# SIM argument



## Fyle

Found this already over 10 year old theory called the Simulation Argument. 

It goes like this:

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true:

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; 

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); 

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. 

I found this really interesting mainly because of what a string theory professor found in 2012. If I had read this "stand alone" I may view it differently. This is the recent discovery in Science which is the best evidence for this I would say.

_Dr. S. James Gates, Jr., a theoretical physicist, the John S. Toll Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, and the Director of The Center for String & Particle Theory, is reporting that certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes. These codes are digital data in the form of 1′s and 0′s. Not only that, these codes are the same as what make web browsers work and are error-correction codes! Gates says, “We have no idea what these ‘things’ are doing there”._

Furthermore, assuming this to be true, temporarily answers some big questions in science. 

Anyway, this is what I have been reading. For better or worse, it is actually more interesting than most fiction I have ever read/seen. 

I have read quite a few rebuttals, but, I am not too happy with any of them. They do not acknowledge the rate at which technology is progressing very well, they seem to harp on the "why would anyone make a simulation?" which is less important... that reason is not yet relevant (but touched upon of course).

Here is the full paper :

Are You Living in a Simulation?


----------



## 2WayParadox

While I do believe it is possible to predict everything in the universe if all the variables that are present in it are known, I don't believe it's possible for hardware to create a reality. Because that's what's being talked about here. A simulation is something that plays on the senses, it doesn't have anything to do with the hard work being done in the real world. I could open a can of beans in simulation, pour it, heat it and eat it. I could be made to taste, feel and smell it, but a simulation wouldn't feed my body.

So unless your computer simulation has the ability to shift around matter and to form all the complex chemical and physical interactions and connections that occur in reality, it's nothing more than a thought experiment.


----------



## CupofJoe

I have no idea what "posthuman" means... a species that evolves and survives will eventually and in hindsight become a separate species from those that have gone before... that is life. If it does one or neither - that is still life...
As for living in the Matrix... maybe we are - does it matter?
If your reality is yours and yours alone and the rest of it is a simulation... who cares? 
Can you change it? 
Can you get outside the Matrix?
There are definitely some kinks and quirks in reality as we currently understand it that would make more sense if it was all a computer program, but I tend to think that those kinks and quirks are because of our imperfect understanding. We do not have enough information yet - maybe god-the programmer won't let us... maybe we need a better microscope/super-collider/whatever. 
Reality is one thing, Truth is another and Knowledge a third... We may think them to be carved of the same stone and in many cases they are facets of a single entity but they are very individual animals [to mix my metaphors very thoroughly].
The terminology has changed but this is a "do I/we/god really exist?"  question... I think I exist and that is about as far as I can go... I'm not so sure about the rest of you though... especially the woman in the red dress...


----------



## Hainted

You're looking at it wrong. If the universe is a simulation, then you and I are simulations too. That's the heart of the simulation theory.


----------



## 2WayParadox

Well, define simulation then.


----------



## CupofJoe

Hainted said:


> You're looking at it wrong. If the universe is a simulation, then you and I are simulations too. That's the heart of the simulation theory.


No I'm not. I am seeing it correctly. It is just that I am conceited enough to believe that I am the reason for the existence of everything. The machine is in my head and not the other way around...
YMMV - So I am almost certainly wrong but I do not care... I think I am right... 
But seriously - does it matter? You cannot prove nor disprove reality to a unique and quantifiable level of certainty... all that we know and are is "as currently understood". Go... Search... Explore... but don't expect to find anything...
This debate has been going on for 5 thousand years and more... and by minds far better than mine.


----------



## Devor

Fyle said:


> It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.



Even following the flawed logic, it does not follow that we are living in a computer simulation.  The conclusion of this statement should read as follows:  *Either we are living in a computer simulation, or such a simulation will never exist.*



> . . . . _certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes. These codes are digital data in the form of 1′s and 0′s. Not only that, these codes are the same as what make web browsers work and are error-correction codes!_



It's really interesting that this code is there, but attempting to make any ties with modern technology is misleading at best.  A computer chip does not literally have 1s and 0s.  It's more like a series of levers, or buttons, some switched one way, some switched the other way, which the system reads as 1s or 0s.  Think about it.  At the tiniest level it's likely that there's really no other way to process information. Some particle exists in one form or the other.  I mean, who knows what that information would be.  But it seems to me that its relationship to modern coding is clearly superficial and coincidental.




> They do not acknowledge the rate at which technology is progressing very well . . .



Technology is growing at exponential rates.  The thing is, exponential growth _always_ stops, and usually quite suddenly, by smashing into a ceiling.  It's not a straight line up forever; it's an S curve.  There's no reason to believe that current growth will deliver us to any specific distant hypothetical futures, just because it must.


----------



## Jabrosky

Fyle said:


> This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true:
> 
> (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
> 
> (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
> 
> (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.


As far as I'm concerned, that anyone could reasonably believe that (3) _must _follow from (1) and (2) is most laughable.






What would the point of the whole simulation even be? I'm going to guess whomever came up with this conjecture was a big _Sims _junkie.


----------



## Devor

Jabrosky said:


> As far as I'm concerned, that anyone could reasonably believe that (3) _must _follow from (1) and (2) is most laughable.



The proposition wasn't that 1 and 2 lead to 3, but that one of the three must be true.  Either humans die off, or they never run a simulation, or that we're in a simulation.  I suppose that's because if they run a simulation, they would run several, so that would replay human history so many times that the chances are we're in one of those instead of the real thing.

The proposition seems to define a simulation in such a way that there's a chance we're in one.  Which is the flaw that forces #2 to be the correct answer.  It's very likely that scientists will run multiple simulations of evolutionary history; it's extremely unlikely (read: I would say impossible) that those simulations would in any way involve replicating human consciousness or be even close to approximating a physical representation of human history.


----------



## 2WayParadox

If that's the conclusion, then the SIM argument seems moot to me.


----------



## Fyle

2WayParadox said:


> A simulation is something that plays on the senses, it doesn't have anything to do with the hard work being done in the real world. I could open a can of beans in simulation, pour it, heat it and eat it. I could be made to taste, feel and smell it, but a simulation wouldn't feed my body.



Well, the argument is that you have know way to determine what your senses actually are. That had you been simulated you would not know it. Senses are just impulses to the brain. If the brain does not function you do not feel, taste, smell or think anything. If something has control over your brain you can be manipulated to experience anything in the "real world." 

There are some mysteries to science that when applied this simulation theory make more sense.

The first, being the fact that the universe is so "BIG." A popular theory assuming this is a simulation is that the rest of the universe is not rendered as heavy as things close to or on earth because the subjects/simulations would never get close enough to examine them on a molecular level.

The second, Only 4% of matter is "solid." Or that is to say, only 4% of what you consider "the real world" is solid when broken down on a molecular level. _Why?_ When you touch something it feels solid to you, but that's actually just molecules/particles force rejecting each other - that is to say nothing actually touches anything on a molecular level (this is the science of physics, not theory). The theory that this is a simulation explains why so little of "the real world" is actually matter. 

The third, my favorite, what I mentioned above: "certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes." Why would string theory (theory for examining what makes up the universe; what you call the real world) has computer codes?

If this was a simulation, it would explain that, and make sense.



CupofJoe said:


> I have no idea what "posthuman" means... a species that evolves and survives will eventually and in hindsight become a separate species from those that have gone before... that is life. If it does one or neither - that is still life...
> As for living in the Matrix... maybe we are - does it matter?
> If your reality is yours and yours alone and the rest of it is a simulation... who cares?



Of course it “matters,” it is a theory that is taking a stab at the true nature of reality. If you don’t care about what reality or this world really is, what’s the point?

Posthuman as I understand it refers to the next step we take in evolution. For example he is a monkey > he is a human > he is a posthuman.

Sooo, posthumans or whatever our next step in evolution is could feasibly build a CPU capable of simulating a universe (do not necessarily think of evolution as a physical form, most likely it would be a shift that happens much faster in brain cells).

Thanks for the responses.


----------



## Fyle

Jabrosky said:


> What would the point of the whole simulation even be? I'm going to guess whomever came up with this conjecture was a big _Sims _junkie.





He's a professor at Oxford University, the theory has actually been around in various forms since the 1970s (earlier in sci fi, but let's not count that just yet).

Jabrosky, if history has taught me anything, it is that things  we laugh at now become reality or truth in the future. If not laughed at, people shrugged and were like "nah, that'll never happen."

Try explaining nano technology, LCD display screens or atomic bombs to a cowboy in 1845. 

Now that we have a certain degree of data on the growth of technology, the future becomes easier and easier to predict. You can see for yourself how far it has come in your life time and how rapidly it is evolving. Can't you? So if a game like the SIMS can be run on a computer that doubles in power ever 2 years (which is that time it has taken computers in recent years to double processing power) at what point will we invent a computer that can start a simulation like the SIMS from the "start"? Not the start of the universe, all it would need was the start of the earth. Insert algorithms that make them think they are conscience, that is all the brain is - and, the theory is pretty solid.

Also, keep in mind, you only use 6% of your brain, so the simulation only needs to execute up to 6% to emulate human consciousness (which thinks it is real)

Laugh now, learn later.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

It's 3.

I'm telling you now it is 3, and if anyone tries to convince me it's 1 or 2, I'm going to hit the _Reset Button_—and then you'll know it's 3!

Well, at least you'll know for that one instant before human civilization is reset. Then you'll only know what you knew before, and we'll have this same argument and are doomed to keep getting reset every February 11th of 2015. But it'll all be worth it just for that one instant in which I prove it is, in fact, 3.


----------



## Fyle

Legendary Sidekick said:


> It's 3.
> 
> I'm telling you now it is 3, and if anyone tries to convince me it's 1 or 2, I'm going to hit the _Reset Button_—and then you'll know it's 3!
> 
> Well, at least you'll know for that one instant before human civilization is reset. Then you'll only know what you knew before, and we'll have this same argument and are doomed to keep getting reset every February 11th of 2015. But it'll all be worth it just for that one instant in which I prove it is, in fact, 3.




We should stride to find out no matter what the answer is. Here's why:

_Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon._


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

2WayParadox said:


> If that's the conclusion, then the SIM argument seems moot to me.


You're just jealous, 2WayParadox, because you've been one-upped… 







…by a Three-Way Paradox.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Fyle said:


> We should stride to find out no matter what the answer is. Here's why:
> 
> _Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon._


Now, who can argue with that?

Not me. Bah… my wife just got home. I'll reset later.



(Seriously, though… the garage door opened as I was typing.)


----------



## Fyle

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Now, who can argue with that?
> 
> Not me. Bah… my wife just got home. I'll reset later.
> 
> 
> 
> (Seriously, though… the garage door opened as I was typing.)




We could be in the face of armageddon... or the end of life as we know it. If you just YouTube a few videos on robots, a Terminator type robot is not too far in the future. 

Now, could they turn on us? Well, who knows, that is a long stretch but not impossible.

Could govenments use them on thier citizens to control or worse? Ummm. I would bet my money _yes_.

SO, in that sense, I am actually using Rorschach's phrase seriously.


----------



## Penpilot

Fyle said:


> So if a game like the SIMS can be run on a computer that doubles in power ever 2 years (which is that time it has taken computers in recent years to double processing power) at what point will we invent a computer that can start a simulation like the SIMS from the "start"? Not the start of the universe, all it would need was the start of the earth. Insert algorithms that make them think they are conscience, that is all the brain is - and, the theory is pretty solid.



FYI, this is Moore's Law. Here's a link Moore's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And despite the name isn't really a law. It's an observation. The speed at which computing power doubles is slowing down. As of 2013 it doubles every 3 years. This is because there's an upper limit to how small you can make things and to what materials can handle. Think of it like folding a piece of paper in half. There's only so many times you can fold it in half before the material just won't allow another fold.



Fyle said:


> Also, keep in mind, you only use 6% of your brain, so the simulation only needs to execute up to 6% to emulate human consciousness (which thinks it is real)



Ummm... this is a Hollywood myth. We use 100% of our brain. Here's a link Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains? - Scientific American

If you google there are tons more articles that bust this myth.

Finally, this sounds like a variation of a classic philosophy argument by Descartes. Cartesian doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Descartes reasoned that our very own experience may very well be controlled by an evil demon of sorts. This genius is as clever and deceitful as he is powerful. He could have created a superficial world that we may think we live in."

In his paper, Meditations, he says that we can't be sure of anything except or own existence, which spawn the famous quote, "I think therefore I am."


----------



## Incanus

Penpilot said:


> In his paper, Meditations, he says that we can't be sure of anything except or own existence, which spawn the famous quote, "I think therefore I am."



This sounds like 'solipsism'.  While I'm a natural skeptic, I feel this concept is like skepticism on steroids--it goes a bit too far.  If it were true, it would mean I wrote every piece of music in history, wrote every book I've ever seen, produced every piece of art, came up with every theory, etc.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Penpilot said:


> "I think therefore I am."


I think I am awesome; therefore, I am… 







…awesome.



Yeah, that sucked. But I was only using 6% of my brain.


----------



## Devor

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Yeah, that sucked. But I was only using 6% of my brain.



I also only use 6% of my brain.  The rest is being used by -- *argh* --  . . . . :devil:

What was I saying?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

I do want to add that I appreciate the article about the 10% myth. I remember seeing ads for that movie in which a woman is using 70% of her brain, 80%, 90%… and if she uses all one hundred percents of her brain—

Well, I don't know what happens because that premise was so off-putting I decided to give that movie a miss.


----------



## Fyle

Penpilot said:


> FYI, this is Moore's Law. Here's a link Moore's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And despite the name isn't really a law. It's an observation. The speed at which computing power doubles is slowing down. As of 2013 it doubles every 3 years. This is because there's an upper limit to how small you can make things and to what materials can handle. Think of it like folding a piece of paper in half. There's only so many times you can fold it in half before the material just won't allow another fold.
> 
> 
> Ummm... this is a Hollywood myth. We use 100% of our brain. Here's a link Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains? - Scientific American



Fair enough, I will look into the 100% use of the brain. Its not the most compeling possible piece of evidence, just something that goes along with a humans understand their surroundings argument... Sure, that could be wrong.

I am well aware of Moore's Law (and yes, it is just called law, not as in a scientific law that is made clear by most people who cite it of the bat). It is not needed to grasp the concept that computers in the future will have far surpassed the capabilites of ours.

I guess my explanation of that was rushed. Perhaps CPU doubles every 3 years, or than every 4 then 2 again (and do not forget breakthroughs happen which may exceed the expected progress)... _Moore's Law is used here not as absolute fact_, but just as a guideline, as a way to show how people are arriving at this theory and agreeing with Nick Bostrom. 

What do you think of Professor James Gate discovery / statement that binary error correction code was found in string theory ? 

Also, another piece of recent evidence that gives this agrument weight is the observer effect. I cannot go into detail, for I am still trying to understand the physics of it myself but, the basic idea is that when a particle is "watched" its course of travel is altered.


----------



## Fyle

Incanus said:


> This sounds like 'solipsism'.  While I'm a natural skeptic, I feel this concept is like skepticism on steroids--it goes a bit too far.  If it were true, it would mean I wrote every piece of music in history, wrote every book I've ever seen, produced every piece of art, came up with every theory, etc.



This would mean a program wrote everything as it developed, kinda like SIM City. 

Not sure how it fits with "you/I" would have written every piece of music etc...

Everyone is a skeptic in regards to something. This interests me because there are clues in science that can point to this being the case.

I am not saying I believe it, I am saying it is the most solid theory for me _so far_. Also, due to James Gates recent discoveries. If he finds more on that, it leaves a big question mark in physics that this answers.

I don’t know anything about string theory on a level well enough to put it into practice and solve equations and neither does anyone here I don’t think. So, we will have to take his word (and the word of others who can confirm it) that he found computer code in string theory. James Gate Jr. is a professor at Maryland University. None of these people who are claiming evidence that points towards this are whacky unknowns. All reputable scientists.

As far as going too far... not really.

It fascinates me that people who are totally paralyzed can now move a mouse on a screen using, well, a computer attached to their brain. _I can't explain how a computer can work hand-in-hand with a brain to grant that ability, but obviously it can... just take that a step further that computer is controling everything. _ Its advances in technology like this that allow the theory to stand in reality and not be some "well, its just another philisophical magic thing in the sky." 

This isn't too far, its just too many steps ahead for most people to accept. As computers assimilate more and more into our society, it will be easier to grasp and less "far out there."


----------



## Penpilot

Incanus said:


> This sounds like 'solipsism'.  While I'm a natural skeptic, I feel this concept is like skepticism on steroids--it goes a bit too far.  If it were true, it would mean I wrote every piece of music in history, wrote every book I've ever seen, produced every piece of art, came up with every theory, etc.



It's similar but in this case there are supposedly external forces that produce what you experience, eg a computer simulation/programer or an evil demon. 



Legendary Sidekick said:


> I do want to add that I appreciate the article about the 10% myth. I remember seeing ads for that movie in which a woman is using 70% of her brain, 80%, 90%… and if she uses all one hundred percents of her brain—
> 
> Well, I don't know what happens because that premise was so off-putting I decided to give that movie a miss.



You didn't miss much. I actually found the film very insulting and if it was a book I would have thrown it across the room. As someone who has seen every Transformers movie and was able to take them for what they were, I rank Lucy below them. Why? Because the film was trying to be a thought provoking movie and at the same time an action movie. Because of this it failed at both things and ended up being excruciatingly pretentious.



Fyle said:


> What do you think of Professor James Gate discovery / statement that binary error correction code was found in string theory ?



After looking into it a bit deeper, I'm not yet convinced that this is anything more than an interesting thought experiment. Even Gates doesn't believe that we're in a simulation. In this audio interview  (S. James Gates Ã¢€” Uncovering the Codes for Reality | On Being) at around the 24 minute mark he states something to the effect of just because these codes are in the equations of string theory and these codes are like error correcting codes used in a browser does not mean reality is like a browser. 

Mathematics can be a funny thing. There was a meme that went around a while back that stated 



> Pi is an infinite, nonrepeating (sic) decimal - meaning that every possible number combination exists somewhere in pi. Converted into ASCII text, somewhere in that infinite string if digits is the name of every person you will ever love, the date, time and manner of your death, and the answers to all the great questions of the universe.



This may or may not be true, because certain properties of Pi are unknown, just like certain things about these error codes are unknown. If it's true, is it just a neat coincidence or a sign of something grander? (It like the infinite monkey theorem, the theory that an infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters would eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare) But regardless of if Pi contains everything, it's still a cool thought.



Fyle said:


> Also, another piece of recent evidence that gives this agrument weight is the observer effect. I cannot go into detail, for I am still trying to understand the physics of it myself but, the basic idea is that when a particle is "watched" its course of travel is altered.



I'm not sure how this phenomena applies to the possibility we are living in a simulation. But my basic understanding of this comes from skimming through this article.  Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Fyle

Penpilot said:


> After looking into it a bit deeper, I'm not yet convinced that this is anything more than an interesting thought experiment. Even Gates doesn't believe that we're in a simulation. In this audio interview  (S. James Gates Ã¢â‚¬” Uncovering the Codes for Reality | On Being) at around the 24 minute mark he states something to the effect of just because these codes are in the equations of string theory and these codes are like error correcting codes used in a browser does not mean reality is like a browser.




Sure, there needs to be further research and Gates has no reason to believe anything. My point is, this is a positive sign that reality may somehow be connected to computers. 

The writter of the argument himself says he beleives his own theory about 20%. Which is where I would say I am building towards. Eveything must be judged by percentage chance since we do not have "the answer." 

Keep in mind, this is offered as an explanation to where this universe as we know it came from. If you say this has 0% chance of being true, you have to divide your chances towards other explanations of what the universe is/where it came from...

what's your best scientific explanaition, because none of them have _convinced_ anyone yet 100%...

Above all, you must admit, it is an interesting theory. And by the way, as the years roll by, we can watch computer simulations get more and more advanced... the more advanced simulations because, the more likely this is to be true.

I also read someplace they can "record" and delete/add memories in rodents and will begin monkey trails soon. Its things like his that open the door to a theory like this being possible. Memory manipulation does exsit, and will improve.

Observation causing particles to act differently proves that their are oddities in quantium mechanics that are very hard to explain using physics and logic as we know it, that physics on the molecular level may not be what we think, that is to say may be digital and impossible to know all about from our perspective.


----------



## Sheilawisz

I vote for the possibility Number 1.

First of all, I want to say that I am pretty sure the universe is an illusion. Everything works in perfect order to produce worlds, life forms and conscience, but we have no way to know why this happens or what causes it. It could be the result of a computer simulation, the work of a superior being or something beyond our imagination, who knows.

My argument against the computer simulation is this:

I do believe that it could happen and maybe we live inside an unimaginably powerful Play Station or something, but then, why would that mean that the computer (and its creators) are real at all? They could be another simulation ran by yet another simulation, and then another, and another...

The theory would transform into an Infinite problem, and then everything is equally real.

Also, the celebrated and impressive development of technology over the past two hundred years would be part of the simulation too, so then how could we trust that it's real? Maybe our entire history would be the result of whatever intelligence that plays with the simulation, and the _real world_ would be a completely different thing.

The Simulation theory is flawed in my opinion, even though it's intriguing indeed. I prefer to believe in other and even stranger theories of my own invention, but maybe it's better to avoid discussing stuff that could be interpreted by some people as a challenge against their own beliefs.


----------



## Queshire

I'm sorry, but I'm confused? Reading the original post and the premise of the article it's based off of it seems to be a clear cut example of the False Dichotomy fallacy. Or would that be False Trichotomy since there's three of them?

I... I have to be honest here, I'm confused and slightly offended that this argument has such a glaring logical fallacy. It's even worse since the argument proposes that this is all a computer simulation since such fallacies lead to Bad Stuff happening in a computer program. It's like writing a program to guess a number where if it isn't 1 and isn't 2 then it has to be 3 while completely ignoring the fact that the number could be 4.

Someone please tell me there's something I'm missing?


----------



## Penpilot

Fyle said:


> Sure, there needs to be further research and Gates has no reason to believe anything. My point is, this is a positive sign that reality may somehow be connected to computers.



To me, this is like when someone sees Aztec carvings of people who look like they're wearing space helmets as a sign of ancient alien astronauts. Without clear evidence of what this code actually is or isn't anyone can make claims as to its meaning without being out right disproved. 

Other parts of string theory say that we might all be holograms. Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Fyle said:


> The writter of the argument himself says he beleives his own theory about 20%. Which is where I would say I am building towards. Eveything must be judged by percentage chance since we do not have "the answer."
> 
> Keep in mind, this is offered as an explanation to where this universe as we know it came from. If you say this has 0% chance of being true, you have to divide your chances towards other explanations of what the universe is/where it came from...



OR I could just say I don't know and say that they all have 0% chance of being true because none of them ring true to me based on available evidence. If the true answer or the beginnings of it have yet to be revealed, then it won't be among the available choices.  




Fyle said:


> what's your best scientific explanaition, because none of them have _convinced_ anyone yet 100%...



Right now I reserve judgement and say I don't know. Just because there are lots of guesses being thrown out there doesn't mean I have to choose one.




Fyle said:


> Above all, you must admit, it is an interesting theory. And by the way, as the years roll by, we can watch computer simulations get more and more advanced... the more advanced simulations because, the more likely this is to be true.



As stated before, it may very well be that computational power and the limits of what can be programmed will halt this. And/Or what Gates found has nothing to do with computer code at all. 

Also option 2 of given by the paper states that posthumans may not have any interests in running simulations.



Fyle said:


> I also read someplace they can "record" and delete/add memories in rodents and will begin monkey trails soon. Its things like his that open the door to a theory like this being possible. Memory manipulation does exsit, and will improve.



But the paper isn't about memory manipulation, its about the universe and us being a simulation. Just because we can manipulate memories doesn't automatically mean we'll one day be able to write code that can simulate a universe in right down to the quantum level.


----------



## Jabrosky

As far as I'm concerned, the existence of this giant _Matrix_-like simulation is like the existence of God. You can't 100% _dis_prove they're real any more than you can 100% disprove anything else imaginable, but given how difficult it would be to confirm or falsify them, there's not much point in assuming they _must_ exist. It's the kind of "what if" speculation that would be more useful for writing fiction or creating art than living our day-to-day lives.

On the other hand, if you must pass it off as more than idle speculation, there is such as thing as the burden of proof. You can claim anything you want, but if we're not inclined to agree with your claim, the onus is on you to back it up. For example, if someone asserts that Northern Europeans have somehow evolved greater intelligence than Africans, they must provide evidence for it before demanding the bio-anthropological community take their word for it. The same could be said for the Matrix, God, the Illuminati, or anything else you can think up.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

DISCLAIMER: What I'm saying below is not meant to be a mockery of one's belief. It IS a mockery of the way the argument is presented.

If the same pattern were used to promote religious or political beliefs that I share, I would still say the logic is flawed and is a cheap (and ineffective) trick to get the reader to consider option #3 by presenting two plausible, somewhat related options (which, I might add, don't necessary rule out other options).



Queshire said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm confused? Reading the original post and the premise of the article it's based off of it seems to be a clear cut example of the False Dichotomy fallacy. Or would that be False Trichotomy since there's three of them?
> 
> I... I have to be honest here, I'm confused and slightly offended that this argument has such a glaring logical fallacy. It's even worse since the argument proposes that this is all a computer simulation since such fallacies lead to Bad Stuff happening in a computer program. It's like writing a program to guess a number where if it isn't 1 and isn't 2 then it has to be 3 while completely ignoring the fact that the number could be 4.
> 
> Someone please tell me there's something I'm missing?


You're not missing anything. The author is giving a false choice because it's 3, or so the author is attempting to imply.

The pattern here is:
#1 = an eventual truth
#2 = a possibility + some mention of #1 and #3 to make the argument flow
#3 = the author's unpopular theory

1) Humans will eventually be extinct. Well, yeah. Posthuman is "after humans" so of course extinction comes before that. Eternity's a long time, so all humans dead? Eventually? Most religions don't question this.

2) So the intelligent beings that run things when humans aren't around don't give a crap about humans and don't run simulations of humans. Maybe. Don't we simulate dinosaurs and stuff? Monster Hunter games sort of simulate dinosaur-like environments. Anyway, #2 is possible along with #1, but if human remains are discovered then #2 may eventually be false. We'll be long dead by then, so whatever.

3) This is totally out of left field. The real humans are dead and we're the fake humans. We think we invented computers, but computers invented us, after being invented by creatures way smarter than us, and… no. Just no. Sorry. No.

No.


#2 is just a buffer to get the idea behind #3 out there. It serves a purpose. #1 is inevitable, but #1 also sucks to think about so let's consider #3.

Not to be a jerk, but I could do the same thing to promote my own unpopular creation theory.

1) Humans weren't always around. There was a prehuman era.

2) In prehuman civilization, it was socially acceptable to pick one's nose.

3) Dumbar the giant picked his nose, rolled the snot into a ball, and flicked it out his spaceship window and into The Void. This snot became the Earth, and it floats about the void with Dumbar's other snots. Some of those snots are on fire. We call them "stars."


----------



## Fyle

Okay.

Here's the thing. 

There is no other theory that has clues as good as this, you follow, _clues_ that point toward probability of truth.

Take this below for example, what in reality and technology points to this being true? 

_1) Humans weren't always around. There was a prehuman era.

2) In prehuman civilization, it was socially acceptable to pick one's nose.

 3) Dumbar the giant picked his nose, rolled the snot into a ball, and flicked it out his spaceship window and into The Void. This snot became the Earth, and it floats about the void with Dumbar's other snots. Some of those snots are on fire. We call them "stars." _

Nothing really. The Simulation argument is a theory on our reality that has clues based from reality. Not to be a jerk, but this was just typed up in 30 seconds with nothing supporting it in any way.

Now, Penpilot says “Just because we can manipulate memories doesn't automatically mean we'll one day be able to write code that can simulate a universe in right down to the quantum level.” 

Well, of course it doesn’t automatically mean/prove that, it is just something that points the direction of the theory having merit. Here is why memory manipulation/mapping brains is very important to this theory:

At this point in time, humans are mapping brains of worms and putting them into robots. These robots act as biological worms, not robots or not like a program. So, this tells us we can “copy” a brain and put it in binary form — no theory, no what if, putting a brain in binary 0s and 1s is reality. 

Let’s put that on the table, we can simulate simple brains — now.

The next thing is the memory manipulation of mice. Scientists have been able to implant false memories in mice. The thing to keep in mind, is the mouse (the organism, like you, the organism) has no idea which memories were “real.” They have taught mice tricks and then “deleted” them causing the mouse to forget these tricks.

We can put that on the table — we can manipulate memories of simple mammals - now.

So, how long do you think it will take until these techniques can be used on the human brain?

The thing about connecting this to the Simulation theory is that you only have to take it a few steps further to assume that this will be able to be done on humans one day if humans reach technological maturity (meaning a peak in technology). Chances are according to how technology is progressing that in the future we will be able to manipulate human brains in the same way we manipulate animal brains now. This makes the SIM argument less farfetched compared to other arguments that do not derive clues from reality and just have their thoughts and points with words.

The other thing is, this is hard to accept if given any merit. Unlike other theories, it is humbling, so you have automatic defense mechanisms against thinking “I could just be a program,” you have an ego, not an ego like “I think I am awesome,” but an ego that thinks it is unique or more special than simply electrical impulses. 


Scientists Put A Worm's Mind Into A Robot's Body | IFLScience

Scientists Produce False Memories In Mice | Inside Science


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

I was just following the pattern where #1 is undeniably true, #2 is plausible, and #3 is a theory that has ideas that were brought up in #1 and #2.

The ten-year-old paper mentions a "posthuman" era in #1. In #2, simulations are mentioned. #3 is a way-out-there theory that we are in a simulation right now. I would submit that this is an unpopular theory the explain our reality.

My theory is less popular because _nobody_ believes our world is a snot flicked out of a window. But I did follow the pattern. #1 is undeniably true. #2 is plausible, though it may depend on your definition of "prehuman." Primates pick head lice and eat it, never mind noses. #3 is the way-out-there theory which was being set up by #1 and #2.

Yes, my example is absurd, but the pattern is the same. Point being, it's not a choice of #1, #2, or #3. For either example, #1 must be true, #2 may be true, and _if_ #3 were true, #1 would still be true and #2 could still be true.


----------



## Fyle

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I was just following the pattern where #1 is undeniably true, #2 is plausible, and #3 is a theory that has ideas that were brought up in #1 and #2.
> 
> The ten-year-old paper mentions a "posthuman" era in #1. In #2, simulations are mentioned. #3 is a way-out-there theory that we are in a simulation right now. I would submit that this is an unpopular theory the explain our reality.
> 
> My theory is less popular because _nobody_ believes our world is a snot flicked out of a window. But I did follow the pattern. #1 is undeniably true. #2 is plausible, though it may depend on your definition of "prehuman." Primates pick head lice and eat it, never mind noses. #3 is the way-out-there theory which was being set up by #1 and #2.
> 
> Yes, my example is absurd, but the pattern is the same. Point being, it's not a choice of #1, #2, or #3. For either example, #1 must be true, #2 may be true, and _if_ #3 were true, #1 would still be true and #2 could still be true.



That's cool. Maybe I was a bit harsh on it. 

But, I mean, the argument is more complex than his 3 simple conclusions. 

For me, its about finding out if _how he came to those _conclusions could have any merit. What lead him to write the paper in the first place. The conclusions are laid out for all to see off the bat, but they are really the last thing that should be discussed as far as if there are actual clues for it to map onto reality.


----------



## Fyle

Sheilawisz said:


> My argument against the computer simulation is this:
> 
> I do believe that it could happen and maybe we live inside an unimaginably powerful Play Station or something, but then, why would that mean that the computer (and its creators) are real at all? They could be another simulation ran by yet another simulation, and then another, and another...



_Yes! That's right._ This is a positive towards the theory, not against it.

This is what Bostrom mentioned in a 2013 interview. IF the day comes when we can make powerful simulations, say powerful enough to emulate an entire nation, they would no doubt flip on their own simlulations and the cycle continues. 

The fact that humans make simulations is another piece of the puzzle. Think about it, what do humans do the most? Well, there are lots of things, but I would say the number one thing is - _watch other humans_.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Fyle said:


> That's cool. Maybe I was a bit harsh on it.


I didn't take it as harsh.

In your reply, you made a better case than the professor did because you simply stuck to the technology. Even though the premise isn't something I don't buy into, you make the case that having life-long fake memories is simply more elaborate than what's currently being done (to rats). When I read that, I still don't believe anyone could ever be an artificial intelligence and think and feel like  a person (which is what I took #3 to mean), but I can accept the possibility that someone could be tricked into interacting with A.I. and think it's all real.


----------



## Tom

Kind of late to the party, but I just wanted to say that this kind of thing freaks me the hell out. I get goosebumps--and not the enjoyable, watching-a-horror-movie-that-you-really-love kind--when I read stuff like this. More the goosebumps you get when you realize your view of the world has been shaken into a new shape, one that is unsettling and not at all what you want it to look like. Another reason why I started the whole "Who are these people?" thread. 

Plus, I think that if this were true, we humans would have figured out that we're living in a simulation by now. I like to think that we're pretty smart.


----------



## Penpilot

Fyle said:


> There is no other theory that has clues as good as this, you follow, _clues_ that point toward probability of truth.



Whoa.... First, this proposition--As of now, I'm not going call it a theory because scientifically that has a very specific meaning--comes from a philosopher/economist, not a scientist. The evidence cited comes from science, but its interpretation is conjecture. This isn't a theory, because theories have testable hypotheses. This does not have those.

This is a philosophical argument not a scientific one, and as such here are some links to philosophical counters to this proposition. 

Against the argument that we live in a simulation - Philosophy & Immortalism - LONGECITY

Full disclosure, when I read this, my eyes glazed over fairly quickly. 
http://fabien.besnard.pagesperso-orange.fr/pdfrefut.pdf

As for "theories" with no clues as good as this, I refer you to Mr. Hawking. The Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Bumba is grosser then Dumbar.


----------



## Fyle

Penpilot said:


> Whoa.... First, this proposition--As of now, I'm not going call it a theory because scientifically that has a very specific meaning--comes from a philosopher/economist, not a scientist.



True. Technically it is not a theory. I was using that word in a more casual sense as "an idea." Technically it is a hypothesis, yes.
I am not so much concerned with semantics unless they are important to the content of the argument. To your credit, that was a misuse of the word.

The article you linked is written 11 years ago. The theory has become popular again due to advances in science such as ones I mentioned and others. It seems interest in the theory goes in waves, the reason is, as new discoveries come about, it makes more and more sense. There are rebuttals of course, none have knocked out the argument to the point people consider it wrong though. 

Here are some thoughts on the article because I have heard these before.

_“I would think that this only adds another layer of complexity, such that a computer simulating such a computer would actually have to be larger and more complex than the computer it's simulating.”_

I hear this a lot. This is based on the computers we have now. So, this knock down argument does not hold so well. It doesn’t seem like it, but on the grand scale computers are in beginning stages. Plus, the computer doesn’t have to run the entire universe, just enough to simulate the earth and immediate areas (say as far as Mars or something). 

Imagine if people said what other technologies could or couldn’t do in  infant stages, I bet many people would be wrong. 

_“The conclusion that we are living in a simulated world inside another world is a violation of Occam's razor.”_

This is another one people like to throw around.  I am not sure you can violate Occum's Razor. You can decide that for yourself it for yourself, it is a guideline, not a rule therefore, I would say it cannot be "violated". This guideline is great and widely used, but it is also from the 14th century - there have been quite a few complexities in science since then...


"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is *more likely *to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is *most likely *to be correct."

. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .
"Keep things simple!"

Occum’s using words like “most likely” and “more likely” to remind people it is not to be taken as the rule in every case, so I find its application here weak. Plus, the article you sited lists this as number 8 on the list and Occum’s Razor is generally used as the first thing applied to a problem to make sure before you dive in you are not overcomplicating it.


I have not read the Hawkins article as it does not seem like a rebuttal to the SIM argument when i glanced at it. Steven Hawkins has recently hooked a computer (the iBrain) to his brain to help him communicate. So,  Hawking does not buy into the SIM argument, but he is living proof that computers have direct effects on our brain (and will have more and more complicated effects as time goes on).

So? Why is a computer able to directly communicate with the human mind. Well, I can’t explain it. But, it does not hurt the SIM argument that humans and computers may be connected, doesnt it?


h+ Magazine | Digital Physics vs. The Simulation Argument [updated] - h+ Magazine

Here is a recent rebuttal from 2013 that is pretty good. 

Whether the SIM argument (or similar arguments that say the nature of the universe is digital; i put these in the same family) is true or not, it seems to be on the right track as far as the nature of reality vs. traditional arguments or blind faith explanaitons.


----------



## Fyle

Tom Nimenai said:


> Plus, I think that if this were true, we humans would have figured out that we're living in a simulation by now. I like to think that we're pretty smart.



It's unfalseafiable at this point in time in the same way God is unfalseafiable. So, no we could not have figured it out.


----------



## Sheilawisz

My suggestion about the Infinite Simulations means that everything would be a simulation repeating itself over and over again, so there would be no Real World after all, nowhere, and the argument loses all power. It would be a little similar to the Infinite Regression theory, just kind of weirder.

The main problem with the Simulation argument is that it's based on stating _humans this_ and _humans that_ and _we can do this_ and _technological advances are so incredible_ and all that. I do not want to seem harsh, but it all sounds like a product of the unlimited narcissism and arrogance of the human species.

This argument takes for granted that the Simulation is a human creation, made for the purpose of recreating the past world and observing it. It's like saying: _Oh yeah, we are so smart that we invented this incredible simulation by means of our all powerful computers! We are the best!_

In case the universe really is a computer simulation, very well it could be like this instead:

The Fluid Sharks Theory

We live in a computer simulation. All the history of humanity, all of the technology, everything that we know is not real at all... The _real world_ outside of the computer is composed by the Fluid Space, a watery and orange realm which exists beyond our fake rules of physics, and this Fluid is inhabited by unimaginably smart sharks.

In order to amuse themselves, the Fluid Sharks have created super computers that simulate entire universes inside of them, everything according to the wishes and imagination of a particular shark.

One day a young Shark was bored, so her father went and got a Simulation computer.

This Shark has a great imagination... so great, that she imagined humanity and invented from scratch all of the history, civilizations and technology that can only exist within our fake universe. Nothing that we know is real, nothing matters except for the Sharks and the Fluid Space where they live.

My theory is as good as the other Argument, so... what do you think?


----------



## Fyle

Sheilawisz said:


> This argument takes for granted that the Simulation is a human creation, made for the purpose of recreating the past world and observing it. It's like saying: _Oh yeah, we are so smart that we invented this incredible simulation by means of our all powerful computers! We are the best!_



Well, yes, but the base argument is over 10 years old as is. Bostrom has updated it and revised comments in interviews and videos addressing how much the core argument means to suggest. The most logical answer, based on the way we think and act; that is to say how we would make a simulation -_ how we stride to perfect technology_, having conscious beings in a simulation would be an ultimate goal. 

He offers recreating the past as a motive for people to relate to why someone would build this type of simulation... to kind of nip too many why questions in the bud.

What is running the simulation cannot be known, only assumed, or to say the world outside the simulation is a separate issue from if the world is a simulation itself. 

Look, anyone can make up a logical theory, but you have to match that theory with where current advances in technology are headed and observe what we do now in the real word; make simulations and observe other human beings, read about them etc.

Sharks are not something that are leaning towards advances in technology, so, this is not simply a argument based on a well thought idea, it attempts to pull its predictions by projecting a possible future.

For the record, I am more fascinated with the idea that the world is digital rather than solid. This is just a particularly interesting hypothesis since I can relate to the vague gaming aspect.

Look for yourself how far certain inventions have come in the last 100 years at a slow pace (and now the pace it rapid!). Look at the gap between Pong and the World of War Craft or a PS4 game. The difference is literally astounding. Look at how far the car has come since Henry Ford’s clunky first 35mph? automobile. Now, imagine the gap computers will have in another 100 years than the ones we have today. Is it so unreasonable to think they will be able to simulate incredible amounts of information that is hard for us to even fathom today? Especially since we already see a direct connection between computers and our brains were people can link the two together and move a mouse on the screen – take that 10 steps further and the sky is the limit really…


----------



## Queshire

After further reading through the article I have some more thoughts. I looked through his math and there's three (technically four) main factors he includes to determine the chance of whether or not someone might be a simulation. 

First there is whether or not humanity will live long enough to develop powerful enough tech to create sufficient enough tech. Basically whether or not 1 is true. This presumes that such technology is even possible at all. For the purpose of this argument I am going to presume that's true as well, furthermore I'm going to presume that we will live long enough to reach that tech, since if we don't there's no point going further. He called this (Fp). 

Secondly is (H) which stands for number of Humans. He defines H as average number of humans in a simulation. Let's presume that each simulation is a perfect recreation of history so that every simulation has the same number of humans as well as the alpha reality doing the simulations. If some have more and some have less then it would introduce errors that would skewer the percentage. H is important because you are a human. 

Third there is the number of simulations run which is (N). It's exactly what it says on the tin. 

The number of humans who will ever exist is a big number, but it's really not important. Say that there's the alpha reality and they run two simulations. You have to be in one of them. You have 2 simulation options and 1 alpha reality option for a total of 3 options. Similarly if they run 100 simulations then you have 100 simulation options plus one Alpha reality option. In this you can see that the total number of possible options is always one more than the number of simulations run. If each simulation has the same number of humans on it and so does the alpha reality then the number of humans doesn't matter since it's all the same between them. 

Thus we can see that your chance of being in any particular simulation / the alpha reality is 1 out of the (N)umber of simulations run plus 1 for the alpha reality, or 1/(N+1)

However the article doesn't talk about your chance of being in each particular stream, it talks about the chance of being a simulation at all. If you have 1/(N+1) chance of being in any particular simulation and there's (N) number of simulations then to determine the chance of being in a simulation at all you would multiply 1/(N+1) times (N) which would be (N) / (N+1) or the number of simulations run out of the number of simulations run PLUS the alpha reality. 

You can see where the guy's claim of the high likelihood of being in a simulation by plugging in different numbers for the number of simulations run. For example, 1 simulation leads to 1/2 or 50% while 99 simulations would be 99/100 or 99%.

I must stress the extent of these proposed simulations. For the calculations to make sense they have to be perfect, tracing the entire history of mankind from the beginning of time up to the point where the simulation finishes. To do otherwise would skew the chance of being a simulation as, presumably, the number of people in the far flung future of the Alpha Reality would have a different number of people alive than are alive now. I'm not saying this to disabuse you of the notion that it is even possible or not. Remember, for the sake of the argument we're presuming that it is possible. I just want you to wrap your head around how mind boggling big the simulations would have to be.

If each simulation is perfect and more than just a handful of simulations are run then by far most of the people to have ever lived will be in simulations. This is basically the crux of his number 3, though in much less sensationalist phrasing. 

I'm not done there. We've seen that the only important factor to determine the likelihood of a person being in a simulation is the number of simulations run, but how do we determine that? Let's say that everyone who has the interest AND the capability runs a simulation. It's also possible for someone to run multiple simulations, but that's a matter of their level of interest so let's just file that under interest. The only number we have for a quantity of humans is (H) so let's use that. Let's call the percentage of H who have interest and capability to run a simulation (F2). That would make the (N) umber of simulations run to be equal to (F2) multiplied by (H).

We have established (H) as a constant number, the number of humans who will ever live. So to determine (N) we need to figure out what (F2) is.

This is where I disagree with the author of the article. He thinks that (F2) would be relatively large due to the truly tremendous computing power we would theoretically have when technology advances to the point where such simulations are even possible. I disagree. Compared to the total amount of humans who have ever lived only a small fraction would live far enough into the future to have access to that technology. True, the number of such people would increase as time goes on and if it ever reaches 1 that's still a 50% chance, but it is far smaller than what he claims. 

WHAT THIS MEANS: Though the math is technically correct the way it is portrayed is needlessly sensationalist and unless the simulations are a perfect 1 to 1 map to reality then the odds would be skewed. Such a 1 to 1 map would also mean that the alpha reality would also have the computer elements noted earlier in the thread which would either mean that reality is a simulation too or the computer elements have nothing to do with the simulated nature of such things. 

If the odds are skewed, well we're dealing with large enough numbers here that it wouldn't make much of a practical difference. The chance of you being in a simulation might be higher or lower than what the equation as stated might suggest. 

I see little reason to treat this theory with anything other than the general apathy any other scientific theory is met with. It has some possible interesting aspect to play around with in a story but has no practical effect on your life.


----------



## Sheilawisz

This is what I am trying to say...

First the theory says that the universe is a simulation, and then we are supposed to accept the simulation itself as clues or hints that support the validity of these ideas. If the theory is true then quite possibly even gravity and electricity themselves are just a piece of fiction, and all of the glorious human technology could be the imagination of a shark.

We are supposed to accept that future human civilization created the simulated universe, because that's what our incredible inventions are aiming at, but that just feels like arrogance from my point of view.

It's not that I hate humanity, but I do dislike very much this belief that we are _special_ because we invent all this stuff... special to the point that we created a simulated universe, which feels like nonsense to me because the Simulation Argument pretty much destroys its own foundations.

I do not want to be offensive, it's just how I think about this particular theory.


----------



## Fyle

Well Sheil,

That is an exellant response. Whilst neither one of us can convince the other, i will say this, and this is what i really like about theories like this (i see you called it a theory as well, i got told it was not technically a theory but for ease its a good word).

It makes you think. It makes you think in a new way in where we have a replacement for the theism vs atheism debate, it kinda adds a third contender. Is the universe digital？God in this sense only becomes a term for something way more advanced than us, which could be anything, technically they could be shark like, just unlikely. 

This theory was actually proposed in the 1970s, i forget by who and i am on my android so cant look it up.. point is, the guy was utterly laughed at. 

With computers developing at a rapid rate, when Bostrom brought up his own version in 2003, well, some people laughed - but not nearly as hard, and some stopped laughing when they thought about it. 

So, when 30 more years goes by, my guess is theories / hypothesises (whatever you label them) like this will be in the forefront of popular belief. 

There is also a hologram hypothesis i want to read up on, sounds interesting too. This one is partcularly fun to ponder because i know humans are building better and better simulations. You may have one yourself of some type right now. 

Cant respond with much more than that from my phone... typing that just took 15 minutes lol


----------



## Penpilot

Fyle said:


> True. Technically it is not a theory. I was using that word in a more casual sense as "an idea." Technically it is a hypothesis, yes.



I just wanted to make clear that this wasn't a scientific argument. It's a philosophical one. And not to beat a dead horse, but in the realm of science, this can't be called a hypothesis either. A hypothesis must be testable. 

But for the purposes of this discussion, since it's clear now we are in the realm of philosophy, I won't nitpick any further on that. From now on I will assume we're using the more generalized meaning of terms.




Fyle said:


> I have not read the Hawkins article as it does not seem like a rebuttal to the SIM argument when i glanced at it.



It's not a rebuttal of the SIM argument. It's a rebuttal of your claim of "There is no other theory that has clues as good as this, you follow, clues that point toward probability of truth."

There are many science base theories as to the nature and origin of the universe that have equal or greater, testable evidence that point towards their probable truth.



Fyle said:


> So? Why is a computer able to directly communicate with the human mind. Well, I can’t explain it. But, it does not hurt the SIM argument that humans and computers may be connected, doesnt it?



Nor does it help, because connecting a mind to a computer is not the same as building a mind or a universe in a computer.


----------



## Fyle

Penpilot said:


> It's not a rebuttal of the SIM argument. It's a rebuttal of your claim of "There is no other theory that has clues as good as this, you follow, clues that point toward probability of truth."
> 
> There are many science base theories as to the nature and origin of the universe that have equal or greater, testable evidence that point towards their probable truth.



Yes, this is true. What i meant to say by any other was better than religious claims, Christianity, Judism etc
I did not want to come out and say that, but to explain what i really wanted to say by other i have to


Other Scientific claims i consder equal of course. I am all about science. 

I guess we have a disconnect on what clues are and how they can be used to predict the future

I am open to anything with any other solid foundation besides its in some book or millions believe it so it might be right

This happens to be pretty interesting


----------



## Tom

Fyle said:


> Yes, this is true. What i meant to say by any other was better than religious claims, Christianity, Judism etc
> I did not want to come out and say that, but to explain what i really wanted to say by other i have to



Hey now...I'm all for science, but science can't disprove religion. Science deals with the physical world, the here and now, the building blocks of reality. Religion is all about the metaphysical, the incorporeal, the stuff beyond the physical world. Trying to apply science to religion is like trying to paint a portrait with a c-wrench; a c-wrench is a great, useful tool, but painting is not what it's made for. Likewise science is not made to explain, prove, or disprove religion.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello everyone.

I find the conversation in this thread good and exciting, but it's always a good idea to remember some of the rules that we have in Mythic Scribes. The subject discussed here has been on the verge of Religion territory since it started, so before continuing, please follow this link:

The Guidelines for Discussing Religion.

Thank you!


----------



## BronzeOracle

Tom Nimenai said:


> Hey now...I'm all for science, but science can't disprove religion. Science deals with the physical world, the here and now, the building blocks of reality. Religion is all about the metaphysical, the incorporeal, the stuff beyond the physical world. Trying to apply science to religion is like trying to paint a portrait with a c-wrench; a c-wrench is a great, useful tool, but painting is not what it's made for. Likewise science is not made to explain, prove, or disprove religion.



I couldn't agree with you more Tom.  I love science, I find it absolutely fascinating - evolution, astronomy, geology - I would have loved to seen the dinosaurs, the megafauna.  Relativity blows my mind!  But it doesn't help me with how I should live, how I should love.  I'm not saying that religion has all the answers, either in the books or the actions of its followers - my inspiration has come from so many people, so many places - but I just love the light of spirit in life!  Pardon the schmaltzy term but I can't describe it any other way.  It's simply beautiful and it compliments the wonder and power of science just perfectly in my opinion.  Science is the engine, spirit is the rudder.


----------



## BronzeOracle

Actually to reply to my own thread - the fields of psychology, brain chemistry etc do help me with how I live - understanding thoughts and emotions etc.  They provide an understanding of why I feel and act a certain way, they help me to make strategies.  But I don't find courage in them in helping me to direct my own life or dare to love others.


----------



## Tom

BronzeOracle said:


> Actually to reply to my own thread - the fields of psychology, brain chemistry etc do help me with how I live - understanding thoughts and emotions etc.  They provide an understanding of why I feel and act a certain way, they help me to make strategies.  But I don't find courage in them in helping me to direct my own life or dare to love others.



Absolutely. I have studied and applied psychology to my own life, but religion is what gives me purpose in living it. Psychology tells me that I--the mind, the real me--am nothing more than neurons arranged into synapses, but religion also tells me that the body and the organic brain are not the extent of what I am. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with being a bundle of neurons, but I'm also glad that I have assurance that I'm so much more than that.


----------



## Penpilot

Tom Nimenai said:


> Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with being a bundle of neurons, but I'm also glad that I have assurance that I'm so much more than that.



To add a different perspective to this. For me, I have yet to find any thing that makes me think there's any more to my existence than my physical form. In my younger days, I was exposed to different religions and nothing has spoken to me. 

For myself, find the prospect of a finite existence reason to cherish every moment. It makes me realize when I ask someone for a second of their time, I'm asking for something that can never be replaced.

I find wonder in the idea that even though I may cease to exist, I will go on. Every element in my body was born in a star. Every atom composing those elements will continue to exist long after I am gone. They will form new molecules and go on to become other things, plants, animals, and other people. Parts that were once me will live again, love again, a billion trillion times over, and given enough time, may travel to the stars as something or as someone.

There is a finite number of ways that atoms can arrange themselves in human form. Though that number is immensely large, and it is said that the universe will end before two human patterns will ever repeat, I like to think that maybe my pattern will repeat one day. Will that pattern be me? Probably not. But it would be neat see, and it's kind of cool to think about.


----------



## Jabrosky

Penpilot said:


> I find wonder in the idea that even though I may cease to exist, I will go on. Every element in my body was born in a star. Every atom composing those elements will continue to exist long after I am gone. They will form new molecules and go on to become other things, plants, animals, and other people. Parts that were once me will live again, love again, a billion trillion times over, and given enough time, may travel to the stars as something or *as someone*.


I agree with you on this, but if atoms that used to build you up will get redistributed throughout existence, with some even ending up part of another individual's consciousness, might that not give credence to a (very indirect) theory of reincarnation? It wouldn't have anything to do with the movement of souls, but maybe once I die, maybe the molecules that built up my brain eventually become part of some Aboriginal Australian chick who wouldn't even know I ever existed?


----------



## Tom

Penpilot said:


> For me, I have yet to find any thing that makes me think there's any more to my existence than my physical form.



I've never had any proof for the existence of my own soul, but I've chosen to believe it exists. That's just my perspective. 

When I was in my early teens, I had doubts about my Christian faith and eventually walked away from it. My time as an atheist/agnostic was one of the lowest points of my life. I've always had a deep, innate fear of death, and as an agnostic that fear came to a head. I realized that if I didn't believe in God, I didn't believe in assured life-after-death either. All I had to look forward to after death, then, was oblivion. I hated the idea that my memories and consciousness would be gone and I would never even know that I had once existed. That fear of death and emptiness is what brought me back to Christianity. 

Sometimes I think I can prove the existence of my soul--in moments when I feel joy or sorrow so deep and piercing it just _has_ to transcend the physical--but then I remember that science can't be applied to religion. So I guess I'll have to be content with faith.


----------



## Penpilot

Tom Nimenai said:


> My time as an atheist/agnostic was one of the lowest points of my life. I've always had a deep, innate fear of death, and as an agnostic that fear came to a head. I realized that if I didn't believe in God, I didn't believe in assured life-after-death either. All I had to look forward to after death, then, was oblivion. I hated the idea that my memories and consciousness would be gone and I would never even know that I had once existed. That fear of death and emptiness is what brought me back to Christianity.



I used to fear death, too, but after a bit of soul searching--no pun intended--and a minor but significant bout with illness, I realized there are worse things. To me, death is the lifting of all burdens, no more fears, no more pains, no more bills, no more waiting on the phone line for stupid customer support , nothing, and I'm ok with that. I don't remember a time before I was born, and I won't remember a time after my death. There's a nice symmetry to that. 

Knowing that, I realize what matters is what we leave behind. No, I'm not going into that atom spiel again. What I mean is family. I don't have children yet, but I have nephews. And sometimes I see them do or say something that is an echo of myself, and it makes me smile and gives me this great sense of fulfilment. And if I ceased to exist after that, I'd be OK with it.


----------



## Tom

I admire you for your acceptance of death. I don't have the courage to do so yet. After a close brush with death in an ATV accident, I realized how easily life can be snatched away, and I've really started to appreciate how great it is to be alive.


----------



## BronzeOracle

I agree Penpilot!  The thought of our bodies made of stars, a slow flux of atoms kept in a temporary form by our DNA - absolutely mind blowing and I can't help but smile at it.  What on earth are we really?  How little do we understand our own nature!  I love to walk at night and look at the stars above - I feel strangely connected, like its where I came from and will go to again - a being of star dust here just for a little while.  

I also wonder what I will leave behind, who my kids will be as adults and I hope so much they will be joyful, connected and have loving lives.  But I also try to be present when I can and share loving moments with family and friends, particularly after times have been hard and we've come back from it.  It feels right and I'm grateful when it happens.


----------



## Fyle

The Simulation Argument is has nothing to do with religion. 

The thing is, it is actually compadible with athesim and religion cause it only states there is a layer of reality above this one. Not that anything in this one does or doesnt exsist. 

Lets bring it back on track. 

For the record, it is philosophy, some call it future science since it makes predictions based on possible progression of actual science.


----------

