Elon Musk: "We Are Most Likely Living In Someone Else's Video Game"

[Shnuggle]

I don't quite get why people are calling Musk dumb for believing something like this, if anything it's a better explanation for our reality than most others. Nick Boström's  article on the subject is free and can be read, he answers a lot of the arguments put forth by several members of this forum.  The article.

 

I also find it amusing that people are calling a recognized genius dumb, you are most likely not even close to his intelligence so give his thoughts some weight and consider them for a bit before you judge him.

[straight_stewie]

3 hours ago, stconquest said:

Well it is a reasonable question to ask.  I mean, the universe that we regularly observe has to be finite in some way... right?   ... and if it is, what is beyond it?  Empty space?  What is then beyond the empty space?

 

Finite or not, what is allowing it to occupy space?

 

Fuck this line of questioning, it sucks.  No easy answer.  Thus... we are in a program.  

 

The question should be seriously asked, but should not be that hard to disprove ( I think).  There is no meaning to what we know as life here on earth.  We make it up as we go along.  I am satisfied with the realization I have developed for not believing in such a program but it makes me think twice sometimes.  Like right now I am trying to form an indisputable stance against this program's existence, but I am tired/lazy

Unfortunately, for the same reason that there is no easy answer to why the universe exists, it is extremely hard to disprove any theories as to why the universe exists. To play devils advocate, in object oriented programming one builds objects. These objects can interface with other objects. Therefore, object A needs to know about object B, but does object A need to know that itself is an object? I would propose that the answer is "not necessarily". 

I've actually thought about this subject quite extensively and I believe that the three most likely solutions to why OUR (not all, mind you) universe exists is one of three cases: There is a god being, we are in a simulation, or nested universe theory. I wouldn't weigh nested universe theory as heavily as the other two however, because it only describes why our universe exists, and is not capable of describing why our parent universe (should there be one) exists. 

[Djole123]

That would mean that the guy who's running it has a pretty damn good computer, I mean high FPS all the time?

 

That would also mean that the speed of light is an FPS cap...

[stconquest]

8 hours ago, Shnuggle said:

I don't quite get why people are calling Musk dumb for believing something like this, if anything it's a better explanation for our reality than most others. Nick Boström's  article on the subject is free and can be read, he answers a lot of the arguments put forth by several members of this forum.  The article.

 

I also find it amusing that people are calling a recognized genius dumb, you are most likely not even close to his intelligence so give his thoughts some weight and consider them for a bit before you judge him.

A guy earlier had a picture with the caption that read, in essence:  Smart people sometimes say the dumbest things.  I don't think that anyone really considers Musk to be relatively dumb.

 

The problem with this theory is that there is no real concrete evidence for the affirmative.  We know what we know of programming.  We know what we know about our universe.  There is absolutely no indication that the universe is programmed in a manner that we would consider a computer to able to.  The dots are seemingly randomly connected... universe meets programming.  That does not prove that the universe is a program.

 

6 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Unfortunately, for the same reason that there is no easy answer to why the universe exists, it is extremely hard to disprove any theories as to why the universe exists. To play devils advocate, in object oriented programming one builds objects. These objects can interface with other objects. Therefore, object A needs to know about object B, but does object A need to know that itself is an object? I would propose that the answer is "not necessarily". 

I've actually thought about this subject quite extensively and I believe that the three most likely solutions to why OUR (not all, mind you) universe exists is one of three cases: There is a god being, we are in a simulation, or nested universe theory. I wouldn't weigh nested universe theory as heavily as the other two however, because it only describes why our universe exists, and is not capable of describing why our parent universe (should there be one) exists. 

I believe our universe exists because it could.  It had the opportunity to exist in the available environment.  Similarly to our own species here on earth (how long have we worked on knowing our own story now?)

 

Regarding the origin of our immediate universe: we have yet to ask the right questions because we have not gathered enough information.  Mind you, if by chance we ask the right question we are most certainly not able to be able to answer it.

 

We need a lot more time.  Unfortunately most of our species does not see the value of what it means to understand something of this scale.  Barring our propensity for violence to one another, our biggest problem here is death.  We have to die and have no say, yet.  Does it not seem logical that (assuming you could stop violence/war) everyone on the planet would be tempted to try and find a way to be immortal?  ...and no, magic does not count.

 

 

[MonkeyFace]

Matt Damon concur!

 

[matrix07012]

On 2. června 2016 at 11:29 PM, Maybach123 said:

I agree its not his brightest moment but he does live in California and i know he gets anxiety giving public talks, you never know what he has been smoking beforehand. 

I want his dealer's phone number.

[Sauron]

On 2/6/2016 at 11:34 PM, othertomperson said:

In all seriousness, the computer simulation idea is the most sensible explanation for the Big Bang that I've come across. It's the time the "go" button was pressed, which is why it doesn't make sense to talk about "time" before that point.

All right, but then what created the computer? Besides, we have no evidence of whether the universe existed in some way before the big bang or not.

[stconquest]

59 minutes ago, Sauron said:

All right, but then what created the computer? Besides, we have no evidence of whether the universe existed in some way before the big bang or not.

...or that there was only one big bang in our universe.  Multiple big bangs could have occurred, and maybe still occur.  Just because the effects from another big bang are not observable to us, does not mean that they are not out there.

 

One thing about this life that people often ignore is that in the universe, there is always an abundance of... everything.

[ObscureMammal]

Sam Harris was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently and they started talking about AI. Very interesting stuff.

 

They also discussed AI on a previous episode a while back.