Then the ultimate question is—if one accepts that theses 1, 2, and 3 are at least possible, which of the following is more likely?
a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself? Or,
b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)
In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, that:
1. intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (or this is impossible in principle); or
You didn't read the article.
not science - true
still the idea is logically consistent and even plausible
and that would explain a lot
it's much like a fecund universes theory in a sense
only with fecund universes there is a hope that sometime we might actually find a way to test it
but here we can't even hope
this study doesn't make any sense. if the host doesn't want the guest to know that he is actually being run in VirtualBox, he can prevent this from happening by simply rolling back the simulation and making necessary edits in case the guest had found out or it could be done in real time by an AI software. remember The Matrix? The Deja Vu scene? For us it would be the same. Only there is no Neo to spot any signs of change. I thought that was kind of obvious. That's why the theory is not testable.
If there are active measures to conceal it, of course we won't find it. That would be assuming that whatever is running the simulation cares to hide it. There's also the possibility that it wants to be discovered.
There's even a chance that whatever is "running" the simulation doesn't understand that it doing so, isn't conscious at all, or otherwise undertakes actions for entirely different reasons than we (the simulated) do.
Is the simulation hypothesis unlikely? Well, yes. That aside, it's fun to think about and doubly interesting now that's there's a way to test it.
1 - if we don't know if we are real or simulated, we can't trust or senses.
2 - (...) -> we conclude "i think therefore i am".
3 - the only thing we are sure is that we think but not if it's artificial or not
4 - that means we have to find out what the thought is to advance any further.
5 - if thinking is processing information, then what is the program?
the answer to this is as incomprehensive as the beginning of the universe... we are infinitely smaller then the infinite and yet infinitely bigger than nothing. therefore we can't understand neither of them.
unless, of course, someone deletes our answers when we are getting close to the end but that was already said above by someone else...
either way it's pretty absurd thinking that there is another universe, and we are just a simulation, if we can't even figure out how ours was created. if we are a simulation, then who created our creators?
I think the most logical thing to do is to accept that it is impossible to understand our origin and live with it. although it also means that live has no reason...
Life does have a reason beyond it's origins. It doesn't have to be religious, or anything like that. You can simply live in a way that either pleases yourself or that pleases those around you. We may be a simulation, but that doesn't mean that while we're in here we can't let ourselves fall into being human. We can still be what we were programmed to be.
An argument I heard once for this being a simulation, is when you would go about programming a simulation, in order to make finding the results you want easier, the programmers would set some rules/limits that can't be broken to reduce the randomness of the events that happen. (Speed of Light anyone?)
I've also heard that absolute cold is a similar limit that reinforces this theory.
Without a constant speed of light, there's no grounds for relativistic weirdness in physics. I'm not sure what exactly becomes more convenient with this added constraint -- maybe out of bounds problems?
Well, temperature is something of a bulk property. It involves groups of particles, rather than single bodies, atoms, or molecules.
0 K can't be found in this universe because even a single cold proton is subject to gravitational and EM influence from the surrounding entire universe. That universe will nudge the particle about, warming it.
Both of these apparent boundaries seem to cause, or at least emphasize, rather than inhibit, new phenomena.
It seems to me that any accurate, large scale universe simulation is impossible as a matter of principle. The amount of energy it would take to run, having to simulate every particle in the universe realistically and simultaneously for trillions of years, would be as much or nearly as much energy/matter as there is in the universe. Otherwise the creation of such a simulation would violate things like the law of the conservation of energy in thermodynamics. So that the universe exists at all means that there is no simulation being run, meaning that if any "ancestor" universe exists it also cannot simultaneously exist AND run "our" universe, but we exist so it can't exist, or at least we are not a simulation.
So how long do you think it will be before such technoloogy is widely availble to the public?
10 years? Maybe 25?
a 256 bit processor would be amazing for AES encryption since the main step involves a 256 bit state matrix.
"256 bit" means that there are 256 numbers that a computer can read. most computers now can read up to 32 bit numbers, or numbers with 32 digits in them. there are also 64 bit computers, which can read 64 digits. for a better explanation, head over to Numberfile on youtube.
Nobody should need more than 640 bits.
Proof that if you are going to fail, you might as well fail superlatively.
I'm a cock sucking retarded mouth breather, where do I go to learn caclus and shit?
Waht's th SICP of math? What would you recommend, besides killing myself. I already know about khanacademy.
Btw I'm not learning lisp or reading SICP.
Try Khan Academy, d00d. From pre-algebra all the way up through calculus. Khan is the Man. It's free, too--free as in beer, as well as in speech.
"The ships logs from the voyages of Captain Cook have yielded a new discovery: the gradual weakening of Earth’s magnetic field is a relatively recent phenomenon. The discovery has led experts to question whether the Earth is on track towards a polarity reversal."
"The field’s strength is now declining at a rate that suggests it could virtually disappear in about 2000 years. Researchers have speculated that this ongoing change may be the prelude to a magnetic reversal, during which the north and south magnetic pole swap places."
I read Slashdot's take on it http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/13/1516234 and I thought they were awfully calm about it.
Wouldn't such an event create total chaos?
Since a magnetic field reversal has never been observed by humans and the mechanism of field generation is not well understood, it is difficult to say what the characteristics of the magnetic field might be leading up to such a reversal. Some speculate that a greatly diminished magnetic field during a reversal period will expose the surface of the earth to a substantial and potentially damaging increase in cosmic radiation. However, Homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals. There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinctions. A possible explanation is that the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield energetic particles even in the absence of the Earth's normal magnetic field .
"Although the inspection of past reversals does not indicate biological extinctions, present society with its reliance of electricity and electromagnetic effects (e.g. radio, satellite communications) may be vulnerable to technological diruptions in the event of a full field reversal."
"may be"? So nobody knows what would happen? Or is it about the magnitude of a solar flare, i.e. not very serious?
The mechanism generating the Earth's magnetic field itself is not well understood, so nobody knows exactly what happens during a pole reversal. Electric and electronic equipment would probably be more sensitive to fluctuations of the field rather than the absence of a field. Lacking any information of what kind of fluctuations to expect, there's really no way to know what the effects would be.
I hope everyone will be ok except for the Earth turning into a global Van de Graaff generator. It would be both a potential extinction event and a new trend in fashion.
>turning into a global Van de Graaff generator.
That would open the door to Free Energy, at long last! :)
Okay, I'll branch this thread off the other one myself if you guys don't want to take the initiative. It may die in silence, but at least I tried. :p
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is evil". Tell WHY you think God is evil, and use logic to back it up if you have tot. If you want to say "God is good", then the same goes for you.
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
Supposing that a God exists, he cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent, because evil also exists.
>god is good (christian dogma), and wants the well-being of humans
>god is all knowing and all powerful
>[i]some[/i] humans do bad things
>god doesnt punish them
inb4 free will
that would make god inherently bad, because he's letting humans do bad things
>bible says retarded things
>god doesn't do anything
the bible mentions that God does punish those people
Who are you to decide what is "evil" or "horrible"?
Non-human animals torture, rape, and murder all the time. Are they evil? What about plants? Bacteria? Viruses? What about hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and volcanoes? Are they evil? Your body kills millions of microscopic organisms every day, and you don't even notice. Does that make you evil?
There are a lot of people who actually think the Nazis had the right idea about the Jews, and those people would probably call you evil. What makes you right and them wrong?
And only you get to decide who counts as "people"?
The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) had built the largest particle collider on Earth smashing like crazy different particles and atoms purposely to find the Higgs boson or more commonly known as the "God particle".
Now, we don't really have any idea what might come next with the next particles they smash: maybe a black hole, another big bang, the Quantum Zeno collapse, or even a chronological collapse.
What are your thoughts?
We will initiate the Final Sanction. The end of time will come at my hand. The rupture will continue until it rips the Time Vortex apart.
What do you mean when you say "a chronological collapse," >>1? I am unfamiliar with that term and from context I can only perceive that you believe it to be a possible negative consequence.
>you clearly have minimal understanding of science
>you use words like 'crazy different particles', further underlining your ignorance
>the LHC currently IS deactivated and will be for approximately 2 years (upgrades and stuff)
>it's Higgs' boson, not higgs. get that apostrophe right goddammit
>it's not something new, accelerators have been built since the 1930s; they know their shit
>there will be none of that catastrophe bullshit you're talking about
>quantum zeno effect is a real thing, but unrelated; there's no quantum zeno collapse
now, go back to 4chan, asshole.
CERN is trying to build a time machine and take control over the world. We have to stop the d-mails from changing the past and we have to achieve a 1% variation in the time line...
The destruction of the universe is the least of your problems. Just be glad that the machine hasn't awakened the great Cthulhu like in the Steven King move "The Mist"!
This board has nothing to do with science.
figured as much.
There is a thread about scientific threads on this page. Does that count?
This page and the server it is hosted on is based on scientific principles. That is good enough for me.
>> 1 "This sentence is a lie."
Hypothesis: Putting science in a thread claiming there is no science on this page will destroy the page.
Experiement: By creating a post containing science, we either expect to see the thread deleted or else the post deleted.
Observations: Neither the thread nor this post have been deleted.
Conclusions: The hypothesis about the thread destroying the page has been proved invalid.
Dickery: I had to have written the observations on this post before the effects of this post on this page could be observed.
I can recite the quantum chromodynamic gauge invariant lagrangian in my sleep.
ZOMGORZ!!! Curiosity finds life on Mars!!!