Are we living in The Matrix?

[scramjet]

These smart guys think we might be:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

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.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

Abstract: This paper explores the idea that the universe is a virtual reality created by information processing, and relates this strange idea to the findings of modern physics about the physical world. The virtual reality concept is familiar to us from online worlds, but our world as a virtual reality is usually a subject for science fiction rather than science. Yet logically the world could be an information simulation running on a multi-dimensional space-time screen. Indeed, if the essence of the universe is information, matter, charge, energy and movement could be aspects of information, and the many conservation laws could be a single law of information conservation. If the universe were a virtual reality, its creation at the big bang would no longer be paradoxical, as every virtual system must be booted up. It is suggested that whether the world is an objective reality or a virtual reality is a matter for science to resolve. Modern information science can suggest how core physical properties like space, time, light, matter and movement could derive from information processing. Such an approach could reconcile relativity and quantum theories, with the former being how information processing creates space-time, and the latter how it creates energy and matter.

I just hope someone out there has a good surge protector and a battery backup. You think it would suck to have your hard disk crash and lose your mp3 collection? How'd you like to lose the whole universe?




<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/cjmratings/stuff/in_action_small.jpg">

[DreamRedux]

[quote]Originally posted by scramjet
[br] How'd you like to lose the whole universe?
[/quote]
How would anybody know the difference? [;)]

[plagiarism]

When I was in high school, I wondered if people were shadows of 4- or 5- dimensional beings. Later on, I regretted I didn't smoke some pot to have such "deep thoughts". Now I'm glad I didn't waste as much time in my youth as these guys.

[coop41]

Well, the first paper seems to me to be a hack job of nonsensical science fiction (kind of like something I would have turned in when assigned) but the second paper is quite a bit more intriguing.
I will qualify this with the fact I have never watched an episode of Star Trek, saw only the original Star Wars movie and couldn't make it past the first 15 minutes or so of the Matrix on several attempts.

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by plagiarism[/i]
<br>Later on, I regretted I didn't smoke some pot to have such "deep thoughts".
[/quote]
Pot wouldn't get you there - SHROOMS!

...and I think this guy has taken too much of them. He points out that we [i]know[/i] of inconsistencies in things like quantum vs relativistic theories, but it's more that there's limitations of what we're able to [i]understand[/i] than what [i]IS[/i] actually fact. I'd also note that I'm sure the human brain can think up plenty of incomputable algorithms. And I'm sure that there are untestable physics hypothesis as well as mathematical one - so a pure philosophy that can have no impact on the physical world or what we perceive to be the physical world.

[scramjet]

Whitworth (the 2nd guy) tries to argue that his hypethesis is, or may possibly be, testable. Whether he does so convincingly is another matter.

Also, I think he argues that we [i]do[/i] understand the facts, but can't make any sense of them.

<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/cjmratings/stuff/in_action_small.jpg">

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by scramjet[/i]
<br>Whitworth (the 2nd guy) tries to argue that his hypethesis is, or may possibly be, testable. Whether he does so convincingly is another matter.

Also, I think he argues that we [i]do[/i] understand the facts, but can't make any sense of them.
[/quote]
Does he [i]argue[/i] that or simply [i]state[/i] that may be possible to test? He doesn't give the slightest inkling about how, does he?

He might also [i]state[/i] that we do understand it, but we obviously don't fully since they don't mesh - we have our limited perception of the facts. Is the simplest conclusion then that's we're in a simulation or that we have limits to our current understanding?

Fry my hide!

[scramjet]

I have no desire to get close enough to your hide to suntan it, much less fry it.

I don't think you're bringing anything up that he didn't deal with in his paper. Did he do so convincingly? Eh, I dunno. Am I going to try to do it more convincingly? Definitely not.

I'm not changing my view of the universe based on this, but I think it's entertaining in a science fiction sort of way.

<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/cjmratings/stuff/in_action_small.jpg">

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by scramjet[/i]
<br>I don't think you're bringing anything up that he didn't deal with in his paper.
[/quote]
As an attempted interpretation from a new wave fan's point of view, I wouldn't think that I would have, heh! [:D][B)]

[scramjet]

So was Johnny Hates Jazz new wave or not?

<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/cjmratings/stuff/in_action_small.jpg">

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by scramjet[/i]
<br>So was Johnny Hates Jazz new wave or not?
[/quote]
Why I might do to argue one way or another is draw a long chain of analogy versus anything truly testable.

...erm, just like the author. [;)]

[coop41]

[quote][i]Originally posted by scramjet[/i]
<br>So was Johnny Hates Jazz new wave or not?

<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/cjmratings/stuff/in_action_small.jpg">
[/quote]

they're no Robbie Nevil

[scramjet]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by scramjet[/i]
<br>So was Johnny Hates Jazz new wave or not?
[/quote]
Why I might do to argue one way or another is draw a long chain of analogy versus anything truly testable.

...erm, just like the author. [;)]
[/quote]

If philosophers and theoretical physicists were not allowed to publish untestable ideas there'd be a lot of empty space on a lot of university library shelves. Ya know?

My hypothesis is that The Little River Band were new wave forerunners in ways that pretty much no one appreciates.

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by scramjet[/i]
<br>My hypothesis is that The Little River Band were new wave forerunners in ways that pretty much no one appreciates.
[/quote]
I lean more toward 10cc.

And Billy Squire is evidence that there could be a hell. [i]Could be[/i] because an example isn't proof, but by this author's level of rigor, it's enough for me to forward my theory.