Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The world is a simulation, not a computer simulation, but a conscious simulation. The creature grows organs of perception, with their help contacts with external phenomena. But since these organs are imperfect by nature, the creature thinks out what it is not able to perceive adequately, creates a virtual copy of the real world. That is, the process of perception itself is already a distortion of reality. This is similar to the production of a hologram (an illusory three-dimensional image), only the perception and recognition organs act as filters. The network of connections in consciousness never fully coincides with reality. It turns out that the creature lives in a world distorted by its consciousness. Roughly speaking, each person carries a computer that creates his personal matrix. For example, people with mental disorders experience hallucinations that they are unable to distinguish from reality. For them, the world exists by different rules. Or the placebo effect — a person who takes a neutral substance as a medicine statistically recovers more often than without it. That is, it is treated by setting up its consciousness for recovery. Or memory. We remember only part of the event, what we were ready to perceive. What parts of the event are recorded, so it is stored in memory and stored. After a period of time, information can differ very much from reality, since many times there was a distortion of the perceived phenomena in the process of reconstructing memories, completing fantasies.
Evidence of something is usually understood as signals from the organs of perception. From this point of view, there can be no evidence of simulation, since the perceptual organs in such a model are simulated. That is, Mario is programmed only to run, jump and swim, and not to reprogram the code of his own program. If we recall Neo, then its discrepancies with the simulation were revealed as a result of an initial system error. That is, there the simulation was originally programmed in such a way that it appears intelligence that contradicts the simulation. If we live in a perfect computer simulation, then we cannot prove or disprove it, since the simulation and the simulator are transcendent to each other.
Definition: Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality can be modeled (simulated) — for example, using quantum computer simulations — to an extent indistinguishable from “true” reality. Unlike virtual reality, simulated reality is difficult or impossible to separate from “true” reality.
The existence of a simulated reality is considered unprovable in any particular sense, since there is an infinite regression argument — any obvious evidence can be a different simulation. The ideological inspirer of research in the field of simulated reality is the American philosopher Nick Bostrom (details here).
To test Bostrom's hypothesis, theorists from the University of Washington proposed modeling the universe using a hypercubic space-time grid to perform lattice QCD calculations involving the fundamental field and interaction in femtoscale volumes of space-time. According to their idea, if the universe is finite, the resources of potential simulators (which simulate our universe) are finite, then the volume containing the simulation will be finite and the lattice step must be non-zero. By reducing the step of the grid, which will only be possible with the help of quantum computer simulations, in principle, it is always possible for the simulated ones (you and I) to detect simulators (super civilization).�
However, according to Preston Greene, conducting this research could be a disastrously bad idea that could lead to the destruction of our universe. Imagine — a researcher wants to test the effectiveness of a new drug. Then it's vital that patients don't know if they're getting the drug or a placebo. If patients manage to find out who gets what, the study loses its meaning and should be canceled. Thus, having proved that we are in a simulation, our continued existence will become meaningless and we will be canceled.
Any coherent, closed idealistic (paranoid) philosophical theory is irrefutable.
It sounds about the same, for example: “There is NO real world, everything is an invention of your consciousness.”
Try to refute it 😉
That is why scientific theories do not operate with mental constructions (theories) that cannot be refuted by experience. Such theories don't make sense. You can come up with anything and a world that lives by unimaginable rules and everything in it is so because the Lord (Creator) ordered it so.
Well, if we still assume practical refutability, then it turns out that in order to simulate in all their properties and world lines the number of elementary particles that we can now review, we will need a computing system that exceeds their number because it must have a number of degrees of freedom much greater than the totality that we see and can describe well enough by laws
A computer is a stupid executor of the will of the mind that created and programmed it. It is an intermediary between a person and the real world. Questions: “Who created and programmed this computer? Why would such a superintelligence need a dumb intermediary? What interest does he have in watching predictable puppets?”
Our world has constant constants such as the speed of light, or Planck's constant, and we may wonder why the legal ones are such and not others, for example, why 300000 and not 400000 the speed of light, that is, in fact, we can say that someone simulated our reality and let it go, a couple more examples mathematics is not strange, it can explain almost everything, it is strange that our world is so digital, another option is death, if you wonder why we die from different variants of human origin it is unclear why we die and where we end up after death, that is, what is death in fact, humanity has not yet come to what would be the answer, the most important fact confirming the simulation is the physical laws they have limitations, which is strange from the point of view of understanding the environment, soon virtuality will reach such a level that it will be impossible to distinguish it from real food and then it will be wrong to say for sure that we do not live in simulations
Our world is a simulation, but it's definitely not a computer world, and we don't even know of a single computer that wasn't created by humans. Because, in a simulation, everything created is a simulation. The limitations inherent in our consciousness limit the quality of an objective assessment of our reality. Perception, useful work, conditions for evaluating reality, and so on, in the brain of each individual occur according to the same written laws, which once again proves the logic or illogic of perception. And if we imagine that in some incredible way nature was able to shape our genome, then how did it happen to form a single perception of reality in us, a single assessment of events? It is much easier to “control” electrons in a simulation than by chemical, physical reactions, or “other” processes, even unknown to modern science. Experiments with controlling our desire have indeed been conducted, but the results may change the algorithm of our development, and the process may stop. Awareness of the reversibility of the process of human existence, life and death, can bring irreparable harm, stopping all existing algorithms for the development of human civilization. Therefore, whether we need an evidence-based answer to the question of simulating our existence, none of us can answer for sure.
To implement a complete simulation of our universe, a supercomputer will be required, in which only memory cells will need more than the particles in the universe squared (at least). Obviously, this is completely unthinkable.
It would be more interesting to know if we are artificial intelligence or if we are some projection of more advanced beings inside our simulation. Why this is important, because if our minds are simulated, then our existence doesn't make any sense to us. Whereas if we are someone's projection, then there is a certain meaning to our existence.
The main supporting argument is that virtual reality games already exist. This means that it is possible to create virtual reality in our world. Then there is no reason not to assume by analogy that our world was created as a virtual game in a higher world (which can also be a simulation).
The second argument is that the physics of the world is such that a programmer can easily recognize C++codes in its construction. Multilevelness, objects with a structure inaccessible to an external observer, and integers of a huge number of objects and phenomena (valence in chemistry, for example).
The main argument against this is that everything is unprovable and too easy to explain, including religion.
But the theory has a huge potential to become a rational and positivist religion. Play well here and you will be rewarded with reincarnation there.
If our world is a computer simulation, what kind of world is this simulation simulating?
The world is created programmatically (by Logos). This is stated in the Bible and science confirms that everything in the world happens strictly according to the laws. But why should this program simulate something?
Why is it necessary to use a computer program?
Today, at least three simulations of our world are well known: divine, Taoist-Brahman, and physical. The first claims that the world is a simulation created by God, behind which the divine world is hidden. In the second, that the world is a simulation of the illusions of the mind( consciousness), a kind of dream of the absolute spirit. In the third, that the world is an illusion in human perception, which hides a void filled with fields and point particles (i.e., in fact, again emptiness). In addition, the third simulation is created by the spirit of Chaos, that is, absolute randomness.
Everyone chooses their own taste, in which simulation to live and under whom to walk. Although, of course, it is not particularly chosen, because in 99% of cases this is predetermined by the society in which we are formed as individuals.
Given that the so-called “objective world” is assumed to be an alternative to “computer simulation” in the question, we can assume that the author of the question lives in the third type of simulation and opposes it to all other simulations as a non-simulation. Well, what arguments can there be? Here, who really believes in what, such are his arguments, which are completely insignificant for adherents of other simulations.
Our world is a simulation, because everything exists in my subjective perception. Everything that is “objective” also exists only in my subjective perception. If I don't exist, this world won't exist. It is impossible to prove the opposite.
Well, indirect evidence in the form of the fact that all the laws of the physical world are based on mathematics; наблюдателя “observer effect”; Akashic chronicles, etc., etc.
When we are inside the game, we can't leave it to see what it looks like from the outside. Such methods do not exist in principle. This also partly proves that the world is a simulation.
There's plenty of evidence. All quantum mechanics is one continuous proof of the artificiality of our world. Quantum entanglement, dualism of photons and elementary particles, limiting the maximum speed of motion in a vacuum, etc. And it is only 100 years since we came to study this issue. There is no doubt that the coming decades will not only bring additional evidence , but also provide a key to understanding how this virtual world can be effectively managed .
We need to start with the question: Does objective reality exist, and does it coincide with our perception of it?
In one form or another, objective reality undoubtedly exists. But what we perceive from outside can be reduced to three parameters-Modulated electromagnetic waves (light, energy impact), gravity, and the magnetic fields of atoms that generate the illusion of matter and physical impact (something like electrostatic repulsion).
From all this, our brain generates colors, smells, light and dark, cold and heat, body mass, space and time. None of this exists in objective reality. The brain creates all this only based on the frequency of electromagnetic waves and the strength of electromagnetic fields.
All events that occur based on the interaction of these three parameters have their own time of origin. As long as our brain recreates the internal picture of an event in our consciousness, this event will already cease to exist. This means that even events from objective reality and events within consciousness are not identical. A phase shift occurs. We and objective reality do not exist synchronously.
Any matter in the universe is organized energy. How it is organized, and what is the source of this self-organization, is not clear. We can only state that any matter or energy carries certain information in itself by the very fact of its existence. All entities in the universe have an informational origin, and differ from each other only in their internal structure-information.
Information cannot exist on its own. It has a source, a carrier, and a consumer. Information carriers are all entities in the universe. Consumer – any creature with the ability to interact with the outside world. But the original source of information is not entirely clear. Any dynamics in the universe generates new information, and its carriers are also a source. But where is the original source? The one who invented energy, gravity, atoms and everything else?
From the point of view of computer science, the universe can be described as a computer program that contains initial parameters in the form of constraints, the algorithm itself (laws of physics), and basic information (constants), the carrier of which is electromagnetism. The algorithm itself and the basic information could not have appeared by chance, or will be created inside the system. They are entered from the outside. No options.
Whether the universe is a simulation or not, it is impossible to say. But that everything inside it is fake, we can say with confidence. Apart from words and emptiness, there is nothing else.
The presence or absence of a simulation is easy to prove for yourself. You just need to try to get out of it.=)
All the talk about simulated reality appeared after people were taken away from the possibility of a religious afterlife in the form of reincarnation or the kingdom of heaven, not the point. The finiteness of one's own ” I ” is impossible to imagine and unpleasant to be aware of. Simulation is a surrogate of paradise in our scientific and technological present.
A simulated person can't prove anything. In this case, the method of mathematical proof itself will turn out to be a simulation adopted by the simulators at a certain historical period. It will turn out to be a world without tools for understanding it, and the invention of new tools means new fruits of simulation, etc. A person can only take a life position in which everything will be questioned. The ancient Egyptians called it Maat, the Hindus called it Maya, and today there are utopian approaches like epistemocracy, but in general, humanity has been questioning its perception organs since prehistoric times. There are three ways to look at the simulation:�
1) Save. This is a convenient simulation and a person needs to go with its flow to find harmony with the universe�
2) Creativity. It is possible to simulate any human ideas and change things in the universe that we don't like�
3) Destruction. Death is the greatest mystery and the only one that a person can hope for in an attempt to free himself from the simulation�
In the first two, the person chooses whether to go with the flow or not, and in the third, he sees only hopelessness, which he tries to get rid of in the loudest way and die as beautifully as it can be enough for others to want to achieve the same beauty. The only question is whether it is possible to execute any one of the paths separately, or whether any path will be a combination of the three. I would ask just such a question, and your question sounds generalized and impractical. Let's say we prove it, and then what? A person needs to act, preferably today, and not just know about something.
There is no way to confirm this.
Even if the simulated objects are given the idea that they are a simulation, this will not be proof, because the idea of a simulation may be false.
And this can only be refuted by formal logic, if we take into account that everything in the simulation is not true. Then your judgments are not true and the statement that everything is a simulation is false.
This is an unprovable statement. Not a single “yes” argument justifies anything.
In general, think about this: let's say we live in a simulation. Great! But how can we understand it? Any manifestation of simulation is a reality for us. There is no” more real ” world. If our world is a simulation, then it ends where the simulation ends (obviously).
PS By the way, the similarity of the real world with modern computer systems does not prove anything. Even if we are in someone's simulation, no one can guarantee that its internal structure should be similar to that of our simulations.
One hundred percent ” proof “of the simulation of our “world” can be a vivid recording of illogical events or processes that contradict any common sense logic.
A simulation with such an excessive level of detail is too expensive to develop and makes no sense. What kind of idiot would want to fake the hairs in my nostrils?
None at all. There are no arguments for or against it. It's like believing in God, only here it's believing in a computer simulation. What arguments can you make to confirm or deny the existence of God? Probably none, like me, like no one else. And computer simulation can't be called a theory, it's too serious a word for this kind of version of the universe. I would call this a hypothesis at best.