Do we or do we not live in a Matrix?

Forums: Technology, Pseudo-Science, Matrix
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Whoa, Dude, Are We Inside a Computer Right Now?

Quote:

In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state unless they’re being observed. Many theorists have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how you explain this. One explanation is that we’re living within a simulation, seeing what we need to see when we need to see it. . . .

The universe is also pixelated—in time, space, volume, and energy. There exists a fundamental unit that you cannot break down into anything smaller, which means the universe is made of a finite number of these units. This also means there are a finite number of things the universe can be; it’s not infinite, so it’s computable. And if it only behaves in a finite way when it’s being observed, then the question is: Is it being computed? Then there’s a mathematical parallel. If two things are mathematically equivalent, they’re the same. So the universe is mathematically equivalent to the simulation of the universe.

This is certainly a question worth exploring. I just wish the programmer who designed my program would have made me smarter and taller (among other things).

Perhaps feelings of deja vu exist because our programs have been run more than once ... hmmmm.

Perhaps beliefs in reincarnation exist because programmers might use our personal programs over again, just wiping the memories ...

I need help thinking through this question because my programmer didn't make me smart enough to figure it out on my own. Smile

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 3,796 • Replies: 53

No top replies

ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?

BY NICK BOSTROM
Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University

Quote:

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully.

Here's a review of Bostrom's paper:
http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html

The reviewer states:

Quote:

If we believe that our simulators are willing to punish/reward people for certain behavior within the simulation, we should try to figure out what behavior they are going to reward and act on that. Thus, knowing that we are very probably living in a computer simulation should have a profound effect on the way we lead our lives.

If we believe there's a probability that we're living in the matrix ... should that change the way we lead our lives? Should we try to be more entertaining so our programmer will run our programs longer. What do we need to do to earn rewards? Food for thought ....

My brother and I were having coffee together yesterday and were talking about this subject, laughing ... and I noted that the programmer (or simulator) in charge of my program must also be my hubby's programmer because we have the same thoughts at the same time. I swear ... I think something and he will immediately say the same thing I was thinking. This happens so often that I'm chalking that up as evidence in favor of the matrix theory.

Another day, a couple of weeks ago, my sister and I were visiting and I complained to her that my hubby had left several chores undone for quite some time. I specified the chores. When my hubby came home, he immediately tended to those chores the moment he entered the house. Hmmmm.

0 Replies

Hmm. Not sure how serious you're being, but it's something to think about. But wouldn't our programmers also have to live in a matrix of their own? Then the makers of that matrix would have to have another of their own, etc, etc. Infinite regress problem, I think.

As for you and your hubby thinking the same thoughts, that's a pretty normal thing for people who have lived together for a long time. And for him to focus on the chores that he'd left undone longest would just seem to suggest that he was aware of having neglected them and didn't want to let them go undone too long.

If I did have a programmer, though, I'd like to have some words with him/her about this crappy memory and fading eyesight. And this tooth that keeps bugging me.

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Hmm. Not sure how serious you're being, but it's something to think about. But wouldn't our programmers also have to live in a matrix of their own? Then the makers of that matrix would have to have another of their own, etc, etc. Infinite regress problem, I think.

I also think a matrix within a matrix within a matrix and on and on is a given. Our scientists and programmers are making progress by leaps and bounds. Our electronic games and virtual worlds are becoming increasingly sophisticated. The Mario Worlds of today are far more advanced than the Mario Worlds that existed many years ago. For all we know, our most talented scientists/programmers might already be running highly advanced virtual world simulations to determine the fate of our world under various sets of variables, and the people living in those simulations are just like us.

And for what purposes are these matrixes created? For entertainment and/or research, I imagine.

Quote:

As for you and your hubby thinking the same thoughts, that's a pretty normal thing for people who have lived together for a long time. And for him to focus on the chores that he'd left undone longest would just seem to suggest that he was aware of having neglected them and didn't want to let them go undone too long.

I agree this is a common occurrence, which also suggests that we are linked somehow to a common source of consciousness.

Quote:

If I did have a programmer, though, I'd like to have some words with him/her about this crappy memory and fading eyesight. And this tooth that keeps bugging me.

I also have poor eyesight. I've been wearing glasses since I was in grade school. Is that something my programmer intended? or is it a flaw in the program? The creator/programmer will undoubtedly make changes to the program as the simulation progresses causing that thing we call evolution to occur. After all, how did the DNA in the ancient sea creatures become altered to allow them to grow legs, crawl out of the sea, and inhabit the land? I think evolution is evidence that might support the matrix theory.

Many common spiritual and religious experiences and concepts fit into the matrix theory. Many things are bugging me ... and also intriguing me.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

The metaphor of a "Matrix" like reality is to an extent valid but weak.

There are no "programmers", there is no "Universal computer", no processing in a timeless uncreated ultimate 1 order reality.

This reality at base level is motionless, timeless, it has 1 single dimension with all information patterns in a sequence.

At best if you want to stick to the matrix analogy, reality is pure software without hardware.

A finite digital 1 dimension string of orderly information. A huge pattern.

1 Reply

As someone with a Physics degree I have to tell you that description of Quantum Mechanics is completely bogus. The person who wrote that has certainly never studied Quantum Physics (and it is possible he hasn't ever taken any Physics classes). He is just spouting nonsense pieced together with jargon you might find in a mass media account of some journalist's account of what a scientist once said in passing.

That being said, these are two different questions. There is nothing in Physics that suggests we are living in a simulation... but then again there is nothing that proves we aren't.

So speculate away (preferably without the bogus pseudo-science).

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

...oh boy you are wrong...they now all say it with a big speaker....it fits the data better then the old models is the word of the day...

I happen to disagree them to an extent because the analogy of computing requires time be a fundamental property of reality at base level. It requires actual processing. Base reality does not have processing.

The biggest hint to pick a world view hypothesis which is motionless and timeless comes from understanding that reality cannot grow into nothingness (not space) because "nothingness" does not exist. Nothingness it is nothing, its self refuting. Therefore a base set must be motionless. The idea goes well with Einstein Spacetime concept.

...anyway you thrown big words there about what top scientists think currently and you either lied or are poorly informed...if you want me to I can post you a couple of youtube videos with the top world class scientists on the matter.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The metaphor of a "Matrix" like reality is to an extent valid but weak.

There are no "programmers", there is no "Universal computer", no processing in a timeless uncreated ultimate 1 order reality.

This reality at base level is motionless, timeless, it has 1 single dimension with all information patterns in a sequence.

At best if you want to stick to the matrix analogy, reality is pure software without hardware.

A finite digital 1 dimension string of orderly information. A huge pattern.

Fil ... I am going to have to educate myself on the "base level reality" you're talking about, but the first thing that comes to my mind about this base level is the picture of an unused memory stick. LOL I am very curious and fascinated by the subject, and I truly do wish that I was a lot smarter so I could immediately drink up everything you just said and have it make sense to me. Smile

1 Reply

This one goes straight to the point and its more recent:

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

...oh I write lots of bull, am far from wise, or really knowledgeable, but every now and then I make a couple of good points, even if very poorly expressed as English is not my native language...

....nonetheless if I had to bet my neck on something I said this would be one of the subjects on which I think my view is slightly more "advanced" then the current explanation scientists themselves provide...its not that I am saying something very different but I am very careful looking for a self consistent explanation.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

As someone with a Physics degree I have to tell you that description of Quantum Mechanics is completely bogus. The person who wrote that has certainly never studied Quantum Physics (and it is possible he hasn't ever taken any Physics classes). He is just spouting nonsense pieced together with jargon you might find in a mass media account of some journalist's account of what a scientist once said in passing.

That being said, these are two different questions. There is nothing in Physics that suggests we are living in a simulation... but then again there is nothing that proves we aren't.

So speculate away (preferably without the bogus pseudo-science).

I admire intelligence. For most of my life, I have been fascinated by the things that I'm not smart enough to understand (and of course, drawn to almost all things science fiction beginning with Star Trek). I can relate to Denzel Washington's character in the movie "Philadelphia", when he said something like this, "Explain this to me like I'm a two-year old because there is an element to this that I cannot get through my thick head."

Can you recommend a book or website that can explain basic physics to a physics dummy like me?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...oh I write lots of bull, am far from wise, or really knowledgeable, but every now and then I make a couple of good points, even if very poorly expressed as English is not my native language...

....nonetheless if I had to bet my neck on something I said this would be one of the subjects on which I think my view is slightly more "advanced" then the current explanation scientists themselves provide...its not that I am saying something very different but I am very careful looking for a self consistent explanation.

I am grateful for your contributions on this subject that fascinates me, and I am anxious to review the videos you posted. I had to place the first one on pause so I could thank you. I wish I had studied the sciences and computer programming in college instead of business administration for my undergraduate degree. I took the easy road, much to my present day regret. Smile

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil,

Physics is a hard science, not a philosophy. It's strength is that it is rigorous, and testable, and mathematical. To understand Physics , you need to study Physics... as a hard science with rigorous mathematics.

This "pop" science may be fun. It certainly doesn't require the rigorous mathematics or countless hours of study... and with pop science you can take a few ideas you hear on the internet and than run with them without every really understanding the mathematics.

But pop science is not physics... and philosophy is not physics. You could do the work to really understand this. You could wrestle with linear algebra, solve problems with energy wells and barriers and work with Heisenberg matrices. This isn't just throwing around scientific terms... these are the things you encounter when you actually study Quantum mechanics.

I am sorry, this pop-science masquerading as real physics bothers me. You could take the time to actually learn the science rather than dabbling with pseudo-science... but then this pop-science would bother you too.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Yes Debra,

I recommend "In search of Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbon. Of course, this isn't the same as taking a course in Quantum Mechanics at a university (which would be the best because Quantum Mechanics is a deeply mathematical field... you can't truly understand it without understanding the mathematics.

But John Gribbon gives a very good layman's approach. What I like most is that he explains the experiments very well. His telling of the history of how these ideas were developed is also very interesting.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

John Gribbon

A search may get more results if you spell it "Gribbin".

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

This one goes straight to the point and its more recent:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ[/youtube]

Central note at 1.10 in the video. The nonsense about quantum computers has to stop. This is also important regarding determinism and to get over and done with fuzzy logic...

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Well one of those "pop" scientists right there is a Nobel on physics...the other guys don't need introducing either they are top at their fields and they are the ones using the words not me. You are set to clash with them not me.
...as for me all I do is analysis on some of the logical parameters of a theory trying to integrate the data they present in a comprehensible explaining paradigm...I wont be modest this time around. In many aspects I think I do better then most at explaining. I don't do the maths, I assume is more or less correct, but I do the analysis of the philosophical implications and what makes sense with what and what doesn't. Scientists will learn, are learning now, there is a lot to win with a good philosophical background and a disciplined mind. Brilliance without discipline is often a trap.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Have you considered the possibility that you might be misunderstanding the guy on the video? He is trying to give a layman's view of a highly mathematical science, and you are taking his summary overview of the field and interpreting it through your own beliefs. There are three layers of abstraction here.

If you want to understand Quantum Mechanics then study the mathematics. That way you are actually studying the science rather than relying on your understanding of someone's quick overview of their understanding of the science.

I did study Physics. The quote on the first post on this thread is nonsense.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Have you considered the possibility that you might be misunderstanding the guy on the video? He is trying to give a layman's view of a highly mathematical science, and you are taking his summary overview of the field and interpreting it through your own beliefs. There are three layers of abstraction here.

If you want to understand Quantum Mechanics then study the mathematics. That way you are actually studying the science rather than relying on your understanding of someone's quick overview of their understanding of the science.

I did study Physics. The quote on the first post on this thread is nonsense.

No no no...sorry but you are just bullshitting right now...

1 - For starters I understand enough of the principles involved in QM to speak on them with some degree of accuracy. At least regarding the implications.

2 - QM itself is a mathematical model that needs philosophical explanation. REASON ! The maths alone explains nothing. The bit where scientists often lose track is the explaining bit. Not the data per se.

3 - Finally I dare you to elaborate on what exactly is it that the scientists are saying metaphorically that doesn't exactly mean what they meant to say.
From where I stand as is now it seems to me you are the one needing some catch up.

4 - So lets debate point by point, transform whatever equation you want to English, and we shall learn soon to which degree you understand the implications of those equations...lets test the self consistency of your own understanding right now...I am up for it and I am not even a mathematician of any sort or kind.

PS - I agree the quote in the OP is nonsense because "observing" only means measuring. But that is besides the point. Shall we start with the continuum vs discrete hypothesis regarding space. What is your stance on infinity ? Do you think its real ?

1 Reply

Do we or do we not live in a Matrix?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know