Do we live in a matrix/simulation?

This is an interesting convernsation I have had with friends in the past, and before you automatically dismiss it, there is some serious evidence to suggest what we are in, is in fact a simulation and not ‘real’ reality.

Here are two articles that talk about it, you can read them if wanting more info, I talk about most of it.  Here 1Here 2.

Given the very fast rise of realistic video games, it is not a far stretch to think we will have fairly realistic virtual reality in the very near future.  The arguments that we live in such are thing are many, and I am mixing a few of them together:

  1.  Given that we will eventually be able to simulate worlds, and we will run thousands/millions of sim, what is more likely that we are the 1/100000000 ‘oringinal’ or that we are the 999999999/1000000000 sim?
  2. Video games have limits and pixels, cosmic rays mysterious limit out at 10^20 volts of energy suggesting a strange limit that does not have a reason why it should.
  3. Not ‘everything’ would need to be simulated, such as other planets/solar system never need to actually be rendered are are literally ‘just background’.
  4. A lot of quantum experiments confirm that particles often do not ‘exist’ in a certain state until we measure it, thus implying a processor-saving mechanism in which only things looked at are rendered.

I find this thought avenue pretty interesting, that we might just be a getaway, a learning experience or maybe trying to find out some problem that hyper-reality is stuck with.  To be sophist about it, how do we know the world existed at all before we were conscious?  It literally might just be the background story.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Do we live in a matrix/simulation?

  1. The philosophical related sources that I am aware of are mainly Kelley Ross’s Kant Fries site,and Kant. Dr Ross does deal with the relation between Quantume Mechanics and Kant

      • I spent a good deal of time in philosophical and religious searching. The thing I settled on as representing the most accurate picture of reality is the Kant Friesian school of Kelley Ross. That is in terms of question like “How do we know things?” and in terms of questions on meaning and in terms of the ultimate nature of things. Mainly this was process of excluding nonviable options. That is going through a lot of different thinkers and trying to evaluate if what they said made sense to me.

  2. You could ask Dr Ross yourself. But my own impression is “empirical realism” excludes a simulation. But your question has lots of different aspects to it. And I am not sure how to condense a simple answer. Mainly we know reality even on the most physical plane is radically different than what we see. We have intellect that enables us to survive, not to perceive reality. So we have to deduce it. On the quantum level things in fact are just possibilities until perceived. So there is no preferred frame of reference. Schopenhauer put it in the best way: representation is half subject and half object. So the simulation is a bit too simplistic. What is going on is the observer depends for his character on the observed, and the observed depends for its character on how it is observed or measured.

      • Evolution of the mind came about because of the need for reproduction and survival. The mind is good at that. It would not be good if what it perceived was unrelated to what is really there. In any case your question is along the lines of two things: How do we know things? What is really there?
        These are objects of discussion in Plato. And in fact he has two areas of reality like Kant. What are called the “world ideas.” To Kant that is called unconditioned reality. Still there is a connection.

        • Eh, I skip the ‘do we exist’ argument in terms of nothingness as its necessary to progress anywhere else.

          Assuming we are here, what reason would consciouness have? In most cases its anti-evolution.

  3. I would like to take the liberty of of quoting the PhD thesis of Dr Ross (ch 3 sec 4):
    “Since Descartes it has been a serious dilemma why a representation caused by an external object need bear any resemblance to the object or tell us anything about it. Any cause is only sufficient to its effect, and sensations as effects conceivably could have any number of possible causes, including God, the deceiving demon, etc. Kant sought to circumvent this problem by proposing that the forms of objectivity of external objects are not conveyed to us causally from without but are actually imposed by the subject from within. This “Copernican Revolution”[76] stood the traditional relation on its head. ” He finds this unsatisfactory and thus comes up with a new system. He calls it the Kant Fries School. One great advantage of this is he is quite aware of Quantum Mechanics and yet has not fallen into scientism. His answer is based on Fries about knowledge that we know not by thought and not by sensation. Immediate non intuitive knowledge. I do not claim to understand this very well. But it is the best approach I have seen.

  4. A “simulation” implies redundancy. Redundancy AS highest reality is nonsensical. To even conceive “simulation,” one must GRASP at Perfection FIRST. Those at the top of the IQ metric have conceptually failed at giving “life” to objective Supremacy. Instead, they have sought to MERELY “master” The Redundant Phenomenon (that which is observed, measured and predicted EVERYWHERE). Ergo, the highest IQ “white” males are true believers in “universal equality,” ie., a redundant phenomenon as “highest reality” and HATE, LOATHE AND DESPISE genuine (objective) white Supremacy… And have at their disposal a global collective of degenerates to violently strike down all white singularities.

  5. The paradox is thus… A bounded simulation ultimately “reduces” to a singularity when the observer assumes to be sitting on the “boundary.” And so the simulation is nothing of the sort. And then there is a “selective pressure” to conceive of an unbounded simulation which nonetheless reduces to a redundancy. The high IQ “white” male mind of the 21st century has chosen redundancy over singularity as his highest reality. He has chosen unbounded simulation over bounded simulation and so invariably seeks to crush our spirit under the false reality of “universal equality,” simultaneously binding “us” to a strictly material reality as to also clip our wings.

  6. Listen to any theoretical physicist who having reached the material bounds either at the quantum foam or on the edge of the universe will tell you he sees “nothing” in particular. This should be the first indication that the theoretical physicist is unable to “see” singularities and can only spot redundancy. Thus, “unbounded simulation” (think quantum foam and multiverse) becomes his default reality and its intellectual absurdity the self-negation of the high IQ “white” male.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s