What are some good arguments agaist the simulated reality hypothesis?
>>7992288
There are none.
against*
None really, "it could be fake" is very elastic and stretches to cover anything you throw at it.
>>7992288
The fact that there is no actual evidence for it
>>7992288
What is the hypothesis ? Explain it in detail
>>7992305
If some civilization reaches the technological capability to simulated artificial realities, there will be a vaster amount of simulated realites than real ones. Therefore it's more likely we live in a simulation rather than a real world.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Evidence_against
>>7992312
Well for starters it doesn't prove or even guarantee a deeper simulation. And like most people pointed it out, there's not a tiniest bit of evidence to support it.
It's literally impossible to simulate a vast infinite space filled with around 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 atoms and their subatomic particles with an infinite framerate.
>>7992300
Actually, the fact that light has a "speed limit", and that it is such a low limit compared to the distances that galaxies in the universe exist in compared to the gravity needed to hold them together is clear evidence that existence is emulated, and for that matter emulated very poorly.
>>7992333
How does it remotely make it or imply its a simulation ? Also it's a relative speed limit. There is no actual limit for anything if you look at it with an unbounded frame of reference.
>>7992348
Placing limits on things like gravity and light are only necessary when your processing power is limited.
>>7992288
If it was, then the universe simulating our universe could also be a simulation and so on. And if one of the potentially infinite universes decides to shut down the simulation, we would stop existing. Since we still exist, there are either a finite amount of simulated universes or our universe is not simulated.
>>7992331
With our technology it's impossible. But the universe isn't OUR simulation. :^)
>>7992357
not at all. simulations don't need to limit any particle speed. you can just shoot vectors and the calculation time doesn't change if it hits an obstacle 1 meter away or 99999 meters away or just goes infinitely.
Also it's funny how you're considering processing power when there's a gigantic problem like this one;>>7992331
>>7992357
>Placing limits on things like gravity and light are only necessary when your processing power is limited.
No, it's completely arbitrary to assume that instantaneous light is the ideal and anything less is a compromise. Besides which, if we're assuming the universe is tuned for some reason, the universes with instantaneous global communication are going to have boring-ass behavior, models with local communication are where the fun stuff is at.
>>7992357
>speed limits exist when processing power is limited in computers
>therefore we are in a computer because speed limits exist
Hopefully you can see the problem with this logic?
>>7992331
why is that impossible?
>>7992387
It's not, because the people running our simulations could either live in an universe with completely different physical and mathematical laws than our universe our they have simply figured out the underlying concepts of this universe and make their highly efficient computers simulate them.
>>7992331
that the universe exists independently of an observer is an assumption questioned by proponents of a consciousness/ information based model. If a star is light years away from an observer, information about every particle within that star is unnecessary for the function of the universe. These particles do not exist. If someone were to somehow travel to that star and start observing subatomic particles, the particles would appear in a manner consistent with the rule set, or "program"
All that aside... whatever the downfalls or merits of the "simulated reality hypothesis" (not that there is one cohesive one). This counterargument is illogical and worthless. Accounting for all atoms projected to exist from a materialist perspective, is precisely what a simulation theory does NOT have to do. Thats what a material based theory has to do.
>>7992300
>>The fact that there is no actual evidence for it
there is no evidence that you are a human like me
there are none
>>7992288
Infinite regress is really the only one besides the fact it has no supporting evidence
/thread
>>7992300
... and the evidence for a material based world view? "Stuff seems solid?" "its seemed to make sense to us for a long time?"
The fact that we can measure and predict phenomena as though they were material is consistent with both a materialist and "simulation" model.
The fact that at the smallest scale we can see, we have a hard time describing particles as material should at least make the question valid.
That they can be best thought of as particles sometimes, and waves other times, while interacting with themselves as though they were behaving in every possible way simultaneously, should give us cause to question materialism, or at least not trivialize those who do.
.... yes..... I know, just because we cannot comprehend or visualize sub atomic particles in a way that makes sense, does not mean they are not material. Correct. Is that it though? Is that the "evidence"
... admit it, we're clueless... or at least no one has explained to me why we're not ... to think of it... I have very rarely seen people try. People put much more effort into explaining why they don't have to try, why there no justification needed for materialism
>>7992288
Resistance is futile. Mr. Anderson
theawakenment.com/theoretical-physicist-james-gates-finds-computer-code-in-string-theory-equation/#sthash.bjp6BQX2.dpbs
>>7992288
It's the same as god, can't be proven or disproven.
If it's real however, it should have a certain goal.
I find it pretty strange that sentient beings can arise from the same stuff that all "dead matter" is made from.
It just boggles my mind that there are more than 1 element in the universe.
>>7993512
>It's the same as god, can't be proven or disproven
Wrong. It is categorically possible to prove something exists if evidence of its existence arises - at least within the notion of 'the virtual reality'. I am by no means religious, however, God under the current definition can be proven to exist, such with a virtual reality.
>If it's real however, it should have a certain goal
You are making a claim about the properties of something that falls outside of 'the virtual reality'. There may not be a purpose behind any event or action outside of the virtual reality. It is entirely impossible to make any claim about the properties of a 'universe' outside of a virtual reality, other than that it must necessarily possess knowledge of everything within the virtual reality.
>>7993582
> I am by no means religious
> however, God under the current definition can be proven to exist
:^)
>>7992288
The universe is consistent.
A simulation would be laid out on a grid (not necessarily cubic voxels but something to bear in mind for the visualisation).
A grid causes distortions with direction. We do not see such distortions. Ergo the universe is not a simulation.
>>7993582
Proving the "simulation" theory is false is impossible.
Two outcomes if we preform a test that determines if the world is a simulation, either it comes back true, or it comes back false. If it comes back false, people will say "our creators made it false", in short the idea is retarded, get off the bandwagon you edgy cunt
>>7993629
>Proving the simulation theory is false is impossible :^)
>I can't read anon, help
I never stated that you could disprove simulation hypothesis - you are spewing an interchangeable argument - the same could be said about proving god doesn't exist: people will claim god has 'designed' the universe such that it is impossible to prove their existence
>rhetoric about binary conclusions
Yes anon, you are completely right: in a set containing only two possible states, it is either one or the other
>Bandwagon
kek
>>7993660
You missed the point. The fact it's unfalsifiable makes the idea absurd. Why I could propose that the existence universe is just my penis dreaming, and there's no way to disprove it.
On an episode of through the wormhole, they actually have evidence for the matrix. There was an experiment where they shot light in 2 different directions. One went at c, the other one actually went slower. If we live in the matrix, we live in a grid of sorts, where you can only travel in a straight line. If you go elsewhere, you lose energy. Therefore we have energy for the Matrix.
^^that was not the point of the thread, but it was worth pointing out.
>>7993673
>t. Retard
That would disprove Maxwells equation and special relativity
>>7992331
It could be possible if you consider that our universe is simulated by beings who live in a universe that is much more complicated than ours.
Our simulated universe, to them, would just be a less complicated version of their universe.
>>7993730
and maybe flying pink unicorns are operating this reality from candy world while singing the french national anthem
for all you naysayers, watch this fuckin video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4UdXEEAszo
>>7993610
>A simulation would be laid out on a grid
Nah. It would use asynchronous computation, using a particle-based physics model with an artificially imposed speed limit in place to make sure no two asynchronous processors end up fiddling with the same object at the same time.
By partitioning the simulations into pockets separated by vast distances the asynchronous computation can be accelerated in locations of interest as everything outside such a pocket system can be fetched from historical logs instead of having to be simulated at equally advanced age.
Further optimization is had by using quick algorithms that simplifies the trillions of particles into wave patterns and other high level simulations when a intelligent algorithm determines that the result are not dependent on actual particle level simulation.
This was subject to some debate as it's detectable from inside the simulation as a highly paradoxical behaviour, but it was still used because the speedup it provides, and the programmer argued that the highly specific and elaborate experimental setups required to detect it is so advanced that it is unlikely to ever happen.
>>7993669
You've come at me from the left field anon, I never wanted to venture into discussions about unfalsifiability. The entire conjecture that 'nothing can really be proven or disproven' is a counter-intuitive and unpragmatic framework in the persuit of grasping the fundamental nature of the universe. No one lives by this standard, we model by cause and effect: we can make a general claim about 'x' property (of reality) because of its continued reliability to be accurate and produce observable results. Unfalsifiability is cancerous when taken more seriously than just and unfortunate limitation - and ultimately leads to nihilism. You can throw a big tantrum and apply it to every hypothetical - in the end It makes everything absurd, because its an irrational disregard for cause and effect, and observed consistency.
>>7992333
Light doesn't have a speed limit, it has an observable inequality. One cannot ascertain fate by light, the electric field of the universe at a time and place is locally imperative by it's own intrinsic nature, not necessitating destiny by which events once were, or will be.
A rover of mars sends out a message, does it exist before it is observed?
>>7992288
you exist
>>7992288
There don't seem to be any great ones as of yet. The discovery of uncomputable physics would be a refutation of the simulation hypothesis -- uncomputable relative to a Turing machine, that is. Hypercomputation would change the game entirely.
>>7992288
Occam's razor
>>7994285
and how does that argumt for angry birds, DayZ, Quake, Doom and stuff to not being simulated?
I think it's a huge stretch from
>an intelligent civilization could simulate a universe
to
>there is a near-infinite nesting of intelligent civilizations in simulated universes
The overhead per simulation is huge (in terms of atoms in a computer needed per single simulated atom, or something like that) so I think you'd run out of compute power sooner rather than later.
But maybe we are at the bottom of like 5 sims, who knows.
>>7992288
A simulation is a virtual experiment.
>>7994566
There any reason the computer couldn't have one set of hardware/instruction set/whatever substrate that works with some important set of transcendental bases to deal with that end, then regular old rationals for the rest?
There doesn't seem to be anything that would make an ALU that assumes 0=0 1=pi, or whatever necessary, impossible.
>>7992288
No glitches, no lag, Heisenberg uncertainty principle
>>7992288
What's the difference between saying the universe is a simulation and saying the universe was created by God?
>>7992288
"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
- Conan The Barbarian.
And now to be more serious.
There is absolutely no reason to care whether the universe is a simulation, since it has no effect on anything whatsoever and broadly cannot be disproved.
However, remember that there must be a 'real' universe. You can't have a fake of something without the actual something existing. Otherwise it isn't a fake. It's the real thing.
In the end though, its just a retarded question dressed up to look deep.
It's like asking me 'what are some good arguments against the hypothesis that a giant invisible intangible demon tiger is following me wherever i go?'.
>>7994566
> { 234, 4, 2016 } ∩ { 1, 2016 }
> Not using quantum computers.
>>7992357
>Placing limits on things like gravity and light are only necessary when your processing power is limited.
Nature doesn't do what is "necessary", it just does stuff.
It is consciousness that doesn't exist, but a consciousness can't be aware of that. You equivocate existence when you think the picture in your head is real and the world is not.
The narrative - the picture or story in your head - cannot be isomorphic to the world because it is dependent on its own process to even make the narrative. The world is indistinguishable from random without the narrative to give it intent. The world itself is therefore unknowable as a picture in your head.
So in essence, your question is a paradox: even if the world wasn't a simulation, you can only ever know it as one.
>>7994775
>What's the difference between saying the universe is a simulation and saying the universe was created by God?
Is this a real question?
>muh single time traveling electron
>>7994839
Yes, I'm serious.
I don't see how the two statements are different. To me, a simulation implies a simulator, which suggests that it's loosely a form of theism(then again it could be another infinite regress where we're simulations inside of simulations, but I find that idea ridiculous)
>>7994843
Has nothing to do with this thread?
>>7994858
I can run a (simple) simulated universe on my computer. Would you describe me as "God?"
>>7994803
>It's like asking me 'what are some good arguments against the hypothesis that a giant invisible intangible demon tiger is following me wherever i go?'.
Up until that part your were making sense. Then you went full straw man. The giant spaghetti monster is designed to be ridiculous. Profound questions, or theological viewpoints, persist because they have beauty and resonate with many on a level unbeknownst to pasta (or demon tigers).
Occam's razor
>>7994862
Sure, you are the god of that universe because you have full control over that domain. Just like an author is the god of his fictional world.
But I wouldn't call you the god of our simulated universe.
>>7992357
We do not know the upper and lower limit of gravity. There is an upper limit, otherwise the puny verse would have collapsed into a black hole. The lower limit depends on the size of the smallest particle.
>>7992288
The fact that the speed of light is constant in all directions (Michelson-Morely) shows that the universe definitely is not composed of pixels.
>>7992288
a reality that is indistinguishable from simulation is reality
any argment of simulated reality is effectively a debate on the meaning of language: what is the difference between a "simulation" that cannot be distinguished from "reality"
the answer is none. Ergo the discussion is moot
>>7994690
I habe no idea what you're talking about.
Explain
Newton's flaming lazer sword
>>7992288
There are no arguments against it. You simply ask "At which resolution?" and everyone who argues about it instantly becomes real again.
>>7992312
>If some civilization reaches the technological capability to simulated artificial realities, there will be a vaster amount of simulated realites than real ones.
First, you'd have to establish a threshold for an adequate simulated reality.
For instance, every Call of Duty game is a really low-rez universe.
Hell, even Conway's Life is a simulated universe.
But assuming a reasonable lower bound for "adequately simulated"...
There could be a million actual realities, and only one as well simulated as our own, assuming only one civilization gains this ability.
And besides, the odds of YOU (or I) being in a simulation depends not on the number of simulations, but the ratio of virtual people vs physical people.
Even if you allow nested simulations, as long as each universe (actual or virtual) has a "next level" simulated population less than half it's own, you can nest them indefinitely and half the total people still live in the topmost reality.
And there's no reason to allow indefinite nested simulations.
Assuming we're in a simulation, I know nothing about the physics of our parent universe, but certain mathematical concepts must still hold true at all levels.
Any computational device in this universe has actual computational power, regardless of how virtual we ourselves are.
That computational power must be a subset of our parent simulator.
So there's a limit to how much the topmost simulator can do. In fact, nesting should just add overhead and reduce the total potential number of sim-folk.
>>7994896
>Sure, you are the god of that universe because you have full control over that domain. Just like an author is the god of his fictional world.
In a jokey way, sure, but why use the word at all? "God" has many connotations which you absolutely do not intend, so calling me "God" does nothing but confuse the issue.
>>7992331
>It's literally impossible to simulate a vast infinite space filled with around 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 atoms
>>7992333
>, the fact that light has a "speed limit", and that it is such a low limit compared to the distances that galaxies in the universe exist in compared to the gravity needed to hold them together is clear evidence that existence is emulated,
You're both making assumptions in the context of our own universe alone.
It's like if humans had only seen one giraffe, ever, but you want to make pronouncements about giraffes in general.
"This is the tallest giraffe that could possibly exist."
"All giraffes are about this tall."
Gillette's razor
>>7993936
sauce?
>>7992288
Punch them in the face until they stop caring
http://youtu.be/K4rCzA8fS84
By far the best video if have ever seen on the topic. I suggest everyone in this thread stop and watch immediately.
Quite literally blew my mind for a few days the first time I saw it
>>7996213
Twenty Three Minutes
fuck you anon
>>7996218
It's a long video but trust me when I say it's worth it.
It's a pretty niche subject, so anyone who cares enough to click the link should, in my mind, be interested in watching an awesome overview of the topic.
The video is amazing, watch it!
>>7992288
If this is simulation then did the Creator of such a sim anticipate anime?
>>7992317
>rationalwiki
Kek.
>>7992331
>It's literally impossible to simulate a vast infinite space filled with around 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 atoms and their subatomic particles with an infinite framerate.
Truth, but in a few decades or, worst case, centuries, -we- will likely have the tech for a fully immersive virtual reality 'game' where the only thing needing to be simulated is sense data. The computational requirement for this is significantly, mind bogglingly less intense than simulating our universe in its totality. So for me this argument is a dead end.
>>7996314
An easier "out" is to look at the sky in current video games.
There's no need to simulate every atom in every star in every galaxy in the sky.
It could just be "painted on the ceiling".
Cosmological arguments from Bayesian probability are typically unfalsifiable. See: the Doomsday Argument. Hell, you can claim basically anything is 'probable' if you have a creative definition of evidence and probability.
Example: the vast majority of metaphysical theories regarding the nature of what happens 'outside the universe' have turned out to be stupid in hindsight: see Aristotle's cosmology, Catholic cosmology, Hindu codmology.
Therefore, the simulation Argument will most lkkely appear equally stupid in hindsight.
>>7992288
What's the difference between a simulation and the real thing? It's just an analogy to something we are familiar with
>>7993084
Damn, you can't really be this stupid, right?
>>7994839
>Is this a real question?
>>7992331
This
>>7992376
Learn how computers work idiot, you need atoms to make up the circuitboard and electrons to make up bits of information.
Also, there is no reason to believe that consciousness (as opposed to a simulated replica of consciousness) can arise from a computer.
>>7992415
The most efficient computers could be is an exact replica of real existence but for it to be as vast as real existence, it would have to use up all matter in real existence. So your hypothesis is stupid.
>>7993020
This is the only way it could even be real
But consciousness doesn't arise from computers, consciousness could inhabit computers though
>>7994566
>You'd need infinite storage to save every single digit.
give up this meme
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-irrational-numbers-be-represented.html
>>7996979
>Also, there is no reason to believe that consciousness (as opposed to a simulated replica of consciousness) can arise from a computer.
If you believe in emergentism, there's every reason to believe this
>>7992288
To scratch at this from a more pragmatic level
a) Out own technology doesn't remotely approach a matrix model, nor is it probable such a thorough and perfect simulation could be achieved,
b) This supposed hyper advanced civilization is somehow able to not only achieve this, but cultivate it in a way that would be compatible to humans? Does this also mean they can do this for any other sentient beings? It seems infinitely complex for an already chaotic universe.
>>7992288
I don't know if it matters if it is true or not but I think it is worth considering if it is a useful model.
To the people talking about the resources it would take to simulate this world it sounds to me like you are thinking our world is simulated in some other 'real' or 'physical' world and that is not how everyone proposes this is happening. The idea would be that this is a simulation run from a non physical 'place'.
I don't see how we could get any evidence for or against it but we can examine if it is useful to us as a model.
If the answer is yes or no the real question is "so fucking what?"
>>7992288
My favorite is that there is literally no reason to give it the slightest consideration
>>7992357
this is an advanced form of bait, a readaptation from the usual shitposting as a result from years and years of trial and error, has finally created better and better cringewothy comments to the point where they can actually camouflage themselves as a normal comment until you read them.
We're withnessing evolution people.
>>7992288
>simulated reality hypothesis
it is based around our perception of the world, and not the world itself. And since our perception the world can or can't be proven false(this is problem is also based around individualism and the lack of knowledge about things exego) this hypothesis is just some fantasy that we will never know.
I always thought some of the best evidence against a simulated reality was, quite simply, war and strife. Think about it, the Matrix has shown us a world where little conflict arises. You never hear of war, famine, or disease in this world. Why would you make a world of suffering when you could create a utopia for these people/simulations of people?
>>7998310
Because historical warfare is cool as fuck and I bet autists like the non-simulation alium reptiles think roman forts are cool as fuck and wanted to simulate them then thought other shit was cool like constant medieval wars then trench warfare then mobile warfare.
It's what I would do if I could buy a universe simulation for 50 bucks off steam
>>7998323
To be fair, I think everyone would. It's just how our little primate brains work.
>>7998310
Quick, name some best selling video games
>>7992288
Occam's Razor, once again.
Which is more likely, for us to be the first, and simplest iteration of reality. Or in addition to us, there being a more advanced, complex reality where a civilization reached the complexity necessary to create our reality?
Simulated reality assumes an extra step an order of magnitude more complex than what is necessary to enable reality as we know it. With no proof either way, it's simply a game of odds where the most likely option should be the one deemed the more realistic.
Like, if I were to say I'm Superman and can shoot glittery streams of neutron star material out of my ass, it's certainly possible. But it's far less likely than me just being a liar. So which option would you go for?
Hypothesis, religions, and other matters of personal opinions that do nothing but amuse people with far fetched ideas that can't be proven either way, and offer nothing of any real consequence to any discussion, are useless. Completely, 100%, useless. So I'd rather have nothing to do with them.
>>7999123
>Which is more likely, for us to be the first, and simplest iteration of reality.
To reiterate: "... for us to be the simplest iteration of reality where we might exist." Not necessarily the first, or the last.
>>7996213
One of the best I have seen in my life. Wow just wow. Completely mind blowing
>>7996285
That's what the sim was made for
>>7996987
Why don't we know all digits of pi then?
This article is stupid
>>7992288
>good arguments
There rae two and only two possiblilities
A: this is a simulation
B: this is not a simulation
If B then all is well.
If A it doesn't change much from what we can tell since we cannot tell then B is just as good. Occam's razor then dictates us to select B.
If we had been able to tell then the question wold not exist.
Again answer for now must be B.
>>8001743
I never liked Occam's razor as argumentation.
It's always been used to solidify the simplistic but often wrong answer.
>There's only two possibilities
>Either the earth is flat or the earth is round
>If the earth is flat all is well
>If it's round everything would be the same but we would need to explain why we don't fall off, where earth "stands", why earth doesn't fall down
>therefor earth must be flat
>>8001985
>b0rken logic.
As it happens the Earth is round and we can even tell it is round. For that reason we can dump the stone age hypothesis of flat earth societies and move on to a \more rounded approach.
It feels strange having to spell this on a megalithic stone polishing forum where the age limit is 18.
>>8002029
But we didn't come to this conclusion because of Occam's razor. In fact the very opposite was true. The simple assumption was bullshit and when we learned more we could prove that it was bullshit.
That's my point. Occam's razor is absolutely meaningless.
There is zero evidence and zero way to get evidence, and even if it were true it wouldn't change anything
>>8002086
>Occam's razor is absolutely meaningless.
It really isn't.
/sci/ has bought into the meme that is Occam's like EU has bought into all Americans being fat and ignorant. A few rotten apples got way too much publicity, so the masses then did what typical people do: They started flinging easy insults in order to make themselves appear smarter, and better, than they are.
In simpler terms, Occam's Razor suffers from inflation, when people use it in the wrong context. The basic premise is still good. It isn't supposed to be used as a definitive proof that the simple path is always right. Rather, it's a tool to remind you not to jump into too many conclusions, when they're not absolutely necessary.
So to get back to the issue, the point is that assuming we cannot search for proof, assuming there is NO WAY to find any support for or against the simulation hypothesis, then what we have are basically two exactly similar outcomes. And one of those outcomes would need several orders of magnitude more leaps to conclusions, guessworks, imaginative theories and levels of reality, than the other. Other than that, they are the same. Which is the more likely scenario?
Of course, while we CAN investigate further, while there ARE methods we can use to find out more about one over the other, we should look into them. But the immediate and obviously more likely guess in this instance, does lean towards this reality NOT being simulated. It could be wrong. Just that objectively speaking, at the moment it more than likely isn't.
>>8002086
Occams razor means nothing more than given two theories equally supported by evidence, you should go with the simpler one, at least until better evidence comes along
>>7999123
You are assuming some other civilization is running the simulation. In the versions I have heard our world which is said to be simulated is not running on a computer in the physical world. We are not on some physical beings screen living our lives. Material reductionist's won't be compatible with this though.
I know some people propose the simulation evolved as opposed to being crafted by a creator
>>7992288
There isn't any.
However you can easily construct an argument in favor of it, remember the cartesian Demon thought experiment.
>>7992331
Infinite framerate is a pretty big assumption, maybe they just simulate one electron on a vast complex mathematical curve of highly compressed data and most values can be inferred based on superposition rather than what we actually calculate when we try to measure an individual instance internally.
>>7998310
>Why would you make a world of suffering when you could create a utopia for these people/simulations of people?
World of Wacraft is basically killing and doing your daily jobs for a bit of money
If I could make such a simulation, my current me would find an utopia rather boring to watch.
I'd rather watch a chaotic clusterfuck
>>7999123
Occam's Razor is not evidence against.
It's simply a reason to not give it any thought.
Because it makes no difference at all wether our universe is just inside a computer or not.
It's the same for us either way
>>8003442
so what is the framerate of the universe ?
>>8003511
As far as we know we can't measure anything smaller than a Planck unit of time due to the upper limit of light speed, so examining the inverse of that would be a good starting point.
>>8003521
> As far as we know we can't measure anything smaller than a Planck unit of time
theoretically...which is a pretty baseless and outdated theory
>>7996979
>Also, there is no reason to believe that consciousness (as opposed to a simulated replica of consciousness) can arise from a computer.
Do you think the brain is magic?
>>8003527
can you prove you have consciousness ?
>>8003524
How did you come about infinity as a framerate, then?
>>8003529
You are conversing back, asking follow up questions based on a previous premise implying the Turing Test has been passed.
Would you even ask that question to something that wasn't conscious?
>>8003531
Because if you slow down the time, you will observe that all the physical calculation is still happening on a subatomic accuracy without compromise. They don't lag, freeze or move pixel by pixel, they move independant of any limitation like framerates or pixels. And for all the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 atoms and their subatomic particles to be calculated with an unbound framerate simply throws "simulated reality" off the table and makes it an impossible ridiculous theory.
The amount of atoms I typed there are approximately correct btw, 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is not an exaggeration.
>>8003536
> Would you even ask that question to something that wasn't conscious?
Thats a loaded statement as if you already proved some things have consciousness and some things don't.
Can you even define consciousness ?
>>8003529
Why do I have to? I simply asked if there's something different in principle, between consciousness running on a brain and on a computer. If it can be said to exist at all, which would be irrelevant to the question.
>>8003550
The difference is we still haven't completely understood the human brain and all its compartments and things like the grey matter, let alone consciousness itself. But we are completely aware what computers and their parts are made of.
>>8003542
First of all, you're operating under an assumption that time is in some way continuous, which you simply cannot know. Our instruments for assessing this are extremely limited, and it may just be apparently continuous within our limits.
Second, you're assuming our universe would have to operate on the same time frames and limitations as an upper universe, which is completely unsubstantiated.
If you ever ran a computer simulation of anything - say, water physics - you would have realised that several seconds of simulated flow might take upwards of several hours of computing to calculate. Who's to say they can't take 1000 years to simulate one "frame" of our universe? OR that their universe is so much more complex that computer simulations are that much more powerful than ours? Or any number of other possibilities?
>>8003555
We're perfectly aware of how computers work in the same way we're perfectly aware of hour a neuron works. The system is the interesting part, and machine learning is approaching a point of being a complete black box, like the human brain. Simple neural networks are almost unintelligible.
>>8003542
What tool do you have that allowed you to slow down time and take all these measurements?
>>8003562
> you're operating under an assumption that time is in some way continuous
...as opposed to what ? it is demonstrably continuous, it doesn't stop or lag or stutter or drop in framerates or anything.
I'd like to hear your alternative ideas and evidence on how time is something else than continuous.
> you're assuming our universe would have to operate on the same time frames and limitations as an upper universe
...upper universe ? and somehow you have a problem with unsubstantiated claims ?
In general, are you sure you're not just trying to twist videogame mechanics into reality rather than trying to understand real world physics ?
> OR that their universe is so much more complex that computer simulations are that much more powerful than ours?
> their universe
.......Are you smoking something maybe ?
>>8003568
No neurophysicist or neurosurgeon will confidently say that we know how the brain works 100% all around. If you meet a neurophysicist, please let me know, I got so many questions.
>>8003574
4000x slowmo cameras ?
double slit experimentation measurements ?
dual entanglement measurements in general ?
>>8003548
Consciousness is mental awareness and the ability to initiate physical interaction with your environment.
Then why don't you ask your computer keyboard to prove its consciousness directly? The fact that I attempted to provide an answer and your keyboard will not does prove a level of interaction and awareness that I possess is missing from your keyboard.
>>8003576
>...as opposed to what ? it is demonstrably continuous, it doesn't stop or lag or stutter or drop in framerates or anything.
You wouldn't notice the frame drops if you were in a simulation, dipshit. The same way you don't notice the differences in how much time every single frame of a physics simulation took.
>...upper universe ? and somehow you have a problem with unsubstantiated claims ?
I'm not claiming it exists, I'm not even subscribing to that theory. I'm saying your reasons for dismissing it are asinine and wrongheaded.
Here's the only reason you need - no evidence for it.
>>8003555
If we already understand everything about computers, then why do computers keep evolving and changing at a rate much faster than the human brain?
>>8003583
Mental awareness ? Doesn't that got something to do with the brain ?
>>8003579
No computer scientist or engineer will confidently say that we know how electricity works 100% all around, either.
>>8003588
why is understanding computers a limit to building better ones ? Also computers don't "evolve themselves", WE simply build better machines with the better technology we establish.
>>8003579
Not "the brain". A neuron.
Plus I don't know where you get off saying that without knowing exactly how consciousness arises, we can't replicate it.
>>8003593
Well there in lies the problem, which actually goes against your argument. You'll have a huge problem bringing evidence from the things you don't understand. Just because you don't understand two subjects on the same level, doesn't magically open doors for impossible opportunities.
>>8003580
Slowmotion cameras just take more samples in a given time period, they don't actually slow down time.
The point of the double slit is that is it random and unknown with many repetitions, there aren't calculation that predict exactly where the individual photons will land.
>>8003598
And yet you've assessed them to be impossible, on no evidence whatsoever.
>>8003595
Can you prove that YOU have a consciousness ? If you can't even do it yourself, I wonder how you're going to prove that a machine can have consciousness.
Even a neuroscientist like Sam Harris said that, some parts of the brain is still a mystery and it is literally impossible to prove something like consciousness as it is completely subjective by definition.
>>8003589
It has to do with an information network and nervous system, but there are living organisms that react to their environment without a central brain and all the basic concepts of a nervous system can be digitally represented.
>>8003602
Depending on how you would define it, I may or may not. And it may or may not be even relevant. If you think everyone's a p-zombie, there's no difference between a computer and a humie anyway.
>>8003601
A computer is not a brain, they have different dynamics overall. so it's impossible for a not-brain to perform the exact functions of the brain.
>>8003598
You can't declare opportunities impossible when you don't understand the subjects either, though.
>>8003602
Would you ask that question to something that wasn't conscious, are you an insane person?
>>8003608
A mechanical heart is not a biological heart either. This isn't an argument.
>>8003611
computers and brains are different things. The only standing point you have is that they both operate with electricity. Your argument holds as much water as claiming that a washing machine can also have consciousness since it can decide to do things and it does interact with the world around it.
>>8003615
Thats the same loaded statement. I ask questions to things that I know they can reply back. I ask questions to google as well. If thats where you draw the line to have consciousnes, then your calculater might also have consciousness.
>>8003617
>If you think everyone's a p-zombie, there's no difference between a computer and a humie anyway.
Your distinction between "real" consciousness and "fake" simulated consciousness loses all meaning if you don't think it can be proven anyway.
No. Basically the second law of thermodynamics doesn't allow for it. Energy would undergo hyperentrophy due to binary system pressure, and the result is all matter would instantly decay into iron (IE death of the universe). Consciousness would cease to be possible.
There is no way around this.
>>8003619
We understand the mechanics of the heart and how it pumps blood, which we can replicate through machinery.
I'd like to see you claim that you understand consciousness and know how to replicate it.
>>8003625
It's not yet proven. But to build claims over consciousness, you need proof. Thats what I'm asking of you.
>>8003617
Those living organisms interact directly to their environment, that is consciousness, most insects don't have brains.
Interacting and solely reacting are two different things.
>>8003631
what is the difference ?
>>8003627
Sure. I think making a fairly simple way to create a conscious computer is replicating everything we associate with consciousness. Given sensory inputs, memory, self-awareness and reasoning skills I'm reasonably sure a computer could be considered conscious.
>>8003627
Neural networks do replicate consciousness.
Humans have 100 billion neurons, most functional computer neural networks are single use networks with a a couple dozen that aren't tied to a larger nervous system.
>>8003630
Get away from me, p-zombie.
>>8003636
So you're claiming that you completely understand human consciousness 100% of it ?
Wow. Even Sam Harris couldn't do that.
>>8003640
It's okay to not have an answer to that. Nobody has really.
>>8003634
Dynamic feedback control
>>8003630
>>8003643
You haven't defined consciousness yourself and don't seem to accept any definitions that don't magically make you superior to everything else, so there is really nothing to answer.
As are as demonstrating interactive awareness of the environment, there are already computers that get pretty close to performing at the level of minor conscious entities and they have even tied computer controls and neural networks to biological systems such as with rat's brains to show that they can substitute for and interact with each other in a hybrot.
>>8003655
>"we can't know nuthing anyway"
That's your position, dude. You keep asking people to prove their consciousness. I said we can be reasonably sure of things, and there have been a couple of definitions of consciousness in this thread that can be tested. Drop the dunce hat.
>>8003655
No, calculators don't have dynamic feedback control or any feedback loops, they produce output based only on input processed through static algorithms, their output isn't remember every time and multiplexed with all new input to inform and evolve their internal algorithms.
>>8003664
> they produce output based only on input processed through static algorithms
how is that different than the other consciousness you defined ?
> their output isn't remember every time and multiplexed with all new input to inform and evolve their internal algorithms.
because it's not programmed like that. If you program a calculator to "remember", then it will as long as its memory lets it.
>>8003668
>because it's not programmed like that
That's not an argument in favor of your point. If anything, you implied that if it were, it would be closer to/conscious.
>>8003667
you clearly have different definitions of consciousness from scientists like Sam Harris and I haven't really researched what you consider consciousness to be.
So what is your definition of dynamic feedback control ? Sounds like a computer thing like a dumbed down definition of consciousness that usually relates to things that are alive so you can call machines somehow conscious as well.
>>8003670
Not really, I didn't even define consciousness. I told you time and time again that there is so little input to build claims on it since we don't really understand what it is.
>>8003673
>we don't really understand what it is
You don't, apparently. You can't even give an opinion on our definitions, instead resorting to nonsequiturs.
>>8003668
The other things I describe reorganize their internal structure for creating output based on new input.
You have to do everything for the calculator because you are serving the dynamic feedback control function. You can program it to remember numbers and algorithms but it won't remember how or when to apply them because its only feedback is the input you consciously provide, it doesn't automatically change its own output based on previous input like a fully interacting agent.
A calculator would be wrong, but the right persistent virtual world in a video game you could make a case is conscious according to my definition.
>>8003676
Well opinions are not a scientific viewpoint. Unless you base it on your opinions with no research or evidence, they will simply be written off as some idea about consciousness.
>>8003671
They are physics things and there are entire series of courses dedicated to each word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_%28control_theory%29
>>8003680
You're asking us to prove something you don't provide your own definition of, and refuse to comment on definitions we provide.
Again, the whole problem and the possibility to solve it depends on your definitions. If you subscribe to the p-zombie school of thought, then I can pretend to be a retard too. Prove to me there is a "you" to even respond to who keeps making these retarded posts.
>>8003689
I don't preach on me existing or trying to prove anything, you do. And when people ask for proof you just call them zombies and retards. Which is really not nice :c
>>8003690
You're saying computers cannot replicate consciousness, whatever that means. You refuse to provide a definition for consciousness.
When people who say that consciousness can at least in principle be replicated by a computer - AND PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR WHAT THEY CALL CONSCIOUSNESS - you simply ignore the definition entirely and move on to your own analogies that barely have anything to do with them.
If you think there's something that can't be replicated, go ahead and spout it out. If you think there's something special about a human brain that a machine can't do, go ahead. So far we've heard literally NOTHING in terms of objections.
>And when people ask for proof you just call them zombies and retards.
You're talking like a below-/his/ level of pseudointellectual moron. You deserve to be called a retard at this point.
>>8003695
Not at all. As I said againand again, if your definition is as simple as what you decribed above, then a robot dog is also conscious. But you don't like that even though it fits your definition.
And now you're resorting to ad-hominems because you're cornered, you can't provide evidence and simply getting stressed.
>>8003699
This is the first time a robot dog has been mentioned since you finally understand that calculators don't use feedback loops.
You are the one saying its impossible for robots to be conscious. Are you also implying it is objectionable to think of dogs as being conscious?
Just because you don't understand the evidence that was provided, doesn't mean it isn't still available in this thread.
>>7992331
Wait is our known Universe really that small? Holy shit, 5 seconds in on the /Sci/ board and you've already blown my mind.
>>8003699
>a robot dog is also conscious
Sure. If we call a dog conscious, and some circuitry performs all the functions of the doggy's brain, we can call it conscious.
>>8003716
I never thought of it that way, thanks for the effort.
>>8003716
There are already apparently conscious robot rats running around labs as I alluded to earlier if you are interested.
http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~lss/BICS2004/CD/papers/1094.pdf
>>8003727
>http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~lss/BICS2004/CD/papers/1094.pdf
That paper doesn't even include the word "consciousness" or "conscious" because they know the weight that word carries and they didn't dare to attemp to prove consciousness.
Unlike you tim-dicked sicknipple cumboys who throw around the word consciousness like its garlic bread.
>>8003729
We're throwing the word around with definitions out in the open. So far you haven't disputed either the definitions, or the conclusions, in any way.
This MUH MAGIC thinking is really unimpressive.
>>8003733
> robot dogs have consciousness
lmao
>>8003735
>shitposter on 4chan has consciousness
ROFLMAO
>>8003729
Its not a YouTube video, the psychological/neurosciences term that encapsulates consciousness is cognition.
Consciousness is a term that predates the sciences that goes along with free will, but describes the same thing cognitive neuroscience studies.
>>8003738
maybe its your computer tricking you, cuz u know, u never know if it has a consciousness or not. Or maybe it was agent smith. you never know ;^)))
>>7992331
How could you prove its impossible.
>>8003749
You are the one who doesn't know, you don't even know if you or I are, since you don't have a working definition, our clear definition actually allows us to observe and perform tests to help make determinations.
>>8003754
> test for something completely subjective by nature
> still no evidence
> we know it guise cuz we feel like we have consciousness
lmao
>>8003763
> test for something completely subjective by nature
Now you're really spooking us, anon.
>>8003763
You still haven't provided a definition, so how can it be completely anything, are you saying anything related to any subject is immeasurable by nature?
>>7992288
Make a simulation of the universe exactly how the universe is, its impossible. Some things are uncomputables
>>8003812
lel, they claim that there is another universe and beings there somehow have another universe bigger than our, (bigger than an infinite universe) and somehow thats how they run this simulation.
>>8003774
anything exclusively subjective is not measurable by a scientific method
>>8003825
Any scientific knowledge is gained exclusively by subjective measurements. You're just dead wrong. Google empiricism.
>>7993606
>God shows up
>God is proven
Whereas
>The creators of the virtual reality shows up
>VR is proven,
>>7993829
Popper would love this thread.
"There is no reason to believe unless you have a reason to believe. If there is a reason, there is reason; presumption is not reason." - Socrates
If there is no evidence supporting it, then there is no evidence.
Conjecture is not evidence.
The "holographic universe" and "matrix universe" theories have holes in them to begin with, and there is no physical evidence to support them, just conjecture.
>>8003828
empiricism is not a scientific method...
>>7992288
It would not be very easy to find out. Some things in our universe mimic flaws of our computers when we do calculations. Like quantum physics sets limits to how well you can measure things. Makes you think maybe there is a finest resolution that the simulating computer is able to calculate with just as our computers have limits of how good resolution they can calculate with.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XdTFRud.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>8003862
> le quantum meme
I think you misunderstand the measurement thingy
>>8003857
The scientific method is applied through empiricism. You cannot, even in principle, have "objective" knowledge of anything. You build knowledge through subjective observations.
>>8003857
Not him, but you're playing semantics.
Science includes the realm of empiricism, but empiricism does not contain all of science.
Science includes the following:
- The Scientific Method
- The Socratic Method [Fallacy Checking]
- Empiricism
- Positivism
- Negation
- Falsifiability
>>8003875
You're getting a subjective reading on objective things like measurements and wavelengths of light and heat. How you interpret is up to you.
But there is no objective evidence for consciousness, nor a measurement, nor its observed, nor calculated. It's basically you saying that you have consciousness and thats it. There is nothing you can show to the world for it.
>>8003876
You're confusing science with philosophy
>>8003872
Yes I definitely won't claim to know quantum mechanics very well. Planck length and planck time and quantization of phenomena into discrete particles and energy levels in general would make storage and calculations in a binary computer convenient compared to if it was a continous world where you couldnt even store one single real number exactly.
>>8003883
>You're confusing science with philosophy
Science's foundation is on philosophy
>http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy
You can't have science without reason, and reason/logic are the realm of philosophy.
Consistency, coherency, etc... are all philosophical positions, that science utilizes.
It is actually impossible to have science without philosophy, because where there are systems of reasoning, there is philosophy.
>>8003489
If this argument is taken as true or of importance, then why is our reality so boring?
>>8003887
> Science's foundation is on philosophy
/sci/ will crucify you for this
>>8003883
>You're getting a subjective reading
Sure.
>on objective things like measurements and wavelengths of light and heat.
Ostensibly. This is something accepted for practical reasons, not "proven"
>But there is no objective evidence for consciousness, nor a measurement, nor its observed, nor calculated. It's basically you saying that you have consciousness and thats it. There is nothing you can show to the world for it.
There you go again. What do you think there's no evidence of? I know you exhibit no self-awareness or reason, p-zombie, but there are plenty of better examples.
>>8003885
Well...Even though I argued against simulated reality from the very beginning I can't explain for fuck how subatomic particles are quantized so specifically. Like how all electrons weight exactly, or the energy levels as you said. They sure are quantized and I can't really come up with an argument that goes against how they don't look like simulation mechanics.
>>8003896
Why?
It's a fact, and actual scientists have always supported it.
Hawking recently shot his mouth off, as has Dawkins, but they've both since redacted their comments.
Without checking for logical fallacies and forming a belief in coherency and consistency, then there is no science.
Once this is pointed out, rationally one must accept it's foundational importance.
This is like when greeks thought the sky was held by a giant crane. Why should universe work like human technologies?
>>8003914
Philosophy doesn't use scientific method...Science does.
>>8003825
Its a Particle/Wave relative perspective thing, you are simultaneously a subject and an object.
>>7992317
Fucking lol at these pathetic arguments against a simulated reality
They all are nullified when you consider all our perceived physics and limitations of it are just features of the simulation
>hurr durr you can't store that much information
How the fuck are you supposed to know how the universe outside our simulation is?
Of course this is a fucking simulation, you plebs.
![matrix[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kzDqAc9.jpg "matrix[1].jpg")
>>8003917
Electrons are not a human technology, we use the same electron based mathematical phenomenon that make up the physical reality of the universe to store memory and calculate processes. If it implies something like a simulation then it's originating from the way universe works.
Physics and atomic bombs in particular are just clever little hacks for this simulation. One day we will be able to go deeper and eventually destroy the entire simulation.
>>8003924
"While the simulation argument is a skeptical view of reality, and proposes an interesting question regarding nature and technology, there are several problems if it is proposed as a serious hypothesis. Firstly, the simulation argument is completely unfalsifiable as it is impossible to devise an experiment to test the hypothesis and potentially prove it to be false. "
Rationalwiki should have just stopped there.
It's like literally saying, well it's impossible to prove you wrong but I'm still going to try.
>>8003932
I wonder who is simulating us. Probably God. Testing subjects and using the best brains to be rebuilt inside a robot and make us fight against evil. That would be so fucking cool
>>8003895
Boring is subjective.
And our observations are rather limited compared to those who are watching our universe being simulated.
Anything that is happening and will happen can also be 100% random.
No laws no nothing, just coincidences.
>>8003935
Maybe atom bombs are just a failsafe against whoever is trying to look inside of an atom and see the 0s and 1s. It simply removes any evidence of simulation and destroys the knowledge of it with a massive blast
>>8003950
>Boring is subjective.
Neurology follows Objective Laws as all Sciences do.
>>8003961
>objective laws
Unproven.
>>8003964
Reproducibility is proof.
Perhaps you believe proof means something more infallible, but that's not what proof means.
You idiot.
>>8003970
Not for me
" The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."
>>8003972
Not only is that not the scientific use of the word, it's not even the common meaning/usage either.
Someone's using cherry picking and circular logic.
>>8003982
>waaah
>if it happens an x amount times it will always be that way
>it's impossible for a dice to roll 6 100 times in a row, it's a fixed one.
>>8003990
That's a straw argument.
The argument is the Laws that govern the roll are consistent, not the roll itself [unless the priori action is identical to the quantum level with zero fluctuations in both the roll and the environment].
How the fuck do you not know scientific laws are not on a case by case basis on material objects themselves but rather the laws that govern their interactions?
You think Scientific Laws don't apply to the physics of dice rolling?
Go back to /x/ please.
>>8003997
>waah
>results have been consistent for now
>therefore they'll always be
>>8003998
the problem of induction is not a real problem in application
>>8003999
Not yet
>>8004000
Okay, you sit there shitting your pants over the sun not rising tomorrow m8.
>>8003998
It's called reasonable induction.
It's not a argument from ignorance to doubt the argument from ignorance when induction is axiomatically consistent in itself.
I could see if I was less educated that I could cry wolf and scream about inductive fallacies, but that would have to play off of an existential fallacy itself if I were to attack the concept of scientific laws.
The whole concept implodes on itself because all the oppositional places are held by fallacies leaning on themselves, and the counter evidence is based on both induction and etiology, which are solid and lean on each other to form a solid foundation.
If it was only one or the other, they would fall flat, but they support each other.
>>8003998
do you have any proof that they won't be ?
>>8003999
>>8004005
>>8004006
Things were going so well and consistent in Chernobyl and ppl like you said it will be the same tomorrow becaouse of muh "reezonabul inducktoon", until the accident fucked everything up and killed a lot of people.
How does it feel like for your thought process caused something like Chernobyl ? Do you not feel any shame at all you asshole ?
>note to self
must not get triggered over retarded stupid ass threads like this
>>8004009
Chernobyl involved reckless experiments, you know, something that hasn't got anything to do with the problem of induction.
Common sense mostly.
>>8004031
nice try to deflect you dogmatic piece of shit. enjoy all the mutated babies you caused with your """""unbreakable""""" logic
lol suprised noone's posted this yet
>>8004104
>utharaptor
>not deinonychus
>>8004104
> computers will get better
> which means we will simulate an entire fucking universe
:^)
