PDA

View Full Version : Are we living in a simulation?



pixelator
2003-Aug-21, 04:24 AM
There was an article in the July issue of New Scientist discussing if we might be living in a computer simulation.

The authors original papers are here:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[edited to provide abstract]

ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.



Pretty interesting and a bit spooky. Whatcha think?

Pi Man
2003-Aug-21, 05:02 AM
:o 8-[ :( :-k :o #-o

Ak! Help! Please, somebody find a hole in that!

It does sound very likely, unless there is some fundamental technical problem that makes interfacing biology and technology nearly impossible. However, that would invalidated if "we" are actually computer programs!

:o 8-[ :( :-k :o #-o

Chuck
2003-Aug-21, 05:09 AM
Maybe our universe is an amusement park ride in some advance alien civilization. We're the customers. We paid our money and get to spend a few decades in this simulation. Our memories of the real world are suppressed so it will seem more real.

This would explain why some people have past life memories. They've been on this ride before and the software running it isn't perfect.

Humphrey
2003-Aug-21, 05:11 AM
its all on the 13th floor of a office building. :o

pixelator
2003-Aug-21, 05:12 AM
Yeah

and there goes the whole big bang vs God thread we have been posting in.

Forget about mother universes mulitplying in infinity, we now have to worry about mother simulations mulitplying in infinity. I think the limit would be that each internal virtual simulation would have progressively less computational power available to them (since they are using only a part of the computational power of the computer they are being simulated inside of) - or taken backwards, each outside simulation level would have to have more computational power than the simulation that is being run in it and eventually the outside computer would have to become infinately fast.

It hurts my virtual brain to think about it. :D

Pi Man
2003-Aug-21, 05:12 AM
Maybe our universe is an amusement park ride in some advance alien civilization. We're the customers. We paid our money and get to spend a few decades in this simulation. Our memories of the real world are suppressed so it will seem more real.

This would explain why some people have past life memories. They've been on this ride before and the software running it isn't perfect.

Cool! "Ok... Let me out now! Did you hear me? Let me out! I'm not kidding! Let me out or I'll sue you for my money back! Let me out! Turn off the stinking simulation!"

Ok. That defeats your theory. I'm still here! :lol:

BTW. why doesn't anybody cast anymore votes?

pixelator
2003-Aug-21, 05:17 AM
When you die you wake up in a chair in front of a computer that says "Please deposit more quarters to continue "Universe v 2.0"..."

It's like if the "Sims" game was expanded into a completly real simulation.

My simulated life sucks. I need an upgrade patch.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-21, 05:31 AM
When you die you wake up in a chair in front of a computer that says "Please deposit more quarters to continue "Universe v 2.0"..."

That's a really good one! :lol:

pixelator
2003-Aug-21, 05:39 AM
Hey Pi Man

I just figured out a way to get out of the simulation! Its really simple.

You just... just...

#-o

Dang! I forgot! The sysop must have edited my memory.

sorry.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-21, 06:02 AM
Wait! I think I thought of something! You just have to- Ouch! I mean you start by- Ow! Argh. Let me rephrase that. You start by- Aak!

Hey, Sysop! Stop poking me! What do you think I am, an orc? :lol:

(play Warcraft and Starcraft for a few months and you will understand)

Musashi
2003-Aug-21, 06:13 AM
The orc sailors were the best to poke.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-21, 06:56 AM
Which one was it in Starcraft that said, "Stop poking me. What do you think I am, an orc?" I think it was a protoss unit. Maybe a scout?

Kamicolo
2003-Aug-21, 02:11 PM
Technical Support!!!!

pixelator
2003-Aug-21, 03:02 PM
:o 8-[ :( :-k :o #-o

Ak! Help! Please, somebody find a hole in that!

It does sound very likely, unless there is some fundamental technical problem that makes interfacing biology and technology nearly impossible. However, that would invalidated if "we" are actually computer programs!

:o 8-[ :( :-k :o #-o

Yea I thought of that too. Even if we can't find a way to simulate a mind without the biology (I think the paper talks about this as substrate independence) that doesn't mean anything if we are in fact simulations. The people running the simulation could have found a way to do it, but limited us so that we couldn't (to save on computer power of having to run simulations within simulations)

--
The only holes I can poke in the theory are

Premise: The guy is proposing that there would be so many simulations that the sheer number of simulated minds would outweigh the possible number of real minds, that statistically the odds that we are in a simulation approach 1 in 1.

Objections:
1. Just because they could run that many simulations, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would, since what would be the point? Assuming scientists are doing it, they would only need to do a few dozen or so to get all the info they need. So the sheer numbers he assumes is what his theory hinges on. Drop the proposed number of simulations, and you get a much higher chance of this being reality.

2. If it is for entertainment (like The Sims), then I would expect a totally real simulation would be pretty boring, and most simulations would be designed to be exciting with lots of fantasy stuff like we have in our video games. The fantasy simulations would far outweigh the reality ones, and the odds would be that if we are in a simulation we should be in a fantasy one. But on the whole, our world is pretty mundane. But who is to say what fantasy is to the simulators? Maybe our world is very fantastic and exciting to them (those poor dull people).

3. If there are, or will be simulations, someone has to be the original people who really exist and started the whole thing, so why can't it be us?

4. If we are a microsoft product we should see a lot more bugs in the system. :D

It's Bill Gates all the way down!! :o

Chuck
2003-Aug-21, 04:03 PM
Maybe there are plenty of bugs and we keep crashing but they fix the bugs and restart the simulation from the last save so we don't remember any of them.

Also, perhaps we're not the final product. They'll add the fantasy or science fiction elements once they have the basic universe tested and debugged.

nitefallz
2003-Aug-21, 05:28 PM
I read this theory in "Taking the Red Pill: Science, philosophy and religion in the Matrix" (excellent read) but my only problem is, and I may have missed the part where it was disputed, but why must we be in a simulation? Can't we be the first, the biologicals on the way to making the simulations?


/edit

I think my problem is based on the second point of the argument, that any posthuman civilization will not want to run ancestory simulations. I think that's absurd. History has always been important to humans and we've constantly sought to learn more about the past. If we had the ability to simulate history then all logic points to the fact that we would, in pursuit of more knowledge.

Or am I thinking wrong?

darkhunter
2003-Aug-21, 05:54 PM
Childhood's End (Arthur C. Clarke, 1973) really happened. We are the children in the Overmind unable to adapt to the fact there is only one Mind...

Or I'm the only real mind here and everyone else is just a figment of my imagination (prove me wrong on THAT!) :lol:

Humphrey
2003-Aug-21, 05:55 PM
Childhood's End (Arthur C. Clarke, 1973) really happened. We are the children in the Overmind unable to adapt to the fact there is only one Mind...

Or I'm the only real mind here and everyone else is just a figment of my imagination (prove me wrong on THAT!) :lol:

[G99 pinches Darkhunter]

Prooved!


:-D



P.S> yes i used the right name.

mike alexander
2003-Aug-21, 07:39 PM
I just asked Max Headroom and he told me Freakazoid told him it was not true.

Just be careful using that Pinnacle chip....

Humphrey
2003-Aug-21, 07:53 PM
I just asked Max Headroom and he told me Freakazoid told him it was not true.

Just be careful using that Pinnacle chip....

heh. i hope we are not the only ones who watched those shows. :-)

cyswxman
2003-Aug-21, 08:09 PM
There was an article in the July issue of New Scientist discussing if we might be living in a computer simulation.

I hope the message "THIS PROGRAM HAS PERFORMED AN ILLEGAL OPERATION AND WILL BE SHUT DOWN." doesn't occur!!!!!!!! :o :o :o

Pi Man
2003-Aug-21, 09:10 PM
If there was a bug in the system, I would prefer it would be something like giving me the ability to stop bullets in mid air, or jump up and fly like superman, or fight a whole room of really advanced black belts in juditsu! :lol:

darkhunter
2003-Aug-21, 09:13 PM
Childhood's End (Arthur C. Clarke, 1973) really happened. We are the children in the Overmind unable to adapt to the fact there is only one Mind...

Or I'm the only real mind here and everyone else is just a figment of my imagination (prove me wrong on THAT!) :lol:

[G99 pinches Darkhunter]

Prooved!


:-D



P.S> yes i used the right name.

Ouch!

[ 8-[ Looks to see where that came from]

Oh, must be just a figment of my imagination.... 8)

Pi Man
2003-Aug-21, 09:15 PM
Or are you a figment of somebody else's imgination? :o

darkhunter
2003-Aug-21, 09:30 PM
Or are you a figment of somebody else's imgination? :o

Or a figment of my own imagination? 8-[

Pi Man
2003-Aug-21, 09:35 PM
Or is everything else a figment of my imagination?

"Excuse me, sir... Are you real?"

"real?"

"Yes. I'm wondering if you have an independant existence aside from me."

"Say what?"

"Is your existence dependent upon my continually thinking about you?"

"I know where you can get the answer to your question."

"Really? where?"

"See the building down the street that says, 'asylum'?"

:lol:

Sever
2003-Aug-21, 11:50 PM
Any one mind if I use cheat codes? (me want infinate money)

Zamboni
2003-Aug-22, 03:56 AM
@Sever:
PunkBuster Report: "Sever is being kicked for hacking".


Aren't those arguments used for the time travel thoery as well?

1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small.

(2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in time travel.

(3) You are almost certainly in the past.

Now just apply the same principles and voila, we are either in the past or time travel is impossible.

Pi Man
2003-Aug-22, 04:10 AM
If you so choose to use cheat codes, just don't ever use, "Furious the monkey boy." :D

It'll make you mutate into a huge snarling ape! :D

Markus Woitzik
2003-Aug-23, 02:29 PM
Hi!

If we are just a simulation, couldn't the Zetas be the programmers / users? I think that would explain a lot of things... :-)

numbskull
2003-Aug-27, 12:07 PM
The basic argument, if I scanned the paper correctly, is this:

It is almost certain that a civilisation will or has developed powerful enough computers to run universe simulations. And that they will have run a lot of them, accounting for billions more simulated consciousnesses than real biological ones.

Therefore the chances are that we are living simulated existences. Or rather the probability is very small that we are living extremely rare biological ones.

Stephen Baxter wrote in his book Time about a similar argument for the imminent destruction of mankind, one that we cannot escape. It goes something like this:

The chances of us being alive right now are fairly good as around one quarter (I think!) of all humans ever born are alive now. However, if we extrapolate that into, say, 10,000 years into the future, even with reduced birthrates, the chances of us living now are so small as be statistically almost impossible.

Who's good at probabilities? Can you future reverse chance like that? Or is it just a load of old baloney?

robin
2003-Aug-27, 02:05 PM
Hope you don't mind a lurker joining in here.

The confusion arises because people think of probablities (or risks, or chances) as real things, when they're just useful ways of talking about statistics.

There is no such thing as "the probability of us being alive now". The probability that a person, picked at random from all humans that have ever lived, is alive today is about one in four; that's just saying the same as that one quarter of all humans ever born are alive. What is the probability that a person picked at random from all humans that have ever or will ever live is alive today? I don't know; we'd have to know how many people will be born in the future to know that. We certainly can't guess that the probability must be quite high, then work out how many people are still to be born from that.

I can't conclude, from the fact I'm alive now, that the probability of a person picked at random being alive now is high, because I'm not a person picked at random. Does that make sense?

Is Stephen Baxter the one who writes in every book about what diarrheoa would be like in zero gravity? Or am I thinking of Michael Moorcock?

numbskull
2003-Aug-27, 02:28 PM
Haha, I haven't read much of his stuff. He's an entertaining writer and asks some interesting questions.

Your comment on probability just being a tool to understand statistics sounds right to me.

But then how would the Probability Drive in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy work then, huh?

pixelator
2003-Aug-27, 04:57 PM
But then how would the Probability Drive in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy work then, huh?

Once, a long time ago I posted to a star trek BBS that I knew how the transporters really work (jokingly)... They used the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. First they dissolve you into atoms, then they "look" for your atoms by measuring the velocity of every atom in the universe, except where they want you to appear... And "poof!" There ya were! :D :D

I almost rolled out of my chair laughing when a few months after I said that, I heard Geordi on TNG saying something about the "Heisenberg filters" in the transporter. I have always wondered if someone at Star Trek saw my post and decided to use it as a joke.

QuagmaPhage
2003-Aug-27, 06:25 PM
Stephen Baxter wrote in his book Time about a similar argument for the imminent destruction of mankind, one that we cannot escape. It goes something like this:

The chances of us being alive right now are fairly good as around one quarter (I think!) of all humans ever born are alive now. However, if we extrapolate that into, say, 10,000 years into the future, even with reduced birthrates, the chances of us living now are so small as be statistically almost impossible.


This is known as the Carter prediction. I was able to find this site (http://www.moss53.freeserve.co.uk/sep2000l.htm) in a quick google session.


The Carter prediction. Brandon Carter is a physicist who suggested that we must be living in the final days of humanity. Why? Well, the general tendency of human populations has been upwards. Lately, it has exploded. If it continues to increase, or even stabilises, then most people who will live have not yet been born. Well, so what? Carter says, though, that if that is the case, then it is astonishingly unlikely that we should live now, at the beginning of human history (I say: But someone has to). He then jumps to the conclusion that it is far more likely that humanity is currently at or near its peak population, and is therefore doomed to end, or at least massively die-off, in the near future.



Is Stephen Baxter the one who writes in every book about what diarrheoa would be like in zero gravity? Or am I thinking of Michael Moorcock?

Not in every book but he does it a lot. I'm getting rather tired of it. :-?

SeanF
2003-Aug-27, 06:29 PM
This is known as the Carter prediction.

Sounds a lot like Richard Gott, too, whom we discussed in this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3025).

QuagmaPhage
2003-Aug-27, 07:39 PM
This is known as the Carter prediction.

Sounds a lot like Richard Gott, too, whom we discussed in this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3025).

Apparently it is not known by many people as the Carter Prediction. Further names include Carter's Doomsday Argument and the Carter-Leslie Doomsday Argument.
Googling a little more I found anthropic-principle.com (http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints.html) which has a lot of articles on this subject (I haven't read them). The article in the OP about The Simulation Argument by Nick Bostrom is there and this one: Investigations into the Doomsday Argument (http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/inv/investigations.html) is also by Nick Bostrom.


The Doomsday argument was conceived by the astrophysicist Brandon Carter some fifteen years ago, and it has since been developed in a Nature article by Richard Gott [1993], and in several papers by philosopher John Leslie and especially in his recent monograph The End of The World (Leslie [1996]). The core idea is this. Imagine that two big urns are put in front of you, and you know that one of them contains ten balls and the other a million, but you are ignorant as to which is which. You know the balls in each urn are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 ... etc. Now you take a ball at random from the left urn, and it is number 7. Clearly, this is a strong indication that that urn contains only ten balls. If originally the odds were fifty-fifty, a swift application of Bayes' theorem gives you the posterior probability that the left urn is the one with only ten balls. (Pposterior (L=10) = 0.999990). But now consider the case where instead of the urns you have two possible human races, and instead of balls you have individuals, ranked according to birth order. As a matter of fact, you happen to find that your rank is about sixty billion. Now, say Carter and Leslie, we should reason in the same way as we did with the urns. That you should have a rank of sixty billion or so is much more likely if only 100 billion persons will ever have lived than if there will be many trillion persons. Therefore, by Bayes' theorem, you should update your beliefs about mankind's prospects and realise that an impending doomsday is much more probable than you have hitherto thought.

To me all these theories stand and fall with the assumptions they are based upon and therefore I don't really think that much about them. They sound interesting at first but they are just theories. You can't really do experiments like in physics.

snowcelt
2003-Aug-28, 01:26 AM
QuagmaPhage. I don't know if one can dismiss the Doom Soon argument so easily. I wish I could find the argument JS Princeton had with someone about the probability of finding an ancient atom vs. a new atom, picked at random. Seemed reasonable to me (not that I know anything.) In Leslie's monogragh he had a lot of examples, many of the arguments were convincing. Doom Soon? I don't know; however, Bayes' Theorem does work in many aplication. :)

pixelator
2003-Aug-28, 02:21 AM
Based on the number of people who are not "me" there is a 6 billion to one chance that I don't exist. If you follow that logic through to everyone who is not everyone else, no one exists!

Therefore we are just figments of no one's imagination. :o

Fraser
2003-Aug-28, 03:34 AM
No Pixelator, you have proof that you exist. You just can't be sure everyone else does. Of course, I have proof that I exist - but your existence is up for debate.

snowcelt
2003-Aug-28, 04:00 AM
What would the ramifications be if we live/are in a simulation? Should we live as if we are real? What would the difference be? If we live in a simulation are we bound by any ethical considerations? If we are in a simulation, and find this to be true, and everyone found out, would we act any differently? If we did act differently would the simulators pull the plug?

I gotta million of 'em.

Alex W.
2003-Aug-28, 04:09 AM
If we were living in an exact simulation, there'd be no difference in terms of what we percieve, and the consequences of our actions, from our assumed "the universe is real" model. Therefore we might as well say that the universe is real for simplicity.

Occam Strikes Again.

Kizarvexis
2003-Aug-28, 10:47 PM
Haha, I haven't read much of his stuff. He's an entertaining writer and asks some interesting questions.

Your comment on probability just being a tool to understand statistics sounds right to me.

But then how would the Probability Drive in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy work then, huh?

Improbably? :D

Kizarvexis

EpsilonIndi
2003-Aug-29, 02:17 AM
This is like some previous posts but I always wondered if when we died we woke up in a pod thing in some arcade, with an attendent urging us to hurry up and get out so the next person can live their simulated life on Earth 2.2. Pretty crazy stuff.


Of course if we are living in a simulation I want to know where the cheat codes are! :lol:

Stylesjl
2003-Sep-05, 08:27 AM
If we were in a simulation we would NEVER know because there is no way to leave "The Matrix"

No use worrying about it

Just live out your lives oblivious to the truth like good puny humans


MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!


Cheat codes (Say aloud)

I.P. Freely: Gives you extra cash
I am a loser: Free alcohol
I will never amount to anything: Makes you able to fight ninjas
Moon landings are fake: Makes you a NASA techinician
Planet X is coming and killing us all: Sends you to the loony bin

robin
2003-Sep-05, 03:12 PM
Perhaps, with quantum mechanics, we're discovering that, when you get below a certain resolution, the simulation just uses random numbers.

Moon
2003-Sep-05, 07:01 PM
If i stick to my sens...this is real.I feel it.
I think we should all reload Total Recall.
It's like a dream,but awaken...but who knows seriously about dreaming?

mike alexander
2003-Sep-05, 08:13 PM
These spurious probability arguments remind me that Mencken said one horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.

Ever see the joke proof that there are no uninteresting numbers? Take a random collection of uninteresting numbers and line them up. If you do that, there will be numbers at each end of the line. Since being at the end of the line is unique, the numbers there are interesting, so you remove them from the set. Repeat as necessary until all the numbers are gone. Proof that there are no uninteresting numbers.

#-o

Normandy6644
2003-Sep-09, 11:37 PM
*bump*

Sorry, we were talking about Plato's Republic in my philosophy class, specifically the cave analogy, and I thought of this. The main hole that I think of in the theory is that if we were in a simulation, why would it be made for us to figure that out? Like, the Sims never stop doing what you say, look at the computer screen, and say "I know what's going on here!" If I were building a simulation, I sure as hell wouldn't make it so that the subjects can figure it out....how crappy would that be.

DJ
2003-Sep-10, 05:06 PM
One way to search for whether we are in a simulation or not is to look for the telltale signs of "computing."

For example, it's common that when new data items are added to the database, overall processing times will gradually slow.

Thus, as the simulation produces more and more humans, more and more devices and actions for humans to take, overall the number of time-slices available for processing interactions will not increase, so the time it takes for each interaction to take place should slow. This is based on standard computer time-sharing theory.

Therefore, observationally, each time "something happens," everything else should slow down a bit. Is that what you see going on around you?

Quite frankly, I see things speeding up.

DJ

darkhunter
2003-Sep-10, 05:41 PM
One way to search for whether we are in a simulation or not is to look for the telltale signs of "computing."

For example, it's common that when new data items are added to the database, overall processing times will gradually slow.

Thus, as the simulation produces more and more humans, more and more devices and actions for humans to take, overall the number of time-slices available for processing interactions will not increase, so the time it takes for each interaction to take place should slow. This is based on standard computer time-sharing theory.

Therefore, observationally, each time "something happens," everything else should slow down a bit. Is that what you see going on around you?

Quite frankly, I see things speeding up.

DJ

We wouldn't see the hangs and slowdowns--we are in the program. (Ever played a game that hung breifly on the computer--when it started again, it is in the same place it paused--To us as an outside observer, it seems to skip and pause, but from it's point of view, it is a seemless process. )

Things speeding up, on the other hand, are the upgrades to the system.

Pi Man
2003-Sep-10, 05:53 PM
So is there an admin panel laying around somewhere?

Stylesjl
2003-Sep-11, 09:56 AM
One way to search for whether we are in a simulation or not is to look for the telltale signs of "computing."

For example, it's common that when new data items are added to the database, overall processing times will gradually slow.

Thus, as the simulation produces more and more humans, more and more devices and actions for humans to take, overall the number of time-slices available for processing interactions will not increase, so the time it takes for each interaction to take place should slow. This is based on standard computer time-sharing theory.

Therefore, observationally, each time "something happens," everything else should slow down a bit. Is that what you see going on around you?

Quite frankly, I see things speeding up.

DJ

We wouldn't see the hangs and slowdowns--we are in the program. (Ever played a game that hung breifly on the computer--when it started again, it is in the same place it paused--To us as an outside observer, it seems to skip and pause, but from it's point of view, it is a seemless process. )

Things speeding up, on the other hand, are the upgrades to the system.

But if we were attached to a simulation, our brains would know the difference (if it were a matrix style thing)

But if were AI scripts we wouldn't detect lag

ToSeek
2003-Sep-11, 04:36 PM
So is there an admin panel laying around somewhere?

MOVE Catherine Zeta-Jones TO Greenbelt, MD, USA.
MOVE Sandra Bullock TO Greenbelt, MD, USA.
ADD $10000000 TO bank account #2721469.
HIT tezzer WITH lightning bolt.

Alex W.
2003-Sep-11, 07:27 PM
Sounds like a text adventure...

LOOK

MOVE N
TAKE APPLE
EAT APPLE

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Sep-11, 10:39 PM
One way to search for whether we are in a simulation or not is to look for the telltale signs of "computing."

For example, it's common that when new data items are added to the database, overall processing times will gradually slow.

Thus, as the simulation produces more and more humans, more and more devices and actions for humans to take, overall the number of time-slices available for processing interactions will not increase, so the time it takes for each interaction to take place should slow. This is based on standard computer time-sharing theory.

Therefore, observationally, each time "something happens," everything else should slow down a bit. Is that what you see going on around you?

Quite frankly, I see things speeding up.

DJ

Simple: the simulation uses an MS Sql-Server Database as a back-end and the DBA finally re-indexed it....

sideways
2003-Sep-22, 11:07 PM
I'm joking around and whatnot here, but I wouldn't be surprised if this so-called "reality" were a simulation. After all, there's no consensus as to what reality is. Since that's the case, then maybe it is all fake. And to that I say, COMPUTER, END PROGRAM!!
](*,)

Thompson
2004-Apr-19, 09:32 PM
Maybe there are plenty of bugs and we keep crashing but they fix the bugs and restart the simulation from the last save so we don't remember any of them.


Could be an explanation for Deja vu. :o

JohnOwens
2004-Apr-20, 12:22 AM
its all on the 13th floor of a office building. :o
Don't do that to me! I used to work as a jeweler.

BTW, what's this red stuff crusted under my fingernails?? :-s http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/eusa_shifty.gif


When you die you wake up in a chair in front of a computer that says "Please deposit more quarters to continue "Universe v 2.0"..."
v 2.0?!? I would've sworn it was the beta for v 1.0 we were in. :-k

Brady Yoon
2004-Apr-20, 01:17 AM
It's fun to think about, but I seriously doubt it. :roll:

Lurker
2004-Apr-20, 02:13 AM
MOVE Catherine Zeta-Jones TO Greenbelt, MD, USA.
MOVE Sandra Bullock TO Greenbelt, MD, USA.
ADD $10000000 TO bank account #2721469.
HIT tezzer WITH lightning bolt.
Hey!! Now you gotta share just like the rest of us!! [-(

Besides we want 'em out here San Francisco along with the $$!! 8)

iFire
2004-Apr-20, 02:38 AM
%: SIMULATION Login
Login: Admin
Pass: *hidden*

Admin Control Panal Loading Please Wait ......

ERROR 403: FORBIDDEN



Error SIMULATION has stopped responding:
End Task (e)
Cancel (c)



Oops :oops: :P

FP
2004-Apr-20, 03:43 PM
BTW, what's this red stuff crusted under my fingernails?? :-s http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/eusa_shifty.gif


I Know! I Know!

"The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag"; Robert Heinlein

Captain Kidd
2004-Apr-20, 04:32 PM
Read a short story along these lines.

There was a factory explosion that wiped out a small town. Somehow an advertising company got ahold of the remains and created, I think, 6" high robots of everybody (this was written when robots were popular obviously). The town was recreated and they were placed in it with no way of knowing what had happened.

The lead character would wake up screaming each morning (due to a fragment of memory about the explosion) and go through the day exactly the same then at night the town would be reset. So each day was always, oh April 20th, for example.

The only difference were the ads the people encountered changed each day. Since they repeated each day as if it was the same day, it gave the company a base line to compare reactions to ads with.

This guy managed to piece fragments together, leaving hints until he figured it out. The company caught him.

That morning he woke up screaming from a dream about an explosion and went on with his 'normal' life and seeing ads about cereal.

Freaked me the heck out when I read it.

skrap1r0n
2004-Apr-20, 06:02 PM
...Someone, somewhere went to sleep and dreamed us all alive
Dreams get pushed around a lot and I doubt is we'll survive,
We won't get to wake up, for dreams were borne to disappear,
and I doubt that any of us are here.

Weird Dave
2004-Apr-20, 06:12 PM
We're all assuming that the simulation would be based in a computer. However, a super-advanced civilisation would be able to find an empty planetary system somewhere, shield it from external influences and physically seed it with life and people. This might be significantly easier than a vast computer simulation. In that case, there is no point in looking for "glitches in the matrix", because we are all real beings made of ordinary matter. But we were created for research or entertainment purposes.

Of course, this isn't much different from the standard religious creation stories.

akochan
2004-Apr-20, 06:42 PM
You know... I can't vote in this poll. Because there's no "I am therefore I think" entry. No hardware = No software.

karpuz
2004-Apr-21, 04:52 PM
Maybe our universe is an amusement park ride in some advance alien civilization. We're the customers. We paid our money and get to spend a few decades in this simulation. Our memories of the real world are suppressed so it will seem more real.

This would explain why some people have past life memories. They've been on this ride before and the software running it isn't perfect.

I must say, people who tell us about past lives always seem to be famous people in those past lives. I haven't heard of someone having a past life of some hum drum clerk in a boring accounts office or a starving baby in a third world country. That would mean when playing this "arcade game" you choose your persona to become from a base selection available. That would make the rest of the characters bots in a sim world..... errr, that's starting to sound too familar! Think I'll shut up....