[QUOTE=DeandreT;34930276]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]
Took me a minute to read that without my eyes going different directions, but well said.
SMBC today was relevant to the simulation part of this thread:
[url=http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2535#comic][img]http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120229.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120229after.gif[/img][/url]
As far as it will hopefully concern me, we are real. If we're not, then that's a shame but there isn't much we can do about it.
Unless there is evidence that we're not real, then I stick to my opinion.
Thinking and talking about unfalsifiable hypothesis doesn't lead you anywhere, so why bother.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34930743]At least I'm not saying that my scenario isn't certainly the case. [b]What makes you think the universe definitely exists?[/b][/QUOTE]
Doesn't really matter because here we are, living one after another, in the Universe on our planet till our planet dies.
(You know, a bit off-related, but shit like the big bang and black holes and other star collapses or explosions aren't the only amazing shit that happens in the Universe. One of the most amazing things (imo) in the Universe is this so called life, it makes you think.. it made you, and the computer. Shit's deep yo.)
Uhm. I'm fairly sure it exists, because why the hell would I make all of it up? If I was running the place, there'd be a lot of changes, it'd be great.
Okay now you didn't even read the TL;DR
What does such a question help with? If there is no evidence, reason, logic, or probability behind believing in such a hypothesis, then what is the point of the hypothesis? An unfalsifiable hypothesis has no basis to exist upon without logic or reason to back it up, and this hypothesis certainly has nothing to back it up, therefor believing in such a hypothesis is counterproductive in the truest form of the word.
Just because something can't be proven false doesn't mean that it can be asserted as true or disprovable based upon logic and probability. God is improbable and illogical, fairies and improbable and illogical, invisible imps living in my attic are improbable and illogical, and saying our perceptive reality is not really reality is improbable and illogical. This question really has no basis to exist upon and it serves no real purpose.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Lilyo;34935438]What does such a question help with? If there is no evidence, reason, logic, or probability behind believing in such a hypothesis, then what is the point of the hypothesis? An unfalsifiable hypothesis has no basis to exist upon without logic or reason to back it up, and this hypothesis certainly has nothing to back it up, therefor believing in such a hypothesis is counterproductive in the truest form of the word.
Just because something can't be proven false doesn't mean that it can be asserted as true or disprovable based upon logic and probability. God is improbable and illogical, fairies and improbable and illogical, invisible imps living in my attic are improbable and illogical, and saying our perceptive reality is not really reality is improbable and illogical. This question really has no basis to exist upon and it serves no real purpose.[/QUOTE]
Read the entirety of the OP. I'm sorry but this is getting frustrating when people only read the title or the first paragraph and think they are in a position to post.
[QUOTE=Noble;34922270]That statement by Descartes is controversial because it presupposes that the "I" exists though.
A couple of philosophers have argued against it: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah. The way I understood it, Descartes just said fuck it we need to start somewhere. You could spend ages trying to argue whether or not you exist, but I think he just wanted to move on to the rest of his book.
But I don't know, it's been a long time since I read it.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34935768]Read the entirety of the OP. I'm sorry but this is getting frustrating when people only read the title or the first paragraph and think they are in a position to post.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to Facepunch, may I take your hat sir?
[QUOTE=Ziks;34935768]Read the entirety of the OP. I'm sorry but this is getting frustrating when people only read the title or the first paragraph and think they are in a position to post.[/QUOTE]
You haven't even defined existence, this thread is not worth reading in it's entirety.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
Some philosophers argue that we must first respond to the question "What exists?", and based on that, 'take' the meaning of existence.
[i]If[/i] it's possible to simulate an entire universe, then it's actually most probable that we are a simulation
think about it, within a simulation, there could be another species with their own simulation, who had their own simulation, and so on.
if there's one simulation, it's actually most likely that there are millions of other simulations out there as well
so why on earth would our own universe be the original?
but thats just if you assume it's possible, which we don't know yet
[QUOTE=Ziks;34930897]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]
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[/QUOTE]
There is not even a way to know that for sure, and the question doesn't really matter. You know that right?
Even if it is some kind of simulation, that question doesn't matter in the least.
Things do not change if the (perceptible) universe was created a fraction of a second ago. Nothing in our experiences change if we were created a fraction of a second ago, nothing at all. And it doesn't matter of we will "die" in some milliseconds, we could as well in the "real universe". Moreover, nothing tells you that the "real" universe will not collapse in a few milliseconds.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34918771][B]TL;DR[/B] How do you know that your mind wasn't created a [I]fraction of a second[/I] ago, and will cease to exist soon after?[/QUOTE]
I can't stop thinking of "The Langoliers" here for some reason.
And are you talking Matrix-style hibernation?
And if were just brains plugged in somewhere and this is our dreams... my dreams are really, really boring.
But I can recall dreams from when I went to sleep. Does that mean it's a deeper form of sleep for the brain-in-a-jar or is it just another fiction of our imagination, which is why we can remember it?
Would it explain déjà vu? Seeing how everything in our minds would be made up by ourselves (unless we are plugged together somehow).
It's all very complicated and you're giving me headaches at 4AM.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;34936558][i]If[/i] it's possible to simulate an entire universe, then it's actually most probable that we are a simulation
think about it, within a simulation, there could be another species with their own simulation, who had their own simulation, and so on.
if there's one simulation, it's actually most likely that there are millions of other simulations out there as well
so why on earth would our own universe be the original?
but thats just if you assume it's possible, which we don't know yet[/QUOTE]
Sounds like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse]Multiverse Theory[/url]
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;34937604]Sounds like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse]Multiverse Theory[/url][/QUOTE]
It's not. These simulated universes aren't actually separate physical universes, just simulations
Would sound silly if the universe was like the matrix.
That everytime we get stabbed, fall down, it's what the non reality thinks your really getting hurt.
And that we are all die, and end up in some place where aliens or whatever are testing us. omg twist.
I've heard many theories.
Like one about us living in a deceptive holographic universe. Which is believable, maya is earth, which translates to illusion (the fourth veda). God is all beings, but illusory as well. There's plenty of correlations to be drawn out between eastern philosophy and modern physics. We live in layers of alternate dimensions, and our self is what controls our perception and state of consciousness, vibration, wavelength. Your vibrations state of consciousness reflects on the levels of interaction you deal with.
[QUOTE=matsta;34936526]You haven't even defined existence, this thread is not worth reading in it's entirety.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
Some philosophers argue that we must first respond to the question "What exists?", and based on that, 'take' the meaning of existence.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I have defined what I mean by existence, just not in the OP. Read page 2.
[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]
"And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness. And I saw that I was alone. Let there be light."
You think, and you can't stop thinking until your thinking stops due to death/etc, therefor you are.
And there's nothing you can even do about it (except maybe end it) so yeah, it's pointless to question your existence.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34941583]You think, and you can't stop thinking until your thinking stops due to death/etc, therefor you are.
And there's nothing you can even do about it (except maybe end it) so yeah, it's pointless to question your existence.[/QUOTE]
What evidence do you have that you are thinking continually, instead of only thinking for a single moment and then either simply ceasing to exist or your consciousness collapsing into unintelligable chaos?
[QUOTE=Ziks;34940361]Actually, I have defined what I mean by existence, just not in the OP. Read page 2.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you didn't answer the question to what [I]is meant[/I] to exist?
If you say that, in a solipsist manner, the universe exists as longs as we are observing it, then you are referring to the phenomenal universe/perceptible universe. Of course, it doesn't mean that there is something [I]behind[/I] those observations, something [I]causing[/I] them. But there is no one who can verify your statement either.
Even in the world we (think we) live today, it isn't sure if there is something behind our perceptions. I just seems counter-intuitive that our perceptions are caused by nothing, that they stand there alone.
As for 'your' theory regarding the possibility of consciousness arising in a chaotic system. I'd say that if we were created a fraction of a second ago then none of the rules of physics that we know apply, because we are supposed to have discovered them more than a fraction of a second ago. And even if we discover them a fraction of a second ago, our consciousness is bounded and the phenomena we observe "isn't there", behind our observations. To use science to imply the possibility that none of our observations is caused by something else is to use science and to deny it's validity at the same time, which would be just plain stupid.
[editline]1st March 2012[/editline]
As for living a fraction of a second, I'd say that our lives are always lived in the non-measurable period of time which we call "present". That is the only thing which is [I]real[/I] for us, but, of course, it isn't even a period of time, it is more like "moving toward the future".
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;34920028]There's a philosophical idea called Solipsism which states that the only thing you truly know to exist is your own mind.
You should probably look more into it if you're interested in this subject.[/QUOTE]
I've always thought that was a cool idea.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34942569]What evidence do you have that you are thinking continually, instead of only thinking for a single moment and then either simply ceasing to exist or your consciousness collapsing into unintelligable chaos?[/QUOTE]
Yikes- That's a tough one.
[QUOTE=Ziks;34942569]What evidence do you have that you are thinking continually, instead of only thinking for a single moment and then either simply ceasing to exist or your consciousness collapsing into unintelligable chaos?[/QUOTE]
What evidence do you have that you are only thinking for a single moment and then either simply ceasing to exist or your consciousness collapsing into unintelligable chaos, instead of thinking continually?
You see how that works?
[QUOTE=Lilyo;34949840]What evidence do you have that you are only thinking for a single moment and then either simply ceasing to exist or your consciousness collapsing into unintelligable chaos, instead of thinking continually?
You see how that works?[/QUOTE]
The difference is that I am not saying that the scenario I gave is certain. He, however, was.
The reapers believe the universe doesn't exist, because it wants to destroy everything. Ah yes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
