<p>I was thinking about it, and I came to the conclusion that there really is no way to know if I am or not. I think I've actually accepted the possibility that I could be, but I'll never know :( I think it's kind of an interesting thing to think about, because really, anything could be true. What do you think. Is it possible?</p>
<p>you might appreciate the wikipedia page on simulated reality :).</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality</a></p>
<p>i remember being kind of overwhelmed when i read it - i thought it was pretty amazing :p.</p>
<p>This question sort of bothers me. </p>
<p>I understand why you would ask questions like: Do we have free will, and if not, should we act as if we did? Is free will compatible with determinism? How about non-determinism? What, for that matter, is free will? What is the good life? How do we distinguish good actions from evil actions? Is there a basis in reality for a system of objective morals? What questions should ethics consider? </p>
<p>But why the “Does the world really exist?” question?</p>
<p>Is it really that interesting to think about? There’s obviously no way you could answer the question. Let’s say that Measure A would prove that we were not in a Matrix. Then any Matrix-creator would include Measure A in the design of its Matrix. The end. It’s just a goal post that moves around where ever you want, and whether the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’, what difference does it make? What would you do differently if everything was fake? Does that somehow change your circumstances? You still can’t escape, so you might as well live the best, most fun life, in the same way you should/would otherwise. </p>
<p>There are all sorts of things you can’t prove either way, and they’re all pretty meh IMO.</p>
<p>What if colors looked differently to you than they do to me? For example, what if when I see green, I perceive it the way you perceive orange?</p>
<p>What if we all had a single undetectable, indestructible helium balloon tied to our right arms?</p>
<p>What if the universe is inside of a giant teacup, like, literally?</p>
<p>What if you’re the only one who is self-aware, and everyone else just acts like it?</p>
<p>What if you’re experiencing time backwards, and everyone else experienced it in the opposite direction?</p>
<p>What if all of history was made up in 1492 by Christopher Columbus? </p>
<p>Do you find these questions particularly compelling?</p>
<p>^ Just because something is unanswerable doesn’t mean it’s not interesting to think about. A number of the questions you mentioned are actually quite fascinating to me. To the scientist, only a testable question is valid and useful. But to the philosopher, both answerable and unanswerable questions can be interesting to think about.</p>
<p>I just read the wiki article on Simulated Reality, interesting stuff.</p>
<p>I agree with Jimbo. We will never know, so who cares. Whether this is reality or a simulation of reality, all I (or anyone for that matter) can do is have the best life possible.</p>
<p>Studious, it’s not the unanswerable nature of the question that makes it mundane to me, though that’s a part of it. There are plenty of answerable questions that are equally mundane and equally useless. </p>
<p>I do not maintain that “What is the good life?” is answerable, and yet it’s a fascinating question. Why? Because it has implications. Whether or not we live in the Matrix, we can go on doing whatever we would do anyway. The simulated nature of the universe, or the lack thereof, does not affect us. The real question, “What is the good life?”, is not affected by the existence of a Matrix. Whatever the nature of reality, that’s where we live, and the rules of our universe are the only things that need concern us.</p>
<p>What I find myself wondering is “What if you have lived in multiple realities?” Like what if like just 10 minutes ago you had a different life in a different universve, but then you were transported and your memory was rewritten so that this is the life you remember having always. It’s farfetched but interesting.</p>
<p>jimbo, it may be able to determine whether we are or not in the future, and that answer may mean things. and this question is not like the question of does hell exist or not - which would also mean things depending on whether the answer was yes or no - where smart people have already assigned extremely low probabilities to it existing (for all intents and purposes - 0). Here, * we simply do not know * whether we are simulated or not. </p>
<p>now, here’s an example of how it might mean something big-</p>
<p>nick bonstrom argues that one of these 3 things must be true - </p>
<p>-Intelligent civilizations go extinct before advancing enough to simulate other conscious things (or realities).</p>
<p>-Intelligent civilizations do not simulate conscious things for some reason or another (but not because it’s not possible - one the premises of the argument is that " given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to quantum simulation").</p>
<p>-Intelligent civilizations do simulate realities, and therefore almost surely we are simulated and will simulate other things.</p>
<p>if you wind up believing his argument after reading about it, then there are * serious implications * to the answer of the difficult question ‘are we simulated?’.</p>
<p>because if we find we are not simulated, then that tells us that either we will not simulate other realities, or that humanity will go extinct before we can (scary information, perhaps!).</p>
<p>In addition, if we manage to simulate a reality, then we can bet confidently we ourselves are simulated (and therefore that it is not as likely that we will go extinct very soon).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is frankly one of the very best things I’ve ever read on CC. If I ever come to a conclusion, I’ll let you know.</p>
<p>Let us say, enfield, that I proved that argument incorrect. Would you consider falsified the hypothesis under consideration?</p>
<p>Let us say instead that the argument held up under the highest level of scrutiny, and furthermore that it proved beyond a doubt that the universe was “simulated.” How would you change the way you went about your day-to-day business?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please do. I really want to know the answer… ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hmm the argument is that one of three scenarios accurately describe what intelligent civilizations do. if there are more possibilities or if those scenarios are not accurate, then the conclusions one would draw from being or not being simulated might be different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>assuming that the argument is true means that figuring out if we are simulated or not has the implications i described (the implications that the people responsible for the argument claim exist). it is a big assumption, of course, because knowing that the argument is watertight seems rather impossible.</p>
<p>yeah, i don’t think it will change most people’s day to day lives immediately. but that seems to be how it is with most scientific knowledge.</p>
<p>this is a bad example, but knowing there are other habitable planets (which is a rather new thing to be able to be certain about) probably won’t affect my day-to-day life in the future. However, it * could * affect the day-to-day lives of future generations who find themselves on a spacious habitable planet, ant not overcrowded earth, had those first observations - there their exist such planets - never been made. </p>
<p>I guess that’s in the same way that many aspects of my day-to-day life can be attributed to all the humans before me who incrementally changed things by using their large brains. </p>
<p>anyway, something that changes the day-to-day lives of future generations (in a way so there is less suffering and more happiness, for example) does seem to be valuable to many people (like all the people involved in trying to save our planet from the CO2 we are contributing to it), even if it’s not as valuable as something that might change * their own * day-to-day lives.</p>
<p>meh but i’m not sure if believing that the implications of something would affect future people in very big ways would make present people (like you) anymore interested in that thing.</p>