/sci/ - Science & Math

show tits and timestamp first

Baseless assumptions, baseless assumptions everywhere!

In short: probably not, and go fuck yourself.

>>2463953
>Baseless assumptions, baseless assumptions everywhere!

Where?

Do you mean like the twist of Star Ocean: Till the End of Time?

I suppose with sufficiently advanced technology you'd be able to reconstruct a new reality.

>>2463930
why wouldn't they don't tell me you think that only humans have souls or consciousness

>>2463973
In the entirety of your original post.

>Ok, so we all know the idea that we could all just be living in a computer program. Like in the matrix.

I'd like to point out that "in a program" bit, but that's beside the point; yes, we've probably all heard of it at some time or another, and we have frequent fruitless topics on this. What's your point?

>But..... If you're able to simulate the real world perfectly, with the laws of science working perfectly (including evolution and genetics). Could the simulations of life (that only exist inside the computer simulation) have real consciousness within that simulation?

Semantics aside (such as "simulating" the "real world," a contradictory statement in this context), why would you begin to think that we're all just part of some elaborate computer program? Can you define "real consciousness?"

agree with OP,

the brain is proof of conciousness.. or rather proof of a division in conciousness.

we dont actually know what we are doing and the brain tries very hard to keep us away from any train of thought that would challenge our percieved reality.

...so the matrix basically

also imagine the computer is so intel that it can compute for 6 billion parrallel universes for every choice we make.

as long as we dont shatter the illusion of free will the program continues.

red pill
blue pill

damn the freemasons.

But a computer program is a human creation.. why would everything in the universe be the product of something a human created.

This theory is pretty stupid. think some more.

>>2464192

its a tron thing?

>>2464192

because of all the alien races out there, at least one will have the technology to create entire simulated universes with gazillions of intelligent beings. And of course, they're hardly going to create just 1. Each of the billions/trillions of aliens could have one running on it's computer.

Therefore it's much more likely that we're one of these simulatory beings (perhaps a science project-maybe our time is vastly sped up compared to theirs) rather than actually living in the real world.

>>2464556

can it be hax?

>>2464556
But what reason is there to believe in such a thing, to think that it IS "reality?" Why would an (I hesitate to use the term "alien" in this instance, so) unknown race even bother to simulate a consciousness such as yourself?

There is no difference between an infallible simulation of a thing and actually being the thing simulated in the first place.

>>2464625
Why would a why anything.

Protip: We aren't in a computer program.

Think about it: If we were in a simulation of a real world with all the scientific laws of the real world, then we would be able to build the machine that is simulating our reality in our reality, and no machine can run a direct simulation of its hardware.

Basically G cannot simulate a system that contains G

>Could the simulations of life have real consciousness?

Yes. Your consciousness is a process, like software running. Simulated brains could also provide the environment for this process to take place.

There is nothing magical about the real world that enables minds to exist. Even if we're not living in a simulation, we might as well be, our universe acts like a simulation.

I read permutation city too, mind bending

>>2464830
But they would not be the same machine. Even if they simulated the same physical laws, the machines would have different content inside their universes. With different content, it would be entirely possible to build such a machine. We just couldn't put our machine inside its own simulation.

I've been wondering about something about computer programs:

Can a program really be 100% random? If computers are bound by mathematics and logic there is always a way to calculate it?

>>2464869
Is anything 100% random to begin with?

The main problem behind all of this discussion of a hypothetical instance is precisely because of that: you are trying to apply logic to something that does not necessarily follow logic. It is not observable; it is not testable; it is not a thought experiment, and it is utterly pointless.

>>2464869
No, a program can not be random. It is completely deterministic. When people need true randomness they have to look elsewhere, like lava lamps:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/random.html

ITT, stoned schizophrenics

>>2464892

Where can I buy a non-deterministic lava-lamp?

>>2464882
Yo people, get on with the program, determinism is dead.

We will eventually.

>>2464898
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

>>2464898

Everywhere and nowhere.

>>2464886
>not observable, not testable, not a thought experiment.

Quantum physics.
What if the "real world" is actually analogue?

*Boom* - blew your minds, right there.

>>2464952
>what

>>2464911
Are you saying that with sufficient data and sufficient understanding of the relationships between the data that there are still things which can not be predicted?

That's basically the same as saying magic exists.

>mfw i think about this at least once a week.

>>2464952
Uh, quantum physics does not require a "digital" universe, bro.

Okham razor

>>2464991
You're an idiot

>>2464830

Why not? Why can't a machine simulate itself?

A PC for instance - why can't a PC simulate a virtual PC using a program?

Do you realize the size a computer simulating the universe would be? AT LEAST 1 bit of storage for EVERY SINGLE quantum number of EVERY SINGLE fundamental particle. Also, EVERY SINGLE point in space would need to be kept track of (quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, etc.). Assuming the "real" universe holding the computer of our universe follows the same physics (i.e. our physics are a copy of theirs), they would've needed to build a computer much larger than the size of our observable universe.

>>2465235
Not necessarily, their existence would simply be justified by an equation. Not in use until you need it, thus covering no processing speed. Perhaps that explains time dilation at speeds close to light. As the object begins to near light speed, the computer starts lagging...

>>2463930
Stupid idea. What's to stop the reality that's simulating us from being simulated ad infinitum?

And besides, if that fact is true that we are indeed a simulation, would it have any effect on our lives? Is that any more meaningful or meaningless than our current ideas of reality? We're the result of a cosmic expansion and tons of low probability events acting under universal laws that may or may not have absolute truth. Does it matter that this may also be a simulation?

Point being - that's a dumbfuck idea