Simulated/Artificial Reality

[stephen dedalus]

Commenting On Bostrom

Knowing that something is not possible that can't be conceived is not privy to any particular person. It is simple logic accessible to all who study metaphysics.

Would you be willing to indulge me and walk me through the simple logic? What are the premises, how do we know they are valid, and to what conclusion(s) do they lead? Or, failing that, would you be willing to refer me to a philosophical text that offers this logical proof?

That there are different theoretical models does not mean we don't know the facts about any particular area. We know the universe is infinite because it is everything and if it is finite it would have a boundary and there would be nothing outside of it which is a complete paradox and self-negating. Also, time can't start at any particular point because it has to have a past and can't end because it has to have a future or else it isn't time and it forms a unit with space which makes space infinite, too.

Facts are not absolute truths. They are contingent truths manufactured through the collection of data and the application of interpretive paradigms to the body of data. A cursory look at the history of science will show you that the facts are always being changed and altered as new data becomes available and new ways of interpreting the data are proposed. I also think that you tend to prematurely assume the validity of a premise or a set of premises and follow the premise(s) to flawed conclusions. For example, you assume that the universe is "everything," and then you follow that premise to the conclusion that the concept of a finite universe is a self-negating paradox. But your entire argument is based on the assumption that the universe is everything, which leads you to this circularity: the universe is everything, and therefore the universe is everything. Not everyone uses the word "universe" to mean "all of existence"; the Everett intepretation of quantum indeterminacy, for example, posits many universes within a multiverse. Bostrom argues for the possibility of simulated universes within other (possibly simulated) universes.

I find it strange that you are so negative towards someone who takes the same position you do on the topic of this thread.

I am not "negative" towards you. I am negative towards certain statements that you make, particularly those that claim, with an unearned sense of finality, to know the answers to questions that are currently unanswerable by you or anyone else. And I'm not sure that our positions are as similar as you seem to think they are. You've expressed doubt earlier in this thread that a technologically advanced civilization with enormous computing capacity could simulate a populated universe and track the behavior of that population. I'm willing to admit it, as an interesting possibility, into the discussion, but you seem committed to dismissing it as an absurdity.

In any case, I don't want to make you feel uncomfortable, so if you'd prefer that I stop responding to your posts, I'm willing to do that.

 

[Mystery Rider]

Commenting On Bostrom

Stephen Dedalus,

My argument on the infinity of the universe is not based entirely on the premise that the universe is everything. There are 2 other important points I mentioned which make the finitude of the universe impossible. My argument isn't at all circular and I do not make any flawed conclusions. The MWI does not provide evidence for a finite universe, it just says there are many versions of the same infinite universe. And a simulated universe would be finite but not a natural universe.

A fact is an absolute truth so what you refer to in the history of science was information which was taken as fact but was then found out to be false, in many cases, it was taken as true by orthodoxy but already known to be false, such as geocentricity and the flat Earth.

I do admit the possibility of a super-advanced civilization being able to simulate a populated universe and track the behaviour of that population so I don't dismiss it.

Examples of the idea that if we can't conceive of something it can't exist are a square circle and a married bachelor.

I appreciate your offer to not respond anymore to my postings. You can, but I think it would not lead us anywhere to continue arguing these points, and, in any case, they are not essential to the idea of a simulated universe, as such a universe might be made to seem infinte, and we don't have to posit beings we can't conceive of. And thanks for correcting me on the Tipler name.

 

[Mystery Rider]

Commenting On Bostrom

ufology,

I don't think what constitutes natural is a subjective paradigm but reality might be considered relative. What the dreamer experiences in a dream is real to him but not in the waking state. And the physical world is real to us but is an illusion relative to the universe. If we are in a simulation then our universe is real to us but not to the outside universe. Also, what is natural is relevant because it is a distinction between the natural universe outside of a simulation and the artificial universe inside the simulation. But perhaps you are implying that since the simulation is a part of the natural universe then it is natural, too. But it isn't relative to the outside universe.

Also, if we are in a simulation, I have the sneaking suspicion that the simulators are you know who, and they are doing it because they weren't able to mess up the planet in real life possibly because of intervention by other space aliens and can insert themselves in the program. Anyways, it's all suspicions and speculation at this point.

 

[mike]

Commenting On Bostrom

Then we have the fractal universe theory

This fractal cosmology is distinct from other types of fractal cosmologies. The fractal cosmos described herein is distinct from the application of fractals to astronomy to describe the fractal distribution of galaxies within the visible universe. Also, the present fractal cosmology is distinct from the multiple universes (multiverses) of “eternal inflation,” which are based on quantum field theory; and the “black hole within black hole” multiverses, which are based on general relativity. Rather, the fractal cosmos that is described herein is an integrated fractal structure that allows for the development of an orderly sequence of universes. This fractal cosmos gives birth to distinct fractal-like universes of different orders of magnitude. Our own universe can be assigned a specific rank within a hierarchical series of universes.

http://fractalcosmos.com/

If for example its possible to create a branch off a parent universe, then what looks finite, can be infinite

 

[Mystery Rider]

Commenting On Bostrom

Fractal cosmology doesn't sound very plausible and it has the same problems as a finite universe--presumably there are boundaries between these supposed universes. How and why the boundaries would or could exist and what they would be made of is apparently not addressed, and "nothing exists outside these universes" contains the same paradox, contradiction, and oxymoron "nothing exists," unless these universes are infinite in number.

 

[Mystery Rider]

Commenting On Bostrom

ufology,

I'm not sure what you mean by "you're catching on". It's not as if I wasn't open to the idea of a simulated universe.

 

[Mystery Rider]

ufology,

I agree dreams are a subjective reality and that a simulated universe would not be natural and that the simulants' universe would be real to them but not to the simulators.

 

[Mystery Rider]

ufology,

I'm afraid I can't answer your questions.

 

[Ezechiel]

OK So now we're on the same page again. But where to now? If we assume that our universe is one of these "simulations", how might it be possible to interact directly with the operating system? Where is the command window? Perhaps we could build one ... if we just knew the right code?

Hawking thinks the command window can be found in 'string' theory. Perhaps you could trigger a universe (new simulation) with a complex vibration

 

[Ezechiel]

Personally I have the greatest admiration for minds like Hawking and the guys who can do the math, but at the same time, we can't forget that math is only a tool. It is the chisel with which mathematicians engrave their designs, but in reality their creations may be no more plausible than Escher's staircase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

Not a mathematician, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Mathematics is a tool enabling physicists to express physicial phenomenon or potential support mechanisms in the form of equations.

These equations require models to test the validity of these equations in our real world. As an example, with our current technology testing string theory would require a collider the size of this solar system lol. (You'll understand that your control module is out of our reach for the moment )

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...d-Fizeau-sent-light-pulses-through-a-rotating



Armand Fizeau used this contraption to determine the speed of light and established its speed