Atheism and the Afterlife

starshine1234

I think Elon has a tendency to over-egg science and what's possible.

But many scientists do take the argument seriously. I know Boards doesn't but then I don't mind. I'm happy to be singlehandedly batting off lots of queries.

I feel like the kid who was the only one who could see that the emperor had no clothes.


Nobody is laughing now, as Nigel might say.

unfortunately

I'm not actually arguing that we are in fact in a simulation, I was just explaining the argument.

Yes it could be possible, probably more likely, that we are in a simulated universe created by an advanced civilisation rather than by advanced human civilisation.

The argument could be more general like: if simulations of universes are possible and many are likely to be constructed then we are probably in one of them.

Whether it's an alien simulation or post-human it doesn't matter.

I don't believe it or it doesnt matter because it's unfalsifiable so there's no point to it practically. But I'm not convinced yet of an argument that knocks it down.

I think you are right we may not specifically be in a human created simulation but are we in a simulation in general?

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

I think Elon has a tendency to over-egg science and what's possible.

But many scientists do take the argument seriously. I know Boards doesn't but then I don't mind. I'm happy to be singlehandedly batting off lots of queries.

I feel like the kid who was the only one who could see that the emperor had no clothes.


Nobody is laughing now, as Nigel might say.

Boards is not the Borg. We are all individuals!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY

starshine1234

It may be possible to prove that we live in a simulation.

It is something to do with counting cosmic rays and seeing if they're truly random. Computers cannot produce true random numbers.

It was mentioned in one of the two newspaper articles I linked to.

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

Yes it could be possible, probably more likely, that we are in a simulated universe created by an advanced civilisation rather than by advanced human civilisation.

Ok, so what if the simulation is a construct rather than a piece of software? After all the simplest way to accurately represent a planet full of people such as earth and mankind might be to simply build it. What makes one of these possibilities more or less valid than the other?

My point is with the tiniest bit of exploration into your initially stated possibility you start to uncover a multitude of initially similar but rapidly diverging and contradictory alternate possibilities that are every bit as valid as the initial possibility. The number of such possibilities is large enough to render the probability of any given one being true to be insignificant.

Where you end up at the bottom of this rabbit hole is with religious belief, and Elon like L.Ron before him laughing all the way to the bank.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

It may be possible to prove that we live in a simulation.

It is something to do with counting cosmic rays and seeing if they're truly random. Computers cannot produce true random numbers.

It was mentioned in one of the two newspaper articles I linked to.

Silly argument. If we were in a simulation that that dictates our subjective understanding of our universe, they wouldn't have to.

unfortunately

smacl wrote:

Ok, so what if the simulation is a construct rather than a piece of software? After all the simplest way to accurately represent a planet full of people such as earth and mankind might be to simply build it. What makes one of these possibilities more or less valid than the other?

The confusion seems to be over what's possible and what's probable.

The argument is that advanced simulations are potentially a 100 years away with our technology and its easy to run millions of them. Debatable, but reasonably plausable.

It's not as plausible that there are millions of constructed Earths in the universe. That would require a civilisation with vastly more power and knowledge - it could be hypothetically possible but is it plausible based on what we know now.

Bringing up religion and L. Ron Hubbard isn't relevant its just an academic/philosophical argument. I'm an atheist, the argument isn't going to "convince" me that we live in a simulation because it's unfalsifiable.

starshine1234

smacl wrote: »

Silly argument. If we were in a simulation that that dictates our subjective understanding of our universe, they wouldn't have to.

While I take your viewpoint on board, with respect, on this issue I will take more heed of what professional scientists and mathematicans say.

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

The argument is that advanced simulations are potentially a 100 years away with our technology and its easy to run millions of them. Debatable, but reasonably plausable.

We run advanced simulations today. We may have artificial intelligence in 100 years capable of subjective thought. Running a single simulation containing 7.4 billion of them, in an interactive virtual environment containing many trillions of other independent animals and an observable universe that is many light years in diameter and can be examined at a detail level that is subatomic does not seem plausible. Running a huge number of such simulations is a fantasy that meets and exceeds that of an advanced civilisation that can build planets.

The nearest plausible thing to the simulation theory is one where we have an AI in a very limited simulation where we simply dupe its subjective thinking into believing it is part of a much larger universe. Artificial realisation of solipsism could well be achievable, but why bother?

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

While I take your viewpoint on board, with respect, on this issue I will take more heed of what professional scientists and mathematicans say.

Good for you. Nine out of ten people can't believe its not butter.

starshine1234

smacl wrote: »

We run advanced simulations today. We may have artificial intelligence in 100 years capable of subjective thought. Running a single simulation containing 7.4 billion of them, in an interactive virtual environment containing many trillions of other independent animals and an observable universe that is many light years in diameter and can be examined at a detail level that is subatomic does not seem plausible. Running a huge number of such simulations is a fantasy that meets and exceeds that of an advanced civilisation that can build planets.

The nearest plausible thing to the simulation theory is one where we have an AI in a very limited simulation where we simply dupe its subjective thinking into believing it is part of a much larger universe. Artificial realisation of solipsism could well be achievable, but why bother?

It may not seem plausible to you but have you read scientific papers on the topic?

Because the scientific papers I have read do appear to concede that it is possible, and plausible.

It is certainly not fantasy. Harry Potter is fantasy.

looksee

How do you know Harry Potter is fantasy?

starshine1234

because the author said so.

She could be lying of course.

How do I know anthing is real?

I don't

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

It may not seem plausible to you but have you read scientific papers on the topic?

Because the scientific papers I have read do appear to concede that it is possible, and plausible.

It is certainly not fantasy. Harry Potter is fantasy.

References please, which papers specifically? FWIW, my own educational background and work over the last 30 years does include mathematics (discrete methods specifically), complexity theory and algorithmics. If you think that because we have made such huge advances in computation in recent years we will be able solve any mathematical problem through computation you could do worse than read up on NP-completeness and problems that require superpolynomial time to solve. I currently have a stack of journal articles on my desk relating to processing large data, and the reason I get to spend so much time on boards is because I'm regularly waiting for my computers to solve problems that an average human mind would find trivial.

starshine1234

Is it possible that Harry Potter is real, and that the Harry Potter universe is actually the real universe?

Our universe may have been created by a magican in the Harry Potter universe, perhaps Harry himself, and our universe may actually exist inside a small broach that the magican wears on his cloak.

The idea is unfalsifiable and so it isn't a scientific theory.

unfortunately

smacl wrote:

We run advanced simulations today. We may have artificial intelligence in 100 years capable of subjective thought. Running a single simulation containing 7.4 billion of them, in an interactive virtual environment containing many trillions of other independent animals and an observable universe that is many light years in diameter and can be examined at a detail level that is subatomic does not seem plausible. Running a huge number of such simulations is a fantasy that meets and exceeds that of an advanced civilisation that can build planets.

I agree, you probably need a computer made of more than all the atoms of the universe to create an extremely accurately model of the universe

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

I'm regularly waiting for my computers to solve problems that an average human mind would find trivial.

i used to wonder when doing basic geometry in school whether infinity equals minus infinity. because a vertical line has a slope of both infinity and minus infinity.
can you ask the computer about that?

DeiseMan4

starshine1234 wrote: »

I think Elon has a tendency to over-egg science and what's possible.

But many scientists do take the argument seriously. I know Boards doesn't but then I don't mind. I'm happy to be singlehandedly batting off lots of queries.

I feel like the kid who was the only one who could see that the emperor had no clothes.


Nobody is laughing now, as Nigel might say.

completely!!!! Over-rated arrogant twat where many of his businesses lose money??? Lucky he has that nest egg.

Dis-proving beyond belief an elon 'idea'
youtube .com/watch?v=DDwe2M-LDZQ

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i used to wonder when doing basic geometry in school whether infinity equals minus infinity. because a vertical line has a slope of both infinity and minus infinity.
can you ask the computer about that?

For fun with math questions, Wolfram Alpha is your only man (says he supping a pint of plain)

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

I agree, you probably need a computer made of more than all the atoms of the universe to create an extremely accurately model of the universe

So from that do we conclude that the simulations that we live in are inaccurate, that the simulation idea is maybe not so plausible, that other seemingly far fetched ideas are equally plausible or all three?

I one sense I agree with Starshine that it as an argument the simulation idea is interesting to investigate, but I don't think it survives scrutiny any more than the myriad or other interesting yet bizarre possibilities out there. (Brane theory anyone?)

unfortunately

smacl wrote:

So from that do we conclude that the simulations that we live in are inaccurate, that the simulation idea is maybe not so plausible, that other seemingly far fetched ideas are equally plausible or all three?

As I said in my first post, if you think it is possible for these simulation to exist in the future then argument makes sense.

I was just discussing the concept rather than putting forward a position. It's likely that it's not possible to run so many sophisticated simulations, hence we don't live in one. That was my suggestion for attacking the argument.

Kidchameleon

starshine1234 wrote: »

While I take your viewpoint on board, with respect, on this issue I will take more heed of what professional scientists and mathematicans say.

There are usb dongles that generate truly random numbers. Im a scientist by the way.

magicbastarder

what method do they use to ensure they're truly random?

swampgas

magicbastarder wrote: »

what method do they use to ensure they're truly random?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

For real examples...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_hardware_random_number_generators

starshine1234

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There are usb dongles that generate truly random numbers. Im a scientist by the way.

How do they work?

As far as I know the only way a computer can produce a genuine random number is by using some feature of the real world, as the real world is supposed to contain true randomness.

For example, a Geiger counter, which counts cosmic rays, can be used to produce true random numbers. The cosmic rays are supposedly random and therefore they cannot be predicted.

A computer algorithm cannot be used to produce random numbers. If a hacker had access to the computer state, and to the algorithm then the supposedly random numbers could be predicted.


If we live in a simulation it may be that our universe is incapable of producing true randomness, because the universe would be based on a computer algorithm. Therefore, counting cosmic rays may reveal that we live in a simulation, rather than in a real world.
Physics predicts that cosmic rays are random, not pseudo random.



The USB dongle could use something like the natural fluctuations in the electricity supply to produce randomness. If, of course, the fluctations in the electricity supply are genuinely random.

Online gambling sites are aware of this and they explain on their sites how they use hardware (i.e. real world) random number generators.

starshine1234

Can humans produce a random number through thought?

The answer would appear to be no.

Our minds would seem to be caused by the physical activity of our brains, and our universe is deterministic, so therefore, the same problem which prevents computer algorithms from producing random numbers also prevent us from doing it.

If our brains work using classical physics of course.

Perhaps quantum dynamics has a role to play in human thought. If so, perhaps that could provide genuine randomness.

Perhaps modern physics is wrong and perhaps no true randomness exists, even in quantum systems.


It seems clear that it's not possible to start with a number, then perform a sequence of maths operations, to end up with a random number.
Where would the randomness have come from?

That issue affects all physical systems, except perhaps those based on quantum dynamics.


Radioactivity of course is supposed to be random.

swampgas

starshine1234 wrote: »

Can humans produce a random number through thought?

The answer would appear to be no.

Our minds would seem to be caused by the physical activity of our brains, and our universe is deterministic, so therefore, the same problem which prevents computer algorithms from producing random numbers also prevent us from doing it.

If our brains work using classical physics of course.

Perhaps quantum dynamics has a role to play in human thought. If so, perhaps that could provide genuine randomness.

Perhaps modern physics is wrong and perhaps no true randomness exists, even in quantum systems.


It seems clear that it's not possible to start with a number, then perform a sequence of maths operations, to end up with a random number.
Where would the randomness have come from?

That issue affects all physical systems, except perhaps those based on quantum dynamics.

There are two kinds of "random" - what we might call pseudo-random and true random. Irrational numbers often have random sequences of digits - Pi is a good example. Without calculating Pi there is no way to predict what the next digit will be, however the digits of Pi are always the same no matter how many times you do the calculation. Pseudo-random is good enough for lots of applications (Monte-Carlo simulation for example).

Cryptography needs true randomness - otherwise the attacker could just generate the same "random" key as the victim. As software is inherently deterministic the only way to get true randomness is with external input. One easy way is to sample the user's mouse movements, or to sample input on a microphone, but for truly reliable results you just need to go for things that the laws of physics tell us are truly random: things like thermal noise and radioactivity.

The brain isn't as deterministic as a computer. But I can't see an easy way to generate high quality random data just by thinking about it.

Radioactivity of course is supposed to be random.

There's no "supposed" about it. It is accepted to be absolutely, fundamentally, random.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

Can humans produce a random number through thought?

The answer would appear to be no.

Our minds would seem to be caused by the physical activity of our brains, and our universe is deterministic, so therefore, the same problem which prevents computer algorithms from producing random numbers also prevent us from doing it.

From my rather limited understanding, the universe is only deterministic at a quantum level once you allow for observer effect in all your equations. So while the universe may be considered deterministic from a materialist philosophical point of view, it will always appear non-deterministic to us as we are a part of the universe and cannot observe it objectively. So from our objective position, the universe is actually stochastic and will always includes randomness.

As for a computer program or mathematical expression, it is no more than a model, the complexity of which determine how random the number it can generate will be. As for the simulated universe idea, consider how complex the computer program that generated a random number of similar strength to the USB dongle previously linked would have to be. Now consider how many orders of magnitude more complex a single human mind would be. Then multiply by 4.7 billion. Then add in a working detailed model of every other item in our known universe. That gives you one simulation of our existence. Now multiply that by the number of simulations you think would be needed for us to be probably part of a simulation and tell me if you still think we're part of a simulated universe?

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

Radioactivity of course is supposed to be random.

If you consider this to be true, then you clearly don't consider the universe to be deterministic.

starshine1234

Radioactivity is random.

swampgas wrote: »

There's no "supposed" about it. It is accepted to be absolutely, fundamentally, random.

Yes, but if the universe is simulated would you still say it's random?

If we simulate a universe we'd be unable to generate true randomness in our model, because of the restrictions we're talking about.

Of course, we could 'pass through' the randomness that exists in our universe but only if it is truly random.

If there's a nested stack of simulated universes, would it be the case that the only true source of randomness would be the topmost 'real' universe?

What if there is no 'topmost' 'real' universe?
I have seen it suggested.

After all, we have no explanation for the universe.

It's turtles all the way down.