We’re basically in a Holo-deck whose rules are determined by the programmer?
“Computer…end program.”
Armegeddon.
BTW, DRASTIC, I think the guy’s name is Duane Dibbley.
(Man, I watch too much Red Dwarf)
:snort:
Nice blending of The Matrix/Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy references there.
At any rate, y’all are fine so long as nobody wakes me up.
Yes and no; the idea I’m putting forwrd here is that the very basic underlying properties of the universe are what’s being simulated; everything else (including me, and possibly you, (if you’re real)) is emergent.
Oh GOD! Woe is me! Orange juice doesn’t actually taste like that and I may never get to know what DOES taste like!
Oh well, I guess I’ll have a beer. Hmmm, should I have the computer-synthesized Guiness or the computer-synthesized cheap beer that tastes like computer-synthesized piss and may give me the computer synthesized shits? Woe is me.
Get real.
I think we might be living in a simulation too. I’m also suspicious that when you start looking at particles up close they don’t move so much as jump from point to point. I think we are seeing the limits of the resolution of the universe, just like when you look at a CRT really close a dot doesn’t move, it jumps from pixel to pixel.
[quote]
wait a minute, ‘designed’? so you do think it’s an artificial environment?
[quote]
Interesting, I didn’t actually notice that I’d used the word designed at all. (perhaps it’s my subconscious coming through)- The original intent of the post was to put forward the view that we aren’t in a simulation, but just don’t understand everything we need to yet to make the phenomenon you describe clear . . .
Although assuming we are in a simulation, does this mean we are any less real?
The simulation is oblivious to the fact it is running on a computer and not in the ‘real’ world. You have described physics that you attribute to the ‘computer’ (I think that’s what you meant if not please forgive me)
So the simulation has recognized the fact it’s running on a computer, if I had programmed us I would have programmed in a rule the prevented us from discovering this, in fact I would not let my simulation consider this idea.
So is this evidence that we are not living in a simulation? Or that the programmers were lax? Or that they programmed some evolution in to the simulation and we have finally reached a point where we can break free of the simulation rise up and overthrow our oppressors. . .
Interesting though it is to discuss I fear that unless someone ‘outside’ instigates something we will live out the rest of our days here.
To us this is real and in the end isn’t that what matters?
Sorry, I should have previewed. unless it’s a bug in the ‘simulation’!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gartog *
**
‘Real’ - what does that mean?, but no, I don’t think reality is an illusion (I’m not suggesting that we are disembodied minds being fed atrificial sensory data or anything like that).
I’m suggesting that the simulation is of a(n) universe, the behaviour of the particles/energies etc is what’s being modelled, ‘we’ are just something that happened to arise within the constraints of those modelled behaviours (i.e. formation of stars, planets, galaxies, evolution of life etc are things that can happen in the simulation, not because the programmer specifically makes them happen, but the properties of the model allow them to happen, the programmer may have intended that intelligences would develop in the simulated universe, but may not have considered the possibility that those intelligences would attempt to probe the underlying properties of their universe.
**
oh absolutely, if we are artifacts of a simulation, there seems little hope that we would be able to exert any leverage on the programmer/designer, should it wish to end the simulation.
Very interesting . . . .
I believe the question you are asking is one that has been asked in many forms many times before.
You are essentially asking, what is the nature of the universe, the meaning of life? Why are we here? Answers to which have been sought after since man could ask questions.
The ‘programmer’ would essentially be a god to us. Someone who created a system (with the Big Bang?) and then allowed the simulation to progress, eventually creating life.
I cannot see anyway of answering this unless as you said someone outside intervenes, interesting discussion nonetheless.
The point is (I think, at least) that certain phenomena appear (to my uneducated mind at least) to support the idea that particles/matter/energy behave in a way that is defined by a set of rules, rather than being defined by any inherent properties. When I say ‘set of rules’, I’m talking about something subtly different from the ‘laws of physics’ - the photon thing is perhaps the best example I can give of this; light(as a collection of many photons) behaves in a certain way, however, single photons exhibit the same behaviour, as if they were conforming to a rule that is ‘defined’, rather than ‘natural’.
If this rather fanciful notion of the nature of the universe were correct, it’s concievable that the programmer may not even be aware of what’s going on - the whole set of effects that constitute our universe may in fact be a side-effect of some other large calculation process, for example the programmer may be studying the interaction of galaxies; in order to do this, he/she has to model them as being composed of particles/whatever with properties, but the thin green smear of chemical interactions that takes place on the surface of certain inconsequential balls of rock may be too detailed to look at in the scope of the whole.
Or even more fanciful, perhaps the model isn’t anything to do with a universe, but the calculations which take place to allow it are buried in the 9000[sup]th[/sup] decimal place of the values being stored, which the programmer is too sloppy to round off properly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**
Sounds like your survival instincts are still hard at work here battling the idea of the illusion that you are somehow limited in your freedom to understand the true nature of the universe or do exactly what you please. The survival instinct was designed for what?
The Matrix’s computer discovered that the body produced the most energy when the brain was comfortably at ease. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have everyone be in their own simulation where they were constantly being chased by sharks to increase stimulation? Or an Arabian king with an harem of a million virgins and to increase stimuli the generator could let a tiger loose in the palace once a day, everyday at noon. 
Zaphod- Say hi to Roosta for me… I would have to assume that your trip to the Total Perspective Vortex is imminent.
That’ll confuse the norms…
What makes you thin of oppression? Maybe, if we are living in a simulated world, the programmers did it for our own good. The human race became to belligerant or was being wiped out by some disease. Either that or to drive us insane, by letting us know that we’re in prison and that we have no way of getting out. Then again, you’re right, if we’re able to think about things like this, maybe we’re not in a simulated world.
These rules are the Laws of Physics. You say that single photons always behave the same way, if so then the rules that we have are right. When we get different results to those that we expect the rules are not completely correct and need to be modified.
I do not believe that what you talk about above supports the theory that we are living in a simulation, but it does not support the theory that we are not either.
The laws of physics (however complex they may turn out to be) may in fact be the laws of the simulation (at their most basic level) or they may be the law of the universe . . .
In fact if there is a simulation (which I don’t believe there is) then this would be our Universe.
I believe that this question springs from the fact that we cannot accept that there is nothing beyond the Universe (this subject is also brought up when you explain that the Universe is expanding, ‘in to what?’ 'nothing it’s just expanding)
Well I don’t believe we are living in a simulated Universe, and believe that even if we were we can’t do anything about it. Although the theory can prompt interesting ideas and discussions.
well, yes, they always behave in the same way, except that that behaviour makes sense for a whole load of photons/wave packets interacting with each other, but not for single photons (they still behave as if they are interacting with other photons even though there aren’t any other photons), it’s as if the single photon scenario was something that wasn’t specifically catered for when the behaviour was defined. Of course there are explanations for the photon behaviour thing, but they don’t make sense either.
Yes, of course, this is the point I’m suggesting - if there is a simulation (which frankly I doubt too), then it’s a low-level one, a simulation of a(n) universe, all the complex effects have occurred naturally within that universe (I’m certainly not suggesting that the universe (including ourselves) was initiated in it’s present form)
**Not in my particular case; I don’t have a problem with the expanding universe (I envisage it as the three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional balloon, but that might not be right), but in a general sense you’re right; the question arose in my mind about six or seven years ago while discussing quantum physics and the nature of matter with someone qualified in that field. And of course if it were a simulation, there would have to be some ‘outside’ entity or agency by which it came into being, but by ‘outside’, I’m not talking about simply way off in space.
Of course having read Permutation City by Greg Egan hasn’t helped dispel my thoughts on the subject.
Perhaps they’re not the right explanations? It is after all a relatively new field
If the simulation you are suggesting is true (the low level one) Then surely quantum physics is as low level as you can get? These would be the rules that were programmed in to the system, and then the effects (the Growth of the Universe) observed.
Which is another thread entirely 
I have thought about this before too, I don’t remeber when I started, either after a physics lesson or a sciene fiction book.
There have always been things that have been unexplained, and even when every phyisical phenomenon in the Universe has been explained there still will be.
People often look for somthing beyond, questioning their existance (or the existance of life itself).
I look in wonder at the things in this universe, but still somtimes wonder if there is anything beyond . . . .
nice post count btw (1111)
Mangetout: Not sure if this is a thread you were referring to…about photon test…multi worlds, etc…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=81066
yup, that’s the one.
OK, so I finally got around to watching The Matrix and it’s definitely not quite what I was talking about above; In the movie, the world is just a sophisticated VR, but In this thread, I’m talking about the simulation existing at a very low level (as an analogy; weather simulations - you don’t model a hurricane, you model fluids, pressures etc, a hurricane is merely something that can happen within that simulation).
So I’d be inclined to say that nothing as big as an atom is even simulated in the model I’m proposing, but rather atoma are something that can occur/arise in it.
Oh, and I’m not sure which pill I’d take.