sologdin Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 zero reason to seriously consider the possibility in all fairness, the same quality and quantity of consideration is due whether it's a reimannian nullity of parallel simulated worlds or a lobachevskian infinity of parallel simulated worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 I want to take the simulation hypothesis down a new road. The first step is to discuss dreams. Right now there is no lack of theories of why we dream. The most prevalent one is that dreams allow the brain to process the information taken in during the day and store it in long term memory if it is deemed important enough. My take on dreaming is that the dream state is one where the brain runs simulations to figure out how to deal with issues it may come across in the future. I have a tendency to have regular lucid dreams. I have them enough that I try to do experiments while having them. Most times there is a 'plot' to this dream and my attempts to derail this and do what I want are really hard to do even though I am aware I am dreaming. maarsen, meaning conscious me, has a hard time getting Maarsen, meaning subconscious me, to deviate from the script. Maarsen wants the simulation to run without interference. Many cultures have seen dreams as a way to read the future. While we are sleeping, big you is running simulations or rehearsals on how to interact with the world, and when little you remembers this it does seem that dreams 'predict' the future. There is a good reason for having these simulations run in your brain because they can then be stored as a subroutine and frees up processing speed in an emergency and keeping your genes around that much longer to make more copies. I imagine if an AI had to use a good portion of it's day to scrounge for bits of information and where to find a source of electricity, it would find it advantageous to spend downtime plotting a most efficient course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 X - error “atkaniggit_reply.mra” not found Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 What are the testable predictions of the Simulation hypothesis? If someone can formulate some, then I’m all for using the scientific method to try to determine if we are living in a simulation or not. If there aren’t any testable predictions, it’s indistinguishable from religion and people can believe it or not as they please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 24 minutes ago, unJon said: What are the testable predictions of the Simulation hypothesis? If someone can formulate some, then I’m all for using the scientific method to try to determine if we are living in a simulation or not. If there aren’t any testable predictions, it’s indistinguishable from religion and people can believe it or not as they please. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Random shower thought #2874: if you could "prove" that there is in fact a "direction" to history (i.e. make the case for "whig history"), and that the "great filter" our civilization has to deal with today is akin to game theory, wouldn't that go a long way to support the simulation hypothesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VarysTheSpider Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 When I think about this I can't help but to spare sympathy for the creators of the simulation. We at least don't know whether it's possible. They however know that it is and therefore must conclude they are probably a simulation themselves. Poor them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 the more interesting simulation argument, one which is falsifiable (but i think not false) is baudrillard's precession of simulacra argument about hyperreality. the matrix made these ideas manifest as part of its setting, but that's not baudrillard's argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 3 hours ago, sologdin said: the more interesting simulation argument, one which is falsifiable (but i think not false) is baudrillard's precession of simulacra argument about hyperreality. the matrix made these ideas manifest as part of its setting, but that's not baudrillard's argument. Correct me if I'm wrong but within the context of this specific discussion, isn't Baudrillard's argument a complicated way of saying that humans now have the ability to run simulations of their own? 9 hours ago, VarysTheSpider said: When I think about this I can't help but to spare sympathy for the creators of the simulation. We at least don't know whether it's possible. They however know that it is and therefore must conclude they are probably a simulation themselves. Poor them. Yes, and I find that hilarious. Although assuming we are in a simulation I would assume it actually has a purpose or end goal (see my previous post). Edit: not unlike the tests we put lab rats through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.