Are we living in a computer simulation?

[Lone Stranger]

Yes, yes, Linux powered too! 

If life is a computer simulation,, it's running on Windows. 

That explains one h*** of a lot.  A whole lot of grief and nothing gets accomplished.

[Rudge]

Yes, yes, Linux powered too! 

If life is a computer simulation,, it's running on Windows. 

That explains one h*** of a lot.  A whole lot of grief and nothing gets accomplished.

Explains all the viruses too. LOL

[µT6]

i don't think we are inside a simulation, too complex, excessively, too much variables

even in dreams we run simulations, we have machines running simulations

if we are a simulation we wouldn't simulate that much, we only focused on do things, not think in what we do

if we are a simulation, then december 21 will be the date of the end of it and it won't matter much then   

the matrix has you µT6 

[zerocool]

I hate the form of this question... Asking "Are we living in a computer simulation" tends to imply the existence of a programer. I think a better (more scientifically testable) question would be "is the universe Turing-computable?"

If it is then the idea of "a science" is sound.
If it's not then the very foundations of science are not sound.

For the universe to be Turing-computable, quantum mechanics must take the form of a hidden variable theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If this is not the case, (in other words if the idea of quantum randomness stands as it is...) then by definition the universe is not computable (can't be simulated and is, in principal beyond understanding at a very basic level).

I think this problem resulted in the multi-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics (which I think I hate even more than the quantum randomness of the Copenhagen interpretation). It's a kin to have your cake and eat it too...

[Rudge]

I hate the form of this question... Asking "Are we living in a computer simulation" tends to imply the existence of a programer. I think a better (more scientifically testable) question would be "is the universe Turing-computable?"

If it is then the idea of "a science" is sound.
If it's not then the very foundations of science are not sound.

For the universe to be Turing-computable, quantum mechanics must take the form of a hidden variable theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If this is not the case, (in other words if the idea of quantum randomness stands as it is...) then by definition the universe is not computable (can't be simulated and is, in principal beyond understanding at a very basic level).

I think this problem resulted in the multi-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics (which I think I hate even more than the quantum randomness of the Copenhagen interpretation). It's a kin to have your cake and eat it too...

I think you are mistaking a "Hypothetical and Philosophical" question with one based in "Reality and provable Facts".

The question poses some philosophical thought.

It's intent is not to reach a conclusion about the facts surrounding it's claim, but to provoke thought surrounding it's possibilities.

A similar question is raised when one speculates that they are the only "being" in existence and everything that "being" imagines to be true, is simply a dream.

    
You can not prove that eithor is not true.          

[zerocool]

I hate the form of this question... Asking "Are we living in a computer simulation" tends to imply the existence of a programer. I think a better (more scientifically testable) question would be "is the universe Turing-computable?"

If it is then the idea of "a science" is sound.
If it's not then the very foundations of science are not sound.

For the universe to be Turing-computable, quantum mechanics must take the form of a hidden variable theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If this is not the case, (in other words if the idea of quantum randomness stands as it is...) then by definition the universe is not computable (can't be simulated and is, in principal beyond understanding at a very basic level).

I think this problem resulted in the multi-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics (which I think I hate even more than the quantum randomness of the Copenhagen interpretation). It's a kin to have your cake and eat it too...

I think you are mistaking a "Hypothetical and Philosophical" question with one based in "Reality and provable Facts".

The question poses some philosophical thought.

It's intent is not to reach a conclusion about the facts surrounding it's claim, but to provoke thought surrounding it's possibilities.

A similar question is raised when one speculates that they are the only "being" in existence and everything that "being" imagines to be true, is simply a dream.

   
You can not prove that eithor is not true.         

No, these questions are more than just "Hypothetical and Philosophical" musings...
They can be seriously investigated and validated.

Did you read the 2nd paper?

[Rudge]

I hate the form of this question... Asking "Are we living in a computer simulation" tends to imply the existence of a programer. I think a better (more scientifically testable) question would be "is the universe Turing-computable?"

If it is then the idea of "a science" is sound.
If it's not then the very foundations of science are not sound.

For the universe to be Turing-computable, quantum mechanics must take the form of a hidden variable theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If this is not the case, (in other words if the idea of quantum randomness stands as it is...) then by definition the universe is not computable (can't be simulated and is, in principal beyond understanding at a very basic level).

I think this problem resulted in the multi-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics (which I think I hate even more than the quantum randomness of the Copenhagen interpretation). It's a kin to have your cake and eat it too...

I think you are mistaking a "Hypothetical and Philosophical" question with one based in "Reality and provable Facts".

The question poses some philosophical thought.

It's intent is not to reach a conclusion about the facts surrounding it's claim, but to provoke thought surrounding it's possibilities.

A similar question is raised when one speculates that they are the only "being" in existence and everything that "being" imagines to be true, is simply a dream.

    
You can not prove that eithor is not true.          

No, these questions are more than just "Hypothetical and Philosophical" musings...
They can be seriously investigated and validated.

Did you read the 2nd paper?

Did "you" read the second paper and suddenly become convinced that this preposterous idea was to be taken seriously?

I sincerely believe that it is just an exercise in presenting theories as possible outcomes with no real expectation that the reader would actually consider the theory as "plausible" for real.      

[bicol_willem]

A (very) wise ever said:

"To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end."

(Nikola Tesla)

[thorper]

We already know that the earth is a project run on behalf of mice and the answer to the computer simulation is 42.

[Wildman]

I think there are are a lot of misguided people in this conversation...YOU have been assimilated...compute that! 

[Crow]

Why "preposterous idea"? it's an idea and someone think it can be tested.

About the second article, I said it's way beyond my capacities.

I think in the first article the idea is presented in a simple way, kind of what Eric Berne did with Psychoanalysis, Freud is very difficult to read and understand but Transactional Analysis allows to understand the basics of interaction and motivation (from a Psychoanalytic perspective) and many people used it to live a better life. Second article? there's no way I will try to read it again.

In another hand, I was remembering Carlos Castañeda books, Don Juan said that you can't explain the Nahual from the Tonal island; any thing you do is being originated from inside the simulation.

[weirdwolf]

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

[Rudge]

Why "preposterous idea"? it's an idea and someone think it can be tested.

About the second article, I said it's way beyond my capacities.

I think in the first article the idea is presented in a simple way, kind of what Eric Berne did with Psychoanalysis, Freud is very difficult to read and understand but Transactional Analysis allows to understand the basics of interaction and motivation (from a Psychoanalytic perspective) and many people used it to live a better life. Second article? there's no way I will try to read it again.

In another hand, I was remembering Carlos Castañeda books, Don Juan said that you can't explain the Nahual from the Tonal island; any thing you do is being originated from inside the simulation.

Why is it "preposterous" ?

A "hypothesis" is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

All of the scientific theories, that I am aware of, already beautifully explain our existence without speculation about "Simulators".    

Simply presenting an Idea with absolutely no data to support it's claim is in "My Mind", preposterous.

(preposterous: - contrary to nature, reason, or sense; absurd; ridiculous) -  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preposterous
 

[Crow]

Rudge, while I agree about the lack of evidence, we must recognize that all scientific theories have parts without evidence to support it filling gaps with speculation when is needed. That's why there are people researching dark matter, in 1932 it was just a guess (not that is much different now but I'm not actualized); Piaget did a complete theory about human development describing the different stages, but when confronted with the driving force behind learning he hypothesized the "need to recover balance", a construct well behind the theories that describe the search for pleasure and the avoiding of displeasure, some of them well investigated by neurologist and behavioral psychologists.

A field with a lot of speculation is hypnosis, in the last conference I attended I saw the usual psychologists but also lots of medics and dentists that are using it in daily work, still there is a lot of speculation on what it is or why it works.

Science is a little group of facts and a lot of speculation, that conforms a way of thinking called paradigm, when a new explanation about a group of facts appears paradigm changes (not always, in social sciences they tend to coexist) but that new paradigm have a lot of speculation too. Speculation is what drives science growth.

BTW a book that I love about that is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn , I think I will read it again this Christmas 

[ferry_th]

Just something I came across at gizmodo.com..

The computer simulation we live in gets rebooted
Perhaps the most creative explanation of how the world could end tomorrow is that we might just be living in a gigantic computer simulation that happens to get switched off. It might sound ridiculous, but scientists still haven't settled, once and for all, whether we're living a life made of code. Sure, people have recently suggested how we could tell if everything around is happening on a sliver of silicon in a giant server room in the sky—but nobody's yet tested the theory. Let's hope nobody hits ESC.

Full article > 7 Ways the World Really Could End Tomorrow