Do you think it is possible that we could be living in a simulation? This paper makes some interesting points if you care to read it....
Yes it's possible. We are, after all, souls with bodies... Souls have no mass and neither does software. (i.e. A program on a CD weighs the same as an empty one -- your body weighs the same with and without your soul (or dead or alive))
Matrix here we come!
Fun to think about, but I think it's completely impossible
Why completely impossible?
We know so little about the universe...
Just the way I think, I guess. It'd have to be a damn good simulation if we can feel all the possible feelings, think all the possible thoughts, do all the possible things. I mean, my brain is annoyed from just thinking about it....
But how would you even know what real life felt like to compare it to?
Okay don't let me finish... jk. I just dont question it. This is real life. If we never thought what a simulation is, how could we have even thought we were in one? How are we thinking what we are thinking? Everyone has their own individual thought..
I don't why I keep bringing thoughts up, but it's way too late for me, I gotta get to bed. My brain has had enough.
Of course this feels like real life because it's all you've ever known.
Sure, possible, in the same way that "anything is possible", but no more probable than any other speculative scenario without any evidence to support it.
There is no direct evidence, but the reasoning in the article is pretty interesting.
It is interesting, but it makes three propositions, doesn't make an argument for any of them, and doesn't make an argument for why at least one of them must be true. I got to the end thinking: What is this guy talking about?
But if you think about it one of those scenarios has to be true. Humans will go extinct before reaching a post - human stage, post humans are unlikely to run ancestor simulations, we are living in an ancestor simulation. If humans advance to the
post human stage and are able to create ancestor simulations. ..based on human nature they would, and they would create a very large number of them. If that is true then chances are we are living in one of those simulations, just based on odds.
So if that is not true then chances are humans will go extinct before that point. It took me a while to wrap my brain around the concept, but it sort of makes sense.
If we had the capability to create a simulated universe, don't you think we would, and don't you think we would run an enormous amount of simulations with different parameters etc?
Then the simulated universes will start popping out an infinite number of simulated universes of their own, and it would be infinite fractal simulated universes.
If each simulated life in each of the infinite fractal simulations is self aware then it is all but guaranteed we are in a simulation.
I don't think any of those necessarily has to be true, but the more likely one seems that we would go extinct as each of our ancestor species has done. Even if not, there is no reason to think out fascination with computer simulations would continue.
And even if both of those things happened, there would be no reason to imagine that they have happened, and that this is the simulation, as opposed to being something that might happen (probably not), and we are the initial reality.
We could be the initial reality. But if we do reach the stage of creating these advanced simulations, then the chances of that are less than selecting the correct grain of sand out of all of the sand grains on earth.
Not necessarily computer simulations, whatever technology we had advanced to at that point. Human nature just tells me we would continue to experiment and we would run ancestor simulations if we could to learn more about ourselves.
It's feels like a variation of the argument about whether we actually exist. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, because it seems real enough.
That is true, and I guess thats all that matters really.
The human nature argument presumes we would evolve to a post-human stage, but that our human nature would remain static. Whatever the technology, I don't think we'd be running simulations of our past, there would be no incentive to.
I would think there would be incentive to run simulations of our past and introduce different parameters into each one, basically to learn about ourselves and our past so we could use that information to help us advance into the future.
To see what works and what doesn't etc...
I mean if we suddenly discovered the ability right now to run a simulated universe, don't you think we would?
We'd already be well into the future, and assuming we aren't in that simulation now, we'd already know all of recorded history. And, since we can't change the past, there would be no good reason to model it beyond what would already be known.
Perhaps that is true. All I know is my brain is hurting and I have to get up early tomorrow. Thanks for entertaining these crazy ideas with me.
I think we would if we could, but in a simulation of the universe, all of human history and all of human future wouldn't even be included unless the resolution was incredibly fine - far finer than it would need to be for any imaginable purpose.
It would be like running a wind tunnel simulation on a new aircraft design and being concerned with the behavior of a single molecule of nitrogen in the air. On a scale as big as the universe, all of humanity and human existence is insignificant.
It's been fun. Good night.
That is a good point. But who knows how far our technology would have advanced by that point. It is unthinkable now, but maybe it wouldn't be in a few thousand or even millions of years from now.
Oh man, if it is, let us know!!
Possible yes, but there are too many imponderables to try calculate the likelihood, it's a bit like with the Drake equation. We simply don't know how likely it is our civilization reaches the stage to be able to run an ancestor simulation.
I've wondered this a lot.
I think my life is a figment of my imagination
This user is currently being ignored