"Simulation Theory" is rubbish

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd say they are mutually exclusive: one occurs naturally whereas the other is manufactured and one is organic in nature and the other mechanical - and more importantly, one is alive and the other is not

Would an autonomious and self aware AI be a machine ir organism? And are we not ourselves a biological circuit board complete with bodies designed to work? And what is alive? The means by which a silicon OS allows us to biologically function and take in input, compute things, and give output.

 

[Nakosis]

While it would be sad if someone brainwashed themselves into a religion, we still haven't established that there is no God.

Doesn't matter really, the question of God since nothing can be verified. One can believe in any God they feel appropriate. None of it can really be tested "scientifically" so folks are free to believe in anything, even a matrix scenario.

The point I see is calling someone else's belief rubbish means nothing. Has no value. You believe what you feel comfortable with, they believe what they feel comfortable with.

While I can't say I avoid all belief, putting much stock into any belief which we can't really validate is silly. So as you or maybe someone else see's this simulation "theory" as silly, I see it all as silly, to put much stock into any belief. Some stock, sure if it helps a person get through life.

I have put a lot of stock in many different beliefs and they all worked, to whatever level I needed them to work. Maybe some more silly than the Matrix. The truth being irrelevant to whether a belief works for you personally of not. If Christianity works for you, who cares? If Wicca works for someone else, good for them. If someone wants to see life as the Matrix, why not. They all have an equal likelihood of correct or incorrect since we have very little to base a correct answer on.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Doesn't matter really, the question of God since nothing can be verified. One can believe in any God they feel appropriate. None of it can really be tested "scientifically" so folks are free to believe in anything, even a matrix scenario.

The point I see is calling someone else's belief rubbish means nothing. Has no value. You believe what you feel comfortable with, they believe what they feel comfortable with.

While I can't say I avoid all belief, putting much stock into any belief which we can't really validate is silly. So as you or maybe someone else see's this simulation "theory" as silly, I see it all as silly, to put much stock into any belief. Some stock, sure if it helps a person get through life.

I have put a lot of stock in many different beliefs and they all worked, to whatever level I needed them to work. Maybe some more silly than the Matrix. The truth being irrelevant to whether a belief works for you personally of not. If Christianity works for you, who cares? If Wicca works for someone else, good for them. If someone wants to see life as the Matrix, why not. They all have an equal likelihood of correct or incorrect since we have very little to base a correct answer on.

This is a complicated topic and I don't want to get into it. Don't worry I will still talk to you.

 

[sealchan]

I’ve made a few posts on these forums about Simulation Theory

Sim Theory is the notion that this dimension of reality and all us who dwell within it are the products of an elaborate computer simulation maintained by a species of mysterious super-advanced beings.

I used to truly believe in it

I have now realised what a load of crap it is

Seriously… It’s for people who cannot tell the difference between machines and organisms!

When you expand Sim Theory and take it to its logical conclusions I’ve found that it soon turns into a pseudo-religion, with a fake God who is subordinate to the mysterious "over-seers" who created The Simulation and who go largely unexplained

I believe Simulation Theory obstructed my relationship with God and stunted my spiritual development

It’s really bleak too, so I’m glad it’s a load of rubbish

The Wachowskis have a lot to answer for​

I think that Simulation Theory makes for an interesting intellectual exercise in understanding order and intelligence and natural systems...discussion of such things helps to understand how we would know whether we are in a product of intelligence or not.

What, in particular, turned you decidedly against it? I ask not as one who believes in that but as one who is a student of belief and how one experiences deep changes of conviction.

 

[Eddi]

What, in particular, turned you decidedly against it?

Christianity!

 

[Stanyon]

I'm sure there are some ancient astronaut theorists that disagree with the OP.

 

[Salvador]

I’ve made a few posts on these forums about Simulation Theory

Sim Theory is the notion that this dimension of reality and all us who dwell within it are the products of an elaborate computer simulation maintained by a species of mysterious super-advanced beings.

I used to truly believe in it

I have now realised what a load of crap it is

Seriously… It’s for people who cannot tell the difference between machines and organisms!

When you expand Sim Theory and take it to its logical conclusions I’ve found that it soon turns into a pseudo-religion, with a fake God who is subordinate to the mysterious "over-seers" who created The Simulation and who go largely unexplained

I believe Simulation Theory obstructed my relationship with God and stunted my spiritual development

It’s really bleak too, so I’m glad it’s a load of rubbish

The Wachowskis have a lot to answer for​

I don't dismiss the simulation hypothesis as "rubbish", because there are indications we are living in a simulated reality.

A "machine" is any causal physical system, hence we are machines; thus, machines can be conscious. The question is: What type of machines could be conscious? Odds are robots passing the Turing Test Turing test - Wikipedia would be indistinguishable from us in their behavioral capacities --and could be conscious (i.e. feel), but we can never be certain. There's no way for any "conscious" being to know whether or not he is actually experiencing a virtual reality produced by an interface between his brain and a computer .

However, there are some possible indications we are living in a computer simulation....

1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.

2. There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding is indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality.

3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. has revealved that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.

At least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:

1. The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a post-human stage.
2. Any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history.
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

"Bostrom's argument rests on the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to digital physics; that the qualia experienced by a simulated consciousness are comparable or equivalent to those of a naturally occurring human consciousness, and that one or more levels of simulation within simulations would be feasible given only a modest expenditure of computational resources in the real world."

ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM

Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University

Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.

Are You Living in a Simulation

I took the red pill knowing there is no turning back. I didn't take the blue pill, because I didn't want the story to end, then waking up in bed and simply believing whatever I want to believe. I took the red pill for staying in Wonderland and getting shown how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

After taking the red pill, I watched the below video about possible evidence of us living in a simulated reality.

Computing a universe simulation is within the realm of physical possibilities.

 

[Eddi]

A "machine" is any causal physical system, hence we are machines;

Maybe we are "machines" in one sense of the term, but we are alive. A computer or a car or an oven or a pair of scissors are not. No matter how sophisticated. Even if we accept your definition of "machine" then we can say that that not all machines are alive

I'd personally define "machine" as any causal physical system that is not alive

I believe that to have consciousness requires life. A machine cannot feel hence it cannot be sentient - hence machine consciousness is not possible. To be conscious you need to be able to feel and experience qualia

And about life... can a "machine" do any of theses?:

• respond to their environment
• grow and change
• reproduce and have offspring
• have a complex chemistry
• maintain homeostasis
• are built of structures called cells
• pass their traits onto their offspring

No, because machines are not alive...

 

[lukethethird]

While it would be sad if someone brainwashed themselves into a religion, we still haven't established that there is no God.

If only we could make the distinction between invisible and nothing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And about life... can a "machine" do any of theses?:

• respond to their environment
• grow and change
• reproduce and have offspring
• have a complex chemistry
• maintain homeostasis
• are built of structures called cells
• pass their traits onto their offspring

I can't meet two of those, and due to various factors my brain struggles with two of them, leading to impaired functioning of another.