/sci/ - Science & Math

No.

Yes.

Yes.

>evidences/arguments
Anthropic principle.
>good
No.

No

Someone gonna explain?

No.

Maybe.

Godamn, it is like i am facing an army of organics robots, this must be the evidence i was looking for.

Yes. It's similar with paranoid ideation (ie, that you are not really living your life, but a life made by others from "outside", for reasons unknown). Cmon, lol...

>>4669020
I meant, that is an argument against.

Not really, no. I like simulationism/simulism/what have you, but it'd be foolish to assert that there's any real, hard evidence that it's more probable than this just being a plain old universe.

>>4669003
the (very) short summary is that simulationism is the belief that our universe is being simulated in some way in some higher universe, rather than being the "highest" universe in existence. Kinda like the sims, only on a much larger scale.

>Mathematically speaking, we’re probably living in a computer simulation, under certain reasonable assumptions. The idea behind the proof is simple. Assuming humans live long enough and continue to advance in technology, eventually we’ll be able to create such fine simulations of the world that the people in those simulations will be conscious. If Moore’s Law holds in any form, so that our computational power increases exponentially in time, then eventually we’ll be able to simulate entire worlds and histories, in such fine details that the actors in those worlds are conscious. Advance technology far enough, and our computers will be able to generate thousands of years of conscious civilization in an instant, in the same way that current computers can run millions of iterations of Conway’s “Game of Life” in the blink of an eye. The point is, of all conscious entities in the universe (over all time), a huge majority will be virtual. If you’re “born” into a random consciousness, the odds are huge that it’s a computer-generated one.

>This proof was discovered by professor Nick Bostrom of Oxford University. He has an entire webpage about it, The Simulation Argument, and the paper which started it all is here: Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?. The paper goes into a lot more details, in a lot greater elegance, than I can hope to do in this article, so be sure to check it out.

mfw the purpose of all this is just to continue the great perpetuating process at all cost

>>4669046
>"plain old universe"

implying anything about this is plain, simple, or straightforward.

What's the purpose of life? What's the purpose after that purpose is achieved? What's the big goal?

>>4669093
>What's the purpose of life? What's the purpose after that purpose is achieved? What's the big goal?
>Implying the universe is concerned with such trivial matters

>>4669093
It's really difficult to come up with a term for the universe that isn't simulated, I usually go for higher/more basic/parent.

The purpose, I don't know. For fun perhaps, or to test some theory on cosmological mechanics.

I've always like the idea the universe we're in is actually being simulated by a self-replicating machine that was released in a nebula somewhere and forgotten about.

>>4669099
why would a nebula exist in its world?

>>4669093
The purpose of life is to make you look for a purpose. It's either that or styrofoam.

>>4669112
Nebula meaning cloud of gas and dust

If we're assuming that this higher universe has dust, it has nebula

>science
>outside of the system

Godel would like to have a word with you.

>>4669129
So even if we are in a system, we will never be able to prove it.
Maybe its a safeguard implemented by the observers ahaha

We wouldn't know. We could be a very complicated The Sims game something out there is playing.

>>4669129
Define system, preferably explaining why that's the extent you're willing to extend scientific thought.

I don't like it.

Mathematics is just too mysterious, man.

>>4669156
4D Julia set related

>>4669144
If the universe is computed, which is the only way we know, it would have to follow a kind of formal system. Because we cannot jump out of this system, it is impossible to everything about it. Maybe it has something to do with the uncertainty principle?

At least that's what I think after reading 3/4 of GED.

If anyone can expand this, or tell me why I'm wrong, id be really interested to hear it.

>>4669394
to know everything about this system*
polite sage

>science
>simulation hypothesis
choose any one

Is there a good definition of a simulation?

>>4669394
>>4668976
It doesn't matter if we're in a simulation or not, we can never prove everything in any system powerful enough to model itself. Proofs are finite lists of symbols from a finite alphabet (including punctuation, all relevant notations, etc.). We can easily write down every proof, correct and incorrect, just by writing down every combination of symbols.

Now, the symbols themselves don't have any inherent meaning; we're free to interpret them how we like. Let's interpret each symbol as a "digit" from a numeral system (if we have 2 symbols, we treat them as binary 0 and 1, if we have 8 symbols we treat them as octal 01234567, and so on.). Our list of all proofs thus corresponds to counting the Naturals.

Since we can prove things about larger sets than the Naturals (eg. the power set of the Naturals, the Reals, etc.) then it must follow that we cannot prove everything, simply because there aren't enough possible proofs compared to the possible things to prove. For example, if I asked "I have a set x = {0, 1, 2}. For every Real r, give me a proof of either "r is a member of x", or "r is not a member of x"" it can't be done because there aren't enough proofs to do it. Even if we make a proof schema (eg. "member for r = 0, r = 1 and r = 2, not a member otherwise") we've just shifted the problem, since we can't bind "r" with a sentence like "for r = ...".

BTW, the Physics which makes our brains and computers is a formal system.

Here's an interesting talk on how we can think of the world as a hologram:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

OP has a fag error in his matrix.

it's not important either way. 'Real' and 'Simulation' are probably not much more than different points of perspective.

>>4668976
"Programming a physics simulator" is silly. Why should I sit down and work out how to make a working Universe, only to run it and find that inside, there are other beings who are sitting down and working out how to make a Universe... What a waste of my time, when the computer could do it all along!

Here's my Universe simulator:

1 Let T be some universal, binary Turing Machine
2 Set i = 1
3 Set p = 0
4 If log(2, p) <= i GOTO 6
5 GOTO 9
6 Run p on T for 2^(i - log(2, p)) steps
7 Set p = p + 1
8 GOTO 4
9 Set i = i + 1
10 Go to 3

For any computer program p and any number of steps t, this will take a finite amount of time to run p for t steps. Since this runs every program there is, it includes all Universe simulations, running for all lengths of time.

Due to the exponentials and logs, the number of steps between each increment of i (each "phase") doubles each time. In each phase we run twice as many programs; all of the new ones are only run for 1 step, all of the old ones are run for twice as many steps as they were in the last phase.

This is actually pretty amazing, since the runtime of every individual program scales linearly with the runtime of the whole algorithm. Thus, every simulated Universe is running in realtime!

Here's a good one for you.

If at one point we simulate our universe, our own universe, perfectly. Then we can assume that in that universe, lies a simulation of the universe. right?
So what happens when that simulation creates their simulation? eventually you'd have a giant cascade of simulated universes.

technically, the chances of you being a simulated being in one of those infinite series of universes is much greater than you being the original.

If this is the case, when we are able to build this simulation, we will be able to see if we are a simulation or not by altering something within our simulation.
The change would reflect in all copies, but not the original, as that would be reality and not subject to change.
the temptation to build this simulation and find out if we are a simulation or not will be too great for humanity to refrain forever, the simulation has, or will be inevitably built. That is a fact.

So what happens if, once we run our simulation, we then turn it off?

>>4669569
You can indeed simulate your own Universe, but it wouldn't catch up with you. For example, if you ran my Universe simulator (above) for long enough, you will definitely end up simulating your own Universe. In fact, you will end up running any finite number of copies in parallel (since we can always copy a simulation by putting a useless operation, like "+ 0", in there).

The problems would be a) you don't know for sure which one is yours (since there will be an immense number of not-quite-the-same Universes, far more than your knowledge about our Universe can tell apart) and b) it will run at some constant fraction of our Universe's speed. For example, it may run 1 step for every quadrillion steps of the Universe simulator. For nested Universes, you need to multiply the slowdowns. Beings inside a simulation wouldn't notice how unfathomably slow it's going though.

If we are indeed in a (super)deterministic Universe, being simulated, then we would all switch off our simulations at the same time, since that's the definition of being the same.

Running my program thus carries ethical considerations. At some point you'll need to stop it, but that would destroy all of the Universes it was simulating.

>>4669617
I disagree. Ending the simulations requires no ethical considerations.

Consider a computer running a simulation of a universe where all of the beings in it were continuously tortured. From our lofty position, it is more as though we are looking into a window into their universe than anything else. And, as you said, we can change the rate of the simulation without the inhabitants noticing. Thus, to the inhalants, it makes no difference if we run the simulation at blinding speed, or at an incredibly slow crawl. Even pausing the simulation for a few years would not give reprieve to the poor souls trapped inside. We could even jump to a different point in time in the simulation, and no one would have noticed. Even running multiple simulations simultaneously, each at a different time, would have no impact on the inhabitants of the simulation. A

So I ask, if simulating a million universes of suffering is no worse than simulating one, is simulating one the same as simulating none? I argue yes. The fact that you are simulating them does not influence their state at any time during the lifespan of their universe. The suffering is contained in the initial setup and rules of your simulation; it is a mathematical being, like triangles and tangent lines. The simulation then, is to be understood as a mathematical system, with rules like any other. The suffering is there whether you view a specific instance of it on a computer or not.