Living in a sim...

[Silver]

My thought processes are too complicated to be the by-product of a sim. Has any computer generated NPC been created beyond a simple two dimensional personality or been known to break free from its scripted dialogue? Can AI truly think on its own of its own consciousness, or in the end is it too merely constricted by its programming. Far as I can tell, I have not been programmed by any source outside of what we refer to as society.

[ignoramus]

Kevin (from Universes 'R' Us) replied to my backdoor email.

"Your sim is taking up too much valuable server memory, and your world has been programmed to end prematurely in your year 2022"
Yeah, sorry about that.

We'll replace that version with a less chaotic one by removing one variable. "No God(s) this time. It's what led to your self destruction"
It's our fault. We gave you the illusion of free will and the will to strive for happiness. Both pointless properties for survival.

[purplepurpose]

People won't care if its a sim. God on the other hand has hell tortures and thats get people interested.

[Anomalocaris]

Even if we conclusively prove we are in a sim, it still won't change anything, other than snowflakes and loonies going around killing because there's no extra life in heaven.

I would argue that all we have is our consciousness. And the qualia of that is the same irrespective. So the difference is theoretical at best.

I would say our being in a sim is the only chance we have for any extra life in heaven.    This is because impossibilities can be rendered seemingly real through simulation, so long as one does not look too closely.

[The Valkyrie]

Living in sin?

No, wait.

Never mind...

Carry on!

[Anomalocaris]

Living in sin?

No, wait.

Never mind...

Carry on!

is there any other way?

[HappySkeptic]

Some argue that the granularity of reality (things being broken into quanta) is evidence that we're living in a sim.

Perhaps - but that sim is the universe itself.

A real sim would have to be housed in a computer with the tiniest portion of the universe's computing power.  The number of bits of state in the "universe simulation" is about 10^120.  A common computer today has a memory capacity of about 10^10 bits.  The biggest computer isn't enough to simulate one person.

So, if I am in an artificial simulation, likely I'm the only real person that exists.  Everything else is an illusion, created on-demand (it takes too many resources to create you lot for real).  I would guess any "glitches" get wiped from my mind real-time so I don't notice them.  And if I'm in a sim inside a sim inside a sim, well -- with each level having exponentially less complexity, I must be a complete idiot with only a few bits of simulation.

On the plus side it must mean I'm immortal (until some programmer installs an upgrade).  I can totally ignore your comments now, non-real people!

[Anomalocaris]

Some argue that the granularity of reality (things being broken into quanta) is evidence that we're living in a sim.

Perhaps - but that sim is the universe itself.

A real sim would have to be housed in a computer with the tiniest portion of the universe's computing power.  The number of bits of state in the "universe simulation" is about 10^120.  A common computer today has a memory capacity of about 10^10 bits.  The biggest computer isn't enough to simulate one person.

So, if I am in an artificial simulation, likely I'm the only real person that exists.  Everything else is an illusion, created on-demand (it takes too many resources to create you lot for real).  I would guess any "glitches" get wiped from my mind real-time so I don't notice them.  And if I'm in a sim inside a sim inside a sim, well -- with each level having exponentially less complexity, I must be a complete idiot with only a few bits of simulation.

On the plus side it must mean I'm immortal (until some programmer installs an upgrade).  I can totally ignore your comments now, non-real people!

Not if the universal simulation employ the same strategy of creating illusions on demand for your benefit.

It seems to me it would quite easy for a simulation to avoid giving any evidence of granularity or other indications of How it is constructed to the denizens of the simulation.    One may say the purpose of the simulation is not to give particular illusion to its denizens.   Therefore the denizens are not precluded from seeing evidence of how the simulations are constructed due to the indifference of the designers.    That still leaves the question of what is the simulation simulating?

[vulcanlogician]

I don't care for the simulation argument. Assuming it were true, it would urge a person in the real world to believe they were in a simulation. That would be false, wouldn't it? (In that person's case.)

Besides, who would simulate this shit storm? If I were creating simulations, lemmie tell ya... I wouldn't even consider making a world like this.

[ignoramus]

Does a sim even allow for free will? If not, why even bother? Just run it at 1,000x if you want to see its evolution?