GOOD NEWS! World won't end in 2012

[Bigblue1]

sgreger Vs Roo in the cage @ 9:00 PST Best of the West v1.0

[sgreger1]

To expand on the computer simulation theory, it is actually extremely possible that it is representative of the "truth".

It argues essentially that if it can be done (running realistic simulations of human life and the evolution of a universe), it will be done at some point, and that if it will be done, than either we will be the first to do it or we are ourselves the simulations (because someone else already did it). But than even if we are the ones to create the simulation someday, it is equally as possible that we are simulations ourselves started by some future race, and that us creating our own simulations is akin to running a virutal machine (a simulation of a computer within a simulation of a computer). Are we on the basement level of this or are we someday to be the originators of this endless simulation process? It is mathematically more likely that we are somewhere in the middle (one of the simulations, and not the original creators of the simulation process), since there can only be one original creator but potentially infinite simulations who themselves create simulations at some point. So odds are we are in a simulation.

Or perhaps, the cost of running such a simulation is high, and to have your simulations eventually become post-humans and run their own simulations within your simulation is prohibitively expensive, hence you would have to terminate them (your simulation) before they reach the post-human stage in order to conserve computer power. It then follows that perhaps we are the ones in the simulation and once we become reasonably advanced, the creators will wipe the slate clean and make us start over from the beginning and study it again (similar to the whole "God saw everything was getting too advanced and then flooded the world so that man would have to start over" concept).

In fact, religion (creation stories in particular) would almost make some level of sense in a scenario like this. The original creators of our simulation would be considered gods relative to us in that they created our world, can see everything that happens, are infinitely more intelligent than us, and make manipulations of our world that even defy the very laws of physics. Time also does not exist to them (from our frame of reference) because they could be playing the whole thing in fast-forward, or could slow it down, and we would be unaware. It even makes sense that once we get to a certain stage they would have to start the simulation over and wipe the slate clean in order to prevent us from creating virtual machines (our own simulations) since it may be prohibitively expensive on their end in terms of processing power.

Or you could even take it one step further. Perhaps there is a simulation at play but only one individual is sentient, and all others are just fakes, props, just zombies created to populate the "world" in order to see how you react. Maybe you are the only real sentient being in the simulation, and everyone else around you is just a prop, like the truman show, and I am in fact typing this to nobody since there is no one but me.

Again, it all boils down to this: If at some point technology gets to the point where accurate simulations of this sort can be run (which doesn't seem outside of the realm of posibility), than it will occur. If it can be done than it will be done. If it can and will be done, than it is likely that it has already occured, and again it is more likely that we are but one of many simulations since we, at this point, aren't making simulations ourselves yet. 13th floor kind of shit.

[sgreger1]

We're not being dicks. 1) It doesn't matter to me that someone is employed by Oxford University, if he or she postulates that our world is generated by computers, I am still going to laugh in his or her face. 2) What's wrong with the term Cultural Relativism? Franz Boas and Marvin Harris are rolling in their graves! I really wasn't trying to be a dick. Referring to modern society as "The Matrix" is annoying to me, but why would you or anyone else care about that. Should've not posted at all, I'll give you that one. One last thing, I did not recall you employing that term, but obviously you did lol.

Lol, you are always so sensitive Roo. I am using the term dick in the sense that I like the movie so anyone who doesn't and vocally criticizes it is a dick. Not that you are actually a dick.

"The Matrix" is a more accessible term than "Cultural Relativism" and in some ways almost more descriptive of the phenomena we are discussing. It is more accessible because most people have seen the movie and so the word conveys the concept we are trying to discuss here, even when not taken literally Cultural relativism relates to how different cultures perceive things relative to each other. While that does apply here, it doesn't take it far enough. We are specifically inferring that not only does our specific culture lead us to think a certain way, but that in fact all of humanity (as a culture) is itself locked in the prison of it's own behaviors which it created. For example: Lets say there was no war for 100k years and humans had never known war, then at some point city states began emerging and there was enough surplus food to sustain a standing army, which then lead to wars of conquest for those who controlled said army. So this was the first war. From that point on, war was constant (to this very day) and humans have sort of accepted it as part of life, as part of the human condition. In other words, we are trapped in this prison of our own creation (we affect the environment through our actions, and those environmental factors then affect how the next generation sees the world), and we can't escape this mindset unless we each individually choose to at least acknowledge that there can be another way.

Sort of like cultural relativism but, but on a global scale, where all of human culture is being described and there is no other observable culture for it to be relative to. We are saying that collectively humans have gotten into a certain mindset which is (in the opinion of those on this thread) not only destructive in it's very nature, but also not absolute in the sense that we can change it if we all realized that it was possible and then acted on it.

[sgreger1]

1) It doesn't matter to me that someone is employed by Oxford University, if he or she postulates that our world is generated by computers, I am still going to laugh in his or her face.

Unfortunately, what makes sense is not any more likely to be true than any other alternative. Physics can not be done by common sense because the human brain is not designed to process this kind of thing. Some speculation is fun, but I wouldn't call it science. We are just having a casual internet conversaion, not trying to prove the world is a giant computer (though there is evidence that this is the case, namely the fact that all items in the universe can be described as data and it does all appear to have come pre-assembled to unfold based on a certain pattern).

There is, for example, no explanation for why the laws of physics were present when the big bang happened. It seems that just the right conditions existed for the unvierse to take off instead of fizzling out, which could mean either we are part of a multiverse-wide selection process wherein there are infinite universes (all with different starting conditions) and ours just happened to be the one that worked out, or that something programmed it to be this way.

There are people and theories which say that before this big bang event, the universe did not exist - but to make such a statement seems to be religious in nature. It would mean that there was nothing, and then there was something. If you assume that such an event is possible, then you have to assume that nothing at all is impossible - including another big bang event occuring in a second from now. It seems much more philosophically sound to use Beyesian-like reasoning. Not knowing anything, everything is about equally likely. Knowing of a certain state, such as in our case, the existence of matter and energy in the universe, increases the likelihood of such a state to be possible. In fact, we are 100% certain (not getting into the ultimate truth Descartes arguement) that a situation where matter and energy exists in the universe is possible. We live in it. We have really no reason to assume that the opposite could be true - that there could be a situation where there was no matter and energy in the universe...or even if there was no universe.

A much simpler theory is that the universe as we know it goes through a never ending cycle of big bang and big crunch. A universe which is infinite in size, by our understanding is bound to radiate all of its energy away at some point. Because we know this hasn't happened, this either means that the all of the matter and energy as we know it has appeared out of no where in the recent past (recent in universe terms)..which is essentially the god-hypothesis, or the contrapositive: all of the matter and energy existed forever, and our universe is finite in size. If this is true, then eventually, everything will form black holes, and all of these black holes would eventually create one large blackhole. And finally, when there is nothing else besides the 1 black hole in the whole universe, the only reference frame would be that of the black hole. And in that reference frame, whatever bounce could have happened when two bodies come together, would happen instantly - for all of the matter and energy in the whole universe.

So, big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch. On and on and on. The laws of physics are and were always as they are right now. (this is the most likely case).

But again, it is only one of many reasons for why the world is the way it is, and science will not ever be able to test any of these theories since we have nothing to compare it to (since we are ourselves entrapped in this universe), so the whole thing is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one anyways.

[sgreger1]

To elaborate further on why I/we are using the term "The Matrix' is that the movie itself based it upon older concepts. Namely the word itself came from a 1984 sci-fi/cyberpunk book called the Neuromancer by William Gibson.

The Matrix is a reference to Jean Baudrillard's philosophy and is generally considered as an allegory for contemporary experience in a heavily commercialized, media-driven society, especially of the developed countries.

Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation is the basis for the movie (and was required reading for the actors), though Baudrillard said the Matrix wasn't a very accurate depiction of what he had in mind, but you can decide for yourself:

From wikipedia:

Simulacra and Simulation is most known for its discussion of symbols, signs, and how they relate to contemporaneity. Baudrillard claims that our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is of a simulation of reality. Moreover, these simulacra are not merely mediations of reality, nor even deceptive mediations of reality; they are not based in a reality nor do they hide a reality, they simply hide that anything like reality that is irrelevant to our current understanding of our lives. The simulacra that Baudrillard refers to are the significations and symbolism of culture and media that construct perceived reality, the acquired understanding by which our lives and shared existence is rendered legible; Baudrillard believed that society has become so saturated with these simulacra and our lives so saturated with the constructs of society that all meaning was being rendered meaningless by being infinitely mutable. Baudrillard called this phenomenon the "precession of simulacra".

[Roo]

To elaborate further on why I/we are using the term "The Matrix' is that the movie itself based it upon older concepts. Namely the word itself came from a 1984 sci-fi/cyberpunk book called the Neuromancer by William Gibson.

The Matrix is a reference to Jean Baudrillard's philosophy and is generally considered as an allegory for contemporary experience in a heavily commercialized, media-driven society, especially of the developed countries.

Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation is the basis for the movie (and was required reading for the actors), though Baudrillard said the Matrix wasn't a very accurate depiction of what he had in mind, but you can decide for yourself:

From wikipedia:

[I]

jesus christ man. let's stick to one topic here. actually, we shouldn't (or I shouldn't) get into it all. you know I like you and I think you're a real smart dude, but I honestly can't engage with someone who would entertain the notion of our world being computer-generated for any amount of time in excess of the 2 hours it takes to watch The Matrix. There are so many flaws and downright ridiculous components inI that theory that I am genuinely at a loss for where to begin, and typing one-handed to boot. I am shocked that anyone would even consider the possibility that computers, using ANY definition of that word, have any bearing whatsoever on the natural world and our universe. All other myriad arguments aside, the world I live in is far too visceral, far too vast, and the possibilities of any one event occurring far too many (there are woodpeckers mating in a conifer right now on the Kamtchatka peninsula)... I mean for Christ's sake, I am undermining myself by even providing examples to negate this notion. I'll say it again and leave it at that: computers have Nothing to do with it. Thi is far more absurd to me than any religious doctrine. I'd nod my head through a 5 hour Scientology sermon before I'd listen to a minute more of this inanity. Sorry brother.

[Bigblue1]

Tom? Are you out there Tom? This thread needs you buddy.

[sgreger1]

jesus christ man. let's stick to one topic here. actually, we shouldn't (or I shouldn't) get into it all. you know I like you and I think you're a real smart dude, but I honestly can't engage with someone who would entertain the notion of our world being computer-generated for any amount of time in excess of the 2 hours it takes to watch The Matrix. There are so many flaws and downright ridiculous components inI that theory that I am genuinely at a loss for where to begin, and typing one-handed to boot. I am shocked that anyone would even consider the possibility that computers, using ANY definition of that word, have any bearing whatsoever on the natural world and our universe. All other myriad arguments aside, the world I live in is far too visceral, far too vast, and the possibilities of any one event occurring far too many (there are woodpeckers mating in a conifer right now on the Kamtchatka peninsula)... I mean for Christ's sake, I am undermining myself by even providing examples to negate this notion. I'll say it again and leave it at that: computers have Nothing to do with it. Thi is far more absurd to me than any religious doctrine. I'd nod my head through a 5 hour Scientology sermon before I'd listen to a minute more of this inanity. Sorry brother.

1) Like I said, no one believes that the world is a computer simulation, including the author of that paper. It is, as I said repeatedly, a thought experiment and firmly rooted in the land of abstract philosophy and not science (as I mentioned in my post). You said that surely no one believes there is a "matrix" in the sense that the movie was referring to, and all I did was say that there are some who discuss it as a reality and cited a source for my assertion (then pointed out that we were not using the word in that sense). What the thread was initially discussing had nothing actually to do with computer programs at all.

2) Assuming I actually was telling you I believed the world is a computer simulation; I laid out an argument and you are free to rebuttal it by poking holes in it or citing some sources about why it wouldn't work. You can't just call it crazy because it "sounds crazy", because if that were a valid argument you would have to disregard quantum physics and a whole host of other scientific disciplines as well since they (on the surface) don't make any coherent sense. You also can't just say "It can't be true, the world appears so solid!". Modern neuroscience would like to have a word with you regarding how easy it is to get tricked into that kind of thinking.

Anyways, why don't you respond with a rebuttal or something so I can have fun at work instead of just calling me crazy, it would lead to a better discussion.

the world I live in is far too visceral, far too vast, and the possibilities of any one event occurring far too many

None of these are even close to arguments against anything. The world being visceral upon first inspection, vast upon measurement, or the possibilities endless doesn't mean anything. Those things could exist in almost any proposed model of reality, that could fit into a universe created by a wizard in the sky, one born of natural laws, or even one simulated by computers. It's not an argument. I mean dreams appear solid and real, just like the real world sometimes, but we know it's just a simulation of the mind. Could that not be happening on a larger scale in a coordinated manner with enough technology? Again, given an infinite timeline (which, as you noted, allows for endless possibilities)?

The whole computer thought-experiment (similar to the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment) is that it could be happening and you would never be lucid to the fact that it was occurring. On a side note however, do you really not believe that at some point in the distant future computers will be able to run detailed models of weather patterns, or planetary orbits, or perhaps full-scale recreations of the evolutionary process? Call me in 50 years and we will talk again, because modern technology and computing power are moving in that direction and have already arrived to some extent.

Science could not prove the existence of a computer running this simulation in the same way that science could not prove the existence of god so long as he remained outside of the visible universe, as we are only able to perform science on observable phenomena and are limited to the known universe when doing so. Scientists in a dream could observe reality and experiment all they wanted to describe their local universe but when you wake up and realize it was all just a simulation of the mind, you realize how irrelevant the science performed in the dream world was.

[Bigblue1]

Told you guys the show would be good....

[sgreger1]

Told you guys the show would be good....

From now on I am only posting in animated gifs just to piss everyone off.


COME AT ME BRO

[Bigblue1]

sgreger delete them damn gifs. I hate nothing more than gifs that inhibit my browsing pleasure.

[sgreger1]

sgreger delete them damn gifs. I hate nothing more than gifs that inhibit my browsing pleasure.

Oh you just don ****ed up Blue....






Why?

Because I can...

[sgreger1]

[Roo]

dude what the ****? you are totally losing me he here.

Like I said, no one believes that the world is a computer simulation, including the author of that paper. It is, as I said repeatedly, a thought experiment and firmly rooted in the land of abstract philosophy and not science (as I mentioned in my post). You said that surely no one believes there is a "matrix" in the sense that the movie was referring to, and all I did was say that there are some who discuss it as a reality and cited a source for my assertion (then pointed out that we were not using the word in that sense)

Again, it all boils down to this: If at some point technology gets to the point where accurate simulations of this sort can be run (which doesn't seem outside of the realm of posibility), than it will occur. If it can be done than it will be done. If it can and will be done, than it is likely that it has already occured, and again it is more likely that we are but one of many simulations since we, at this point, aren't making simulations ourselves yet.

Those two I don't know how to respond to. Not sure anymore what you're trying to say about the theory.

On a side note however, do you really not believe that at some point in the distant future computers will be able to run detailed models of weather patterns, or planetary orbits, or perhaps full-scale recreations of the evolutionary process?

Distant future? How about recent past? These things you mention above have zero to do with the conversation about the postulation that, and I quote:

at some point, humans will develop computers complicated enough to run very realistic simulations. It follows that at least one of these simulations will be carried out by the future scientific community to simulate the evolutionary process in order to study it. The question is, are we in such a simulation ourselves?

Look homie, I am not trying to put forth detailed rebuttals. As I said, it's really not a subject I deem to be worth my time, and I certainly am not going to put forth anymore effort toward arguing the matter formally or informally. If you see this as conceding defeat in some way, that is fine, as I am not trying to win. I am only trying to express extreme disbelief that we are even seriously discussing the possibility of life on Earth, past, present, and future, being a computer-simulated reality.

and finally:

You can't just call it crazy because it "sounds crazy", because if that were a valid argument you would have to disregard quantum physics and a whole host of other scientific disciplines as well since they (on the surface) don't make any coherent sense. You also can't just say "It can't be true, the world appears so solid!". Modern neuroscience would like to have a word with you regarding how easy it is to get tricked into that kind of thinking.

c'mon dude. you know I'm smarter than that. you absolutely cannot compare the topic at hand with scientific theory and observations of the natural world. and you're not the only one here who's read a physics book. show me a shred of evidence that I could be living in a computer simulation and I'll give you a fckn blowjob. you have now said that nobody believes this -- it is a philosophical exercise (that I can understand and appreciate), then you've gone on to spend way more time putting it in the context of scientific theory, and furthermore, trying to demonstrate how it could be True. So which is it? What are you talking about?

You know I love you gregers. I remember when you first joined this forum. We got into it about Islam I believe. Got into it pretty good. I remember thinking wow, this ****ing guy... lol. You probably thought the same. Your spelling has gotten so much better man, although it slips and you lose sight of then vs than when you get pissed. Don't worry, it's endearing.

[Bigblue1]

Oh you just don ****ed up Blue....

Why?

Because I can..

Man Stu, Thought you was my homie. Damn must be the matrix I've been living in.....