[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34919184]This is generally an idea schizophrenics get. Could you explain where you got this idea from?[/QUOTE]
I got the same thought when I was 11. It's really not that uncommon. There have been lots of threads like this before.
Life is life, no need to make things needlessly complex.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34923717]Could everyone who posted things like "Brain in a jar / Computer simulation breaks Occam's razor" actually read the meat of my post? I'm not claiming that the conventional version of either is true. The only post to comment on my actual point is Noble's. Although he seems to have missed that the very next sentence after the one he quoted answers his question.
I don't want to sound rude, and I know my OP is a bit of a wall of text, but could you all at least read it before posting?[/QUOTE]
We live in an unfathomable big universe, with a vast amount of highly advanced organisms all individual and with unique anatomy, and extremely complicated logical natural laws.
Why would it in any way be likely that this isn't real? Why would such a complicated thing be created as a few seconds of consciousness by a chaotic system, when our universe is so much more complex and in logical harmony. Why would this all be a simulation, when there is nothing that implies that there exists a real universe even more complex than our own.
[QUOTE=monkey11;34919879][url]http://truthism.com/[/url]
Everything you need to know.[/QUOTE]
If you don't want to read this stupid site it's basically saying that their is a group of reptile people who rule the modern day world and they had civilizations thousands of years before Egypt. It also says they invented all major religions and dinosaurs and make contact with the US Government in Area 51. Oh and Satan invented 12 dimensions and our universe is a side of a dodecahedron. Ancient Aliens + Secret Societies = This site
They also claim you can't disprove it at all so it must be real.
[quote] Reptile people work in mysterious ways. [/quote]
There is no way to know for sure whether it exists or not, so you might as well assume it does because assuming it doesn't won't be very beneficial for your sanity.
Ziks can you give us a very precise definition of "existence" that we are to be debating?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;34922240]Descartes said "I think therefore I am"
What this means is that it's pointless to question your own existence. Let's just assume we exist and move on to the more meaty questions.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RagerTrader;34922328]"Cogito ergo sum" -René Descartes
"I think, therefor I am."
It is the basic principle on which modern philosophy is founded.
The only absolute truth in life is that you exist, because you are are capable of independent thought and action. Sure, everything [i]else[/i] might be fake, but [i]you[/i] are real.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
PvtCupcakes beat me to it.[/QUOTE]
Descartes' argument concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself, but that he could doubt the (separate) existence of his body, and by extension the existence of the world. His argument actually supports what the OP is suggesting.
I know the universe exists because [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor]the simplest answer (yes) is in most cases the right one[/url] and even if it didn't exist, there's no way to prove it.
To be honest Occam's razor is meaningless in relation to the simulated reality argument. The argument doesn't posit the existence of any entities we don't already have cause to believe in (unless you have a theory of the mind that's incompatible with simulated minds but that's only a few people).
Occam's razor isn't a particularly good epistemic tool anyway. It's just supposed to be a rule of thumb.
[QUOTE=Simski;34925160]We live in an unfathomable big universe, with a vast amount of highly advanced organisms all individual and with unique anatomy, and extremely complicated logical natural laws.
Why would it in any way be likely that this isn't real? Why would such a complicated thing be created as a few seconds of consciousness by a chaotic system, when our universe is so much more complex and in logical harmony. Why would this all be a simulation, when there is nothing that implies that there exists a real universe even more complex than our own.[/QUOTE]
It's a purely hypothetical thing, I think. Sure, it makes absolutely no sense, but "how do you know the universe didn't pop up in its current state 10 minutes ago"
Descartes' argument is invalid; all we can know is that 'thought exists'. 'I' and personal identity is an entirely different kettle of fish. It's not even particularly intuitive if you reject dualism (almost everyone).
[QUOTE=Noble;34925736]Ziks can you give us a very precise definition of "existence" that we are to be debating?[/QUOTE]
That.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34926042]Descartes' argument is invalid; all we can know is that 'thought exists'. 'I' and personal identity is an entirely different kettle of fish. It's not even particularly intuitive if you reject dualism (almost everyone).[/QUOTE]
That is true, but if you define that "I" as a group of thoughts, then "you" exist.
[QUOTE=Noble;34925736]Ziks can you give us a very precise definition of "existence" that we are to be debating?[/QUOTE]
We are debating whether the universe exists in its entirety in the form that it appears, and has existed for the 13.7 billion years that is believed to be the age of the universe. It being a computer simulation would still count as it existing because it exists inside the simulation. A solipsistic existence where only the part of the universe the solipsist is aware of does not count as it existing.
Essentially, this is the level of consciousness I've never "woken up" from, so it might as well be real to me
[QUOTE=Robber;34925871]I know the universe exists because [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor]the simplest answer (yes) is in most cases the right one[/url] and even if it didn't exist, there's no way to prove it.[/QUOTE]
So because we can't disprove it, it exists?
On a side note I have a subsurface mansion on pluto.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34929068]We are debating whether the universe exists in its entirety in the form that it appears, and has existed for the 13.7 billion years that is believed to be the age of the universe. It being a computer simulation would still count as it existing because it exists inside the simulation. A solipsistic existence where only the part of the universe the solipsist is aware of does not count as it existing.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but what are you defining as the requirements for the existence of a thing? Basically what is the difference between existence of something and non-existence of something (i.e can you give an example of something you would define as "existing" and something you would define as "not existing")?
Its not like we could change anything if we were just a simulation. If we are a simulation then we must simulate.
Fair question, I mean, who's to say this whole thread wasn't written to convince me that the simulations think about things like these too?
[QUOTE=SubjectPROD;34930139]Fair question, I mean, who's to say this whole thread wasn't written to convince me that the simulations think about things like these too?[/QUOTE]
The whole experiment is to simulate if the simulation will discover that it was a simulation. Next stage is to create a simulation within the simulation.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34918771]If such a small span is enough to give you the illusion of a longer existence, then I think it is logical to conclude that it is more likely than not that this is in fact what we are actually experiencing.[/QUOTE]
What do you base this on? It being cooler?
[QUOTE=Ziks;34918771]Wouldn't it be more probable that the information needed to simulate a few milliseconds of consciousness would occur naturally in some chaotic system than an entire universe being created capable of supporting complex life?[/QUOTE]
What do you base this probability on?
[QUOTE=Ziks;34918771]The paradox is that if this universe actually existed in the form that it appears to, such instantaneous consciousnesses would be constantly popping up in the tumultuous hearts of stars or the boiling chemical soups of alien seas.[/QUOTE]
I know you used the word 'paradox' in this and that I should probably refute this, but this makes no sense.
Anyway, I concur: Your points are invalid unless they can be proven.
[QUOTE=Noble;34930018]Yeah but what are you defining as the requirements for the existence of a thing? Basically what is the difference between existence of something and non-existence of something (i.e can you give an example of something you would define as "existing" and something you would define as "not existing")?[/QUOTE]
When I read a Terry Pratchett novel, I am told about a place called the Discworld. I am presented with a collection of people, places and events that reside on the Discworld, and yet the place does not exist anywhere except for in my imagination.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34930493]When I read a Terry Pratchett novel, I am told about a place called the Discworld. I am presented with a collection of people, places and events that reside on the Discworld, and yet the place does not exist anywhere except for in my imagination.[/QUOTE]
So what's the difference between an image (of this fictional world) simulated in your mind and what we know as our universe being simulated by a computer? You said before that a simulated universe would still count as existing, so why not "Discworld", following this reasoning?
I would say something like a 4 sided triangle is truly non-existent. It can't possibly exist in the world and it can't exist in our imagination either.
[QUOTE=Jookia;34930435]What do you base this on? It being cooler?
What do you base this probability on?[/QUOTE]
I base my probabilities on energy. The universe as we see it holds a vast amount of energy, and took at least that much energy to create it. A millisecond of consciousness requires such a minuscule amount of energy compared to the entire universe that whatever system created the universe would have surely created billions upon billions of instantaneous consciousnesses. I'm assuming the universe wasn't "designed" by some creator but is the result of a chaotic system.
[QUOTE]I know you used the word 'paradox' in this and that I should probably refute this, but this makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
The paradox is that if the universe existed in the form we think it does, it's more likely that you are an instantaneous consciousness anyway because this universe can support them. Although since sentient life has continual consciousness you could see that as being millions of instantaneous consciousnesses all strung one after another, so it might be more likely that you are a real being in a universe that can support complex life.
Also, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain[/url]
It exists, but our Universe could just as well be part of other Universes that make together even a bigger Universe (which we don't even know about), making our Universe almost like it didn't exist being so small.
But other than that nope, Universe exists and we exist and it's just what it is. Pretty neat.
[QUOTE=Noble;34930627]So what's the difference between an image (of this fictional world) simulated in your mind and what we know as our universe being simulated by a computer? You said before that a simulated universe would still count as existing, so why not "Discworld", following this reasoning?
I would say something like a 4 sided triangle is truly non-existent. It can't possibly exist in the world and it can't exist in our imagination either.[/QUOTE]
The entirety of the Discworld in the novels does not exist anywhere, only the small section that is featured in the books. The rest of the world is alluded to, but not actually stored anywhere. In a simulated universe however, the universe exists in a stored form in the computer. Parts of the universe that an inhabitant will never experience still exist. A solipsistic universe, like the novels, only contains the environment around the solipsist. Parts of the universe that the solipsist isn't aware of doesn't exist in any form anywhere.
That's the sort of existence I'm debating, one where parts that an inhabitant can not experience do not exist, and one where they do.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34930678]It exists, but our Universe could just as well be part of other Universes that make together even a bigger Universe (which we don't even know about), making our Universe almost like it didn't exist being so small.
But other than that nope, Universe exists and we exist and it's just what it is. Pretty neat.[/QUOTE]
At least I'm not saying that my scenario isn't certainly the case. What makes you think the universe definitely exists?
I think we are all asylum patients, but who cares we think it's eral.
Possible but incredibly incredibly unlikely.
I think that the universe is as old as 13.7 billion. I do not think it is possible for the universe to have been created 10 minutes more or less ago.
If I was in a new universe I don't think I would be given memories of a fake life. I think these memories would be brand new or I could recognize that I was in another universe.
I think we all exist. Let's not be cynical here.
The universe exists because you touch yourself at night.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
My theory anyways.
Facepunch is facilitating life all across the galaxy.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how you debate" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Ziks;34930743]The entirety of the Discworld in the novels does not exist anywhere, only the small section that is featured in the books. The rest of the world is alluded to, but not actually stored anywhere. In a simulated universe however, the universe exists in a stored form in the computer. Parts of the universe that an inhabitant will never experience still exist. A solipsistic universe, like the novels, only contains the environment around the solipsist. Parts of the universe that the solipsist isn't aware of doesn't exist in any form anywhere.
That's the sort of existence I'm debating, one where parts that an inhabitant can not experience do not exist, and one where they do.[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with these books, but what if the solipsist travels to another part of the solipsistic universe that supposedly isn't "stored" anywhere? Does the environment need to instantly create itself around him or her? Doesn't there have to be something pre-existing from which the environment around the solipsist creates itself (some sort of quantum vacuum or something)?
[QUOTE='Poesidan [GAG];34930791']Possible but incredibly incredibly unlikely.
I think that the universe is as old as 13.7 billion. I do not think it is possible for the universe to have been created 10 minutes more or less ago.
If I was in a new universe I don't think I would be given memories of a fake life. I think these memories would be brand new or I could recognize that I was in another universe.
I think we all exist. Let's not be cynical here.[/QUOTE]
I recognise that the universe being created 10 minutes ago is incredibly unlikely. But that is not what I am claiming. I am claiming that your consciousness was created a fraction of a second ago, which ups the probability quite a lot for reasons that I have explained.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;34930888]I'm not familiar with these books, but what if the solipsist travels to another part of the solipsistic universe that supposedly isn't "stored" anywhere? Does the environment need to instantly create itself around him or her? Doesn't there have to be something pre-existing from which the environment around the solipsist creates itself (some sort of quantum vacuum or something)?[/QUOTE]
The solipsist will be creating the world as he explores it, although he won't know that he is responsible. However I am not claiming the solipsist will exist long enough to explore anything. The entirety of my point is that he exists for a fraction of a second.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
Added a TL;DR to hopefully save a few posts
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
