Talk:Simulated reality

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ID or creationism[edit]

Can we count this as a form of either?--Nate River 20:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Probably not, unless you can actually explain what you mean? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:34, 18 January 2009 (EST)

If our universe is a simulation, something must have created it. Could that not be considered a form of creationism? and if we were designed with set parameters, could that not be intelligent design?--Nate River 00:41, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Creationism has a fairly specific meaning, relating to the creation of the universe (I.E. the entirety of everything), usually by a deity. If what we perceive to be the universe transpired to be something created by other beings, those would still exist within the actual universe, so the question of how the universe itself was created would remain unanswered. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:51, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Is this really a theory that people actually believe in (as the text says), or is it more of a thought experiment, or just a synopsis of The Matrix? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:46, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Sounds to me like someone is just a bit enamored of The Matrix. May I recommend Cronenberg's eXistenZ? And to answer W, no, no one actually "believes" this. It's deletable tripe. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:51, 18 January 2009 (EST)
I, for one, actually "believe" this, as it seems more mathematically likely than not. So your statement is, without a doubt, false, and a complete fabrication. Please don't take for granted that you know every thought of every person on the planet.— Unsigned, by: 198.168.17.10 / talk / contribs 07:38, 06 June 2016
I'm actually not a fan of the Matrix. To me, though, this makes just a little more sense than YEC, which I find completely bonkers.--Nate River 00:56, 18 January 2009 (EST)
OK, I guess I see your point. Is their a way to reassemble the words to make the perspective clearer? Like, rewrite some of it? In a way that says "here's a silly idea, and why it is almost as bonkers as YEC"? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:09, 18 January 2009 (EST)
I think it's a useful thought experiment. As a theory, it seems rather pointless.Alpha3031 (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

logical problem?[edit]

Wouldn't what Hilary PutnamWikipedia arguesWikipedia poses a logical challenge about talking about simulated reality? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Deism?[edit]

Isn't this textbook deism, just given a mechanism of how it might work? Both ideas assume that our universe was created by someone(s)/something(s) and left to run without interference. Both ideas offer no explanation for the origin of the universe's creator. 76.106.225.195 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's the result of something rather than someone, we don't have a god under most definitions, because this assumes agency. Right? Otherwise we can talk about the Big Bang and all its processes as a god. What if the external universe has weird rules and builds a mindless supercomputer with rules similar to evolution and by pure chance provided the simulation? What I'm trying to say is: I'm not sure if simulated reality requires a creator.
Another thing we'd need to talk about is if there really hasn't been any interference. I'm sure there are people out there believing in a more deistic simulated reality and yet other people believing there is some interference. Anyway, I just assumed this was a separate point. RSamys (bla) 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I’d just like to point out...[edit]

If we are in a simulated reality, it would go a long way in explaining Fermi’s paradox, perhaps our “programmers” did not anticipate that we’d get so far as to question our “reality” to this degree? (Where is everybody?) 13:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

The case against The Truman Show Argument[edit]

Why aren't you in A Good Life Situation/winning mega-money in the lottery etc? Anna Livia (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Jupiter-sized matrioshka brain"[edit]

I think the numbers need to be cited. This seems to conflate "Jupiter brain" with "matrioshka brain" (and was misspelled "Matroishka Brain"). A matrioshka brain is a series of nested Dyson spheres (like Rusian matryoshka dolls) surrounding a star. A Jupiter brain is a brain the size of Jupiter. Indy (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Logical equivalence to theism[edit]

Common Google definition of theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. "there are many different forms of theism."

Given that the simulation is the creation of at least one entity, that entity is the equivalent to a god in relation to it's creations (everything that we know). The idea of simulation is actually a diversion from the concept of a God capable of creating the universe. Therefore, the statement, "the probability that our known universe is a simulation is x," is logically equivalent to the statement: "God exists" has probability x of being true; with "God" affording the aforementioned definition.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Technically logical equivalency is established when the truth value of a statement matches the truth value of another statement under all possible interpretations; so that, X and Y are logically equivalent iff "X iff Y"; so that if X is true then Y is true, and if Y is true then X true. There is a bit of debate you can have in meaning by what is denoted by "universe". If we go the semantic externalist route then yes whatever we refer to as the "universe" in our simulated reality is de facto the universe; but some may object and argue that the simulated reality is only a simulation that is being run in the true reality on machines that exists within the actual universe. That our simulated universe is contained within the actual universe, and such only the creator of the "actual" universe can said to be God. They may argue that it would be like if the Sims were to become sentient and refer to their world as the "universe" we would not therefore credit the developers at Maxis working under Electronic Arts as "God". The semantic externalist may argue that is only true for us living in the reality that holds the computers that runs the Sims. For the Sims themselves the programmers and developers may very well be God and on that basis yeah a case could be made that entails a kind of theism for the Sims, just not us. This sort of thing runs up against multiple competing theories in the philosophy of language -- especially in regard to the meaning of proper names i.e. "God" and "the Universe". It be worth mentioning that semantic-externalism has been used to suggest any idea that would could be living in a simulation to be self-refuting ala Putnam's "brain in a vat" argument. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Let me think about all this. My idea was a simple substitution argument: is it possible to distinguish the classical definition of "god" from "any creator of our given universe." I accept the answer has to be negative without making additional stipulations. Call the universe of our creator U1. This has probably been pointed out before, but if the probability that we exist in a simulation is x, then this seems to imply that the probability that U1 is also a simulation is also approximately x. One might construct a sequence of universes {Un}. Some mathematical wisenheimer might define God as the creator in some kind of limit of the given series. Just a thought. Regards.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Spinoza actually goes the route of interpreting the universe as self-causing and that therefore the universe and god is exactly the same thing. There are a lot of different valid ways you can approach this. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)