Jump to content

Rock Your Um, World?


Jim Naseum

Recommended Posts

When first exposed to this a couple years ago I found it hard to consider. This revelation that at the core of the equations of the universe lies regular computer code suddenly makes it all seen sensible to me.

I watched this and several related Bostrom videos this afternoon, and was very stimulated.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/the-simulation-argument.html

"So here's the kicker. If you accept that the human race will survive long enough to invent this [ simulation] technology, and that we won't be afraid to use it, then Bostrom's third statement must be true. We are indeed living inside a computer simulation ourselves.

But why?

Bostrom did the math. A single computer simulation of our evolutionary history would create trillions of organisms (think: every living thing on planet Earth, ever).

These immense simulations would lead to the evolution of posthumans, who create their own computer simulations. Simulations within simulations.

In this vast pyramid, there would be a single true reality, home to the original humans who lived (for real), died (for real) and created computer simulations (for real).

Every virtual world spawned by that reality would be merely offspring simulations - each with their own offspring simulations, potentially adding up to trillions of simulated universes.

The chances of you existing in that original universe are infinitesimal. Indeed, you'd be crazy to think you live in the "real world". You are most likely to be the construct of a very realistic, very powerful computer game."

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you misunderstand? What we sense is data that gets processed in our brains. Just the way a computer displays an image of a car based on data it receives.

Everything about "hacking off your arm" is sensory data sent to the brain. So, if consciousness can be simulated in a computer, there would be no test to determine how that differs from an organic brain.

Thus far, no scientist has devised a test or experiment to discredit the simulation hypothesis.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you misunderstand? What we sense is data that gets processed in our brains. Just the way a computer displays an image of a car based on data it receives.

Everything about "hacking off your arm" is sensory data sent to the brain. So, if consciousness can be simulated in a computer, there would be no test to determine how that differs from an organic brain.

Thus far, no scientist has devised a test or experiment to discredit the simulation hypothesis.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

WRT to evidence of absence. You can't prove a negative. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe you misunderstand? What we sense is data that gets processed in our brains. Just the way a computer displays an image of a car based on data it receives.

Everything about "hacking off your arm" is sensory data sent to the brain. So, if consciousness can be simulated in a computer, there would be no test to determine how that differs from an organic brain.

Thus far, no scientist has devised a test or experiment to discredit the simulation hypothesis.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

WRT to evidence of absence. You can't prove a negative. :)

 

 

No one is trying to "prove a negative" - these are scientists working at the edge of physics. The question is can there be a test to differentiate a simulation from some form of actual reality?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Larry: [to Jennings, while high] Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. [Jennings nods] This is too much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--

Jennings: Could be one little tiny universe.

Larry: Could I buy some pot from you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein

That's the crux of cutting edge science. It's working without a net.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's professor Gates with a short presentation about how computer code was discovered in equations of the universe.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

01001001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 00110001 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 00110000 00100111 01110011

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...