Elon Musk - Life is a Simulation.

[B20]

But if we are in a simulation, who created the simulation in which the simulation we are in was created......and so on? So there is room for God in the simulation theory? So God is some silicone valley hipster twat from another dimension? Maybe Elon Musk is God, why not?

I am honestly a bit baffled that all the bright minds dealing with this just assume that if we are simulated, there has to be someone out there making the simulation.

A maker less and thoroughly causal simulation universe has been posited by, fx, yogacara for more than a millenia.

To me it just seems a bit naive to assume over a universe simply simulated by physics. And for scientists you'd think this idea would be more appealing than reverting to another variation of creation myths.

 

[Kentonio]

I am honestly a bit baffled that all the bright minds dealing with this just assume that if we are simulated, there has to be someone out there making the simulation.

A maker less and thoroughly causal simulation universe has been posited by, fx, yogacara for more than a millenia.

To me it just seems a bit naive to assume over a universe simply simulated by physics. And for scientists you'd think this idea would be more appealing than reverting to another variation of creation myths.

How could scientists fall back on a 'it just happened' explanation? Simulation implies something or someone created the simulation.

 

[B20]

How could scientists fall back on a 'it just happened' explanation? Simulation implies something or someone created the simulation.

Scientists have always fallen back on a 'it just happened' explanation for the universe.

I don't think simulation implies that someone created it, anymore than the elegance of evolution implies intelligent design. This could just as well be the way the physics of the multiverse happen to work.

But people have always understood the world according to our latest inventions. When we thought of the world as a clockwork, we imagined the body and brain with similar analogies. Now we discovered digital virtualisations and think of our brains as computers and wonder if someone else coded our universe (as opposed to waving a magic wand). It's just the contemporary variation on an old theme.

 

[DWelbz19]

Very interesting theory. I've met Musk and agree with everyone else that he is the smartest guy on the planet.

He’s surprisingly down to Earth, AND very funny.

 

[Kentonio]

Scientists have always fallen back on a 'it just happened' explanation for the universe.

I don't think simulation implies that someone created it, anymore than the elegance of evolution implies intelligent design. This could just as well be the way the physics of the multiverse happen to work.

But people have always understood the world according to our latest inventions. When we thought of the world as a clockwork, we imagined the body and brain with similar analogies. Now we discovered digital virtualisations and think of our brains as computers and wonder if someone else coded our universe (as opposed to waving a magic wand). It's just the contemporary variation on an old theme.

Scientists have never fallen back on 'it just happened', thats the big red line between religion/philosophy and science.

Science has no issue per se with the idea of a god-like presence. For instance there are planets that developed billions of years before our own. If a species evolved that long before ours and still existed it seems perfectly plausible that their technological level would be so staggeringly advanced that they would seem for all intents and purposes to be godlike to us in their capabilities. The real issue science has with religion is the idea of an all powerful god figure that has no creation story of its own. That in short it 'just happened'.

Obviously science hits a major wall when it comes to the Big Bang because we have a very concrete evidential reason for that wall. But all the theorizing up to that point is based on evidence we actually have; the expanding universe, radiation traces etc. It's not that science just theorized itself into a corner using the Big Bang as a convenient get out of jail free card. That's the difference between science and god of the gaps theorizing, and the reason why not having a creator of the simulations would be an issue. The Big Bang isn't a 'it just happened', it's a 'this is unfortunately a point we just can't look beyond yet, but my god we're going to keep theorizing and trying to look beyond it!'.

 

[Zarlak]

Smartest guy on the planet.

 

[GBBQ]

He’s surprisingly down to Earth, AND very funny.

Did you meet him at a charity auction?

 

[B20]

Scientists have never fallen back on 'it just happened', thats the big red line between religion/philosophy and science.

Science has no issue per se with the idea of a god-like presence. For instance there are planets that developed billions of years before our own. If a species evolved that long before ours and still existed it seems perfectly plausible that their technological level would be so staggeringly advanced that they would seem for all intents and purposes to be godlike to us in their capabilities. The real issue science has with religion is the idea of an all powerful god figure that has no creation story of its own. That in short it 'just happened'.

Obviously science hits a major wall when it comes to the Big Bang because we have a very concrete evidential reason for that wall. But all the theorizing up to that point is based on evidence we actually have; the expanding universe, radiation traces etc. It's not that science just theorized itself into a corner using the Big Bang as a convenient get out of jail free card. That's the difference between science and god of the gaps theorizing, and the reason why not having a creator of the simulations would be an issue. The Big Bang isn't a 'it just happened', it's a 'this is unfortunately a point we just can't look beyond yet, but my god we're going to keep theorizing and trying to look beyond it!'.

None of that would be any different in a simulation-by-physics universe.

 

[Tincanalley]

Ronnie O'Sullivan is the proof of it.

 

[MadMike]

Black people pulled the short straw in this simulation, they're playing on hard mode here. By the universally accepted law of averages they must be OP like a Dark Souls boss, in some of the other simulations.

 

[Kentonio]

None of that would be any different in a simulation-by-physics universe.

It raises the immediate question: Simulation of what?

 

[donkeyfish]

It should be noted that Bostrom is a philosopher not a scientist, and his entire hypothesis is unfalsifiable, which is why it is treated as more an interesting thought experiment that reads well on social media feeds, than a matter of hard science.

Is string theory?

 

[SteveJ]

No - string is real.

 

[Raoul]

Is string theory?

The mathematics are apparently solid.

 

[donkeyfish]

The mathematics are apparently solid.

That's true I think, but there are concepts in theoretical physics that challenge the notion that something scientific needs to be falsifiable. And that the Bayesian framework is better suited to lend credence to a theory.

 

[Florida Man]

I wouldn't attribute this to Musk. The idea has been around for some time - I believe it was originally popularized by Nick Bostrom.

If the idea is true, then one could say it's been around forever.

 

[Florida Man]

For some reason I really wanna do DMT.

If you get some, I'd recommend putting on Shpongle, vaporizing it, and keeping your eyes closed the whole time.

 

[Raoul]

That's true I think, but there are concepts in theoretical physics that challenge the notion that something scientific needs to be falsifiable. And that the Bayesian framework is better suited to lend credence to a theory.

That's true, but I think the problems with simulations go a bit beyond that. First, the entire idea just wreaks of click bait pseudoscience that can never be proven beyond philosophical contemplation. At that point we have to ask ourselves whether we are dealing with hard science or just philosophy. The 2nd problem is that it invokes the idea that a deity could be at play, which is obviously not going to jive with the fundamental nature of observational science. Third, the simulation hypothesis can't resolve the problem of whether the entity who created the simulation also included a mechanism whereby those being simulated can never find out they are being simulated.

Ultimately, this is more in the realm of clickbait pseudoscience than legitimate science. If I want that, I go watch a Susskind lecture to explore the holographic principle from a scientific perspective.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

When you're a Billionaire, I suppose you get bored and find new things to make up in your head.

 

[SteveJ]

'And the end and the beginning were always there
Before the beginning and after the end.
And all is always now.'

 

[The Firestarter]

When I think of the smartest guy on the planet its usually a physicist or the like - someone like Ed Witten usually springs to mind.

Most people think of physicists in that regard, indeed. The achievements of those can be more easily explained to laymen. They appear more tangible. However, to me, the ones that don't usually get mentioned in such characterizations , the masters of the purest science of them all, like: Gauss, Euler, Fermat, Koshi , Galois , are equally, if not even more deserving. Even Newton, despite his enormous contributions to analysis, is known primarily for his work on universal gravitation.

 

[Raoul]

Most people think of physicists in that regard, indeed. The achievements of those can be more easily explained to laymen. They appear more tangible. However, to me, the ones that don't usually get mentioned in such characterizations , the masters of the purest science of them all, like: Gauss, Euler, Fermat, Koshi , Galois , are equally, if not even more deserving. Even Newton, despite his enormous contributions to analysis, is known primarily for his work on universal gravitation.

Agreed.

 

[donkeyfish]

That's true, but I think the problems with simulations go a bit beyond that. First, the entire idea just wreaks of click bait pseudoscience that can never be proven beyond philosophical contemplation. At that point we have to ask ourselves whether we are dealing with hard science or just philosophy. The 2nd problem is that it invokes the idea that a deity could be at play, which is obviously not going to jive with the fundamental nature of observational science. Third, the simulation hypothesis can't resolve the problem of whether the entity who created the simulation also included a mechanism whereby those being simulated can never find out they are being simulated.

Ultimately, this is more in the realm of clickbait pseudoscience than legitimate science. If I want that, I go watch a Susskind lecture to explore the holographic principle from a scientific perspective.

This simulation stuff belongs in philosophy, of that I have no doubt. I was just being quarrelsome over the idea of falsification, that it might be possible to label a venture as scientific even if it cannot be falsified. Perhaps even in principle.

 

[barros]

So we could hack that computer and erase liverpool and city from existence. I tried to explain this theory to my wife and son and the only one who didnt laugh at me was my lab and I think she was sleeping.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Someone wants to stop watching the Matrix.

 

[Bury Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The revolutionary war was fought to make workers equal with managers and the us won and that's why there are no more managers and all workers live in harmony and get equal compensation

Sounds about right to me Eboue, I think you need to update your simulation to the latest patched version if you're still a serf.

 

[The Cat]

Yeah like 1999 was pre-programmed.

It wasn't that far fetched was it?

 

[Bubz27]

Maybe that's in another simulation?

 

[Bury Red]

Yeah like 1999 was pre-programmed.

It wasn't that far fetched was it?

The real question has to be how Prince knew United would win the Treble back in 1982 while the Nevilles were still in primary school. I call hax.

 

[Boogie Man]

The idea of a simulated universe, or the 'many worlds interpretation' for that matter, can be used to quite neatly explain the weirdness of quantum mechanics, they tie in very nicely, but the biggest issue I have with them, is I'm not that keen on introducing new things to the model that can't be testable, and also I'm a little concerned that instead of filling in a 'god with gaps' we've just simply replaced the 'god' with something else. But actually, I did find it a useful way of getting my head round quantum mechanics.

One of the arguments that we live in a simulated universe, would be that if we could simulate a universe ourselves, and within that universe they were also simulating universes, that it would make it unlikely that we were ourselves were living in a 'base level' universe. But I don't know what kind of computational power it would take to perfectly simulate our universe,and whether it would even be possible to do it without taking shortcuts, nevermind all the simulations within that simulation.

 

[GBBQ]

The idea of a simulated universe, or the 'many worlds interpretation' for that matter, can be used to quite neatly explain the weirdness of quantum mechanics, they tie in very nicely, but the biggest issue I have with them, is I'm not that keen on introducing new things to the model that can't be testable, and also I'm a little concerned that instead of filling in a 'god with gaps' we've just simply replaced the 'god' with something else. But actually, I did find it a useful way of getting my head round quantum mechanics.

One of the arguments that we live in a simulated universe, would be that if we could simulate a universe ourselves, and within that universe they were also simulating universes, that it would make it unlikely that we were ourselves were living in a 'base level' universe. But I don't know what kind of computational power it would take to perfectly simulate our universe,and whether it would even be possible to do it without taking shortcuts, nevermind all the simulations within that simulation.

How could a man with such soft skin be living in a simulation though?

 

[Boogie Man]

How could a man with such soft skin be living in a simulation though?

Everything we perceive is an interpretation of our brain. Sight, sounds, touch. When we see something, what is happening is a stream of light photons are hitting our retina, then a bunch of electrical impulses occur in our brain (or neurons being fired) which processes them into something that is useful for us, our sight, which forms part of our reality. If we knew which neurons in the brain to fire, we could, theoretically, create hallucinations that seemed perfectly real to us. We could even simulate the sensation of being touched, by mere electrical impulses in the brain. (Maybe someone has already tried to do that experiment, I don't know, I'm not that up to date with neuroscience).

I'm not by the way saying that we definitely live in some kind of simulated universe, just that if we did, we would probably never know. And if we were able to simulate a universe perfectly inside a computer chip, those that inhabit that universe, may feel as real as we do, but would never know they were living inside a simulation either.

 

[PedroMendez]

Its a mistake to compare Everett's Many Worlds and the idea of a Simulated Universe. One is the consequence of applying commonly used standards of interpretation to existing theories, while the other (at least in a way that its formulated in pop-science) is a completly meaningless play of words. It just appears that these words mean something, but they really don't. There might be non-pop-science formulations of this idea, but in this context the meaning of the content of some terms would differ from the meaning that they have in common langugage.

 

[Moby]

A bit depressing. Though I can now blame my failures on whoever programmed me, so that's something.

You mean, like, God?

 

[Carolina Red]

Separated from the general Musk/SpaceX/Tesla discussion.

 

[George Owen]

You mean, like, God?

More like his parents and teachers.

 

[Raoul]

The idea of a simulated universe, or the 'many worlds interpretation' for that matter, can be used to quite neatly explain the weirdness of quantum mechanics, they tie in very nicely, but the biggest issue I have with them, is I'm not that keen on introducing new things to the model that can't be testable, and also I'm a little concerned that instead of filling in a 'god with gaps' we've just simply replaced the 'god' with something else. But actually, I did find it a useful way of getting my head round quantum mechanics.

Simulated Universe and Many Worlds are two completely different concepts that have nothing to do with one another.

One of the arguments that we live in a simulated universe, would be that if we could simulate a universe ourselves, and within that universe they were also simulating universes, that it would make it unlikely that we were ourselves were living in a 'base level' universe. But I don't know what kind of computational power it would take to perfectly simulate our universe,and whether it would even be possible to do it without taking shortcuts, nevermind all the simulations within that simulation.

At this point your imagination is just making things up so there's no telling what may come next.

 

[Mick1]

Musk is more like post-modern Howard Hughes - someone who's incredibly wealthy because of the success of his businesses and has carved out a niche as a celebrity science popularizer with his gravitas and investment acumen. But he's not even close to being a noteworthy genius of our time - just like Howard Hughes wasn't a genius when compared with the likes of Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Hilbert, von Neumann, Tinbergen, Fermi, Curie, Goddard and so forth. This isn't to disparage Musk, mind - he has done a lot of good and put a lot of money into research that will benefit people in the future, but he's a titan of industry and entrepreneurship and not someone whose scientific utterances merit some sort of deeper introspection or pause. In fact, it's downright laughable that folks attach credence to the scientific opinions of Musk, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson...

Tbf Neil De Grass Tyson is a noteworthy astrophysicist in his own right and just because he s famous does not make him any less of a genius. The same could be said of Michio Kaku amd to a lesser extent stephan Hawking. Kaku is the creator os string field theory whilst Hawking is respected enough in the scientific community.
Id put Musk in the inventors category, and a great one at that. Nit as smart as some make him out to be, nor as overrated as the likes of Bill Nye

 

[rcoobc]

Tbf Neil De Grass Tyson is a noteworthy astrophysicist in his own right and just because he s famous does not make him any less of a genius. The same could be said of Michio Kaku amd to a lesser extent stephan Hawking. Kaku is the creator os string field theory whilst Hawking is respected enough in the scientific community.
Id put Musk in the inventors category, and a great one at that. Nit as smart as some make him out to be, nor as overrated as the likes of Bill Nye

I'm a fan of Neil De Grass Tyson (I'm a fan of all public scientists) but "Neil De Grass Tyson is a noteworthy astrophysicist in his own right" is nonsense.

What major scientific contribution has Neil De Grass Tyson made?

The same could be said of Michio Kaku amd to a lesser extent stephan Hawking

What?

Hawking is respected enough in the scientific community.

What?

Id put Musk in the inventors category, and a great one at that. Nit as smart as some make him out to be, nor as overrated as the likes of Bill Nye

What.

Musk is an engineer. He has invented, to my knowledge, absolutely nothing.

He is, however, an absolutely genius generalist. He has worked on computer games (really), helped create an online business directory (in the early days of the internet), helped turn Paypal into a billion dollar company, founded SpaceX and again helped turn Tesla into a billion dollar company. He's worked on the design of cars, rockets, computer games, banking websites, business directory websites, and more.

He's an engineer. He has an engineer's solution to things.

Did you hear about the one where they sent a physicist, an engineer and a marine to rescue some boys from a cave? The physicist spent two weeks coming with a genius way to get the kids out, but it only worked for spherical kids in a vacuum. The engineer spent two weeks building a sub-marine but it couldn't get over the dry patches of land. The marine swam in and got the kids out.

 

[rcoobc]

Anyway. Are we meant to be talking about life a simulation?

It doesn't really make a difference whether it's a simulation does it? Not to anyone inside the universe.