Dubstepforum.com

if you think about it, stuff isn't really real.

like if you look at matter from the atomic perspective, considering the distances between electron valences, and the tiny size of their nuclei, molecules are mostly space. like 99.several decimal places % space.

we're not any more real than pixels on a screen are real. and our experiences change molecules fundamentally. all we have to do is observe an electron and we collapse its wave function, and it starts behaving like a particle.

when you consider the way experience alters reality, its not that big of a stretch to be able to control/affect reality with a focused will.

einstein hated the idea of quantum because he said it implied the existence of "spooky action at a distance".

well spooky action at a distance is reality now. that ain't even fringe science. thats classic quantum physics.

and on top of that, space isn't even empty. its chock full of energy. every cubic inch of space in the universe contains enough energy to power the earth for 3 days.

Parson wrote:we're not any more real than pixels on a screen are real.

er, that's exactly my point.

and my point is that we can apparently move the pixels by will alone

Parson wrote:and my point is that we can apparently move the pixels by will alone

neat party trick!

the evil-daemon/brain in a vat thing did my head in when i studied philosophy. not in the way that i thought it was bollocks, just that i don't think i'm smart enough to get my head around it properly. it was like looking at a magic eye puzzle. im loath to concede that god exists through definition and the inability to disprove it... and i get the same feeling about this. i'm not saying i don't believe in what i can't see/touch/experience, but it certainly helps. on the other hand, i've never seen a quark or a lepton.. i just accept they exist cos apparantly that explains what i can see.

one thing that bothers me is... for a superintelligent being, what are the possible motives to create a simulation of a world such as ours? superboredom? supermischeviousness?

parson, do you think the world is a simulation? i ask because if you do, i am interested in how it fits in with your other beliefs.

if we're living in a computer simulation, it sure would explain a lot

simulation or not though, there seems to be method to the madness, and methods are the result of intelligence

Whether or not reality is computer-generated is irrelevant (and why a computer? That seems rather random to me). All perceptions of "reality" are simulation, anyway. Our magnificent bodies are the front-end for interaction with the physical world, and our bodies tell us about the physical world is our "reality" (even when it lies).

Therefore, identifying the "generator" is fruitless and impossible. If we want to stay w/ the computer analogy, think of the body as a sub-routine that's constantly taking inputs. We know what the inputs are....and w/ a significantly complex routine we can even infer what (if any) previous state the inputs previously might have had. But the subroutine could never infer the ultimate source of the inputs (does Excel know that you're the guy in the red shit entering $5.00 into cell B1?)

.....and it would never need to know, since it would be irrelevant to it's execution.

ikeaboy wrote: I read it all, its interesting but I for one can not take the above for granted. The idea of uploadeing the human mind always seemed like a techno-fetishists fantasy of escaping death. Also I can't see self awareness as an epiphenomenon of squishy, biological matter or C++. I can see parallels with the minds functions and computers, but why even have self awareness?

I've looked at the dilemma of consciousness not as something that exists in spite of our biological complexities, but *because* of it. If we accept that our consciousness isn't greater than the sum of it's parts (our brain matter), then there as some level of complexity within the composition of our brain that allows consciousness to come about. In other disciplines, this is called "emergence" theory....where many, many, many simple actions (such as neurons firing off in your head) combine to create more and more complex patterns and systems. In this view, what we call "consciousness" is the abstracted way of referring to all that underlying complexity.

So when we bring computers into the mix then the only limits, really, are how much complexity can be modeled. And if we can hypothetically match the complexity of the human mind, then why wouldn't consciousness emerge in the same fashion?

ricky doesn't believe in a soul

shit....if i don't have a soul, then wtf did I just sell?

RickyRicardo wrote:Whether or not reality is computer-generated is irrelevant (and why a computer? That seems rather random to me). All perceptions of "reality" are simulation, anyway. Our magnificent bodies are the front-end for interaction with the physical world, and our bodies tell us about the physical world is our "reality" (even when it lies).

Therefore, identifying the "generator" is fruitless and impossible. If we want to stay w/ the computer analogy, think of the body as a sub-routine that's constantly taking inputs. We know what the inputs are....and w/ a significantly complex routine we can even infer what (if any) previous state the inputs previously might have had. But the subroutine could never infer the ultimate source of the inputs (does Excel know that you're the guy in the red shit entering $5.00 into cell B1?)

.....and it would never need to know, since it would be irrelevant to it's execution.

ikeaboy wrote: I read it all, its interesting but I for one can not take the above for granted. The idea of uploadeing the human mind always seemed like a techno-fetishists fantasy of escaping death. Also I can't see self awareness as an epiphenomenon of squishy, biological matter or C++. I can see parallels with the minds functions and computers, but why even have self awareness?

I've looked at the dilemma of consciousness not as something that exists in spite of our biological complexities, but *because* of it. If we accept that our consciousness isn't greater than the sum of it's parts (our brain matter), then there as some level of complexity within the composition of our brain that allows consciousness to come about. In other disciplines, this is called "emergence" theory....where many, many, many simple actions (such as neurons firing off in your head) combine to create more and more complex patterns and systems. In this view, what we call "consciousness" is the abstracted way of referring to all that underlying complexity.

So when we bring computers into the mix then only limits, really, are how much complexity can be modeled. And if we can hypothetically match the complexity of the human mind, then why wouldn't consciousness emerge in the same fashion?

obviously no-one is talking about a computer in the sense of what we understand to be a computer....it's as much as we can understand & obviously if higher beings are in charge behind the scenes they probably don't refer to what they utilize in the running of things as the computer..it's just we would...

It seems more plausible than the religions to me & rather a lot of people follow them...

to analyse the how & why seems pointless as we would never know if this was true....we created religion to provide answers but we wouldn't have created this so therefore it wouldn't provide us with any information as to why....

I just think it seems plausible

RickyRicardo wrote:shit....if i don't have a soul, then wtf did I just sell?

was the feller a white man with big empty eyes and a mean ol hound?

humans are just stuck on the idea that we're the culmination of consciousness

in all likelihood, there exists advanced consciousness thats as different from ours as ours is from bacteria.

Parson wrote:humans are just stuck on the idea that we're the culmination of consciousness

in all likelihood, there exists advanced consciousness thats as different from ours as ours is from bacteria.

i think everything we have could be explained by maths & equations given enough time & intelligent people...but then so can everything of course...

with a few different numbers things could all have been so different..

Ultimately what we can see in the stars makes us all pretty insignificant at least in terms of longevity & that's just what we can see....

i don't get why anyone thinks they have a belief tbh given how little we know about anything.....i don't necessarily believe in this theory but it seems less ridiculous than religion

personally i don't believe god is this external thing that needs to be worshipped. i think we're all an expression of god. and we're all god at play with god. god experiencing itself.


kilgore trout encountered this written on a bathroom wall:
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE?

Trout plundered his pockets for a pen or pencil. He had an answer to the question. But he had nothing to write with, not even a burnt match. So he left the question unanswered, but here is what he would have written, if he had found anything to write with:

To be
the eyes
and ears
and conscience
of the Creator of the Universe,
you fool.

i think of reincarnation as like characters in a video game, but they're inhabited by actual souls. and when the game is over, you can go play another game. and we've all been playing lots of games, and time is an illusion (like in a game). and when you step out of the game, you are able to remember infinity and beyond, but when you're playing the game, you're basically asleep.

Piston wrote: obviously no-one is talking about a computer in the sense of what we understand to be a computer....it's as much as we can understand & obviously if higher beings are in charge behind the scenes they probably don't refer to what they utilize in the running of things as the computer..it's just we would...

Well, to refer to a "computer" is to refer to something concrete (strictly speaking, an entity that manipulates data based on instructions). There's no deviation from that definition that would still make something a computer, which is why I thought it's use in the article was somewhat random.

Why a computer at all? Why not a "Truman Show" scenario where the actors and scenery are meticulously arranged by some celestial television director? Or rather, (as I used to think when I younger), all this is just a dream generated by a coma patient, instead? You literally put *anything* in charge of the simulation and have it be just as plausible.

"Computer", just seemed way too specific, and I imagine it was probably used to provide a familiar reference point. A more general term such as merely a "generated simulation" would have been good enough, leaving the "what" out of things altogether.

It seems more plausible than the religions to me & rather a lot of people follow them...

Well, I can't argue w/ what seems more plausible to *you*, but I can say that both ideas are equally as unproveable

i dunno about unprovable.

the universe is very very very very fine tuned. there are specific values for everything. these values aren't scrambled or nonsensical. they are precise and purposeful. if you wanna go with occam's razor, the assumption would have to be pro-creator.

RickyRicardo wrote:

Piston wrote: obviously no-one is talking about a computer in the sense of what we understand to be a computer....it's as much as we can understand & obviously if higher beings are in charge behind the scenes they probably don't refer to what they utilize in the running of things as the computer..it's just we would...

Well, to refer to a "computer" is to refer to something concrete (strictly speaking, an entity that manipulates data based on instructions). There's no deviation from that definition that would still make something a computer, which is why I thought it's use in the article was somewhat random.

Why a computer at all? Why not a "Truman Show" scenario where the actors and scenery are meticulously arranged by some celestial television director? Or rather, (as I used to think when I younger), all this is just a dream generated by a coma patient, instead? You literally put *anything* in charge of the simulation and have it be just as plausible.

"Computer", just seemed way too specific, and I imagine it was probably used to provide a familiar reference point. A more general term such as merely a "generated simulation" would have been good enough, leaving the "what" out of things altogether.

It seems more plausible than the religions to me & rather a lot of people follow them...

Well, I can't argue w/ what seems more plausible to *you*, but I can say that both ideas are equally as unproveable

a computer is i suppose a fairly concrete way to describe something...i just think as we can't imagine it thats the closest thing it would be to...but most probably what we would call organic...our brains are computing information mind...

i'd say it's much easier to disprove religion than the simulation theory as there is little in our brief history that directly negates the simulation theory where as many thing go against religion

not sure that follows.. like they said in that video you linked to, a 'metaverse' incorporates all possibilities, including the chance that we happen to exist in the universe which was lucky(?) enough to have those finely tuned values. nothing there precludes the scenario that it's all one big coincidence, in a realm of infinite variation.

edit- that was @ parson's last post..