13th floor - by NoonChild on 11:08 15 Apr 2003
Anyone see the film the 13th floor? My friend has been reading philosophy texts pertaining to the films key theme (for his PHD) and is now convinced that, as in the film, it is more than likely we are the product of a computerised simulation created by people who have reached mega processing power in their technology. The idea being that anyone who was able to simulate life and a world would, that is is possible given time to reach that processing power (we are on current projections approximately 10,000 yrs off), therefore we are more likely to be a sentient simulation than a biological race. Either that or we are doomed as a species to die real soon (as in the Doomsday argument, also one of his fav's).
I dont agree, I see dodgy reasoning AND it wont change how I live so I dont care too much.
Any thoughts?
Anyone see the film the 13th floor? My friend has been reading philosophy texts pertaining to the films key theme (for his PHD) and is now convinced that, as in the film, it is more than likely we are the product of a computerised simulation created by people who have reached mega processing power in their technology. The idea being that anyone who was able to simulate life and a world would, that is is possible given time to reach that processing power (we are on current projections approximately 10,000 yrs off), therefore we are more likely to be a sentient simulation than a biological race. Either that or we are doomed as a species to die real soon (as in the Doomsday argument, also one of his fav's).
I dont agree, I see dodgy reasoning AND it wont change how I live so I dont care too much.
Any thoughts?
13th floor - by Arislyn on 11:16 15 Apr 2003
*laughs* Actually, this mega-processing philosophy would dovetail nicely with the whole creation theme of the Bible. It only took seven days, we were created by a single, all-powerful being who could affect our lives on any level, we're always under this being's watchful eye....
Sounds like an AI programmer to me!
*laughs* Actually, this mega-processing philosophy would dovetail nicely with the whole creation theme of the Bible. It only took seven days, we were created by a single, all-powerful being who could affect our lives on any level, we're always under this being's watchful eye....
Sounds like an AI programmer to me!
13th floor - by Brad on 11:42 15 Apr 2003
Sounds similar to Matrix. Sorta.
Sounds similar to Matrix. Sorta.
13th floor - by MoonHunter on 02:05 16 Apr 2003
All this computer/ virtual world is just a modern version of DeCarte's infernal demons and the Cartesian "why we can't trust our senses, and that truth can only be found by internal logic" line of reasoning. This was resolved several hundred years ago when they reasoned that "we know what we know and that is all that we can know" (a big paraphrase.. forgive me). Yet we dig it up, give it a new spin, and take it out for a while, until we once again find out that it is just an exercise in logic. The likely hood anyone will resolve this issue is as likely as someone will correctly calculate the last digit of PI.
We could be lesser fragments of oversouls given to the material world to learn and experience. We could be a computer sim. We could be NPCs (or PCs) in a table top roleplaying game. We can be the children of a greater God. The phantasms of a dreamer's dream. In short, we can not know, unless we achieve a meta level of knowledge, which... by definition, we as people of this level can not. The best we can hope for is a glimmer of the truth, a shadow in plato's cave.
And Yes, The 13th floor was a Matrix ripoff with less action and more intellectual feldercarb.
All this computer/ virtual world is just a modern version of DeCarte's infernal demons and the Cartesian "why we can't trust our senses, and that truth can only be found by internal logic" line of reasoning. This was resolved several hundred years ago when they reasoned that "we know what we know and that is all that we can know" (a big paraphrase.. forgive me). Yet we dig it up, give it a new spin, and take it out for a while, until we once again find out that it is just an exercise in logic. The likely hood anyone will resolve this issue is as likely as someone will correctly calculate the last digit of PI.
We could be lesser fragments of oversouls given to the material world to learn and experience. We could be a computer sim. We could be NPCs (or PCs) in a table top roleplaying game. We can be the children of a greater God. The phantasms of a dreamer's dream. In short, we can not know, unless we achieve a meta level of knowledge, which... by definition, we as people of this level can not. The best we can hope for is a glimmer of the truth, a shadow in plato's cave.
And Yes, The 13th floor was a Matrix ripoff with less action and more intellectual feldercarb.
13th floor - by NoonChild on 08:56 16 Apr 2003
Unfortunately the simulated world argument is not supposed to be the old Cartesian chestnut, which tries to show that we could be anywhere/anything but we cant know. This argument tries to show that we most probably are specifically in a computer simulation rather than anyother kind of existance. I haven't read the specific calculations or arguments, and the film does not go in to too much detail about it. BUT the idea does have formal articles written about it.
Unfortunately the simulated world argument is not supposed to be the old Cartesian chestnut, which tries to show that we could be anywhere/anything but we cant know. This argument tries to show that we most probably are specifically in a computer simulation rather than anyother kind of existance. I haven't read the specific calculations or arguments, and the film does not go in to too much detail about it. BUT the idea does have formal articles written about it.
13th floor - by Brad on 09:40 16 Apr 2003
There is that old Tauist (sp?) butterfly scroll:
I dreamed I was a butterfly. Or am I a butterfly dreaming I am a human.
Something like that.
There is that old Tauist (sp?) butterfly scroll:
I dreamed I was a butterfly. Or am I a butterfly dreaming I am a human.
Something like that.
13th floor - by MoonHunter on 05:48 17 Apr 2003
The Butterfly metaphor is both Bhuddist and Taoist and a very powerful one, because it shows the universe is just a matter of persepective, of labeling (which is awake/ real?), and point of the universe.
It was one of our favorites in the philosophy of physics seminar when I was in college. So you know, I was a physics/ philosophy bi major, with an anthro emphasis. After determining that humans were more interesting than particles, I did masters work in sociology, with a specialty in social dynamics. (In short, my field of study is really game mastering... creating a universe and the people, and making it all work... I used to be abused about that by my friends who had more practical and lucrative degrees).
As for the computer simulation... I have read several of those work. They are derivatives of those who were doing work on the holographic universe line of thought. Both philosophers and physicists work with the holographic view (having to do with fractals and the simplicity/ complexity issues of the universe as well as the issues brought forth by the fact that "the plan" is innate in every piece of quantum and made manifest by their summation). Holographic world views hold a warm place in the radical elements of the spiritualist movement and the physics community.
And DeCartes chestnut is the key to existential thought which keeps making the rounds. The Evil Mastermind premise, controlling your inputs, is just the same as being in a computer simulation, IMO. And is just as positional as evil demons in the long run.
The "computer simulation being the universe" line of reasoning is more palitable to those of Scientism, which is most of the Western World. Unsupportable numbers (they have as much validity as gravity wave calculations, all you have to embrace all their assumptions for them to work) combined with a metaphor that people understand, provides a new metaphor for how the universe work. Because it is cloaked in Scientism (terminology, numbers, and untennable technological analogy), this is obviously more true than any number of other metaphors used to define the meta universe (the universe and that which contains and made the universe). After all, those other ways are all old, most being several thousand years old. This being "new" is obviously a better way, is what is implied. However, the modern entry is no less provable than any of the others, unless you accept ALL its initial assumptions, than the flowering of the universe from the central spiritual core, God going Zap, or someone dreaming. And, there is a lot more documentation supporting those ideas, some of it going back thousands of years. If you can accept all their initial assumptions, you would think they are 100% correct as well.
Again, this debate can go on and on, unless some metabeing (being from beyond our reality) enters our reality and says, "well you are just a simulation, deal with it," there is no way to generate closure. And even if one did, there would still be people who did not believe it anyways.
So take the blue pill.
The Butterfly metaphor is both Bhuddist and Taoist and a very powerful one, because it shows the universe is just a matter of persepective, of labeling (which is awake/ real?), and point of the universe.
It was one of our favorites in the philosophy of physics seminar when I was in college. So you know, I was a physics/ philosophy bi major, with an anthro emphasis. After determining that humans were more interesting than particles, I did masters work in sociology, with a specialty in social dynamics. (In short, my field of study is really game mastering... creating a universe and the people, and making it all work... I used to be abused about that by my friends who had more practical and lucrative degrees).
As for the computer simulation... I have read several of those work. They are derivatives of those who were doing work on the holographic universe line of thought. Both philosophers and physicists work with the holographic view (having to do with fractals and the simplicity/ complexity issues of the universe as well as the issues brought forth by the fact that "the plan" is innate in every piece of quantum and made manifest by their summation). Holographic world views hold a warm place in the radical elements of the spiritualist movement and the physics community.
And DeCartes chestnut is the key to existential thought which keeps making the rounds. The Evil Mastermind premise, controlling your inputs, is just the same as being in a computer simulation, IMO. And is just as positional as evil demons in the long run.
The "computer simulation being the universe" line of reasoning is more palitable to those of Scientism, which is most of the Western World. Unsupportable numbers (they have as much validity as gravity wave calculations, all you have to embrace all their assumptions for them to work) combined with a metaphor that people understand, provides a new metaphor for how the universe work. Because it is cloaked in Scientism (terminology, numbers, and untennable technological analogy), this is obviously more true than any number of other metaphors used to define the meta universe (the universe and that which contains and made the universe). After all, those other ways are all old, most being several thousand years old. This being "new" is obviously a better way, is what is implied. However, the modern entry is no less provable than any of the others, unless you accept ALL its initial assumptions, than the flowering of the universe from the central spiritual core, God going Zap, or someone dreaming. And, there is a lot more documentation supporting those ideas, some of it going back thousands of years. If you can accept all their initial assumptions, you would think they are 100% correct as well.
Again, this debate can go on and on, unless some metabeing (being from beyond our reality) enters our reality and says, "well you are just a simulation, deal with it," there is no way to generate closure. And even if one did, there would still be people who did not believe it anyways.
So take the blue pill.
13th floor - by din on 08:17 17 Apr 2003
"I drink, therefore I am"
There is a passing analogy .. my wife has taken to call my time online, at these forums and chatting, emailing and other social activities, even surfing and site building as 'talking to your imaginary friends' as if i typed these forums up entirely myself and you are all characters or more likely there is a big machine called 'cyberspace' that is doing everything I respond to and it is an entity unto itself and when i get checks from online companies or other snail mail it is just the big machine trying to keep me interested. I cannot prove there is an 'ari' sitting at another computer somewhere and I cannot not prove 'noonchild' is just a subroutine.
slightly off-topic that popped into my head ...
She [my wife] also pushes this theory: "During the hot part of the summer the Earth is right on top of the sun, while in the winter it is all the way under it." Heat rises, you see, so whe we are on top we get the bulk of it, while we are on the bottom it is much colder It is a very silly statement, but it has that tiny bit of logic to it that makes it funny and pokes fun at people who like to explain things .. when she says it you can see people starting to explain how summer 'really' works. then they either realize she is goofing around with them, or that what she said is so foreign to there own thinking they do not know where to start because it blantantly shows she is not going to take your assumptions as to how the solar system works and though most can expalin it nobody can prove it.
and one more thing .. i hate posting right after morning tea, i can't seem to stop going on and on .. i'll save my Haley's Bible Handbook rant for a later date
"I drink, therefore I am"
There is a passing analogy .. my wife has taken to call my time online, at these forums and chatting, emailing and other social activities, even surfing and site building as 'talking to your imaginary friends' as if i typed these forums up entirely myself and you are all characters or more likely there is a big machine called 'cyberspace' that is doing everything I respond to and it is an entity unto itself and when i get checks from online companies or other snail mail it is just the big machine trying to keep me interested. I cannot prove there is an 'ari' sitting at another computer somewhere and I cannot not prove 'noonchild' is just a subroutine.
slightly off-topic that popped into my head ...
She [my wife] also pushes this theory: "During the hot part of the summer the Earth is right on top of the sun, while in the winter it is all the way under it." Heat rises, you see, so whe we are on top we get the bulk of it, while we are on the bottom it is much colder
It is a very silly statement, but it has that tiny bit of logic to it that makes it funny and pokes fun at people who like to explain things .. when she says it you can see people starting to explain how summer 'really' works. then they either realize she is goofing around with them, or that what she said is so foreign to there own thinking they do not know where to start because it blantantly shows she is not going to take your assumptions as to how the solar system works and though most can expalin it nobody can prove it.and one more thing .. i hate posting right after morning tea, i can't seem to stop going on and on .. i'll save my Haley's Bible Handbook rant for a later date
13th floor - by NoonChild on 10:08 17 Apr 2003
(say the supporters, but is it?)
This too is what I think is wrong with the argument. Hence my scepticism when my friend goes "no but it's true".....yeah OK, whatever. Good points MoonHunter
| Quote |
| Because it is cloaked in Scientism (terminology, numbers, and untennable technological analogy), this is obviously more true than any number of other metaphors used to define the meta universe |
This too is what I think is wrong with the argument. Hence my scepticism when my friend goes "no but it's true".....yeah OK, whatever. Good points MoonHunter
13th floor - by Arislyn on 10:37 17 Apr 2003
Hehe! Oh, I love your wife's theory, din. That's fabulous. And it makes a wonderful point. Can you ever really prove anything?
When you start talking meta-physics and philosophy, you end up going right past the realm of science and into possibility...which basically poo-poos science. After all, science is based on our own observations of the way the universe works, but if our observations are wrong then science is moot.
Hehe! Oh, I love your wife's theory, din. That's fabulous. And it makes a wonderful point. Can you ever really prove anything?
When you start talking meta-physics and philosophy, you end up going right past the realm of science and into possibility...which basically poo-poos science. After all, science is based on our own observations of the way the universe works, but if our observations are wrong then science is moot.
13th floor - by NoonChild on 10:58 17 Apr 2003
The odd thing about proving things to be true, is that you don't know how near to correct a theory is unless you have some truth to compare it to. But the point of the theory is to postulate a truth because we have no direct knowledge. Therefore epistemology (study of what we can know) is fraught with pitfalls. Something scientists rarely consider or study. So if we think theory A is true because eg it works, we may base a new extended theory B upon that, and then C upon that etc. This has been done many times in history. However if some part of theory A is not really accurate, our later theories could vary wildly from "the Truth"
I like din's wife's way of thinking!!
The odd thing about proving things to be true, is that you don't know how near to correct a theory is unless you have some truth to compare it to. But the point of the theory is to postulate a truth because we have no direct knowledge. Therefore epistemology (study of what we can know) is fraught with pitfalls. Something scientists rarely consider or study. So if we think theory A is true because eg it works, we may base a new extended theory B upon that, and then C upon that etc. This has been done many times in history. However if some part of theory A is not really accurate, our later theories could vary wildly from "the Truth"
I like din's wife's way of thinking!!
13th floor - by Brad on 13:46 17 Apr 2003
Just reminds me of all those holodeck adventures in Star Trek. And the holo-doctor on Voyager.
Also wasn't it Heinlein that had the "multi-verse" in which there were infinite worlds? So that the world you were reading about in a comic book, might really exist on some plane.
Gee, din, you think we are really real?
| Quote |
| computer simulation being the universe |
Just reminds me of all those holodeck adventures in Star Trek. And the holo-doctor on Voyager.
Also wasn't it Heinlein that had the "multi-verse" in which there were infinite worlds? So that the world you were reading about in a comic book, might really exist on some plane.
| Quote |
| talking to your imaginary friends |
Gee, din, you think we are really real?
13th floor - by Arislyn on 13:54 17 Apr 2003
*laughs*
If I'm not real, someone somewhere needs to imagine me a nicer car....One that won't explode into firey doom!
*shakes her fist at whoever is running this crazy story*
*laughs*
If I'm not real, someone somewhere needs to imagine me a nicer car....One that won't explode into firey doom!
*shakes her fist at whoever is running this crazy story*