User Tag List

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: Are We Living in a Simulation??????

  1. #41
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31,359
    Thanks
    12,953
    Thanked: 33,080
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Quote Originally Posted by Oceander View Post
    That wasn't what my comment was about. It was about whether Goedel's theorems would apply to a simulated system, such as is under discussion.
    A simulation is a formal axiomatic system.

    It is capable of modeling basic arithmetic.

    The conditions are met.

  2. #42
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31,359
    Thanks
    12,953
    Thanked: 33,080
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Quote Originally Posted by Fall River View Post
    I don't believe in it but here's some food for thought: What if those doing the simulating are themselves simulated. And what if those simulating the simulators are also simulated. And what if there are an infinite number of simulators involved in our simulation. Can we get some physicists to look into this?
    This is called recursion, which requires a proof by induction. Godel says, there is no such proof.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Fall River (10-17-2020)

  4. #43
    V.I.P. V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsOverdriveTagger First ClassSocial3 months registered
    Awards:
    King of Publishing
    Overall activity: 99.8%

    Oceander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    LIRR
    Posts
    5,632
    Thanks
    8,358
    Thanked: 8,858
    Rep Power
    13509630
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    A simulation is a formal axiomatic system.

    It is capable of modeling basic arithmetic.

    The conditions are met.
    Really? All simulations are, ipso facto, formal systems which are consistent and effectively axiomatized?
    So let us stop talkin' falsely now
    The hour's getting late -- Jimi Hendrix

  5. #44
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31,359
    Thanks
    12,953
    Thanked: 33,080
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Quote Originally Posted by Oceander View Post
    Really? All simulations are, ipso facto, formal systems which are consistent and effectively axiomatized?
    Well, if it ain't, you're kinda wasting your time, aintcha?

    Not trying to be facetious. People do simulations just cause they're curious, it happens.

    You're supposed be testing something specific though.

  6. #45
    V.I.P. V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsOverdriveTagger First ClassSocial3 months registered
    Awards:
    King of Publishing
    Overall activity: 99.8%

    Oceander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    LIRR
    Posts
    5,632
    Thanks
    8,358
    Thanked: 8,858
    Rep Power
    13509630
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Well, if it ain't, you're kinda wasting your time, aintcha?

    Not trying to be facetious. People do simulations just cause they're curious, it happens.

    You're supposed be testing something specific though.
    Wasting my time with what? Asking about whether a simulation, qua simulation, is automatically the sort of consistent axiomatic formal system to which Goedel's theories would apply?
    So let us stop talkin' falsely now
    The hour's getting late -- Jimi Hendrix

  7. #46
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31,359
    Thanks
    12,953
    Thanked: 33,080
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Quote Originally Posted by Oceander View Post
    Wasting my time with what? Asking about whether a simulation, qua simulation, is automatically the sort of consistent axiomatic formal system to which Goedel's theories would apply?
    lol - it was a "you generic"

    I'll go out on a limb here. If you're simulating a universe, then yes.

    It is impossible to simulate the laws of physics without a consistent axiomatic formalization.

    Many have tried, and failed.

    Quantum theory is axiomatically formalized, and I don't think one could simulate a universe without it.

  8. #47
    V.I.P. V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsOverdriveTagger First ClassSocial3 months registered
    Awards:
    King of Publishing
    Overall activity: 99.8%

    Oceander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    LIRR
    Posts
    5,632
    Thanks
    8,358
    Thanked: 8,858
    Rep Power
    13509630
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    lol - it was a "you generic"

    I'll go out on a limb here. If you're simulating a universe, then yes.

    It is impossible to simulate the laws of physics without a consistent axiomatic formalization.

    Many have tried, and failed.

    Quantum theory is axiomatically formalized, and I don't think one could simulate a universe without it.
    Fair enough. I've had problems with the generic "you" in the past, so I'm trying to switch to using the pronoun "one" when I can - I'm not always successful, unfortunately - and I believe it does take some of the tension out of online conversations.

    Limb-wise, I would generally agree, at least in principle. It would be interesting to see a proof of the proposition. I do recall several years ago seeing an article about someone who had successfully demonstrated the application of Goedel's theorem to the real world and the question of the existence of God, although for the life of me I doubt if I would be able to find the links again, so take that for what it's worth.

    Query: given how Neo and the agents were able to "game" the simulation in the Matrix, does that imply that the simulation of the Matrix was not the sort of formal system to which Goedel's theorem would apply? Or, in the alternative, is it perhaps a hypothetical illustration of the inherent freedom such a formal system provides, in terms of functionalities that exist, but which cannot be proven, at most only experienced?

    Keeping in mind that it was a work of fiction, after all, and so whatever the authors wanted to happen, would happen.
    So let us stop talkin' falsely now
    The hour's getting late -- Jimi Hendrix

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Oceander For This Useful Post:

    nonsqtr (10-17-2020)

  10. #48
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialTagger First ClassCreated Blog entryVeteran
    Overall activity: 83.0%

    Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    32,077
    Thanks
    66,501
    Thanked: 29,981
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Quote Originally Posted by Fall River View Post
    I don't believe in it but here's some food for thought: What if those doing the simulating are themselves simulated. And what if those simulating the simulators are also simulated. And what if there are an infinite number of simulators involved in our simulation. Can we get some physicists to look into this?
    Actually, my friend, you may not be as far off as you think. There are physicists and philosophers who think we are a dimension within a dimension a universe within in a universe.

    I think this simulation concept may not be that far off the mark. When you think about it look at how many people believe in deities of one sort or another and believe that there is some type of "life" after "death". How many times have I heard Christians say, "God works in mysteries ways" or " It's in God's hand now" or "So and so has gone to be with God" etc. maybe that's our unconscious mind remembering the time before the "holodeck" simulation started. And what if the "holodeck" simulation is a "holodeck" simulation within an other "holodeck" simulation.

    Oh well this is what philosophers do contemplate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Quark For This Useful Post:

    Fall River (10-17-2020)

  12. #49
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31,359
    Thanks
    12,953
    Thanked: 33,080
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Quote Originally Posted by Oceander View Post
    Fair enough. I've had problems with the generic "you" in the past, so I'm trying to switch to using the pronoun "one" when I can - I'm not always successful, unfortunately - and I believe it does take some of the tension out of online conversations.

    Limb-wise, I would generally agree, at least in principle. It would be interesting to see a proof of the proposition. I do recall several years ago seeing an article about someone who had successfully demonstrated the application of Goedel's theorem to the real world and the question of the existence of God, although for the life of me I doubt if I would be able to find the links again, so take that for what it's worth.

    Query: given how Neo and the agents were able to "game" the simulation in the Matrix, does that imply that the simulation of the Matrix was not the sort of formal system to which Goedel's theorem would apply? Or, in the alternative, is it perhaps a hypothetical illustration of the inherent freedom such a formal system provides, in terms of functionalities that exist, but which cannot be proven, at most only experienced?

    Keeping in mind that it was a work of fiction, after all, and so whatever the authors wanted to happen, would happen.
    Well, to your query, all I can say is, I have yet to understand (fully, or at all) how Godel's theorem may apply to random processes.

    Random processes are "wierd", they're axiomatized and algebraic but there is something in there that hasn't been described yet.

    The simpler stuff is harder, at least for me it is.

    In random processes there are the key concepts of supremum and infimum, these concepts of "boundary" are very different from anything we'd normally consider "algebraic".

    The closest thing so far is what they call a "co-domain" of a function. It's not the range, it's the space that includes the range. So in essence there is "more information" than is really being accounted for.

    I don't know how this might play into basic logic, the concept doesn't conveniently fit in any of the traditional buckets.

    Your choice of words seems to be spot on though. "Inherent freedom" is exactly right.

  13. #50
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Overall activity: 47.0%

    SharetheHedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    10,708
    Thanks
    2,275
    Thanked: 10,761
    Rep Power
    16298372
    Perhaps Oceander, Nonsqtr, or others with more of a science background than I, can comment, but isn't there now a discovery that some sub-atomic particles, far removed from one another, respond instantaneously to vibration or other provocation, and that this could indicate that our entire reality is one single projection or simulation?
    Last edited by SharetheHedge; 10-18-2020 at 10:26 AM.
    "Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the universe we are not. Both are equally terrifying. (Arthur C. Clarke)


    "I do not object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance"
    (Amy Farrah Fowler)

    "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society." ​(Aristotle)

    "For the Lord will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the TRUMP of God..." 1Thess.4:16

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •