Jump to content

Simulated reality


Randolpin

Recommended Posts

my wifes screams tells me she shared the same delusion. Here is the trick, if our universe is a simulation then a multiverse must exist.

Secondly the simulation is our reality.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot depends on powerfulness of (pseudo-) random number generator.

If in C/C++ you start program which is using pseudo random numbers, seed value is set to 1, like you would call srand(1);

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/srand/

When seed value is always the same, rand() will return always the same sequence of numbers over and over again.

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/rand/

But if you will call srand(time(NULL)); generated sequence will be changing.

Every simulated version of Universe would be slightly different.

It would be dead boring to have always the same simulation (regardless of what is simulated) over and over again.

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

If you are a simulation, the reason for the delusion might be accidental or intended by either developer or hacker.

But then you have proved my point...^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

What proof? If you are not a simulation, you may be delusional.

Damned! Is that the only choice I have? Being a simulation or being delusional?

What does that mean for the OP? Is he a simulation or is he delusional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious how the OP defines simulation. In many ways, we are in one, but in others we're clearly not. Consciousness is a verb, not a noun. So too with the self.

Finally, why is this thread in Physics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Damned! Is that the only choice I have? Being a simulation or being delusional?

What does that mean for the OP? Is he a simulation or is he delusional?

You may have misunderstood, or perhaps your interpretation is correct. IDK I'm skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

my wifes screams tells me she shared the same delusion. Here is the trick, if our universe is a simulation then a multiverse must exist.

Secondly the simulation is our reality.

If that multiverse exist, it must also be simulated and so on and we have an infinite regression. This is explained further in the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, they are both nouns (-ness is a suffix used in English to convert an adjective to a noun).

Given my respect for you and your abilities, I'll compromise with you here and suggest instead that they CAN be both. We can both be correct.

To clarify, I was making a different point, namely that consciousness and self are not fixed unchanging things, but instead hugely dynamic constantly changing and evolving processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Given my respect for you and your abilities, I'll compromise with you here and suggest instead that they CAN be both. We can both be correct.

While it is true that many nouns can be used as verbs (*) I struggle to imagine how "consciousness" could be used like that.

"I wasn't sure what was happening until I counsciounessed it" - sounds wrong.

"He is busy selfing himself at the moment" - ???

Quote

To clarify, I was making a different point, namely that consciousness and self are not fixed unchanging things, but instead hugely dynamic constantly changing and evolving processes.

I guessed you might mean it in a metaphorical sense, but I had no idea what that was!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I guessed you might mean it in a metaphorical sense, but I had no idea what that was!

In many ways, discussing consciousness and self are like discussing a section of river or waterfall. By the time you point to it, it's no longer where you're pointing. It's changed entirely. I'm on a conference call right now, but will try to return to this thread later if I conceive of a better way to express this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In many ways, discussing consciousness and self are like discussing a section of river or waterfall. By the time you point to it, it's no longer where you're pointing. It's changed entirely. I'm on a conference call right now, but will try to return to this thread later if I conceive of a better way to express this point.

 

I might claim that consciousness and self are ongoing non-repeating processes - but not linguistically that they must be thought of as verbs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness and self are both so rooted in a process of continual creation and formation ... dynamic activation and deactivation patterns and cascades... that the idea of calling them a verb for shorthand makes perfect sense to me, but I'm admittedly looking at it from an almost entirely neurocortical and chemistry-based level.

Again, it's a bit like asking to point to the wind...at best, we can see symptoms of the wind. It's the allegory of the cave writ large. We're essentially chasing shadows or ghosts (if you'll allow some poetic license).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.