The Matrix
So, odds are we are living in a simulated world, the theory going that if you accept that someone (somewhere, somewhen) can build a computer that can simulate a world (universe, city, whatever) - then it's going to be done, and if it can be done then it's probably going to be done quite often.

Probably hundreds or millions of times to experiment and see what happens with different rules, or to predict the outcome of an event or just to see or whatever, but hey - lets just say there's 2 simulated realities and just the one "real" one.

That gives you 2 to 1 odds you're not in the real one and are just a simulated person, and if there are hundreds or millions of simulated realities...

well, what are the chances you're a real person really?
( Allisade would love to hear from you, Mon 31 Aug 2009, 19:26, 22 replies)

I can't decide if you are telling this as a nutter story
or if you actually believe it. Just in case you do believe it, you're a fucking idiot.

If you're just taking the piss, please accept my apologies.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 31 Aug 2009, 19:35, closed)

what an interesting reaction
I basically am putting it out there just for the mental exercise, not as a personal belief and certainly not in the effort to "convert" anyone or the like - I can't really imagine what difference it would make one way or another anyway, I'm personally gonna live my life as best I can either way...

but I'm not sure I understand the strength of your reaction - sure it's a weird little theory but ... "a fucking idiot" ? what's particularly stupid about it? That you're responding to I mean?
( Allisade would love to hear from you, Mon 31 Aug 2009, 19:54, closed)

because it's a first year undergrad philosophy bar argument
to try and sound clever.

It's an idiotic argument with more holes than Swiss cheese. It's in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster or Russell's teapot - they are entertaining for confusing 12 year olds and looking cool in student bars but they have no relevance in actual real world.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 31 Aug 2009, 20:28, closed)

It's from
simulation-argument.com

The author of which doesn't actually think "we're probably computer simulations", but that's what the idea has evolved into in popular culture.
(apeloverage committed the vile act of onanism on, Mon 31 Aug 2009, 20:18, closed)

and this is the problem
popular culture shouldn't be allowed to play in the same sandpit as science (or, frankly, reality, a lot of the time) until it learns to know what the fuck it is talking about.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 31 Aug 2009, 20:29, closed)

In fairness...
He thinks it's bearably likely.

I like Nick Bostrom. I just don't understand him.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 31 Aug 2009, 21:02, closed)

I don't understand...
Surely the whole thing about philosophy is that you question so called given 'knowns'....part of the debate the Matrix brought to popular consciousness was should you just accept what appears to be...not so much 'are we all clones in tanks' but what does it mean to be alive/functioning human being/active participant in life i.e. not just a drone and a consumer...

Also, can I just ask...why do you have to be a fucking idiot to question what we perceive to be reality? I dont understand why that's a college knob type of discussion... :(
( curvylittlegoth heard the voices in your head on, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 0:26, closed)

see below
but in this case because the proposed alternative is currently impossible, anyone with a grounding in physics and computing understands that.

You're questioning perception of reality but based on another scientific premise. So if you don't understand enough about the science concerned to see the flaws in that, then you're starting from a pretty silly position. You might just as well propose that the entire universe is contained in the kitchen table-leg of a giant called Terry. Effectively without the scientific background you know no more or less about the starting position of your hypotheis and it's no more or less likely that Bostrum's theory, it's just that Bostrum drops in more philosophical smoke and mirrors.

And personally, I don't think anyone is in the position to question what we perceive to be reality, until they actually completely know all there is to know about what we perceive to be reality, and I sure as fuck don't. do you think anyone else does?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 10:39, closed)

David, is that you?
My colleague always used to go on about this. Are you him :)

Not sure why you've been such a hard time over this, as it is obviously just a mind game. I think anything that gets the general public thinking (thinking at all, let alone the meaning of life) is a good thing.

I love how scientists like some who have commented here are trying to set themselves apart from the rest of us. The idea that we don't know, can't understand means we shouldn't be engaged in conversation about these things. Surely that just leads to a new 'priest' class. Take on Faith what we say about Evolution, Life, Genetics, etc. because you will never know the true meaning.

If you have a problem with mind game, if it's "full of holes like swiss cheese" then say how. I'm not a mathmatician/Scientist so please enlighten me. Don't just critise.

You say we'll take this and place it into pop culture and pervert it etc but only because no one has bothered to explained why it's wrong.

Sorry for ramble, it's late and sometimes I can't stop myself from being wound up by pretensious scientificer-than-thou types.
(ab1kenobe, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 6:20, closed)

I assume you're talking to me
I apologise for coming across as pretentious. It's a slightly sore point with me, since teaching and researching science is what I now do, and my life is a constant battle against idiot theories spouted on the internet and in the mainstream press and then believed and taken in by the kids I end up lecturing. And, frankly, too many of the adults as well. My route has been Physics/Biochemical Engineering/Medical Engineering so I've unfortunately been exposed to a lot of rubbish.

I didn't bother to explain the holes because I thought that anyone who was entering the discussion would have read the theories concerned and spotted them, although that might not have been a fair assumption on my part

and the holes? well, there are a lot, but the major one in Bostrom's theory.... I'm assuming, since you're replying, you're aware of the theory? the first assumption is catastrophically scientifically flawed, since we can't build a simulator capable of creating such a construct in the first place, the whole thing rather falls down*

(there are some rather more interesting quantum/metaphysics theories based in the far future about such constructs related to the big crunch if you really want to know more, but it's fair to warn you the physics is fairly fucking hardcore)

Russell's teapot? falls down utterly (I actually suspect it was a complete joke in the first place, but that doesn't stop philosophers debating it endlessly) as the existence or not of a small teapot in elliptical orbit somewhere is technically verifiable. With the right teapot-detecting equipment. The premise of the existence or not of a God doesn't follow a true/false verifiable scientific model in the same way and anyway, the burden of proof/not proof is a concept forced upon religion by science, not vice-versa.**

Questioning is fine. It's the root of good science. But the internet and modern society has created a situation where people question things when they don't have the background knowledge to even understand how the questioning process works, let alone the knowledge to look into the background behind the question. Would you be happy to have some 12 year old flying your airliner because "he'd read about it on the internet"? - it's the same thing.

Philosophy is fine, and worth debating. A good thing, as you said. Scientific philosophy, without the knowledge of science, is a dangerous place to play. A very, very bad thing.


*please don't say "ah, but how do you know that for sure?" that would be like asking how do I know for sure that there aren't pink fairies at the bottom of my filing cabinet"

**There isn't a God either, but I'm afraid that's just my personal opinion and I can't back that up.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 10:17, closed)

I agree with everything you say...
Except the Flying Spaghetti Monster slur.

Originally proposed to show the stupidity of the Intelligent Design "theory", I believe it's become quite an interesting social experiment (possibly created by the US government, to fit in with this weeks theme).

It certainly identifies those people that;
1. Own a computer
2. Believe their God would approve of "kicking someone's ass"
3. Have no sense of irony.

Come "The Day" I can only assume these will be the first up against the wall.
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 14:04, closed)

I agree with you almost entirely
however, "...we can't build a simulator capable of creating such a construct..." - I think part of the original point was that it is not us who have done it. which makes it slightly more plausible.

I don't think it is though, and frankly if a simulation is so good that we can't tell the difference, then there is no difference and the simulation is reality.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 14:08, closed)

your last point is the only interesting part of the hypothesis, to my mind.
but, with the construct, the assumption is surely either we've done it or else some super-race has, in which case you might as well take the Icke route that we're ruled by giant space lizard-men - after all there is, again, no more or less evidence for either.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 15:15, closed)

we're not ruled by giant space-lizard men?
shit.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 16:26, closed)

Sorry you had to find out this way, man.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 17:00, closed)

what amazes me...
is your assumption that posting a slightly entertaining idea in the "conspiracy theory nutters" question of the week on b3ta, is some how meant (or actually is!) a challenge to science and good thinking?

Can I put forth the idea that - this is all just meant as a bit of fun? For adults (or hey even kids =)) to read and talk about and laugh a bit? Or will I get held responsible for ignorant 12 year olds crashing planes ... as some sort of direct result.

Actually ... perhaps I'm guiltly of this in reverse, am I missing the joke where you paranoidly blame humour and idle questions as a conspiracy to destroy us all? with 12 year olds?

Cause that's right funny really =)

Me suddenly being responsible for the fact that people aren't scientifically trained is a quite entertaining thought... I swear I didn't think I had anything to do with it =) If I did - I'm such a evil mastermind (without even realizing it) that I should be using my powers more actively... the things I could accomplish!

I may post a thought about magnetic tubes kept in orbit and used as space elevators next ... that'll undoubtedly drive 7 year olds to perform surgery while high! If I toss out the idea that green is red and red is green the economy could collapse retroactively in the past (oh wait someone did that... oh well =))

THE POWER... I can feel it coursing through me ...

Seriously mate, sorry to poke fun - but it sounds like (maybe) you had a bad day and took it out my way - which is cool, we all do it, a bad day is a bad day and it's gonna come out somewhere... but maybe we could just all just go get a pint instead?
( Allisade would love to hear from you, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 15:24, closed)

because it is?
I think you've kind of missed a bit the point about why this shit annoys me.

yes, of course, it's just b3ta. It's just QOTW. Yes, maybe I am overreacting. OMG, SERIS BZNESS, INTERNET.

But it is serious. People take wikipedia as gospel, believe what they read, here, in the press, all over the place. The information revolution has allowed any fool with a keyboard dobber the ability to spread whatever they like throughout the world, and minds are like sponges.

So, yeah, of course you aren't individually responsible for stupid ideas spreading. But at no point did I say you were, in any of the posts. Only that you might be a fucking idiot, which in hindsight is harsh, and I apologise. But society in general must take a responsibility, and it will come back to haunt us, I am certain of that.

And, yeah, mines a pint of Stella, cheers. :)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 15:43, closed)

Fair enough =)
=)
( Allisade would love to hear from you, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 18:45, closed)

However
Any race that can develop a simulation that seems to be real is doomed.
It's the old Scott Adams joke about holodecks. Once it's possible, men wouldn't need to chase after real women. We'd die out in a generation...
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 14:26, closed)

hehe
That's the first enjoyable response to this I've seen =)

thanks =)
( Allisade would love to hear from you, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 15:07, closed)

enjoyable and probably bang on the money!
look at the losers on secondlife already
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 16:28, closed)

Think about this then... how do you know you exist?
Bomb Number 20
( Amish Information Systems hates misplaced, commas, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 22:46, closed)