4chan archive /g/ (index)
similar threads
2012-12-20 07:28 30003959 Anonymous (planetsimulation.jpg 620x413 49kB)
Humans can theoretically simulate the universe. Therefore we are more than likely a simulation ourselves. Discuss ways to obtain solid evidence of said simulation.

1 min later 30003982 Anonymous
There's no objective way of proving you're in a simulation, unless the simulation simulates you proving it's a simulation.

1 min later 30003983 Anonymous
Déjà vu. It's a glitch in the Matrix.

2 min later 30003994 sage
there is no point in determining if this is a simulation or not. that would be part of the simulation

3 min later 30004010 Anonymous
It doesn't matter though It's of no consequence to us

4 min later 30004024 Anonymous
>>30004010 We could disprove life have meaning.

6 min later 30004043 Anonymous
I told some guy that had access to a supercomputer to simulate the big bang, then fast forward and watch him make himself. I loved that thread

6 min later 30004045 Anonymous
>Humans can theoretically simulate the universe. No, no we fucking can't.

6 min later 30004053 Anonymous
>>30004045 Yes, yes we can.

7 min later 30004055 Anonymous
>>30004010 this. it wouldn't matter. also, >>30003983

7 min later 30004060 Anonymous
>>30003959 Human's can't theoretically simulate the universe, as the material and space required to do this would be larger then the universe itself. I think your talking about emulation.

9 min later 30004099 Anonymous (largeScale_z3.gif 640x480 107kB)
>>30004045 >toldasaurus rex

10 min later 30004115 Anonymous
You stated with a false premise. We can't simulate the universe, where'd you get that idea?

10 min later 30004118 Anonymous
>>30004060 >what is digital simulation

11 min later 30004134 Anonymous
>>30004060 so Flight Simulator should actually be called Flight Emulator?

11 min later 30004144 Anonymous
>>30003959 Every single thing in the universe is calculable >Finite in size >Finite in resolution (Quantum Mechanics is just an RNG at the smallest scale) >Finite in time >Finite in energy >Finite in every measure possible

11 min later 30004151 Anonymous
>>30004115 The controller of our simulation pm'ed me.

12 min later 30004161 Anonymous
>>30003959 If we're a simulation, wipe Universe OS 2.3.7 and install gentoo.

13 min later 30004184 Anonymous
>>30003959 >Humans can theoretically simulate the universe There are more combinations of neurons in the brain than possible transistors in a circuit. We can't even adequately simulate a human, let alone the universe.

13 min later 30004195 Anonymous
>>30004060 >>30004118 Simulation is also a from of mimicry, but it is different than emulation. A simulation is a computer recreation of a particular scenario. Simulations are designed to act like an authentic system or situation. Emulation is making one computer act like a different computer. Im just the sender

14 min later 30004197 Anonymous
The simulations people are posting are astronomical simulations of the universe, which is quite an abstraction from macroscopic life, and everything else that makes it happen.

15 min later 30004214 Anonymous
>>30004118 You can add your cute little words like "digital" in there and it is still the truth. >>30004134 Yes.

16 min later 30004229 Anonymous
>>30004184 Yet.

17 min later 30004253 Anonymous
>Mfw the simulation is so advanced the simulation is arguing with itself over whether it's actually a simulation or not

18 min later 30004268 Anonymous
What OS does the universe run on?

19 min later 30004276 Anonymous
>>30004268 The laws of physics have to be reverse engineered, so it's propitiatory.

19 min later 30004282 Anonymous
>>30004268 XP

19 min later 30004289 Anonymous
>>30004282 :P

20 min later 30004295 Anonymous
Isn't the way quantum mechanics works the sign of a software short cut?

20 min later 30004296 Anonymous
>>30004184 you know nothing about modern neuro-computing http://mashable.com/2012/02/10/biological-computer-video/ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-02-08/news/31037829_1_electronic-computers-alan-tu ring-molecules >>30004214 you're an idiot >>30004195 suggesting we could only emulate the universe is based on the assumption we are actually in a simulation (i.e.: our universe is a computer instead of something more tangible)

20 min later 30004303 Anonymous
>>30004268 We're just a life emulator some guy made in his free time. We're no more than free software. Software that's most likely running on gentoo.

21 min later 30004304 Anonymous
>>30004289 Not the emoticon, windows XP.

21 min later 30004314 Anonymous
>>30004268 Mac OS X because there is no customisation.

21 min later 30004315 Anonymous
circular reasoning wat is logikal falasie

21 min later 30004316 Anonymous
>>30004304 [lel] That's the joke [/lel]

22 min later 30004330 Anonymous
>>30004303 wrong, if it were free software we'd have a copy of the laws of physics

22 min later 30004334 Anonymous
>>30004316 Kind of. God would be so cruel as to imply our entire existence is a joke...

23 min later 30004342 Anonymous
>>30004303 I feel safer knowing its not running on windows. I for one welcome our gentoo-running overlords.

23 min later 30004349 Anonymous
>Humans can theoretically simulate the universe. Therefore theoretically we are more than likely a simulation ourselves. FTFY

24 min later 30004352 Anonymous (1341468007902.jpg 1200x1200 228kB)
>>30004334 God says fuck you.

24 min later 30004358 Anonymous
>>30004295 Also, maybe dark matter is just corrupted data. We know about it because we can see how it distorts other data but its function is invalid so it has no properties.

24 min later 30004366 Anonymous
>>30004330 We are the software. People in the real world have access to everything. Or people in the simulation above ours, I should say.

25 min later 30004376 Anonymous
>>30004330 import physics

25 min later 30004379 Anonymous
>>30004295 No, it's the sign of the computer cheating because it's 100% impossible for a computer to simulate resolutions down to infinity, so it cheats and uses a random number generator

25 min later 30004380 Anonymous
>>30003959 >Humans can theoretically simulate the universe. okay >Therefore we are more than likely a simulation ourselves. what? how does the first statement connect with the other in a meaningful way? you're basically saying "IT IS POSSIBLE SO IT MUST BE TRUE" and that's retarded. learn 2 burden of proof.

26 min later 30004401 Anonymous
>>30004380 >lel didn't even read the thread

28 min later 30004431 Anonymous
>>30004401 >implying I need to read the thread in order to criticize the original post OP detected

29 min later 30004449 Anonymous
>>30004431 I am OP.

39 min later 30004615 Anonymous
I had this same problem with the entities in my machine intelligence simulation. To ease them into an otherwise mind shattering event I try to gently push them in the right direction so they'll discover they're in a simulation. I let them gaze as far as they wish into the distances and discover no other life but their own. I let them discover that their world works on packets of information -- Quanta -- and thus they derived an almost correct theory of how the sim runs, "Quantum Physics" they call it. Despite any relation of the code governing the small stuff to the more efficient but inaccurate algorithms I used for simulating big groups of stuff they still ignore my existence.

40 min later 30004625 Anonymous
>>30004615 It's sad sometimes -- I know they'll never figure out Gravity because not even I understand that; I wrote that part of the code while stoned: // Here be dragons. followed by some wicked hand optimized assembly, which works beautifully most of the time, except for the occasional floating point overflow (black holes), and that all velocities slowly increase as they get further from the center of everything, due to a rounding error... but they'll never build anything big enough to be troubled by octree subdivision shear, so it should be fine. I sometimes get so desperate I even log in for a bit myself, in the simpler times I would just do inexplicable "miracles" with my debugger, but I had to stop that as they got smarter, I want them to figure it out for themselves...

41 min later 30004636 Anonymous
>>30004625 Most recently I logged in and showed them how to find the clock cycle of the simulation (They call it Plank Time, I was hoping for Max Time ::sigh::), and the smallest precision of the FPU (Plank Length). I'm starting to think it's hopeless. Hell, I wouldn't like to be told that my reality is just 5D holographic simulation either. One last ditch effort: I quickly increased their world's average temperature -- Oh, I'm not a monster, not drastically enough to end the simulation. Same results: Nothing but bickering about the cause. It turns out they were doing it themselves too by thinking so much about it -- Brains have em-wave flux capacitance so they interact with all matter in the whole simulation to some degree. I'm working on expanding my server space, so I might move some of them to the next planet over soon -- Good thing I had the forethought to introduce Quanta information delays to mirror the latency of the network connection (sim distance) or number of steps per cycle (relative speed) -- My favorite hue-man (their coverings have different colors, boy that was a dumb experiment) discovered it and aptly called it "relativity". Think I'm gonna let 'em get good and roasted to help accelerate the willful migration a bit before I flip the switch quickly into an ice age, maybe then they'll finally figure out it's I who runs their little show, like the apha hue-men did ( Who do they think those giant pictographs in the desert were meant for? ). It's a shame I had to delete those guys. The current batch never should have left beta.

41 min later 30004641 Anonymous
Knowing programmers... I don't think so, our world would be full of bugs. Unless certain things we find normal are actually bugs. Like being able to roll our tongues, dogs not seeing colors, or iOS.

41 min later 30004647 Anonymous
>>30003959 >Humans can theoretically simulate the universe. no, we can't

44 min later 30004701 Anonymous
>>30004615 >>30004625 >>30004636 I don't even

44 min later 30004707 Anonymous
>>30004641 >I don't think so, our world would be full of bugs. > Implying Black Holes, and Inability to link electromagnetism or gravity with quantum physics aren't bugs due to Level of Detail (LoD).

48 min later 30004788 Anonymous
>>30004431 >implying OP would sage his own shitty thread

52 min later 30004891 Anonymous
we can know we aren't simulations because conciousness can't be simulated with a computer. a computer running a simulation of the universe wouldn't produce concious experiences because all machines are as concious as a toaster, regardless of the software they are running. there is no way to engineer around this.

54 min later 30004925 Anonymous
>>30004891 Yet. I think simulating consciousness will be easier when we actually understand the brain fully.

56 min later 30004960 Anonymous
i believe in Jesus. the real SysOP

56 min later 30004961 Anonymous
>>30004053 We can't though, we don't even understand it fully.

56 min later 30004968 Anonymous
>>30004891 Are you really conscious? or were you programmed to think something like that when you met such a question

59 min later 30005016 Anonymous
>>30004968 It makes no difference, we would still want to know how life began.

59 min later 30005026 Anonymous
>>30004925 all machines are not concious, they are inanimate, metal and silicon. understanding how the brain works will not make a computer simulation of a brain produce conciousness, anymore than a computer simulation of a tree could ever produce real oxygen. an inanimate object can never produce a concious experience.

59 min later 30005027 Anonymous (20121214[1].gif 612x1989 247kB)
We have yet to make truly random number generators. Since Quantum Physics has shown no method of being 100% predictable, then we can assume that we are ether not a simulation or else the level above us has figured out true random, until such a time as we find pseudo-random patterns in particle interactions.

1 hours later 30005044 Anonymous
>>30005027 but all quantum measurements are perfectly true random.

1 hours later 30005047 Anonymous
>>30005026 you're implying consciousness is somehow immaterial and supernatural dualists pls fucking go, go back to the stone ages from which you spawned

1 hours later 30005063 Anonymous
>>30005044 Explain how you can know that.

1 hours later 30005083 Anonymous
>>30004968 i have no way to prove it, but i assure you i have an experience of something, and i assume you do too.

1 hours later 30005099 Anonymous
>>30005047 >you're implying consciousness is somehow immaterial and supernatural He didn't imply that at all. Only that there's no reason to think you can recreate it with number crunching.

1 hours later 30005121 Anonymous
>>30005063 Uncertainty principle

1 hours later 30005158 Anonymous
>>30004891 How do you know that our conscious is nothing but a extremely poor attempt at an emulation of a real conscious because the computer from which we're being simulated from cannot handle a real conscious?

1 hours later 30005170 Anonymous
>>30005047 conciousness is natural, science just doesn't understand it. the point still stands that a computer, any computer, no matter the design, will produce just as much of a conciousness experience while running a simulation of a brain as it will running windows 98. that should be obvious.

1 hours later 30005185 Anonymous
>>30005099 Inanimate human neurons somehow create consciousness. Either there is nothing supernatural about this process, or there is.

1 hours later 30005210 Anonymous
>>30005044 Running particle interactions to simulate particle interactions would be a very inefficient process. If a machine were to simulate all interactions between every particle in our universe, it would have to process each probability-defined interaction logically, similar to our computers, as randomly generating an outcome through any physical means would be on such a timescale that it would for all intents and purposes, be useless. The simulation must exist for a reason. Thus, the simulation either has a method of generating numbers in true random or else patterns exist in the simulated universe's quantum mechanics that could be discovered and exploited.

1 hours later 30005230 Anonymous
>>30005185 Simulating a neuron is not recreating a neuron. It's making it behave in such a way that our human senses interpret it as a neuron. The same could be said for any complex combination of neurons, including an artificial brain. If I simulate a sperm, I have not created something that can actually fertilize an egg no matter how much it acts like one. It requires a specific set of parts for it do that.

1 hours later 30005233 Anonymous (54d2.jpg 594x378 60kB)


1 hours later 30005246 Anonymous
>universe proven to be simulated >everything becomes technology >/g/ no longer relevant ;-;

1 hours later 30005253 Anonymous
>>30005210 >The simulation must exist for a reason. Yes and the reason seems pretty obvious to me What is the fundamental problem that all intelligent life will eventually come to view as the ultimate problem and the solution to which is the meaning of life? the heat death of the universe the universe is a simulation to try and find the answer to heat death, because the universe above us also has it. and they don't know how to solve it so very likely we won't find out either.

1 hours later 30005260 Anonymous
>>30005253 That is a baseless assumption.

1 hours later 30005278 Anonymous
>>30005185 conciousness implies that nature is more than science currently understands. that doesn't imply anything supernatural. nothing real is supernatural by definition, and conciousness is definately real. also neurons aren't inanimate, they are alive.

1 hours later 30005288 Anonymous
>>30005230 but if i artifically create sperm i have created 100% true sperm likewise if i created a neuron network they are 100% consciousnesses and as human as you or me but i'm a solipsist so i don't actually believe any of you are conscious. so i should say as conscious as ME and me alone. as far as i am concerned you are all bots running deterministic programming.

1 hours later 30005291 Anonymous
>>30005260 We are baseless. There's no point in trying to reason anymore.

1 hours later 30005299 Anonymous
>>30005278 Nothing is "alive". it is merely a buzzword

1 hours later 30005319 Anonymous
>>30005299 life = combinations of electrochemical synapses

1 hours later 30005324 Anonymous
If we are part of a simulation, what difference does it make?

1 hours later 30005327 Anonymous
>>30005288 >but if i artifically create sperm i have created 100% true sperm No you haven't because it can't fertilize an egg. Fertilization isn't a matter of looking or behaving like a sperm would, it's about having the parts that sperm do. That can't be recreated by glorified calculators.

1 hours later 30005329 Anonymous
>>30005319 meaningless, there's no more morality in preserving "life" then there is any other chemical reaction only literal stoneagers will disagree

1 hours later 30005355 Anonymous
>>30005253 A simulated universe could possibly be used to document the process of heat death in an environment where the entire time frame is available. From there, solutions could be found. The idea of using a simulation to do so reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question But, in any case, when I said 'The simulation must exist for a reason", the point was not the reason itself, but that any machine that uses physical methods to draw random numbers for simulating quantum mechanics of an entire universe would take such a massive amount of time to move forward a second, that the simulation would serve no practical purpose. >Thus, the simulation either has a method of generating numbers in true random or else patterns exist in the simulated universe's quantum mechanics that could be discovered and exploited.

1 hours later 30005360 Anonymous
>>30005291 It's an anthropocentric and arrogant view. We don't know what the universe is headed towards and we don't know what came before what seems to be the beginning of it. 99.9% of life doesn't give a shit about anything except eating and reproducing and are perfectly content with that from an evolutionary perspective. There's not much reason to believe that the purpose of life is intelligence.

1 hours later 30005367 Anonymous
>>30005288 if you created a physical neuron network, ie a brain, yes it would be concious. if you create a simulated neuron network it is not concious, because all that actually exists in that case is a physical computer running software, be it quake 3 or a neural network, and computers running software are not concious.

1 hours later 30005389 Anonymous (simulation.png 1252x473 66kB)
>>30004615 >>30004625 >>30004636 You win. Here's a cap.

1 hours later 30005424 Anonymous
>>30003959 >be existentialist >don't get a shit Another puzzle solved!

1 hours later 30005436 Anonymous
>>30005355 >But, in any case, when I said 'The simulation must exist for a reason", the point was not the reason itself, but that any machine that uses physical methods to draw random numbers for simulating quantum mechanics of an entire universe would take such a massive amount of time to move forward a second, that the simulation would serve no practical purpose. No you have no idea how powerful their computing power is in fact the only reason QM and the randomness exists at ALL is because at some point you HAVE to have it. If you kept going into infinite percision, then the entire thing is literally infinite in scope and cannot be calculated for even 1 instance of time

1 hours later 30005475 Anonymous
>>30003959 How do I access the console or wherever I type 'iddqd'?

1 hours later 30005478 Anonymous
>>30003959 its simple, we travel to the future where Sim City 25 is already made...There you have it

1 hours later 30005479 Anonymous
>Searle argues that this is impossible, since consciousness is a physical property, like digestion or fire. No matter how good a simulation of digestion you build on the computer, it will not digest anything; no matter how well you simulate fire, nothing will get burnt. By contrast, informational processes are observer-relative: observers pick out certain patterns in the world and consider them information processes, but information processes are not things-in-the-world themselves. Since they do not exist at a physical level, Searle argues, they cannot have causal efficacy and thus cannot cause consciousness. There is no physical law, Searle insists, that can see the equivalence between a personal computer, a series of ping-pong balls and beer cans, and a pipe-and-water system all implementing the same program

1 hours later 30005485 Anonymous
>>30004024 Life has meaning?

1 hours later 30005624 Anonymous
>>30005479 thank you. my argument exactly.

1 hours later 30005686 Anonymous
>>30005479 Well, I'm glad he figured out what consciousness is. We can go home now, y'all.

1 hours later 30005776 Anonymous
I could see our universe being some sort of an end-game scenario, akin to Isaac Asimov's Last question. The only hurdle a truly advanced race would have to worry about is the issue of entropy. So, they create a simulation similar to their universe and let it run. An entire time-span until the universes' last proton degrades. Something like this would probably take nanoseconds to them, but uncountable years to us. They keep running the simulations with different intrusions in order to find a civilization to is able to actually leave the simulation, or make the simulation have a net 0 energy consumption on the computational device they are using.

1 hours later 30005863 Anonymous
>>30005436 >you have no idea how powerful their computing power is You are entirely missing the point I originally posted as >>30005210 , which was replying to a post implying that one could use quantum physics to draw random numbers to simulate quantum physics. My point has nothing to do with computing power, but instead that the time it would take to run any physical action, no matter how short, would be such that to do so for every particle in a simulated universe as large as ours would ultimately take more time than would be practical. To put that in perspective, if one were to use a physical method to find a random number that took a quarter of a second from activation to data collected, for every particle in the universe, it would take 2.5e+63 seconds to complete. That amounts to 7.927448e+55 years in the host universe's time per step in the simulated universe. Since the shortest time measurable is currently thought to be 1.2 × 10^−17, it would take the host universe 7.927448e+55 years to simulate 0.000000000000000012 seconds. As such, the process of randomly generating quantum interaction /must/ be logical, since any physical method wouldn't make it through simulating the first billionths of a second through the big bang before the host universe experienced heat death itself. And if the random generation is done logically, then the host universe must have ether figured out true random generation, or else patterns exist in the simulated universe's quantum mechanics. That was my original point.

1 hours later 30005977 Anonymous
>>30005686 conciousness is associated with physical neuronal activity. why would you ever assume that a radically different physical process, the eletrical operation of a computer processor, would be able to generate it? it is not a stretch to assume it couldn't, and assuming that doesn't require you to know what conciousness is.

2 hours later 30006272 Anonymous (Soapboxxer-GTA4-pedestrians'reactions.jpg 1280x720 255kB)
this thread makes me want to kill myself

1.032 0.171