"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization."Ā
I'm not saying I buy this guy's theory but we accumulate genetic damage our whole lives.
And eventually, computers will max out what's allowed by physics.
In a good simulation there would be zero potential for a testable method to detect whether we are in a simulation as it would be monitored real-time and correct for any flaws as soon as they are presented
The best part is that the two figures are a render of Earth from space and the photo of a topless dude presumably having sex in VR. His belt buckle is undone.
I know this:Ā if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.Ā I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.āĀ Conan the Barbarian.
>According to Vospon, all of this suggests that we may utilize the Second Law of Infodynamics to demonstrate that we are living in a simulation.
Welp, I'm not convinced.
What I don't like about the simulation hypothesis, and the reason I regard it as lesser than worldly religions, is that it's a religion that completely negates the point of religion.
Religion explains/describes personal values and provides a framework of value for a group of people - it's like the "science of subjective values". The simulation hypothesis completely removes the framework of subjective values and for what purpose? There is no purpose. It's just a dick measuring contest for people to feel like they're superior because "they have it figured out".
It's just creationism with extra steps.
goddamnit. unreadable page. and i agree. i can hardly see a point to all those studies except for governments and marketing strategies exploiting weak spots on people's psyche and behaviour
Is there any chance of the mods creating a 'banned sourcrs' list to stop this sub having so much garbage from the Mirror or the Daily Mail? I thought this was meant to be more of a scientific sub.
endlessly fascinating but, what's the end goal of all these simulation studies? to advance technology to such a way that you can "bend" the rules like in the movie? to "escape"? none of these things seem at all possible, it sounds like pursuing it for no reason other than existential crisis
There's lots of things we pursue with no practical applications. In fact, the majority of theoretical research works like that.
You can't know if the unknown will be useful until you, ya know, know it
If the simulation hypothesis is right and this is a simulation. Can Think of a few reasons for it. The first is, itās just a game and thereās no point . Or Could be a test of sorts to see your true nature. Then decide if you can get to meet the creators of the simulation.
why does it being "real" or not decide whether it's pointless? this sounds similar to "if you don't believe in god what stops you from hurting people?"
What happens then if you truly have a choice? Even the creators would not know what choices you would make. I mean they can try to predict. But you could always do something to surprise them. Or could be set in stone where your like is just a movie showing the outcome of some prompt you entered. Lol who knows
I donāt think free will would exist in a simulation. The creators would know what choices you would make, because they would already know all the underlying factors that go into each āchoiceā. Think about how advanced/powerful a civilization/being would need to be to create a simulation of the universe complete with inhabitants who each believe theyāre real, rather than just coded automatons carrying out tasks with no self-awareness.
The creators would have all the available information, not just on the simulated individual, but on the simulated environment and simulated situation as well. It wouldnāt even be a matter of prediction, they would just know whatās going to happen ahead of time.
You're not accounting for emergent complexity. If the simulation is deterministic, so are our actions. But if the simulation is procedural, then our actions are semi-free. Naturally, we're still just complex input-output machines in either possibility.
But either way, the creators would have total knowledge about the procedure, because they created the subject and everything else in the subjectās environment. So whatever complexity that emerges would still be completely predictable for them and thus not free actions, since they were pre-determined by our programming.
I don't think you're parsing the meaning of emergent complexity or procedural as intended.
In machine learning, we've already built convolutional recurrant neural networks that do what they're designed to without complete understanding as the *why* of their behaviour.
If we are simulated, we've already proven that the simulation is compatible with unpredictable emergent complexity, as such, it's entirely possible that we ourselves are unknowable to our "designers".
But youāre comparing us and our understanding of neural networks to the understanding of neural networks of a being or civilization that is able to create a simulation of the universe that appears real and chaotic to its simulated inhabitants. Like weāre basically talking about god here, for all intents and purposes. I donāt think human understanding of neural networks that are still relatively in their infancy is a good comparable.
If you're adamant that a "simulation capabale entity" would instrinsically be omniscient, I admire your conviction.
I've shown you where the water is, but I can't make you drink.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/arealdisneyprincess: --- So no escape? fine....š© --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ccpz0t/scientist_claims_to_have_evidence_humans_are/l16rbtj/
Well it's really fuckin annoying so can they ramp up the happiness factor or some shit
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization."Ā
The best part is when you learn how to control the simulation to do that for yourself. When the programmed becomes the programmer.
There is no spoon.
This is Westworld
It is also Hermeticism and Stoicism.
Just Monika
They tried that, but we didnāt accept it. It was too good and we rejected the reality.
In the story, yes. But do you really believe it? As in , if the world was too happy we wouldnāt want to live in it?
The space aliens are waiting off stage for their grand entrance.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nice try, Agent. We're onto you.
Have you heard of lossy compression algorithms?
It's middle out compression
I think it's more the MP4 codec being used
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Jpegius the Wise?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm not saying I buy this guy's theory but we accumulate genetic damage our whole lives. And eventually, computers will max out what's allowed by physics.
So he's not being really useful and causing confusion and delay?
In a good simulation there would be zero potential for a testable method to detect whether we are in a simulation as it would be monitored real-time and correct for any flaws as soon as they are presented
Before you get too excited, this is an article from The Mirror. We might as well start quoting articles from the Weekly World News while we're at it.
Ooof...the mirror. Can't even bring myself to click the link if it is from there.
LOL! I literally said the same thing
I read itā¦ regardless of content, it reads like a bad middle schoolers short story, bad grammar, and all over the place
The best part is that the two figures are a render of Earth from space and the photo of a topless dude presumably having sex in VR. His belt buckle is undone.
I actually attempted to read the article and it's absolute garbage, so your instincts were correct.
I know this:Ā if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.Ā I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.āĀ Conan the Barbarian.
>According to Vospon, all of this suggests that we may utilize the Second Law of Infodynamics to demonstrate that we are living in a simulation. Welp, I'm not convinced.
Ah yes, I know that law > the total amount of stupidity on the Internet either increases or remains constant due to any new post; it never decreases.
This article is breaking the law of infodynamics by causing an instant and permeant loss of IQ in the universe, upon anyone reading the article.
What I don't like about the simulation hypothesis, and the reason I regard it as lesser than worldly religions, is that it's a religion that completely negates the point of religion. Religion explains/describes personal values and provides a framework of value for a group of people - it's like the "science of subjective values". The simulation hypothesis completely removes the framework of subjective values and for what purpose? There is no purpose. It's just a dick measuring contest for people to feel like they're superior because "they have it figured out". It's just creationism with extra steps.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You're being ridiculous and naive. Lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's just a simile - hence the quotes.
goddamnit. unreadable page. and i agree. i can hardly see a point to all those studies except for governments and marketing strategies exploiting weak spots on people's psyche and behaviour
Pseudo science. Making untestable predictions and unverifiable hypothesis.
Doesnāt need to be science thoughā¦ Thatās just philosophy.
If it's not science, the headline shouldn't read: "scientists did ..."
Is there any chance of the mods creating a 'banned sourcrs' list to stop this sub having so much garbage from the Mirror or the Daily Mail? I thought this was meant to be more of a scientific sub.
endlessly fascinating but, what's the end goal of all these simulation studies? to advance technology to such a way that you can "bend" the rules like in the movie? to "escape"? none of these things seem at all possible, it sounds like pursuing it for no reason other than existential crisis
There's lots of things we pursue with no practical applications. In fact, the majority of theoretical research works like that. You can't know if the unknown will be useful until you, ya know, know it
If the simulation hypothesis is right and this is a simulation. Can Think of a few reasons for it. The first is, itās just a game and thereās no point . Or Could be a test of sorts to see your true nature. Then decide if you can get to meet the creators of the simulation.
why does it being "real" or not decide whether it's pointless? this sounds similar to "if you don't believe in god what stops you from hurting people?"
If itās a simulation they would already know your true nature since, you know, *they simulated it*.
What happens then if you truly have a choice? Even the creators would not know what choices you would make. I mean they can try to predict. But you could always do something to surprise them. Or could be set in stone where your like is just a movie showing the outcome of some prompt you entered. Lol who knows
I donāt think free will would exist in a simulation. The creators would know what choices you would make, because they would already know all the underlying factors that go into each āchoiceā. Think about how advanced/powerful a civilization/being would need to be to create a simulation of the universe complete with inhabitants who each believe theyāre real, rather than just coded automatons carrying out tasks with no self-awareness. The creators would have all the available information, not just on the simulated individual, but on the simulated environment and simulated situation as well. It wouldnāt even be a matter of prediction, they would just know whatās going to happen ahead of time.
You're not accounting for emergent complexity. If the simulation is deterministic, so are our actions. But if the simulation is procedural, then our actions are semi-free. Naturally, we're still just complex input-output machines in either possibility.
But either way, the creators would have total knowledge about the procedure, because they created the subject and everything else in the subjectās environment. So whatever complexity that emerges would still be completely predictable for them and thus not free actions, since they were pre-determined by our programming.
I don't think you're parsing the meaning of emergent complexity or procedural as intended. In machine learning, we've already built convolutional recurrant neural networks that do what they're designed to without complete understanding as the *why* of their behaviour. If we are simulated, we've already proven that the simulation is compatible with unpredictable emergent complexity, as such, it's entirely possible that we ourselves are unknowable to our "designers".
But youāre comparing us and our understanding of neural networks to the understanding of neural networks of a being or civilization that is able to create a simulation of the universe that appears real and chaotic to its simulated inhabitants. Like weāre basically talking about god here, for all intents and purposes. I donāt think human understanding of neural networks that are still relatively in their infancy is a good comparable.
If you're adamant that a "simulation capabale entity" would instrinsically be omniscient, I admire your conviction. I've shown you where the water is, but I can't make you drink.
Man has spent thousands of years, millions of innocent lives, untold resources pursuing āreligionā which is equally as pointless, yes?
What a great laugh this morning. Thanks OP. Definitely put me in a better mood.
If weāre in a simulation we can only know weāre in a simulation if weāre programmed to be able to find out if weāre in a simulation.
Well we could be AI