Are we in a computer simulation?

by Brokeback Watchtower 70 Replies latest jw friends

  • Ruby456

    slim, coded logic - would you say that memory has to do with the mental world?

  • slimboyfat

    Ruby that's one of the fascinating things. Does the universe remember? And what does it mean if it does?

  • Ruby456
    hmm ... hysteresis is a material process
  • cyberjesus

    If you look closely at a computer game the images are made of pixels... who appear to be real physical items... however those pixels are really created by electrical impulses in the formorning ofor bits. If the programs are complex enough the "characters" can have some kind of independent behavior.

    If you look closely to our composition we are made of atoms that in turn are also made of particles that are also electrical impulses as well. If you magnify an atomic you will Realize the majority of the space it occupies it's in a way we are mostly empty with a minimum space occupied by the actual atom components...

    So what think you see in the mirror is not what you really are.

    In a way it's already proven we are a simulation of something we think we are.

    Finding that we are just a Module of a bigger program wouldn't be surprising.

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    If a computer works out that a conscious being would do a certain thing and simulates them doing so, versus a material being undergoing the same process and performing the same act, is there a meaningful distinction between the two?


    Indeed, there is a huge distinction between the two. Conscious beings have a subjective first person experience. Non-conscious process' do not. As far as we know, simulations are a non-conscious process'. Until such a time as we have good reasons to think simulations are capable of consciousness - we can't say it's "possible" we're in a simulation. Because, if there is one thing - and only one thing we know - it's that we are conscious.

    Consciousness is the prerequisite. And until that issue is addressed people aren't justified in claiming that the Simulation Hypothesis is "possible".

    There are 3 scenarios at which we can look:

    1.) We live in a physical universe and simulations are not capable of producing consciousness - in which case the Simulation Hypothesis is not possible

    2.) We live in a physical universe and simulations are capable of producing consciousness - in which case it would be difficult to know whether we're in a simulation or in a physical universe.

    3.) We live in a simulation - in which case it necessarily follows that simulations are capable of producing consciousness. Like scenario 2, it would be difficult to distinguish the simulated world from a physical world.

    In all three scenarios a physical world would appear to be "real world". The only thing that could move us away from that position would be evidence that simulations can produce consciousness..

  • Brokeback Watchtower
  • Brokeback Watchtower
    Brokeback Watchtower

    I think the odds are in favor that we are in a simulation. Scientist discover how to make infinite universes in each one of these universes a infinite amount intelligent life forms make infinite amounts of universes on and one into infinity and beyond as Buzz Lightyear would say.

  • Brokeback Watchtower
  • Brokeback Watchtower
  • Brokeback Watchtower

Share this