Are we 'living' inside of a computer simulation?

[Tetsuwan Penguin]

Elon Musk believes so.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11837608/elon-musk-simulation-argument

From the arguments give here, if it is possible to simulate consciousness inside of a computer program (IE: "REAL AI such as Astro's) then the odds favor that OUR consciousness is actually a simulation inside of some civilization's computer network. Is this the real definition of god? And is it all wheels inside of wheels, IE: is god just a simulation inside of yet another more advanced civilization's computer, and so on? (It's TURTLES all the way down! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down )

Yipes, I think I have another story idea cooking.

[cybotron]

You are very bold, asking such questions. Are you serious? Is it a simulation? No. Is it a construct? Yes.... The planet is a machine. It's design is that of a sphere that has writing on it resembling the kind of pictographs style similar to Egyptian Hieroglyphics.
I will not translate the writing to you here, or tell you what it obviously means or tell you how the machine works. It is not allowed to speak of such things. I do not want to be banned again.
I WILL ONLY REPLY IF I AM GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM BANNING FOR MY ANSWER. AS MY ANSWER WOULD REGISTER ON THE MACHINE AND THE MACHINE WILL REACT AGAIN. AGAIN!!!

[cybotron]

however... What if a lifeform existed that could use tthe DNA Helix as a transport mechanism? What if Such a being could create a planet and post a signpost for space faring civilizations capable of interstellar or intergalactic travel? What really happened to Neanderthal?

[CommanderEVE]

Have any of you watched Dark City (1998)?

If not, check it out. The film deals with this subject. It is my favorite film.

[Tetsuwan Penguin]

Who knows, the Astro Boy reboot might follow this theme (or that of the Matrix).

[jeffbert]

Have any of you watched Dark City (1998)?

If not, check it out. The film deals with this subject. It is my favorite film.

I watched it, but cannot recall much. the film, THE 13TH FLOOR, had a similar idea, as also did a German miniseries that ran on TCM about a year ago.

My opinion is that if we are indeed simulations, why did the creators allow us to even think so? Thus, referring to THE 13TH FLOOR, click for spoilerTHERE never would be a search for the 'physical end of the game world, the blank wall in the middle of the desert that we simply cannot penetrate, because there is no such place in our game world. Those who have played with Doom editors understand what I am saying; In the shareware DOOM, we are inside a building, able to look out the window to see the other wing of that building, and though there appears to be no glass in the window, jumping out is out. There may even be objects in the yars, but you cannot go there.

I will try to make it clear to others:
If our game world is CANDYLAND or LIFE, there is a main path that our tokens must stay on. only those areas are defined, cutting across the non-path area to reach the finish line is not allowed, even though we humans can see it is a much more direct way to reach 'finish,' the game tokens have no such knowledge. only the path, with its pitfalls, and such is defined as a way to move. I realize this is inadequate!

So, anyway, other reasons I reject this 'theory':

1. life is just too complex; just about anything can go wrong with our bodies
2. life is just too complex; far too many details
3. compare this simulation with Asomov's 1st law: his robots cannot even wish they could harm humans. That thought is beyond their thinking ability. If we were in such a simulation, would we even be allowed to contemplate that possibility? Why would the programmers have included such an ability? If, on the other hand, all things were possible, why would they not have put code in to stop this one thought?

[Tetsuwan Penguin]

The idea makes for great science fiction, but I would not want to live in a simulation. If it was true, then we don't really have any free will, do we?

There is one thing that bothers me though .....
It seems that every time science gets closer to figuring out the answers to how the universe works, when a new discovery seems to be the breakthrough that might explain it all (like the elusive search for Einstein's unified field theory equations that would combine the four basic forces), the goal posts suddenly seem to get moved just a bit further back.

First we had Atoms, then protons, neutrons, and electrons. Suddenly there were even smaller particles Quarks (and then many flavors of them!), and now the Higgs Boson.

The origin of the universe was explained by the big bang. Then there was expansion, inflation, hyper inflation, dark matter and now dark energy. We had string theory, parallel 'branes, and multiverses. Once we thought the universe would die a cold death, now we think that after the big bang will come the big rip when all matter just explodes.

It's almost as if a cosmic programmer out there keeps changing the background before our eyes, or to paraphrase Douglas Adams, "If the universe is ever fully figured out, it will be instantly replaced by something even more strange."

[jeffbert]

interseting thoughts, Tetsuwan Penguin. I think that it can be explained by means of the naked eye, telescope, infrared telescope, etc., thing. That is, as our equipment becomes better, we become aware of things that had always been there, though we had no idea.

[Tetsuwan Penguin]

Neil deGrasse Tyson chaired a debate on this subject at the American Museum of Natural History.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZaE74X96ys