesis. So in the event that someone holds a firm an unwavering belief that we're in a simulation unrelated to availability of facts, then their belief would be akin to a religious belief, sure, but the intent of the simulation argument is not to claim that there is evidence we live in a simulation. Specifically, it does not argue that we live in a simulation at all. It presents the hypothesis that at least one of the three given propositions must be true (paraphrased): 1. Either very few human-level civilizations reach a stage where they can run ancestor simulations, OR 2. Very few such civilizations have any interest in running such simulations, OR 3. Most people live in a simulation. Basically it boils down to an argument that if many civilizations reach a stage where they can and do run such simulations, then our odds of living in simulation by pure chance will be high. But the argument says nothing about whether or not we live in a simulation in isolation, because the argument does not quantify the odds of 1 or 2, and even if it happens that the chances of living in a simulation are astronomically high chance, that is still not evidence that we are, it would just be an indication that we probably are. But let's say it turns out we have something akin to a "soul" that can't be simulated. In that case the number of civilizations in #1 is 0, and we're not in a sinulation under any circumstances. Or the odds of hitting a Great Filter and die out before we reach the technological level necessary might simply be insanely high, in which case the number in #1 might very well be very close to 0. It may also be that any civilization that reach such a stage first will hit a singularity or other event that changes its priorities such that nobody are interested in such a simulation, or can justify the effort or expense. In which case the number of civilizations interested in running such simulations even if possible may be close to 0 (these options may also affect #1 - it may be we opt to change our future in ways that sends us off in a different technological direction). The point of the argument is exactly the questions it raises, first and foremost by making people think about the possibility, and secondly to make people think about what may prevent us from being able to (which is tangentially related to the Fermi paradox), and what might make us want to or not want to, and lastly the questions it raises about whether there are ways for us to quantify or investigate each of the propositions. E.g. if #3 holds, are there any ways we can determine if we are in a simulation or not? It is a philosophical argument, put forth to present the possibility that we live in a simulation that similar to e.g. the Drake equation seeks to define a set of parameters to focus a discussion around. It is not the intent that we should just assert the 3rd proposition is true, as even if it is true, it does not resolve all the questions around the 1st and 2nd, and it would just raise new question (the hypothesis can apply recursively - if it is possible to run such a simulation, then if it is posible to also run such a simulation within a simulation, then how that does affect the propabilities? it might seem as it creates a rather large subset of possible solutions that would make the probability of being in an infinitely nested simulation approach infinity; is there something that would prevent that?) So it's not a bad scientific theory - it's a good philosophical hypothesis. It might in the future give rise to scientific theories. E.g. attempts to define falsifiable bounds to the probabilities, or falsifiable predictions about properties the world must have if we are in a simulation or not in one. But for the moment, it is a philosophical argument, and attacking it for not being a scientific theory is aiming in the wrong direction.
• TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Or: when everyone around you agrees about the nature of reality, you can be certain it's completely wrong.
• byebyetech 10y ago
  The whole idea that Universe is a simulation vs real is absurd to me. What if the Universe is a simulation running in a computer no one actually built but just fluctuated into existence. Does that make it more real or still a simulation?
  • Fordrus 10y ago
    See, I'm with you in the primary portion of this statement- if we're in a simulation, it doesn't make us any less 'real' - it doesn't matter whether I'm made of atoms or the stray thoughts of a passing horsefly. It is nevertheless important and interesting to know what the underlying medium in which I exist is, especially because there's no especially compelling reason why many kinds of simulated being could not create effects outside of their simulating media, like a bit of malware breaking out of a sandboxes virtual machine. Knowing what kind of simulation we're taking part in, assuming such knowledge is possible and processable in the simulated world, that's incredibly important and interesting knowledge! :)
    • pizza 10y ago
      apparently computers spring up from nothing into miraculous existence quite often Abiogenesis, the existence of physics, every "discovery" that results in new-found understanding of what is, the universe itself.. life is a boltzmann brain, physics is a boltzmann brain, discoveries are boltzmann brains, the universe itself, a boltzmann brain?
    • therein 10y ago
      > like a bit of malware breaking out of a sandboxes virtual machine Since you're trying to demonstrate the impossibility of the situation, I think the analogy you're looking for is ransomware breaking out of your computer and kidnapping you. The data/code/simulation can't suddenly escape the sandbox and materialize into whatever the "reality" is made of. For that reason, it is trivial if we are in a simulation.
      • padobson 10y ago
        >The data/code/simulation can't suddenly escape the sandbox and materialize into whatever the "reality" is made of. For that reason, it is trivial if we are in a simulation. 3D Printer owners would disagree with you.
• skrebbel 10y ago
  > leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality Obligatory Cegłowski talk: http://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm
• paulddraper 10y ago
  Harry: Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head? Dumbledore: Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real? --- (time to get the super soaker...)
• logicallee 10y ago
  >leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality Just to elaborate, this is really easy to show. Just take two pieces of paper, and scribble all over one of them for 10-15 minutes. Then crumple them up and throw them to the ground. The blank one will fall to the ground smoothly. But the one that has a lot of image information will tax the Universe's GPU, because it isn't able to compress it easily, so it'll fall slowly and in a jerky motion. it's really easy to see. OH WAIT NO IT ISN'T. There's absolutely zero evidence of any kind whatsoever, not even a whisper of an indication, that we're living in a simulated reality, and the suggestion that leading technologists state we "almost certainly" in a simulated reality is absurd. Who is saying that?
  • ihaveahadron 10y ago
    morons who play way too many video games
  • vidarh 10y ago
    > Who is saying that? Very few are arguing that we're almost certainly in one. Philosphers like Nicholas Bostrom are arguing that either something will prevent most simulations from reaching a stage where we can or will simulate the past, or we most likely live in a simulation, but you'll note it's very possible that the answer is that we can't or won't too. The problem is that we don't have the faintest clue what the probabilities of each of the propositions are.
    • semi-extrinsic 10y ago
      > Philosphers like Nicholas Bostrom are arguing that either something will prevent most simulations from reaching a stage where we can or will simulate the past, or we most likely live in a simulation What do they mean by "simulate the past"? If we're talking actual true-to-history simulations, that is going to require an unprecedented amount of inital data on how the world was in the past. An there's no way for the system to collect all that data, seeing as it's in the past before the omnipotent simulator was created. On the other hand, if they mean "simulations of some hypothetical past with loose connections to the actual past, Matrix-style", i.e. "they" have the freedom to generate the scenario we're in, why on earth would they choose this one with all the troubles and suffering in the world? Why not make one where everyone's a pony and we all eat rainbows and poop butterflies? They are running into exactly the same debates that Christian philosophers have been struggling with for millenniae - why is there evil in the world created by God / our hyperintelligent great^{n}grandchildren? Which indicates to me they are much closer to religion than science.
• j2kun 10y ago
  Try this physics paper[1] explaining how pretty much every model we have of physics is broken in fundamental ways. Things you take for granted because of what you've read in popular media (eg., heat death of the universe) are simply speculation based on stretching an incomplete mathematical model to its limits. The simulated reality nonsense is the same bad logic in a different guise. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01421 https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01421
  • naasking 10y ago
    It doesn't sound like you've read Bostrom's simulation argument: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
    • j2kun 10y ago
      Oh I've read it. It's a fun game to read through it and write down all the unfounded assumptions the author makes. It also doesn't help that his ideas about the complexity of the human brain are sorely outdated.
      • naasking 10y ago
        No unfounded assumptions that I can see. Bostrom is quite explicit and thorough in documenting his assumptions, and his conclusion is undeniable.
        • j2kun 10y ago
          If you cannot convincingly argue the opposing side, then you have not thought hard enough about it. If you have no room for doubt, then there is no point discussing it. You have reduced science to zealotry. Don't waste my time.
          • naasking 10y ago
            So you wasted your own time by posting without pointing out even a single example of such an unfounded assumption?
• ihaveahadron 10y ago
  your retarded, if "simulated reality" is how you describe "I'm alive and have consciousness because I was born and grew a brain (even if your brain is shit, you silly have a shorty brshit) I can't ducking talk to anyone you all ducking morons
• andrepd 10y ago
  I wonder, which physics claims that space and time don't exist (how could it, "exists" is a metaphysical concept, physics only cares about mathematically describing the world and making predictions), and how do ancient traditions making claims work as an argument to anything (seeing as ancient traditions have made every claim form the world being in the back of a turtle to a middle-eastern bronze age carpenter being the son of the creator of the universe)?
  • naasking 10y ago
    > I wonder, which physics claims that space and time don't exist (how could it, "exists" is a metaphysical concept, physics only cares about mathematically describing the world and making predictions) I think this is a common misconception. Scientific theories provide predictive power, but they also provide explanatory power. The latter has fallen out of favour due to quantum mechanics, despite plenty of good interpretations of QM that provide good explanations, but it has always featured prominently every other scientific theory. And given explanatory power is important, every scientific theory also therefore defines an ontology (your metaphysical concepts). This too has always been part of science.
  • monktastic1 10y ago
    I found this to be a useful summary (thought I admit I don't know how accurate it really is): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-musser/space-time-illusion_b_9703656.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-musser/space-time-illus... > "String theory, loop quantum gravity, causal-set theory: these are just a few of the approaches that theorists have taken. ... But when you take a step back from the dispute, you notice all agree on one essential lesson: the space-time that we inhabit is a construction. It is not fundamental to nature, but emerges from a deeper level of reality."
• rando444 10y ago
  He says to the discussion group of people he does not believe to exist.
• ImTalking 10y ago
  I think quantum physics and 'simulated reality' are one in the same. What's the difference between a reality which is only real when observed, and a reality which is only real when switched-on? What is the difference between a reality in which such reality is deterministic (ie. no free will (at the microlevel)), and a reality based on a pre-progammed algorithm?
• kobeya 10y ago
  Physicist here. I'd be very careful.. one of the major problems with modern physics, the field and people practicing it, is that they layer explanations with metaphors, and are too quick to embrace mysterious explanations. Much of this stems from the history of quantum mechanics, which was mathematically formalized a generation before intuitive interpretations were worked out by Everett, DeWitt, Bohm, etc. Still to this day physics students are taught "Don't try to make sense of it; humans aren't meant to understand. Just shut up and calculate." by teachers who followed the same advice and knew nothing else. This is unfortunate as embracing mysteries keeps one from seeking out more fundamental interpretations that actually provide real insight into how things work. Time and space being an illusion are similar. These notions come from the mathematics which can be formulated in such a way that time and/or space (depending on the theory) are not axiomatic assumptions but rather emergent artifacts of a more fundamental timeless (or rather, time-arrow-less) or spaceless (rather, non-local) formulations. But that's just math. Time and space are as real as anything else. If you doubt that, I have a 23-story window you can walk out of.
  • monktastic1 10y ago
    As real as anything else, sure. Of course, if the _whole show_ is a sham, it's interesting to ponder what the ways out might be. As a recent article suggested, perhaps don't look in the game, but look at the player. Which also turns out to be the advice of much of Eastern philosophy. I already have an interest there, and several signs seem to be hinting that it's worth digging deeper. Thanks for the clarification!