http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/...agewanted=print

LET US DISCUSS. LETTUCE DISCUSS.

I AM MORPHEUS.

"We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?" -Sid Meier

Impossible. No computer can run a simulation of anything that contains more information than all the components of the computer put together. A computer couldn't possibly hold as much information as the amount needed to simulate itself, never mind the whole universe that it's in.

A modern computer stores information as bits. Electronic parts represent this information by being in different states. But if you wanted the computer to simulate itself, you'd need to simulate each atom of each component that stores the bit. One bit cannot represent all those atoms.

So of course no computer in this universe could run a simulation of this entire universe. Conceivably, a computer in an even larger, more complex universe could run a simulation of this universe. But each universe simulated in this way would get smaller and less complex, so it's very limited.


And if the simulation was designed to spawn and track sentient beings, I kinda doubt the universe would be this complex. The physical laws of the universe wouldn't be on such a small scale. Changing any of the physical constants by the tiniest amount would completely change the entire universe. This would be very hard to manage, since any change that someone would make to the universe would have to go through myriad layers of chaos and butterfly effect. "Oh, this is boring. I want my civilization to be more interesting. Let's see... let's tweak the speed of light by the smallest amount... oops. That just destroyed the entire universe."

Then again, if their technology is going to be advanced enough to simulate our universe, it could just be advanced enough to make changing small things like that very easy. So perhaps.

sweet, i want to be neo

Awww @@#& no #*$#@ no #$@&* no #@$@# no I won't have it!!!!

Okay fine yeah it's hard to accept that maybe, just maybe, I'm the result of some dude's computer game or something. Yeah well... I still like this life! It's a good one!!! And I intend to live it the best I can!! No matter what! Because it's real ... real enough! To me.
Hey, if I'm living in a simulation, does that mean nobody else is real and that you're all just random computer thingies programmed to interact with me?

-----

LOL look what I found in the comments on http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0...ter-simulation/

It doesn’t matter. If we are in a simulation, we still have free will. Your actions still produce predictable reactions.

— Posted by John Galt

John Galt! HAH! Ooomgah that had me amused. I'm so easily amused. Ahahahahaha. Yes, I know I'm insane.

If whoever is controlling us is so high tech and crap, then they may of built a computer like that. What if it is possible, and the computer thing we all are on now is just making it seem like it isn't?

What if.....

When we sleep, we are awake, and when awake like now, it's a dream? Maybe, we all are in separate worlds, but have to dream to be all in the same world....

I can think very deep

Your argument sucks. You assume that the universe that controls us follows our rules. For all we know, it might be completely absurd. Thoughts might be cucumbers and computers might be pants. There is no way we can predict what controls us without any evidence of how it works.

Touché, good friend.

It would be impossible in our world, but, if there existed a place where physical information is not conserved... that's mind-boggling (bottling). It could be different in ways that our minds are physically incapable of imagining. That's insane.

damn thats too creepy for me. Rather not think about it.

Maybe we are so simple minded that we are captured at a state before our understanding. That a way we have a learning "limit" and accuse the people for false ideology.

Or maybe, the lochness monster does exist! And no one is insane! Even if they chase someone halfway across the country in a diaper!

I scare myself.

If we were all being controlled, why are we thinking about bein controlled? Maybe the controller is getting bored.

Or maybe the universe is just a nuclei in the center of an atom in the real world.

Or perhaps it is a proton. But I prefer neutrons because they are sooooooooo much cooler

honestly i think Lucres has a good point... the people in the matrix had no idea they were in a computer program, they never would have even had an idea. Someone like Neo trying to tell them they were, well that would have caused major problems and ostracism and stuff... and even if they did accept it, Agent Smith (it was smith right?) would have killed them.

they had no minds of their own, they only thought they did, thats what gets me. So if we were really in the matrix, we wouldnt have the mental capacity to discuss whether or not we were in the matrix, because the controllers wouldnt allow it. Especially if we WERE controlled by computers, they would be able to tell if we were thinking outside our boundries

Hmm. Do you mean human brains stuck in a computer simulation, or computer-simulated brains?

And if the brains were computer-simulated, would that be a simulation of the thoughts in our minds, or the physics of our brains?

Interesting scenarios, yep.

Are you sure the universe that controls us even has the concept of "simulation" or "thought"?

well if we know the comcepts then they would have to because they control us, right?

how do they simulate thinking about a simulated thinking process?!?!?!??!?
help me my brain hurts

Or maybe someone is trying to save us so thats why we are thinking about it.

What if we are really immortal robots, but in a dream that we are mortal?

yes but, if we consider the matrix... if the computers basically have entered our minds and they simulate everything else that goes on in our minds... you know, it controls what we see and feel and taste so it must have control over what we think...

which means it would know if we were thinking about what were thinking about, and especially if we're putting thoughts down on computer... so they would want to quench that and i dont see anyone trying to quench my thoughts...

Well... I don't think a universe can have a concept of anything. Unless it had a mind, which seems pretty unlikely to me.


Hmm... not really. If they controlled only the physics, for instance, or only the basic elements of our thoughts, instead of trying to control the whole thing. If we were a simulation, we could've outlearned the simulators in some areas.


How do you think about thinking? How were you able to think about that last question? How are you able to think about the infinite series of questions that continue this pattern? It's called metacognition.

And then, when you die, you wake up in the other world, the display flashing, "Game Over." Disappointed, you review all the events that happened in your life, noting where you went wrong, and ways that you might've won, ways that you might've taken over the world. It sure does make the game harder when you can't remember anything outside the game.


Creepy. But of course, we're not really going to come out of this believing that we're in a "matrix," or with any idea of how to get out, so it works for them.

How are you so sure? How do you know that that universe can't have concept? What if it has asognasga? And asoifnaoifsaonsf? I'm being serious here BTW... there is no evidence to go along when you're talking aboot alternative universes. Stop speculating, as it's pointless.

What if they don't know they control us? What if they don't control us? What if they have no concepts? What if they have no numbers? What if they have no logic? What if they have no dimensions? What if they're completely static? What if they have no organization? What if they have no order? What if they have no stability?

Get my drift? As I told myncknm, it's pointless to speculate about the unknown unless there is evidence to go by.

No one's going to help you. If you can't participate in this conversation go away.

What if we are mortal? What if robots can't dream? What if we're not robots? What if we're not humans? What if we're not living? Bleh, this is getting repetitive. Just read my responses above.

Well I say its true... Just look at the guy who made the madness matrix mod, that is so realistic, cause we all have faces without eyes and hands with disembodied arms! Thats not just me right??? GUYS???

OR MAYBE! We are allowed to think whatever we want in this "matrix" but people just deny it like DJbob and whatever, so like you think monsters ain't real and crap.

You know I'm just brainstorming, I don't believe it one bit.

what if everyone had a different concept of color? like... i look at what i call green and see what you call red but when you look at what you call green, you see what i would call purple?

Weird thought, eh?

I stuggle to participate in a sport or game I don't understand....
Thats probably the same with a discussion...



My geography teacher told us once about some ancient civiliztion that didnt have a word for the color purple, so for them purple didnt exist. So when they looked at the color purple it blended with the other colors and shades... Is that close enough?

"Concept" is defined in our universe, following our rules. "Concept" requires a conscious mind to exist.

Based on the workings of our universe... I'd say they're not static. Then again, to define "static" you need the concept of time. But we could infer some things about any universe [that might control us or simulate us or create us as a byproduct of their own existence], by examining the nature of our universe. If our universe exists within that universe, we can be sure that mathematics exist somewhere in the workings of that universe, even if it's not immediately apparent. These things that you're talking about, "concepts," "numbers," "logic," "dimensions," "static," "organization," and "stability," are all defined by subjective experience. Numbers don't exist unless we define them. Dimensions don't exist unless we see them. Hold on... maybe dimensions are inherent to the universe... maybe. But what if there existed a being that saw time as a spacial dimension and one of our other 3 dimensions as time? On the other hand, maybe numbers and logic are also inherent in the nature of the universe. Us humans did infer those concepts from observing the world, after all. So I change my mind. These concepts, do exist inherently in the universe. But it takes a conscious mind to see them. The fact that these things exist in our universe is enough to prove that they also exist in any universe that our universe happens to be inside. {These concepts} is a subset of {our universe} is a subset of {the other universe}. Transitivity.
Our mathematics might only be a small slice of mathematics in the other universe. Imagine if we created an artificial world where only integers exist. But our mathematics do exist in any universe that might contain ours.

Yeah, Wikipedia has an article on qualia. A quale is like, a sensation, like "red" or "pain." It speculates that any qualia that you experience is different from any qualia that anyone else experiences, and trying to convey the exact feeling would be impossible. The only way we can communicate them is by naming them. "Blue" = "The thing you feel when you look at the sky," etc.

Hmm... I think that's just a difference in naming.

well i do remember when i was little, driving down the highway (well riding in the backseat) and looking around and thinking about how blue was the only color in the world and everything else was just shades of blue... it would probably be like that...

Of course, i was a very smart child and my mom says that i learned my colors at an early ages so this thought process was probably just a mind blip... like yesterday when i was calling everyone mariam.

----

more on topic, my mom just sent me this video... http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/shifthappens
The stuff at the beginning is unrelated (but interesting) but the information at the end is definitely related (and creeeeeepy)

Who's to say their universe follows our rules?

But you can't base them off of us. What evidence do you have to indicate that different universes are similiar at all? They might not even have the concept of static vs. dynamic.

Who's to say they have time?

You're sure? How? What evidence, or proof do you have? Just because they control us means they are like us?

What if they other universe can't define anything? What if the other universe has no experience? I don't care what your argument is, you can't get anywhere with it (no offense). There is no concrete evidence or even logic to prove that we are anything like another universe. Your inferences are based off of human intuition and the human tendency to ignore extremes.

That video is wrong on a number of counts.

First of all, the honor student counts means very little. Why?

• Their education system is not as powerful as our own, so smart kids will never reach their potential.
• China and India do not have good opportunities for genuises as the US. Think about this: most American genuises come from other countries and nationalities. The difference is that we have opportunities here. There's a big scare in the international community about their scientists, etc. because they keep fleeing to the US to find better jobs. There's simply more opportunity here - therefore, we will remain at the top scientifically for a while.

Second of all, it makes our lower birth rate seem scary. However, in the long run I'd say it's beneficial. Too many people become really hard to support. We have lots of free space on our land, meaning we can be self-sufficient agriculturally. China and India probably can't, especially towards the future.

Third of all, it's completely wrong about England.

• They are not richest in the world - per capita it's Luxembourg, and nominally it's the US.
• Second of all, world's largest military...? Bullshit. China has the largest army, and the US has the second largest army. "The United States Navy is the largest in the world with a tonnage greater than that of the next 17 largest combined," - Wikipedia. As for air force, "The [United States Air Force] is the largest and most technologically advanced air force in the world," - Wikipedia. Furthermore, "the United States military is universally considered the most powerful in the world." - Wikipedia. Where are these guys getting their facts?
• London could disputably be considered the world's center of finance, but most would either say it's the US (based off our trading and stock exchanges, etc.) or that such a title cannot be given out to a single city. Generally, there are said to be at least three centers of finance: New York City, London, and Tokyo.
• Strongest educational system, my ass. The most universally accepted ranking of universities (which coincidentally is compiled by a Chinese institution) shows that out of the top ten, only two universities are English; the rest are from the US. Furthermore, the top three are all US universities.
• World center of innovation and invention is completely subjective - I find no way to prove this. Judging by their other assumed facts, I doubt this one is true anyways.
• Currency the world standard? More bullshit. "The dollar is the most important international reserve currency," - Wikipedia. It is followed by the euro and the yen. Pound sterling is number four.
• Highest standard of living...? Where are they getting this crap? Whatever index you use (I would use HDI, which states Norway as number one), England is never at the top.

Honestly now, that thing about England was complete bullshit. I'm suspicious about their claims now - they don't seem the have their facts straight.
Crap, I paused before I noticed the "in 1900" >_<
Meh, I need to be more patient. I guess their point is that balance of power changes. True, but in this day and age change is unlikely to occur. Borders are considered "final", war never happens for the purpose of conquest, the most powerful weapons are reserved for a few, etc.

As for the computers taking over the world crap - well, it's crap. Computational ability does not equal free thinking. Just because they can add faster than us does not mean they can or will control us. They have no imagination yet, let alone the ability to think freely.

I'm not saying that their universe is similar to ours. I'm saying that since our universe is able to exist inside their universe, then all of our concepts must also be applicable to the other universe, whether or not it applies in the same way as in our universe.

Can you say that mathematics exist in their universe? Yes, since mathematics exist within our universe, and our universe exists inside their universe--our universe is a part of that universe.

Also, I'm saying that you can't say whether or not a universe has the concept of time. Universes don't have concepts. Conscious beings have concepts. To say whether or not a universe has a certain concept means nothing, because different beings in a single universe might not agree on that. There are properties of the systems that exist in a universe, that allow the beings to have those concepts though.

"What if the other universe can't define anything? What if they have no experience?"
That's not up to the universe. It depends on the systems that arise out of that universe... whether or not some of them become capable of conscious thought. We know that this is possible, since we exist as examples of that.

"Who's to say their universe follows our rules?"
I wasn't saying that their universe follows our rules. But our definition of a concept requires a conscious mind to think it. If there's no conscious mind, then it's not a concept now is it? The opposition to that would be saying that we're actually using another universe's definition of "concept" when we're talking about "concept," which of course is impossible, since we don't know what that definition might be. If you're saying that there's some analog of "concept" that can exist without a conscious mind, then we might need to come up for a new word for that.

speaking of universes in universes (ok im not discussing what y'all have said i know but whatever) isnt there a movie... i wanna say men in black but im not sure, where this guy keeps saying he comes from a galaxy "in orions belt" and it turns out he cant say collar and his galaxy was on the collar of a cat named orion...

anyone know how that worked?

Once again, you are thinking inside the box. Why do you assume this? Your argument is based on the concept of inheritance, which may or may not exist in the universe that "controls" ours.

What if none of our concepts are real "concepts", however? What if the universe that controls us made up "mathematics"? Your proof is not absolute.

When I say concept, I mean through our eyes.

What if the universe that controls us is conscious? What if it is alive? You still have no evidence or proof.

I don't get this argument, or its relevance.

As I mentioned above, I am judging concept based through our eyes.

Look, you're grabbing arguments out of thin air. Why? Because you're not examining your arguments carefully.
Think about math problems. If you do them enough, you begin to skip steps. Similarily, you are skipping steps in your arguments; this is usually alright, as the step you are skipping is identical in almost all proofs, but this proof has a nuance that are missing.

You are assuming that you can use logic in this proof; in reality, you can't.

Yer What If We Are Not The Only Ones In The Universe!!!

Inheritance? We're a part of that universe, though. The only way this universe could possibly arise in the other universe (admittedly, as far as I can see) is if the other universe contained some sort of a system whose behavior just happened to work the exact same way as the things that exist in our universe.

Well, if it's possible to "make up" mathematics, then I'd say that the other universe has some sort of mathematical basis or influence. Otherwise I doubt it'd be possible to form a system where one and one consistently make two. In fact, I think that's exactly what I was getting at. Since mathematics exists in our universe, it must be able to exist in the other universe, even if it's only "made up."

Hmm... would that work? Unless the other universe works exactly or very nearly the same way as ours, we wouldn't be able to exist in such a universe. We wouldn't be able to observe anything. If there were an analog to time in that universe, we wouldn't be able to see it.

Well then the universe itself would be a conscious being.

So you're saying the other universe might work in a way that makes it impossible for any conscious beings to form definitions or memories? Yet they might still be conscious in some way inconceivable to us?

What do you think of my second argument in this post eh? The existence of mathematics in our universe as evidence that it's possible to recreate mathematics in the other universe? You could defeat that by saying that the other universe could be so illogical that contradictions aren't a problem. Or that all assertions are ridiculous in nature, in that universe. But I think the fact still remains that our universe exists within their universe. Would I be allowed to say that? Cause I'm pretty sure that was a given.

Thanks. I can tell you took the time to fully comprehend our discussion and form interesting ideas to contribute. You even used proper title capitalization. I can't wait to view whatever work you must be referring to. I notice that you omitted the proper formatting (ie. italics, underline, or quotation marks), but nobody uses those in casual writing, right?

OK, you're not getting it. Time to use the Socratic method, except with science!
Why do you think that? What makes you think that the univserse has to contain mechanisms that are exactly the same as ours?

What makes you think that?

Why do you think that?

ORLY?

Yup. Keywords: inconveivable to us.

Nope, because nothing is a given. Answer my questions above so I can pwn your arguments.

Stop posting where retards shouldn't post. And by that, I mean you should only be posting in the Unregulated Forum. And even there, please try to focus your posts in the "Spam" topic.

No... it's a given that our universe exists somehow within the other universe. Isn't that what we were talking about? A universe that contains ours?

The universe has to contain mechanisms that are exactly the same as ours, because, otherwise, we wouldn't really exist now would we?

Yeah! I acctully always have thought of that, like, I could see the sky as a color red, but call it blue because thats what we are taught! So, it would be 100% impossible to acctully tell if it was true, because if someone holds up a green card and someone sees it in his eyes as a purple color, he was taught to call that green.

so if a child was brought up calling what we call blue purple and what we call green blue, and what we call red green.... then we dont want to teach him to drive, right? "green means go"

Yes, but he'll see the color green as red, so the bottom light that's "green" in our eye's, will look red in his, but he is taught that that is green so he accepts it as that, so when you say "green means go" it's what he sees as green is to "go", so it really doesn't matter.

It's easier to understand it in my head

no what i mean is... theres the color red, what we call red, but he is taught that that color is called "green" then brought into our society... right?

According to Earth logic, that makes sense. In Earth logic, an enveloping mechanism must contains the means to logically support its internal mechanisms. But who's to say those same rules apply to the universe that controls us?

Yeah, if this is really a matrix then ANYTHING is possible on who or what is "controlling" us.

lol im controlled by a guinea pig

Hmm, well I get that too, but what I mean is like, what if we all see different shades of colors, but we call them the same thing, like if I went in your brain and saw what you saw, the sky may be red in my vision, but to you you call that blue....or something. I dunno anymore.

What if someone was raised in like a completely blank room, no human interaction, and only a meal comes while he's asleep? Then after he's grown up they release him into the "real world". Hell that could make primetime.

primetime and cruel and unusual punishment....
i was talking about what you were first, but i switched gears... im nice arnt i

Cruel and unusual punishment is defined in:

CSI, theres too many, each one about murder, always solved by chance.

New sitcoms, give me a break, that first commercial that comes out, yeah it can make you laugh, but celbereties that are old should stop acting or drop dead. (second option preferred)

Gameshows, hell, we have classic game shows, but all of these new ones with bald fags and idiots making up rules that takes three or four episodes to figure out, and then you figure the rules are like another game, is just freakin hell.

Reality, oh here we go, these idiots are a bunch of airheads, why do I want it on my TV when I can look outside and see a blonde bimbo with 6 screaming children?

Ok, I still am wondering how we got to this subject, but turn of the TV and blast the stereo. What brings me to another conclusion, what if we are being watched on TV like on that one southpark episode?

Yeah. What ever happpened to The Price Is Right... You can never really run out of ideas for Discovery, or the Military Channel, and the History Channel. All they need to do is make a gameshow where Jesus Christ is the host, EVERYONE would watch it.

ya except he's not alive anymore

but have you ever read fahrenhight 451? it talks about jesus as a show figure a bit...