What would it mean if it is?

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as/

It would mean we aren't what we think we are. We may only be a life-like illusion of that has fooled itself.

Yes, we'd be little programs running around following our programming. Do we have souls? Are we really real? Are we plugged into the matrix? the implications are profound indeed.

What a wonderful time to be alive (assuming we are alive).

Well. Does it matter? Do you think you could form an union of deceived n weild ur axe against the simulators? Lol

I'd say it matters as much as any scientific question.

Right now I don't think most people would consider a simulated human inside a computer to be "real" even if he had all the same thoughts, emotions and desires as the rest of us. But, if we're all simulations inside a computer, suddenly Super Mario may be alive too. Does he have rights? If we unplug him, is it murder?

If this universe is one day doomed, could we simply write another one and move everyone over?

what do u think is the source of power for this compu we r in?

Don't u shout ! Just whisper in my ear. 80 20 fair ? Lol do u think the simulator is unaware of us forming in his system as tiny invisible bacteria?

Could not we just nourish the dream of ousting that very simulator? Who ud be the most elligible to sit on the big chair? Obamama ? I hope i remember the spelling right !

And hey. What ud it take to look like richard gere n happily live everafter with winona rider in the new world ?
Erm.. Also could i ask for an undisclosed everlasting extramarital affair with a(cant use the. Can we?) revived merilyn monroe. I sure ud not let her kill herself this time..

I'm intrigued by the idea of nested simulations. We may be some nth-level simulation running under an (n-1)th-level simulation, etc...

The only thing we could possibly know in such a situation is that some ultimate reality exists. Each simulation would probably differ slightly from that ultimate reality such that by the time the simulation reaches the nth level, the virtual reality might have only tiny similarities with the original reality.

Where does the energy come from? Or r we simulating that too?

To what energy do you refer?

The energy within our simulated universe? Or the energy used to power the computer within which our simulated universe resides?

The former would simply be another part of the simulation.

The later however, would have to be someplace "outside" and therefore be unknowable to us under our current circumstances.

But, we'd know it must be there, somewhere. The next step is to ask how to look for it.

Thats why i like philosophy but hate philosophers. He he

lol
one needs a forest to know one can't see it for the trees.
It is not sublime without a constellation of paradoxes to elicit the torment of the observer.
Who decides, dictates, and defines paradoxes anyway:sublime?
nature is an mixed allegory of anthropomorphic metaphors.
ahh..the alchemist turns lead into gold, the world is flat, collaborative organizations are flatter, and no one agrees anymore because it is fashionable to be morally equivalent without a moral compass or bothered with the nuisance of wrestling with a universal code of ethics that would disrupt the bliss of those who believe freedom and liberty is a subjective foundation for enthroning anarchistic architecture.
The only reason socialism is an endless experiment in futility is because perception is reality. Socialism is a quintessential hologram, prey to fascism, a ready-made victim that victimizes.

snap. who hoards the gold, but the alchemists with all the lead? lol

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is if the universe is a simulation it means there must be a god. A simulation of reality needs a creator even if reality doesn't.

I'd bet most theists would be distressed to think that God Almighty might be a nerdy kid (with tape on his glasses & a pen protector in his shirt pocket) doing a high school project on his computer. I find the thought quite entertaining myself.

I agree. An amusing idea indeed.

God is a zit faced teenager desperately trying to get laid.

I really do not like words like illusion, and simulation used to describe "reality", or the "universe", or " existence" becuase when we analyze what theses words mean, it makes a mess of itself.


Reality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".

So saying, "reality is an illusion" when reality means that which ACTUALLY exists, its a contradiction in terms. The thing that is the illusion cannot also be the thing it represents, or else its not an illusion. Same goes with simulation. It cant be the thing it simulates and also be the thing itself.


This is really the same for universe, and existence.

Non-starter IMHO. Word games and no much else.


If we find we are all made of tiny super string sized cosmic bacon crumbles, its not a cosmic bacon crumble illusion, its just we did not realize that reality was made of bacon. Our knowledge has changed, not reality. emmm bacon . . . I need to eat breakfast.

If it were,we'd probably never know,since we would be part of the Simulation!

I assume you guys didn't read the link I posted at the top.

Here's the thing, as we look closer and closer at the smallest bits of the universe we're beginning to see things that suggest that reality isn't real.

When you look at a photograph very closely, like under a microscope, you can see the distortions. And that's the kind of thing they're seeing when they look closely at "reality." Distortions.

The link explained a measurement that's within our current ability to take and would confirm that we're living inside a simulation, if we are.

The most important line in that text is:

"One problem is that the computer lattice may be constructed in an entirely different way to the one envisaged by these guys."

I'm glad the author made this comment. I keep hearing all kinds of discussion about this topic, and related topics, and people keep forgetting to account for possibilities that they haven't considered, like this.

I don't think there is any research being done which could be said to eventually provide 'convincing evidence' for either side of the question "Is our universe a numeric simulation simulation?"

Any apparent evidence for 'no' could simply be due to us misunderstanding the nature of the simulation. And there is no reason a non-simulated universe can't also have many of the qualities of a simulated universe, so any apparent evidence for 'yes' isn't definitive.

This is in no way a new idea. Hundreds of sci-fi books, many theoretical papers have proposed such ideas. All with no reason to believe that any observable difference in any particle interactions would, or even could provide evidence of such a situation, AND for the reasons I have stated I wouldn't even call it simulation, or illusion, Id just call it a universe, if no differences exist then there exists no reason to differentiate. Any argument demanding any limitation to all possible future computational systems is by definition an argument from ignorance. Thus saying that all sims must by there very nature have certain properties is a fallacy.