Virtual Reality - I'm curious what AW players think of this.

So are we living in a computer simulation? The link below is one paper from a New Zealand computer scientist claiming we might be in a VR. There's others, but this one hits a lot of the key problems with objective physics. Anything here that doesn't make sense or is biased?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

Mind=blown

I have believed in this for quite some time now (after reading couple of articles). I can't read the paper now, but I will when I have the time.

Good read. A little lengthy, but a healthy mind-stretch. I think its more likely that our world is a virtual reality than an objective reality. As the quote below states, ''The objective reality (OR) hypothesis: That our physical reality is an objective reality that
exists in and of itself, and being self-contained needs nothing outside of itself to explain it. '' meaning this reality isn't stimulated by anything but itself and doesn't need anything but itself to run itself. If so, how did it start? Wouldn't it need something outside of itself to stimulate itself to start? If it is able to stimulate and jump start itself, what stimulated it to stimulate itself to start? However it would make more sense if our reality has been stimulated by a force outside of ''the process'' (our reality). The Initiator of our virtual reality, because to the Initiator we are merely information that can be easily manipulated, created, and disposed of. Come to think of it, religious people do actually believe in the virtual reality theory since we believe that God (a stronger, outer force) created the universe, and He Himself, is above or outside of our world. Which really supports the theory of an ''output'' powering our world. I don't want some flame war over religion, but science and religion are connected and the dots connect the way they do. What is everything made of? Matter. This matter, its made of particles, atoms, energy, so on and so forth. When you break it down to the smallest of particles you have to think, what is this particle made of? The most common answer would be itself. Which is logical. Everything tangible being made out of these micro-microscopic particles. But these particles, these building blocks of the whole world as we know it, are they made of something to make them what they are? Are they made of 0's and 1's deciding how they behave, appear, and disappear? 0's and 1's building up and combining with other 0's and 1's till it forms something. Something we could see, touch, taste, smell, and hear. Or something that we can't? Would these 0's and 1's be the information creating all the seen and unseen forces of the universe? Something has to make them. Something needs to be decided so something else can happen for this something to be created. Here's some of the most decisive parts of the paper in my opinion,

''A virtual reality is here considered to be a reality created by information processing, and so by
definition it cannot exist independently in and of itself, as it depends upon processing to exist. If
the processing stops then the virtual reality must also cease to exist. In contrast an objective
reality simply is, and does not need anything else to sustain it. This suggests two hypotheses
about our reality:
1. The objective reality (OR) hypothesis: That our physical reality is an objective reality that
exists in and of itself, and being self-contained needs nothing outside of itself to explain it.
2. The virtual reality (VR) hypothesis: That our physical reality is a virtual reality that depends
upon information processing to exist, which processing must occur outside of itself.''

In both cases our existence is fragile and based on a successful series of ''chances''. In OR's case, these chances are what caused the universe to wake up or implode. In VR's case, the correct chances are being chosen to succeed to create our universe. Which brings us to choice creation below.



''Philosophers like Plato have long recognized that the reality of reality is not provable''

Spot on. If our reality is what we know, how do we prove its also what we don't know?





''To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual
world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are "unreal", but to an
observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a
virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is "real". That a world is calculated does not mean it has
no "reality", merely that its reality is local to itself''

Which is why all that is real may be simulated.


''a table is "solid" because our hands are made of the same atoms as the
table.''


Reality may be real to us, but only us. Another reality may only be real to others, but only others.


''To say a world is a virtual doesn't imply it is
unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is "local" to that world''


Strengthens the point above. Its real to us.




"The universe is not a program running somewhere else. It is a universal computer, and there is
nothing outside it."

''Yet if the physical world is a universal computer with nothing outside it, what is its output?''



Its possible that the universe is THE output, but that's unprovable.





''8. Choice creation. Information arises from a choice between options [29]. A mechanical or
predictable choice is not really a choice in this sense. Einstein never accepted that quantum
events were truly random, i.e. no prior world events could predict them. That a radioactive
atom decays by pure chance, whenever "it decides" was to him unacceptable, as it was a
physical event not predicted by another physical event. He argued that one day quantum
random effects would be predicted by as yet unknown "hidden properties". Yet if the source
of quantum randomness is the VR processor, which is outside the physical world, this
predicts that no hidden variables will ever be found. ''




Our ''luck'' or ''chance'' is merely a series of unlikeliness's that have hit the right (or wrong) choice. When you think of it, luck every once in a while isn't so uncommon because of the vast number of possibilities it could hit. (Doesn't mean we shouldn't always be eternally grateful.) َQuestion is, are these chances being picked so are world is formed like it is right now or is this pure luck that our world turned out like this, or are there infinite other universes based on different chances. A question, indeed, truly baffling. A question I do not think we will ever decisively answer.




11. Digital transitions. When one views a digital animation it looks continuous, but in fact it is a
series of state transitions, e.g. a movie is a series of still frames run together fast enough to
look like a continuous event. Yet if the projector is slowed down, one sees a series of still
pictures. Quantum mechanics describes quantum interactions in similar terms, as state
transitions. These transitions could explain quantum tunneling, where an electron at A
suddenly appears at C without moving through the intervening area B which is impenetrable
to it. While this is strange for an objective reality, in VR theory all object movement would
be expected to be by state transitions.




Why wouldn't it be possible that its the same case with movement? Why wouldn't there be a pause button? We wouldn't know or realize what happened. So wouldn't characters in a game you're playing on your xbox.



''The big bang contradicts any theory that assumes the universe is objectively real and complete in
itself. How can an objective reality, existing in and of itself, be created out of nothing? ''




Like I said, something had to create something else.





''The trend is clear: science finds us to actually be
less than we imagine, and we imagine ourselves to actually be more than science finds we are.
Would one more ego blow, say that our reality didn't exist objectively at all, be a surprise?''





Maybe this big world of ours, our intricate web of connections and society, our detailed creations, and our busy lifetimes be a magnificent simulation? The simulation of LIFE. This shouldn't bring you anyone down. You and I should enjoy this simulation while it lasts.



btw i like ur sig bert


As an afterthought: If we truly were self created in the universe and exist in the unlimited boundaries of this objective reality, why is there stuff still unlocked to us. Why don't we live our full potential? Why can't we constantly and lucidly access our subconscious and dreams and have this true power that fulfills our potential of human beings? Maybe its up to us to de-encrypt this? Or maybe its just that there's more waiting for us ahead, where we can fulfill our potential? Maybe its hidden so we don't discover the true dynamic of our reality and self destruct? I don't know, but its some stuff to think about.