1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The implications of reality being a simulation

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Eddi, Nov 14, 2018.

  1. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    Oh, OK. That's a much better question than what I attempted to address.

    I would think that believing that "simulism" (yours is the first time I've come across that term) is true would be kind of demoralizing for a person, would leave a person with a sort of nihilistic view of everything. "Nothing's real, nothing matters; I'm unaffected by any pain I might cause"--I would think it might instill that sort of outlook.
     
  2. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,566
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It has NOT been "proven it's not a simulation by experts" at all. Even your cited article didn't make such a claim. Go read the whole thing, rather than skimming google results for bias confirming headlines.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,566
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I don't see that that necessarily follows. Assuming I am a simulation, I still experience the universe as though it were physical. Asuming the same is true of everyone else, then the same logic of morality that guides me in a physical universe holds true in the simulated universe.

    Now, of course one could argue that although my simulated experience is real, other residents in the simulation are NPCs with no internal life, and therefore a different moral code could apply. To that I'd remind you of the various solopsistic movements and "philosophical zombie" theories that have been argued in the (presumably ) real universe previously. Until we can actual determine if anyone is a real universe philosophical zombie, or a simulated NPC, the moral and logical thing to do is treat them with all the compasion and empathy we ourselves expect.

    Ultimately, it's a fun thought experiment, but so long as Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" and Johnson's "I prove it thus!" Hold true, it doesn't make any difference whether we're in one or the other.
     
  4. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,082
    Ratings:
    +1,254
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Physicists now can't actually disprove if our universe is a simulation, In the words of Zohar Ringel, the lead author of the paper you've cited, "there is no reason that the laws of physics should apply outside it. “Who knows what are the computing capabilities of whatever simulates us?”
     
  5. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,566
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Or if the whole universe needs be simulated at once?
     
  6. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,082
    Ratings:
    +1,254
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Even in a highly realistic simulation, not every thing at the quantum level would need to simulated, only energy/matter that's observed would need to be simulated, thereby conserving enormous computational resources.

    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 indeed be what's happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,082
    Ratings:
    +1,254
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Good question; of course, only what's observed would need to be simulated rather than the entire universe.
     
  8. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    "The realisation we are within a simulation would I believe have a unifying effect –"

    This is verbatium modern christianity. Its delusuonal its lost in its own thoughts its confused and its not even the bible. No bible is needed and is not related to the bible at all..
     
  9. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    Insane delusional dissassociation. I put This theorist in the ken ham catagory nonsense. Because someine is a physicist doea not make them an expert on amything except a very narrow specific aspects modeled out into math language and thats it.
     
  10. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    Amen!!! Not only has it not been proven Simulatuons are used as foundational statements in science. A bit like my model is reality about reality. Nonsense circular self referencial.
     
  11. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,082
    Ratings:
    +1,254
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism

    The implications of a simulated reality may likely have the same implications as the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experimentation results.

    [​IMG]

    Figure 1. Setup of the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment of Kim et al. Detector D0 is movable


    [​IMG]

    Figure 2. x axis: position of D0. y axis: joint detection rates between D0 and D1, D2, D3, D4 (R01, R02, R03, R04). R04 is not provided in the Kim article and is supplied according to their verbal description.

    [​IMG]

    Figure 3. Simulated recordings of photons jointly detected between D0 and D1, D2, D3, D4(R01, R02, R03, R04)


    The experimental setup of the earliest performed DCQE involved an argon laser that shot 351.1 nm photons which went through a double-slit apparatus. After an individual photon went through one (or both) of the 2 slits, a Beta Barium Borate Crystal converted the photon into 2 identical entangled photons at half the original photon's frequency. The paths followed by each of the entangled photons were caused to become diverged by a Glan-Thompson Prism. One of these 702.2 nm photons (the signal photon) then traveled on a path from the Glan-Thompson Prism to a lens and then to a detector designated as D0. This point was scanned along its X-axis. A plot of the "signal photon counts" recorded at D0 versus X were examined to determine if the cumulative signal formed an interference pattern. The other entangled photon (the idler photon) went from the Glan-Thompson Prism to another prism where the idler photon was then deflected along a divergent path, depending upon which slit the photon went through. Beyond this path split, the idler photons encountered beam splitters that gave the idler photon a 50% chance of passing through and a 50% chance of being reflected by a mirror. The beam splitters and mirrors directed the idler photons towards detectors which were designated as D1,D2,D3 and D4. This experiment was setup so if an idler photon was recorded at D1 or D2, then this detected photon could have passed through either slit. If an idler photon were recorded at D3, then it must have passed through the one slit designated as Slit B. If an idler photon were recorded at D4, then it must have only passed though the one slit designated as Slit A. The optical pathway from slit to D1,D2,D3 and D4 was 2.5m longer than the pathway length from slit to D0. Thus, information acquired from an idler photon would occur 8ns later than information acquired from the corresponding entangled signal photon. The idler photon recorded at D3 or D4 provided a delayed "which-path" indication of whether the signal photon with which it was entangled had gone through Slit A or B. Whereas, the idler photon recorded at D1 or D2 provided a delayed indication that such "which-path" information was not available for its entangled signal photon. The experiment used a coincidence counter to isolate the entangled signal from photo-noise, recording only events where both signal and idler photons had been detected. ( after compensating for the 8ns delay ) When signal photons whose entangled idler photons were recorded at D1 or D2, the experimenters detected an interference pattern. When signal photons whose entangled idler photons were recorded at D3 or D4, the experimenters detected a simple diffraction patterns with no interference.

    Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1 (2000) - Delayed ``Choice'' Quantum Eraser

    Reference: Delayed “Choice” Quantum Eraser Yoon-Ho Kim, Rong Yu, Sergei P. Kulik, Yanhua Shih, and Marlan O. Scully Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1 – Published 3 January 2000 Issue
    Vol. 84, Iss. 1 — 3 January 2000


    The DCQE is unlike the classic double-slit experiment, in that the choice to preserve or obfuscate the which-path information of the idler photon was not done until 8ns after the position of its corresponding signal photon had already been measured at D0.

    Although, an idler photon was unobserved until after its corresponding entangled signal photon arrived at D0, interference at D0 was determined by whether a signal photon's entangled idler photon was recorded at D1 or D2 which was on a pathway where the photon's "which-path" information had been obfuscated, or at D3 or D4 which was on a pathway where the photon's "which-path" information was preserved.

    Does the DCQE indicate that the delayed choice to observe or not observe the idler photon's path affect the outcome of a past event?

    Does Relativity reveal that if quantum entanglement influences are able to travel faster than light, then they must also be able to travel backward in time and influence the past (which they do in this experiment)?

    I suppose that'd be all fine and dandy, so long as there'd be no immediately decode-able information transfer FTL into the past. So then, you couldn't go into the past and kill off your great great great grandparents, and create a paradox.

    Does the universe permit anything that doesn't make paradoxes, including FTL and backwards time travel of certain quantum influences (which are intertwined in relativity)?

    Perhaps you can reach back into time, so long as you preserve causality. Your changes would have to look like noise at the time, and could only have been seen to be otherwise when it's too late to make any difference (or light has had time to travel that far anyway, in the case of FTL)

    [/QUOTE]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    23,647
    Ratings:
    +8,837
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Even if for sake of argument we are in a type of simulation. Even so , that simulation would be an aspect of actual reality and not really in any true sense "fake".

    Another way of putting it would be when I recalled a vivid dream I had that still sticks with me. While within the dream, that was reality in every sense of the word only to notice it was not so when I woke up.

    I'm more inclined to view things as not a simulation per se, but a reality of flux, a continuum by which we live and exist.
     
  13. wizanda

    wizanda One Accepts All Religious Texts
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,225
    Ratings:
    +1,718
    Religion:
    Øneness
    Acting willfully is just a series of reactions based on previous criteria being acted upon, due to previous results.

    Many interactive computer programs function based on experiences being recorded, that then cause reactions.

    If you had more knowledge on how code functions, you'd already be understanding this.

    In my opinion.
    :innocent:
     
  14. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,082
    Ratings:
    +1,254
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    The implications or ramifications of living in a simulation is no different than that of living in base reality. In the end, it's game over and lights out for everybody. ... :D
     
  15. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    I definitely need evidence in order to conclude that computer programs have experiences or act willfully. Apparently there is no study that demonstrates such, and therefore I know of no rational reason to conclude that computer programs have experiences of act willfully.
     
  16. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,082
    Ratings:
    +1,254
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    Theoritical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. claims 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.

    See here:

     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Salvador

    Salvador RF's Swedenborgian

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    4,082
    Ratings:
    +1,254
    Religion:
    Swedenborgianism
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,566
    Religion:
    Catholic
    ...yet.
     
  19. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,566
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Chinese room paradox
     
  20. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    If you ever come across some evidence that computer programs or human-made machines have experiences or are able to act volitionally, be sure to do this @Nous to alert me of it.
     
Loading...