For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
It could test us...we would see anomalies in the system, then WE would know.chaz wyman wrote:How the fuck would anyone know, if the simulation were accurate?
No - I mean if it were accurate then we would not know it was a simulation.attofishpi wrote:It could test us...we would see anomalies in the system, then WE would know.chaz wyman wrote:How the fuck would anyone know, if the simulation were accurate?
breath with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_PAHbqq-o4
after my statements?Yeah man...now we're all bonkers, like together!chaz wyman wrote:No - I mean if it were accurate then we would not know it was a simulation.attofishpi wrote:It could test us...we would see anomalies in the system, then WE would know.chaz wyman wrote:How the fuck would anyone know, if the simulation were accurate?
breath with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_PAHbqq-o4
Should I add
Do you understand what i mean by anomaly?chaz wyman wrote:No - I mean if it were accurate then we would not know it was a simulation.attofishpi wrote:It could test us...we would see anomalies in the system, then WE would know.chaz wyman wrote:How the fuck would anyone know, if the simulation were accurate?
breath with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_PAHbqq-o4
Should I add
I understand what the word means. Here's the problem.attofishpi wrote: Do you understand what i mean by anomaly?
If we have machines that detect and measure random events at the sub-atomic scale are these machines not effectively a medium for scaling up the inherent uncertainty at that level to the macroscopic one?Thundril wrote: Some people might like the idea of scaling up the 'randomness', (By which I suspect they mean the uncertainty, a very different beast) but even if we wanted to scale it up, we couldn't.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle describes in precise mathematical terms the relationship between the limits of certainty existing between pairs of quantities. Eg position and momentum. The product of the uncertainties in position and momentum is always equal to or greater than one half of the reduced Planck constant ħ,
Planck's constant h = 6.626068 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s
Reduced Planck's constant =h/2pi.
Note that term 10^-34. that's seriously tiny!
So, as you can see, this amount is far too small to have effects that would be apparent to unaided human senses. It's really there, though, in the nature itself, and isn't simply a function of our inaccuracies in measurement.
What is scaled-up by the machine is a representation of the observed phenomenon.MGL wrote: If we have machines that detect and measure random events at the sub-atomic scale are these machines not effectively a medium for scaling up the inherent uncertainty at that level to the macroscopic one?
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought by scaling up uncertainy you meant the scaling up of the effects of uncertainty, not the the scaling up of the uncertain sub-atomic events themselves. Thus, I thought you were denying that uncertain events at the sub-atomic scale could not have an impact on events at the macro-scopic scale. Thus, by connecting a detecting machine to some large macro-scopic electrical applicance you could not cause the behaviour of that appliance to behave in an uncertain way.Thundril wrote:What is scaled-up by the machine is a representation of the observed phenomenon.MGL wrote: If we have machines that detect and measure random events at the sub-atomic scale are these machines not effectively a medium for scaling up the inherent uncertainty at that level to the macroscopic one?
Ever seen a picture of a bed-bug? Ugly little fuckers. Thankfully, they're not really that big.
chaz wyman wrote:I understand what the word means. Here's the problem.
Everything we understand as 'real' includes our entire experience so far of what we think is real.
That would also include all phenomena that you might think of as anomalous.
Your argument appears such that:- By using the term 'reality' we are saying that it is real. Whether it is simulated or not is irrelevant (and indistinguishable)
That means that those anomalies are already understood by us AS part of reality.
That generally contradicts the definition of 'anomaly'..well, in relation to the type of anomalies i have witnessed
So given that we can only understand anomalies as a normal part of what we think of as real.
What would those anomalies look like if not what we think of as part of our reality?
My point is that anomalies are NOT comprehended by the masses, hence why it is an 'anomaly' (NOT normal to reality)
If we are in a reality that is a subset (simulation) of an originating reality, then certain things that one might experience in the simulated reality would not be possible in the originating reality.
Turning water into wine for example.
attofishpi wrote:chaz wyman wrote:I understand what the word means. Here's the problem.
Everything we understand as 'real' includes our entire experience so far of what we think is real.
That would also include all phenomena that you might think of as anomalous.
Your argument appears such that:- By using the term 'reality' we are saying that it is real. Whether it is simulated or not is irrelevant (and indistinguishable)
That means that those anomalies are already understood by us AS part of reality.
That generally contradicts the definition of 'anomaly'..well, in relation to the type of anomalies i have witnessed
What anomalies?
So given that we can only understand anomalies as a normal part of what we think of as real.
What would those anomalies look like if not what we think of as part of our reality?
My point is that anomalies are NOT comprehended by the masses, hence why it is an 'anomaly' (NOT normal to reality)
Go on then. Tell me all about your anomalies!
If we are in a reality that is a subset (simulation) of an originating reality, then certain things that one might experience in the simulated reality would not be possible in the originating reality.
Turning water into wine for example.[/color]
And have they got an agent?chaz wyman wrote: So have you seen any one turning water into wine recently?
chaz wyman wrote:Go on then. Tell me all about your anomalies!
GFY
So have you seen any one turning water into wine recently?
A friend of mine works in a winery (his name isnt Jesus tho)
Not even Christians that believe such things are possible consider that evidence of a simulation.
How would you know?
If we are in a reality that is a subset (simulation) of an originating reality, then certain things that one might experience in the simulated reality would not be possible in the originating reality.
Do you not agree that if you were witness to those types of miracles you would have more inclination to believe we are in a simulated reality...?
Where do you get that from? Since you can't know anything about such an "originating reality" in the first place, you can't compare what's possible here or there.attofishpi wrote:If we are in a reality that is a subset (simulation) of an originating reality, then certain things that one might experience in the simulated reality would not be possible in the originating reality.
What constitutes a miracle? It's an exception, something that you can't repeat, something that would usually be considered impossible. Even if you were to witness such an exception, it would not be evidence of us living in a simulation. It would merely indicate that exceptional things could perhaps happen on rare occasions, that our natural laws might possibly have some rare loopholes.attofishpi wrote:Do you not agree that if you were witness to those types of miracles you would have more inclination to believe we are in a simulated reality...?
Why on earth would you assume this and not just that these things are reality? What is it that convinces you that this 'real' reality that we are supposed to be a sim in does not have these 'miracles'?attofishpi wrote:Do you not agree that if you were witness to those types of miracles you would have more inclination to believe we are in a simulated reality...?
no we would have no knowledge of the 'originating reality', so how would we know the differenceattofishpi wrote:chaz wyman wrote:Go on then. Tell me all about your anomalies!
GFY
So have you seen any one turning water into wine recently?
A friend of mine works in a winery (his name isnt Jesus tho)
Not even Christians that believe such things are possible consider that evidence of a simulation.
How would you know?
If we are in a reality that is a subset (simulation) of an originating reality, then certain things that one might experience in the simulated reality would not be possible in the originating reality.
Do you not agree that if you were witness to those types of miracles you would have more inclination to believe we are in a simulated reality...?