Are we a simulation? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Mewtarthio

2012-12-17, 11:45 AM

They want to contact the guys who are running our simulation?

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

Anyway, I don't think we have much to worry about. The trouble with a perfect simulation of the universe is that it needs to perfectly simulate itself along with everything else. Constructing a simulator proves that we are not part of that simulation (though we may still be software on a more advanced simulator).

Mono Vertigo

2012-12-17, 12:21 PM

And I just finished Star Ocean 3 again. :smallconfused:

Lentrax

2012-12-17, 12:27 PM

Whelp. I think this thread is just beggin for the question to be asked:

What is the Matrix?

Aliquid

2012-12-17, 01:08 PM

Recaiden

2012-12-17, 01:16 PM

kpenguin

2012-12-17, 01:18 PM

Is this the real life?

Siosilvar

2012-12-17, 01:21 PM

It is an interesting philosophical question… but I really don’t see the answer making any difference to me. All that matters are my experiences. Whether they are “virtual” or “real” doesn’t concern me.

That's one answer. If there's no difference, does it matter?
Another, equally valid, answer is "why settle for anything less than real?" After all, if there's no difference, then why go for the fake?

And if there is a difference, the answer to "is it worth it?" can still be different.

So yes, interesting questions. Not quite sure how my answer goes yet.

Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy? ♪

Yora

2012-12-17, 01:49 PM

There is this logical rule, whose name I forgott, but that basically goes "In the lack of supporting evidence, the one posibility with the least Ifs is most likely to be correct.
For the experienced world to be the real world, you don't need any condition that would not also be required for a simulated world, but the simulated world would require all the conditions for a real world plus a considerable amount more.

Demon 997

2012-12-17, 02:00 PM

One problem I have with that is that it assumes that we are being simulated at the same level of existence as ours. But the article itself mentions we're only just simulating particles at the actual level of reality. Most simulation programs are vastly simplified, and if our world is a simplification of some other physics, and in that case I can't see that the constants would be the same between our universe and the simulating one.

I think one of the reason they are looking is because there seem to be simplification in the laws of physics. Stuff like absolute zero, light speed, the uncertainty principle, Planck length and time, and possibly some more I'm not aware of.

Basically there are a lot of limitations on how fast or how cold or how small or how short things can be, and one reason for these limitations could be that it makes reality easier to simulate.

Grinner

2012-12-17, 02:02 PM

It is an interesting philosophical question… but I really don’t see the answer making any difference to me. All that matters are my experiences. Whether they are “virtual” or “real” doesn’t concern me.

That’s one thing I never quite grasped with The Matrix. Why were they so bothered by the robots abusing our physical bodies…. Who cares? Sure hacking the matrix and dodging bullets is fun, but why be so horrified about what the robots are doing.

It's important to realize that not everyone is compelled to act by the same motives. Some find any sort of abuse as something to be fought against. Still others are compelled to seek the truth of things, regardless of its form.

They actually discussed this through the actions of Cypher, though I'm not sure how effectively they did this by making him a villain...However, in The Matrix Online, there was a group known as the Cypherites who held this same view. If you take that as canon, then yes, not everyone shared the protagonists' opinion of "real" reality.

Edit:

There is this logical rule, whose name I forgott, but that basically goes "In the lack of supporting evidence, the one posibility with the least Ifs is most likely to be correct.

I believe that you're referring to Occam's Razor. "The conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions is more likely to be the correct one."

Lord Raziere

2012-12-17, 03:09 PM

I believe that you're referring to Occam's Razor. "The conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions is more likely to be the correct one."

So either we can assume:
1: that that this is a simulation
2: someone made this simulation
3: there is another world out there that is real
4: that this other world is far more complex than ours

or:
1: the world is real.

therefore, its likely the world is real.

Shadowy

2012-12-17, 03:24 PM

Is this just fantasy? ♪

Caught in a landslide.

Dr.Epic

2012-12-17, 03:32 PM

Also, if this doesn't end with me flying and stopping bullets, I'm going to be pissed.

I'd be more pissed if it did end that way. I mean, the first part will be awesome. But then the next two parts will be unbearable.

Phase

2012-12-17, 03:37 PM

Caught in a landslide.

No escape from reality. :smallfrown:

Lentrax

2012-12-17, 03:50 PM

No escape from reality. :smallfrown:
Are we really going to do this?
Open your eyes.

Misery Esquire

2012-12-17, 03:51 PM

Open your eyes.

Look up to the (digital) skies and see...

Chess435

2012-12-17, 04:12 PM

Look up to the (digital) skies and see...

I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy

Story Time

2012-12-17, 04:12 PM

...following some-thing along in the vane of what Yora posted...

I find the very question, "Are we a simulation," to be not only ridiculous, but also narcissistic. Because if the meta-phorical they do discover ( not assume, theorize, or collaborate; truly discover ) some-thing along the lines of reality being a simulation then some-one is going to have the un-lucky job of explaining the following:

"Well, we found out that reality is just a simulation. And it turns out that there's a Designer. And...well... The Designer has plans for us...

"To start with..."

White_Drake

2012-12-17, 04:28 PM

I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy

Because I'm easy come, easy go

One problem I have with that is that it assumes that we are being simulated at the same level of existence as ours. But the article itself mentions we're only just simulating particles at the actual level of reality. Most simulation programs are vastly simplified, and if our world is a simplification of some other physics, and in that case I can't see that the constants would be the same between our universe and the simulating one.

Which means that the real world is an even cooler and more intriguing place than the net! My theory is that the world is a simulation, and the reason Jim Morrison died at 27 is because the scientists found out how freaking awesome he was, and woke him up.

Alternatively we are the simulated simulation of a simulation.

What if heaven/hell is just the simulators bringing us out of coma and assigning a reinforcement/punishment which is filtered back through a latent psychic network to those of us still sleeping?

Thajocoth

2012-12-17, 04:30 PM

I would honestly classify such a search as theology. They're looking for a creator & reason for existence.

I'm in support of Occam's Razor here: No.

Chess435

2012-12-17, 04:36 PM

Alternatively we are the simulated simulation of a simulation.

http://assets.yodawgpics.com/hashed_silo_content/696/3ae/309/resized/yo-dawg.jpg

Grinner

2012-12-17, 06:04 PM

I'd be careful about applying Occam's Razor too liberally, especially to such an abstract question. While the universe as we know it does appear to be minimalistic, it is by no means simplistic.

The Extinguisher

2012-12-17, 06:47 PM

I think one of the reason they are looking is because there seem to be simplification in the laws of physics. Stuff like absolute zero, light speed, the uncertainty principle, Planck length and time, and possibly some more I'm not aware of.

Basically there are a lot of limitations on how fast or how cold or how small or how short things can be, and one reason for these limitations could be that it makes reality easier to simulate.

Except that all of those do have a base in reality. Absolute zero is simply the temperature that nothing can move at, and they have no energy. Because of how temperature is defined, you can't go lower than that. The speed of light is actually the speed of all massless particles, and it's only because massive particles interact with the Higgs field that they travel slower.
Similarly, the uncertainty princle is because everything is a wave, which means it cannot have an exact location.

On the Planck length and time, it's not that those are the smallest possible length and time. It's just that we don't understand how things interact in such a small time yet.

They may seems arbitrary, but only if you look at it from our historical units. When you let the speed of light be 1, suddenly it looks a lot less like some arbitrary speed limit.

Dr.Epic

2012-12-17, 07:28 PM

I AM INTERFACE!!!

Because I refuse to make a Matrix reference.

:smallwink:

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-17, 10:28 PM

If the universe is a simulation, it's full of bugs.

Because I'm easy come, easy go

:smallamused:

Little high, little low.

Wyntonian

2012-12-17, 10:41 PM

Any way the winds blow....

Also, there's a reason I'm a words guy. All this science makes my brain hurt, but in such a good way :smalltongue:.

Anarion

2012-12-17, 11:34 PM

Any way the winds blow....

Doesn't really matter to me, to me

Anyway, I don't see how this actually tests whether we are in fact in a simulation. It tests whether we could be a simulation, and if it's negative it proves only that we're not the kind of simulation that they have created. So, only if it's positive does it really mean anything, and even then all it means is that it's possible for us to be a simulation, not that we actually must be one.

I still think it's cool though.

Jay R

2012-12-17, 11:46 PM

This question has been debated for thousands of years, in the form, "Are we a creation?"

And we aren't allowed to discuss it here.

Anarion

2012-12-18, 12:10 AM

This question has been debated for thousands of years, in the form, "Are we a creation?"

And we aren't allowed to discuss it here.

This discussion seems to me to be about a scientific article that looks at whether the universe can be modeled mathematically in a way that would give rise to our actual universe. The report on the attempt is an interesting article, albeit one that is somewhat overblown. The thing that you're talking about is a different thing.

Eldariel

2012-12-18, 12:34 AM

That’s one thing I never quite grasped with The Matrix. Why were they so bothered by the robots abusing our physical bodies…. Who cares? Sure hacking the matrix and dodging bullets is fun, but why be so horrified about what the robots are doing.

Well, the big thing about the Matrix is the humans had a choice. They could choose to try and leave the Matrix which would, first and foremost, allow them to actually affect reality.

Spending time in a virtual world is all fine and good but I'd like to believe many people also wish to make a difference and to make the world around them a better place to live. It can really be fundamentally drawn to the survival instinct; which is another point.

Humans tend to biologically strive to survive (of course, individuals can cognitively desire to cease or just not give a damn one way or another regardless of that); a very fundamental need. If you don't have power over yourself, you can't really protect yourself or others in a meaningful way and thus affect your own survival, which might be a strong motive to act against that kind of a simulation.

Then there's simply the desire to make one's life have a difference; a simulated life is basically for nothing, no matter what you achieve inside a simulation. All those achievements are still a simulation and thus they have no real value.

And being herded as batteries might rub some people the wrong way. It violates every human right. Some people might call it injustice and some people might be extremely pissed off about said injustice so they will fight to right it.

There are many possible motivations to desire to affect the real world if you become aware the world you're living in basically can be changed at a whim and has no value in and of itself other than to keep you happy so you don't generate any goals outside the simulation. Especially when you're also given tools to break away at the same time. Which is basically what happened in the Matrix.

But yeah, this is an old but still interesting perspective to existence, though ultimately we probably lack the power to do anything about us being a simulation if we are one. Though being effectively a sentient program would be kinda cool, at least. If I am sentient at any rate; I'm pretty sure I am though since not being sentient would mean these thoughts probably wouldn't be occurring.

Fiery Diamond

2012-12-18, 01:11 AM

Well, the big thing about the Matrix is the humans had a choice. They could choose to try and leave the Matrix which would, first and foremost, allow them to actually affect reality.

Spending time in a virtual world is all fine and good but I'd like to believe many people also wish to make a difference and to make the world around them a better place to live. It can really be fundamentally drawn to the survival instinct; which is another point.

Humans tend to biologically strive to survive (of course, individuals can cognitively desire to cease or just not give a damn one way or another regardless of that); a very fundamental need. If you don't have power over yourself, you can't really protect yourself or others in a meaningful way and thus affect your own survival, which might be a strong motive to act against that kind of a simulation.

Then there's simply the desire to make one's life have a difference; a simulated life is basically for nothing, no matter what you achieve inside a simulation. All those achievements are still a simulation and thus they have no real value.

And being herded as batteries might rub some people the wrong way. It violates every human right. Some people might call it injustice and some people might be extremely pissed off about said injustice so they will fight to right it.

There are many possible motivations to desire to affect the real world if you become aware the world you're living in basically can be changed at a whim and has no value in and of itself other than to keep you happy so you don't generate any goals outside the simulation. Especially when you're also given tools to break away at the same time. Which is basically what happened in the Matrix.

But yeah, this is an old but still interesting perspective to existence, though ultimately we probably lack the power to do anything about us being a simulation if we are one. Though being effectively a sentient program would be kinda cool, at least. If I am sentient at any rate; I'm pretty sure I am though since not being sentient would mean these thoughts probably wouldn't be occurring.

I'd like to preface by first saying that I think the whole question is rather ridiculous.

But I'd also like to address the person above me:

"Then there's simply the desire to make one's life have a difference; a simulated life is basically for nothing, no matter what you achieve inside a simulation. All those achievements are still a simulation and thus they have no real value."

From your perspective, maybe - but why must that be so? If all you ever experience is the simulated life, then why should knowledge of a non-simulated life somehow invalidate your experiences and achievements within the simulation? Heck, if it were possible to enter into a simulation indistinguishable from actuality that had all kinds of wish-fulfilling involved (going into a fantasy world where I had the power to be a hero, for example) wherein I could "live" for as long as I wanted, never needing to worry about my "real" body and life, it would be something that I would seriously consider.

Anarion

2012-12-18, 01:17 AM

"Then there's simply the desire to make one's life have a difference; a simulated life is basically for nothing, no matter what you achieve inside a simulation. All those achievements are still a simulation and thus they have no real value."

From your perspective, maybe - but why must that be so? If all you ever experience is the simulated life, then why should knowledge of a non-simulated life somehow invalidate your experiences and achievements within the simulation? Heck, if it were possible to enter into a simulation indistinguishable from actuality that had all kinds of wish-fulfilling involved (going into a fantasy world where I had the power to be a hero, for example) wherein I could "live" for as long as I wanted, never needing to worry about my "real" body and life, it would be something that I would seriously consider.

The issue is that the Matrix was imperfect, actually.

Imagine three people, A, B, and C.

A lives in the real world. He lives his life with purpose and is happy.
B lives in a perfect simulation. He lives his life with purpose and is also happy, never knowing that it was false. If there is some form of afterlife and he gets a chance to look back after he dies, he might be a little angry, but during his entire life, he was happy.
C lives in an imperfect simulation. At some point he realizes, due to the imperfections, that he's in a simulation. C is angry and is going to try and break out of it.

Story Time

2012-12-18, 02:43 AM

According to The Matrix: Revolutions all captive humans were aware, at a near-unconscious level, that they were not free and were constrained by the mechanical energy harvesters. This is proven in The Matrix film when the Morpheus character describes the feeling-which-brought-Neo-to-Morpheus.

Also, there is some evidence that Cipher's reaction could have been different than Neo's. The flaw, then, with an assumed simulated reality is not whether it is imperfect or not. The flaw comes from the assumption that a human agency could be capable of perfectly programming a replication of reality with-out flaw or variation from the original.

...saying all this while keeping in mind that the Cosmic Principle is neither proven nor presently measurable.

...I wonder if Voyager 1 will hit a solid wall...

TheSummoner

2012-12-18, 02:57 AM

However, if we were somehow in a simulation, we would be - as far as any of us could tell - in a perfect simulation. So far as we can percieve it, everything works the way it should be. So far as we can tell, there would be no difference between the simulation and reality.

Doesn't really matter to me, to me

Mama... just killed a man...

Xuc Xac

2012-12-18, 04:19 AM

The_Admiral

2012-12-18, 05:32 AM

This sounds like a cool idea

Mama... just killed a man...

Put a gun up to his head,

Lentrax

2012-12-18, 10:34 AM

Most people find death scary for one of three reasons.

1. They have been preached to about a heaven and a hell their entire lives, and are afraid they didn't do enough to get to heaven.

2. They are afraid of facing eternal darkness of which they have no control.

3. They are afraid that there is something beyond, another level of existence from which there is nothing more. A purgatory, if you will.

Also: Pulled my trigger, now he's dead.

Tvtyrant

2012-12-18, 11:06 AM

Aliquid

2012-12-18, 11:45 AM

How would you feel if you found out that normal human lifespan is about 500 years but they burn out much faster in the matrix? Maybe humans think death is scary because they know on a subconscious level that it's not supposed to happen so soon.Now you have my attention

Aliquid

2012-12-18, 12:05 PM

Well, the big thing about the Matrix is the humans had a choice. They could choose to try and leave the Matrix which would, first and foremost, allow them to actually affect reality.I'm quite content affecting a virtual reality. No need to waste a huge amount of energy and resources fighting to affect a "real" reality that sucks in comparison.

Spending time in a virtual world is all fine and good but I'd like to believe many people also wish to make a difference and to make the world around them a better place to live. It can really be fundamentally drawn to the survival instinct; which is another point.I can make a difference in the virtual world. When it comes down to it, the impact is the same. My mind is surviving just fine. I don't care about my physical body; it holds no value other than to contain my mind.

Then there's simply the desire to make one's life have a difference; a simulated life is basically for nothing, no matter what you achieve inside a simulation. All those achievements are still a simulation and thus they have no real value.Here is where we have very different philosophical views. I will strongly argue that all "virtual" achievements do have value. I agrue that they have the exact same value of achievements in the real world.

I don't see any reason that the location of an achievement makes any difference. The effort and energy put into the achievement are the same. The impact on your experiences and the experiences of others is the same. Where is the difference?

And being herded as batteries might rub some people the wrong way. It violates every human right. Some people might call it injustice and some people might be extremely pissed off about said injustice so they will fight to right it.Again, they are violating my body, not my mind.... so I don't care.

There are many possible motivations to desire to affect the real world if you become aware the world you're living in basically can be changed at a whim and has no value in and of itself other than to keep you happy so you don't generate any goals outside the simulation. Especially when you're also given tools to break away at the same time. Which is basically what happened in the Matrix.The "real" world doesn't have any value in an of itself either. I think this might be another major part of our differnt views... I don’t see any intrinsic value in the "real" world.

My view:
The only thing that has any value to me is our experiences. i.e. the experiences I have and my impact on the experiences of others. These experiences exist within our minds, and as such only our minds matter. The "real" world is just a location for our experiences to take place. Our bodies are just a vessel to hold our minds. Thus if you can remove my body and the real world without impacting my experiences… I am not bothered.

Grinner

2012-12-18, 01:01 PM

Here is where we have very different philosophical views. I will strongly argue that all "virtual" achievements do have value. I agrue that they have the exact same value of achievements in the real world.

...

My view:
The only thing that has any value to me is our experiences. i.e. the experiences I have and my impact on the experiences of others. These experiences exist within our minds, and as such only our minds matter. The "real" world is just a location for our experiences to take place. Our bodies are just a vessel to hold our minds. Thus if you can remove my body and the real world without impacting my experiences… I am not bothered.

So....what happens when someone resets the leaderboard?

Aliquid

2012-12-18, 01:30 PM

So....what happens when someone resets the leaderboard?Ok... valid point. You are swaying my opinion.

As I stated before, all that matters to me are my experiences… but you have suggested that the owners of the virtual reality could manipulate my experiences.

If some external force (e.g. the robots in the Matrix) decides to manipulate the virtual reality… then there is a problem. If they decide to erase my (or someone else’s) achievements or make any other significant adjustments then I would be bothered.

On the other hand, if they set up the virtual reality and then just left it to run on its own without any interference, then I stand by my previous statement.

Bulldog Psion

2012-12-18, 01:37 PM

Ok... valid point. You are swaying my opinion.

As I stated before, all that matters to me are my experiences… but you have suggested that the owners of the virtual reality could manipulate my experiences.

If some external force (e.g. the robots in the Matrix) decides to manipulate the virtual reality… then there is a problem. If they decide to erase my (or someone else’s) achievements or make any other significant adjustments then I would be bothered.

On the other hand, if they set up the virtual reality and then just left it to run on its own without any interference, then I stand by my previous statement.

And I agree with you, especially since there is no proof when you "break out" into the "real world" that you haven't entered another in a series of nesting simulations.

Eldariel

2012-12-18, 02:58 PM

My view:
The only thing that has any value to me is our experiences. i.e. the experiences I have and my impact on the experiences of others. These experiences exist within our minds, and as such only our minds matter. The "real" world is just a location for our experiences to take place. Our bodies are just a vessel to hold our minds. Thus if you can remove my body and the real world without impacting my experiences… I am not bothered.

This is certainly a valid viewpoint. I was merely answering your question, why so many people would probably not be okay with it. Remember, different people, different life philosophy, different way of reacting to such things. Some people have a life philosophy that enables them to accept not being real but the same way I cannot believe in fate because of my life philosophy, I also cannot accept me being a simulation.

Though in this case it's ultimately a fairly pointless question since the only time it makes a difference is if I can do something about it all; only reason I cannot believe in fate is because it would make no difference if I did, merely shackling me to accept things I have no reason to accept. The same way, if the world is a simulation but I can't do anything about it, I'll just choose to believe the world is real and go from there since the only thing I'd achieve by accepting the world is a simulation is frustrate myself by my actions being irrelevant (fully possible they are anyways but I choose to believe in the contrary since it makes life more interesting to live).

For some people, it's enough that some outside entity has the potential to reset the leaderboard (and/or to modify their experiences or mind or whatever) for them to try and regain the control of their existence, so to speak. Because even if said potential is never used, it's always there as a sort of a constant boogeyman (assuming people become aware of said entity). The Machines in the Matrix actually use that power at times; modifying the buildings, taking over bodies and so on for security reasons. Neo shares the viewpoint presented above, which explains most of his actions. When Morpheus asks him "Do you believe in fate, Neo?" (No./Why not?) he answers "Because I can't stand the idea I'm not in control of my life." Morpheus's reaction leads me to believe this is what all the people freed from the Matrix feel like, more or less.

And yet you still have Cypher, who was freed from the Matrix but still decides that ignorance is a bliss. Again, that's a perfectly valid view point where one just essentially gives up agency for personal happiness. A trade-off some people are willing to make, but others are not.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-18, 03:15 PM

I honestly never found this question terribly interesting.
Whether it is a simulation or reality, we still live our day to day lives, struggling through this life, trying our best (or at least not our worst) to do good by ourselves and others.
Now, if it's not so much a simulation as a dream, and there is one dreamer, now that, that is a scary scenario; the terror of which is summed up in, of course, this (http://xkcd.com/390/) xkcd strip.
I'll be in my corner having an existential crisis, thank you very much.:smalleek:

Aliquid

2012-12-18, 03:43 PM

This is certainly a valid viewpoint. I was merely answering your question, why so many people would probably not be okay with it.And that is exactly what I wanted. I wanted to understand why some people would not be ok with it... and you have helped me to understand.

For me understanding something requires questioning and challenging every piece of the philosophy that doesn’t make sense to me. Once I get answers I can compile them and re-look at the question.

I am certainly not suggesting that my viewpoint is the “correct” one, but by sharing my viewpoint I figured it would help explain why I don’t connect with yours. I was genuinely curious as to why people would react so differently than I would.

For some people, it's enough that some outside entity has the potential to reset the leaderboard (and/or to modify their experiences or mind or whatever) for them to try and regain the control of their existence, so to speak.Yes, I know people with that viewpoint. There have been other cases where I say to someone "meh, what's the big deal? It isn't going to happen", and I get a response "I don't care if it will or not. It is the principle of the matter… it is the fact that it can happen that bugs me"

The Machines in the Matrix actually use that power at times; modifying the buildings, taking over bodies and so on for security reasons.True, I forgot about that point (I'm not a big fan of the movie, so I forget some details). I can see things like this bothering someone.

The interesting thing is though... because of my different viewpoint there are parts of the movie that I find horribly unethical, yet others are not bothered by it at all.

For example: when Neo and Trinity fight all the security guards. I find that scene quite disturbing. These are regular security guards, not “evil henchmen” or anything like that. Even if an agent takes over the body of the security guard, it is the guard that dies not the agent. These are perfectly honest and responsible citizens who have lives and families to go home to… and they are brutally killed in an entertaining fashion without a shred of guilt. Their family members will suffer and mourn the loss… that emotional experience will be 100% real for them even though they are living in a virtual world.

You could argue that this was a necessary evil, but if that was the case there would be guilt involved and it wouldn’t have been depicted as a fun adventure.

GolemsVoice

2012-12-18, 03:52 PM

The thing about living in a Matrix-like simulation and knowing it is that, even if everything goes it's daily course, many people probably couldn't help but suspecting the work of the "creators" behind some events. From great events ("let's see what happens if we arrange country X like this...") to very small ones (that neighbour that just always seems to be lucky).

Of course you can't prove that they have been behind it, but you also can't prove that they're NOT.

Also, if we are truly a simulation, for me that means artificially created for some other purpose than just to exist. So what if that reseearch lab we're in, for example, has to cut funding? If the new director isn't terribly fond of that experiment they had going on there for quite a while? You just can't KNOW anymore, it could happen any time. EVERYTHING could happen anytime, because unlike most religions, we have no assurance that the creator has our best in mind.

Most people probably would shrug and just get on with their lives, the human mind has an astounding capability to accept what it can't change (not a bad thing, neccessarily), but I can imagine that the thought could still be there, just lurking, making you suspicious. And let's not even talk of people that might be agents of the creators, hiding among us.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-18, 04:12 PM

Well, inside the simulation, we wouldn't know, could we?
Instant oblivion, in between one Planck time and the next.

GolemsVoice

2012-12-18, 04:36 PM

It could end that way. It could also end in the more traditional fire-and-flood variety. Even so, the prospect of ever-impending doom is harsh.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-18, 05:12 PM

It could end that way. It could also end in the more traditional fire-and-flood variety. Even so, the prospect of ever-impending doom is harsh.
Sure, but if there is nothing we can do, there is nothing we can do, and we wouldn't even know if it happened, unlike a more traditional apocalypse.

GolemsVoice

2012-12-19, 03:21 AM

If the creators of the simulation chose to end the world in a more traditional fashion, how would we not know when it happened? I'd suspect we knew as soon as the fireballs started falling.
And even if there's nothing we can do about it, won't stop people from feeling uneasy about it. Death is unavoidable, yet many people fear it, and fight it. Fighting against things is in human nature just as much as accepting the inevitable.

Castaras

2012-12-19, 07:09 AM

Also: Pulled my trigger, now he's dead.

Mama... Life had just begun...

I don't really mind if I am a simulation or not. I have no way of knowing whether I am or not, and I'm enjoying myself in whatever it is I'm in, so not going to complain. :smallsmile:

Chen

2012-12-19, 08:50 AM

The interesting thing is though... because of my different viewpoint there are parts of the movie that I find horribly unethical, yet others are not bothered by it at all.

For example: when Neo and Trinity fight all the security guards. I find that scene quite disturbing. These are regular security guards, not “evil henchmen” or anything like that. Even if an agent takes over the body of the security guard, it is the guard that dies not the agent. These are perfectly honest and responsible citizens who have lives and families to go home to… and they are brutally killed in an entertaining fashion without a shred of guilt. Their family members will suffer and mourn the loss… that emotional experience will be 100% real for them even though they are living in a virtual world.

You could argue that this was a necessary evil, but if that was the case there would be guilt involved and it wouldn’t have been depicted as a fun adventure.

Yeah this always bothered me too. Its not even like the people they "good guys" are killing are in on the whole thing. They're regular people doing their jobs and getting killed by terrorists. Maybe when you're talking about some of the random guy's guards (Merovingian or whatever he was called) its easier to accept. But the cops in the initial scene apprehending Trinity or the security guards when they go try and rescue Morpheus definitely seemed like plain regular people. Not to mention the number of people Neo kills when he does that super speed flight thing to catch Trinity in the second movie.

Eldariel

2012-12-19, 09:01 AM

Yeah this always bothered me too. Its not even like the people they "good guys" are killing are in on the whole thing. They're regular people doing their jobs and getting killed by terrorists. Maybe when you're talking about some of the random guy's guards (Merovingian or whatever he was called) its easier to accept. But the cops in the initial scene apprehending Trinity or the security guards when they go try and rescue Morpheus definitely seemed like plain regular people. Not to mention the number of people Neo kills when he does that super speed flight thing to catch Trinity in the second movie.

It was mentioned in the training program. Anybody not disconnected from the Matrix is a potential agent, which makes them enemies (the whole "so dependent on that system they will fight to protect it"-part). If the resistance is to be able to act inside the Matrix it's of utmost necessity to basically kill every single human when they're standing out.

Whether it's vindicated or not depends on one's philosophical standing again, of course. If life is inherently considered to be an absolute value, such actions are a violation of that value but the more relative the valuing of life gets, the more acceptable it becomes; it's very much a Greater Good-sorta deal, as in "they could be left alive but that would probably end up in extermination of Sion and the end of a sovereign human race, with their existence limited to the status of batteries". A superhero could do both, save all those people and still save Morpheus but Neo isn't quite a superhero yet and at that point you have to make choices. The action of making choices itself can't be wrong and that was very definitely a Koboyashi Maru if we try to save the security officials' lives.

Anecronwashere

2012-12-19, 09:30 AM

On the topic of Simulated Achievements over Reality Achievements:

Let's use an example, because I find them easier.
Say you wanted to write a book. You sit down, open up a word file and tap away for a long time. And you write a book.
You ship it around to various publishers and one picks it up. It goes onto a bookstore, makes millions and you retire after making a slew of other works in the series.

Now, let's rewind.
You sit down at you computer. But this time, let's put a box around you. A very big box, sealing the whole city inside a giant box.
You write your book same as normal. You ship it around to the same publishers. You make the same amount of money as the same people buy your books. You write the same sequels and retire with the same bank balance.

Now imagine instead of a Box, it's someone playing World of Warcraft or some other MMO, where writing a book is possible and selling it to other players is just as possible.

Now, the MMO is the matrix.

Tell me, where does the achievement stop meaning anything? Or meaning less?
You wrote a book using your mind. You shipped it to Real People who are publishers, and they sold it to bookstores where they were brought by Real People. Where matters not, only that you achieved.

I do understand the whole "What is someone wipes the leaderboard" arguement, but to which I rebutt "Look into the swinging watch. You will forget ever writing a novel"
Either that, or a blue police call box and the sound of whirring as it fades in and out. Reality in all it's dubious nature has many reset buttons, from Amnesia to Time-Travel.
And since we are talking about "What if this is a simulation" I can bring in unReal elements into Reality as examples.

Slipperychicken

2012-12-19, 10:33 AM

You guys might want to read up on Plato's Allegory of the Cave (http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/platoscave.html), from the Republic. It was the inspiration for the Matrix, is the same concept, and has been debated/discussed for thousands of years.

(The Cave is essentially a bronze age version of the Matrix, using shadow-puppetry and echos instead of a computer simulation. Minus the machines, plus puppet-masters, but the principles are exactly the same).

So commentary/theories you can find on the Allegory are very much applicable to our question.

Morithias

2012-12-19, 10:39 AM

Telonius

2012-12-19, 10:43 AM

If we are a simulation, I have a few bugs I'd like to report to the dev. :smallannoyed:

Slipperychicken

2012-12-19, 10:44 AM

And so on.

What if I told you,

Someone is running this universe as a simulation... to determine if his own world is a simulation. After all, he's curious like us, and has no way of knowing for sure, what's real and what isn't.

Aliquid

2012-12-19, 10:47 AM

It was mentioned in the training program. Anybody not disconnected from the Matrix is a potential agent, which makes them enemies (the whole "so dependent on that system they will fight to protect it"-part). If the resistance is to be able to act inside the Matrix it's of utmost necessity to basically kill every single human when they're standing out.That logic is frighteningly close to the logic that terrorists use to justify killing innocents.

it's very much a Greater Good-sorta deal, as in "they could be left alive but that would probably end up in extermination of Sion and the end of a sovereign human race, with their existence limited to the status of batteries".Even if it was for the greater good, there should have been guilt and respect for those that fell.

Note that there are many flaws with the "greater good" argument... For example, if there were 4 people dying in the hospital needing a heart/lung/liver/kidney transplant. They are all blood type A+... is it justified to slaughter the next blood type A+ person that walks into the hospital and harvest them for their organs? One person dies and four dying people are saved…. Greater good and all.

Eldariel

2012-12-19, 11:00 AM

That logic is frighteningly close to the logic that terrorists use to justify killing innocents.

Well, it's basically war we're talking about here. Morality has no place there. It would be really awesome if we could live in a world where we don't have to kill each other but that quickly leaves us at the mercy of those people who don't place such restrictions on themselves, and ultimately probably more regressed and worse off than thus far. It wouldn't save anyone, but it would get the people who could save some killed.

Chen

2012-12-19, 11:15 AM

Well, it's basically war we're talking about here. Morality has no place there. It would be really awesome if we could live in a world where we don't have to kill each other but that quickly leaves us at the mercy of those people who don't place such restrictions on themselves, and ultimately probably more regressed and worse off than thus far. It wouldn't save anyone, but it would get the people who could save some killed.

Uh morality definitely has a place in war. Its why we don't just go glass cities to kill all our enemies there. The protagonists in the Matrix had no qualms about killing people doing what they thought were normal jobs. Hell they drove onto the whole freeway part which is pretty much akin to using human shields. They had to know the disaster they were going to cause there just so they could escape.

Eldariel

2012-12-19, 11:22 AM

Uh morality definitely has a place in war. Its why we don't just go glass cities to kill all our enemies there. The protagonists in the Matrix had no qualms about killing people doing what they thought were normal jobs. Hell they drove onto the whole freeway part which is pretty much akin to using human shields. They had to know the disaster they were going to cause there just so they could escape.

What do you propose they should have done?

Aliquid

2012-12-19, 11:57 AM

What do you propose they should have done?It isn't just a question of what they did; it is also the fact that they did it without hesitation, concern or guilt. There was no dilemma.

As such they don’t value the lives of others. They see themselves as superior to other humans; they see themselves as more important than other humans; and they will kill an innocent without blinking an eye. I have a major problem with that.

Eldariel

2012-12-19, 12:04 PM

It isn't just a question of what they did; it is also the fact that they did it without hesitation, concern or guilt. There was no dilemma.

As such they don’t value the lives of others. They see themselves as superior to other humans; they see themselves as more important than other humans; and they will kill an innocent without blinking an eye. I have a major problem with that.

Isn't that what's expected of every soldier tho? Maybe it was just uploaded in their brain along with all the other combat training. Battlefield isn't the place for hesitation or remorse.

noparlpf

2012-12-19, 12:13 PM

Isn't that what's expected of every soldier tho? Maybe it was just uploaded in their brain along with all the other combat training. Battlefield isn't the place for hesitation or remorse.

A battlefield may not be, but it's generally considered evil to go about endangering or killing your own citizens "for the greater good".

Jan Mattys

2012-12-19, 12:27 PM

Again, they are violating my body, not my mind.... so I don't care.

The "real" world doesn't have any value in an of itself either. I think this might be another major part of our differnt views... I don’t see any intrinsic value in the "real" world.

My view:
The only thing that has any value to me is our experiences. i.e. the experiences I have and my impact on the experiences of others. These experiences exist within our minds, and as such only our minds matter. The "real" world is just a location for our experiences to take place. Our bodies are just a vessel to hold our minds. Thus if you can remove my body and the real world without impacting my experiences… I am not bothered.

I'm confused. How exactly is "feeding your brain lies" not violating your mind? Your mind is reacting to assumptions, and works in patterns produced by both the natural and social environment.

If this is a simulation, possibly both the natural and social environment are lies. So the very way your mind works is undermined by the lies the simulation fed you since you were connected (or created).

How can you consider this "not violating your mind" is baffling to me.

Same goes for Matrix, really, if you think about it.

Aliquid

2012-12-19, 12:38 PM

Isn't that what's expected of every soldier tho? Maybe it was just uploaded in their brain along with all the other combat training. Battlefield isn't the place for hesitation or remorse.I disagree. I would suggest that if we took on that viewpoint, more war crimes would happen.

Aliquid

2012-12-19, 12:43 PM

I'm confused. How exactly is "feeding your brain lies" not violating your mind? Your mind is reacting to assumptions, and works in patterns produced by both the natural and social environment.

If this is a simulation, possibly both the natural and social environment are lies. So the very way your mind works is undermined by the lies the simulation fed you since you were connected (or created).

How can you consider this "not violating your mind" is baffling to me.

Same goes for Matrix, really, if you think about it.Glad to see I'm not the only one baffled by other's views on this subject ;)

Note that after I made that comment I conceded that if someone is actively manipulating and changing the virtual reality I would have a problem. If it is just a self-supporting system then the “lies” you refer to are totally trivial. Who cares if this is a real computer that I am typing on or a virtual representation of one…. My experience is the same either way.

Androgeus

2012-12-19, 12:46 PM

If we are a simulation, I have a few bugs I'd like to report to the dev. :smallannoyed:

Those are features, not bugs. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry

2012-12-19, 12:53 PM

I believe the discussion of whether they are a bug or a feature, much less the various forms of bug reports, are beyond the scope of this forum.

Eldariel

2012-12-20, 12:57 AM

I disagree. I would suggest that if we took on that viewpoint, more war crimes would happen.

Soldiers are conditioned, pretty much regardless of country, to kill people. Normally, humans are extremely reluctant to do so. That obviously doesn't work for people whose job is basically to kill other people, so military training is more or less a long conditioning period for desensitivizing people to killing, helping soldiers not think of the enemies as humans and so on.

Hell, the shared Christmas celebration in WW1 was a huge problem from a military standpoint since the soldiers got to know each other personally and realized they're humans on both sides. It really hurt morale and simply made it even harder for many to press the trigger, let alone hundreds of times in a war that was basically slaughtering the attacking party over and over.

Basically, I'm saying it's pretty much automatic and necessary; I wouldn't be at all surprised if the combat training seen in the Matrix involved similar conditioning 'cause they need to kill and hesitation will cause the resistance to die instead, and remorse will cause inability to go on. Both are basically obstacles so removing them is natural. Real soldiers tend to postpone dealing with such feelings for after the war (when many require psychiatric help).

Xuc Xac

2012-12-20, 04:21 AM

Again, they are violating my body, not my mind.... so I don't care.

This is basically equivalent to "It's not rape if she's passed out drunk."

TrioThePunch

2012-12-20, 04:54 AM

I would take a level in the Metagamer class just in case.

If we are a simulation, maybe the people who are simulating us are a simulation, and maybe the people simulating them are also a simulation, so on and so forth.
Maybe it is like a video game
Maybe the multiverse is just different universes that have been generated, and alternate universes are where the people controlling the thing have saved twice at one point and played through each differently.
Maybe, it is a video game, and god was just a player of our planet or something.
I don't know whether what I am saying makes sense at all.

North_Ranger

2012-12-20, 11:09 AM

To quote a popular meme at a forum I frequent: "We are all alts of JCM".

Jade_Tarem

2012-12-20, 04:01 PM

You guys have to remember one key thing about "simulations". Aka why most simulations are made.

The creator is ticked off at life, and thinks they could do better, or just wants to be able to vent some steam without going to jail, or they like the grasp of power it gives them.

If life was perfect why bother trying to simulate anything?

You play sim city cause city layouts are nuts. You play evil genius cause you want to rule the world. You play black and white cause you hate reality and think you could do better as the deity.

And so on.

Ultimately there is only one thing left to do....ruin the simulation.

You know, do something completely nuts, like cause world peace or something. After all, if the people making the simulation fall into the later, they enjoy the chaos and so on of the world they rule over. So by making a perfect, or as close to possible perfect world, the simulation gets ruined.

No one wants to play a sim city game where the game plays itself and there's nothing to do you know. No city to build. Got it?

So that's my thoughts, let's make world peace happen and see if the number of natural disasters peaks during that time.

A couple of things I'd like to bring up.

There is another reason that simulations are made - to prove or disprove something. To test things. Scientists, engineers, doctors, and even historians build models and simulations all the time as aids to their work. Most are, of course, not full-blown life simulations, but they very well could be.

In such a simulation, your ability to exist and operate within the simulated universe is also your 'real world' significance and purpose. The Matrix robbed us of that speculation by immediately introducing an us-vs-them mentality and making it all out to be a mutually exclusive war for survival.

Which brings me to another point - there would be no guarantee in a simulated universe that there's a meatbag version of us somewhere in 'reality.' Matrix Reloaded would have had a fantastic ending had the Architect simply revealed to Neo that Zion and the Matrix were just layered simulations in some epidemiologist's intranet, that the whole point was to cure the Vaporizing Flu that had been spreading in the "real world," and that Neo and everyone he knows is actually a program. Then smug people on the internet would point out that this is actually the plot of Reboot.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-20, 04:18 PM

That would actually make quite a bit more sense actually considering Neo uses his Matrix powers at at least one point in the 'real world'. It doesn't answer why, but why has always been a difficult question.

Mewtarthio

2012-12-20, 04:20 PM

Note that there are many flaws with the "greater good" argument... For example, if there were 4 people dying in the hospital needing a heart/lung/liver/kidney transplant. They are all blood type A+... is it justified to slaughter the next blood type A+ person that walks into the hospital and harvest them for their organs? One person dies and four dying people are saved…. Greater good and all.

Word starts getting around that healthy people who go to hospitals tend to get broken down for spare parts. People become terrified of hospitals. The healthy avoid doctors whenever possible, and regular check-ups become nothing more than memories of a more idyllic time. Mild illnesses go untreated, and vaccinations are no longer administered. Sickness spreads unchecked through the population. The extremely ill only go to hospitals as a last resort; by then, they already need transplants if their diseases can be treated at all. Doctors resort to more active means of acquiring donors. People are snatched from the streets and even adbucted from their homes. The majority of humanity is driven underground to find more defensible positions. These underground cities are breeding grounds for all sorts of terrible plagues. The slightest cough is cause for alarm, and those who are too sick to get out of bed are summarily euthanized, for fear that the Harvesters will take them to their hospitals and seek new sacrifices to heal them.

End result: Humanity is worse off, and the greater good is not upheld.

White_Drake

2012-12-20, 04:48 PM

Word starts getting around that healthy people who go to hospitals tend to get broken down for spare parts. People become terrified of hospitals. The healthy avoid doctors whenever possible, and regular check-ups become nothing more than memories of a more idyllic time. Mild illnesses go untreated, and vaccinations are no longer administered. Sickness spreads unchecked through the population. The extremely ill only go to hospitals as a last resort; by then, they already need transplants if their diseases can be treated at all. Doctors resort to more active means of acquiring donors. People are snatched from the streets and even adbucted from their homes. The majority of humanity is driven underground to find more defensible positions. These underground cities are breeding grounds for all sorts of terrible plagues. The slightest cough is cause for alarm, and those who are too sick to get out of bed are summarily euthanized, for fear that the Harvesters will take them to their hospitals and seek new sacrifices to heal them.

End result: Humanity is worse off, and the greater good is not upheld.

This is becoming a campaign setting, thank you.

A big part for me is how good the simulation is. I don't believe that if we spent our entire lives in a sim we could have any idea what the real world, or even real people, would look like. Maybe we're all Lovecraftian horrors in chemical vats. Perhaps we are able to perceive the universe in five, or even six or seven dimensions in the real world. If the simulation is perfect though, I don't see a whole lot of value in fighting to get out.

And also, "But now I've gone and thrown it all away"

TrioThePunch

2012-12-20, 06:10 PM

Word starts getting around that healthy people who go to hospitals tend to get broken down for spare parts. People become terrified of hospitals. The healthy avoid doctors whenever possible, and regular check-ups become nothing more than memories of a more idyllic time. Mild illnesses go untreated, and vaccinations are no longer administered. Sickness spreads unchecked through the population. The extremely ill only go to hospitals as a last resort; by then, they already need transplants if their diseases can be treated at all. Doctors resort to more active means of acquiring donors. People are snatched from the streets and even adbucted from their homes. The majority of humanity is driven underground to find more defensible positions. These underground cities are breeding grounds for all sorts of terrible plagues. The slightest cough is cause for alarm, and those who are too sick to get out of bed are summarily euthanized, for fear that the Harvesters will take them to their hospitals and seek new sacrifices to heal them.

End result: Humanity is worse off, and the greater good is not upheld.
About the medical thing, I believe that through the cloning of organs, we can completely eliminate the need for organ donations. We know of plant products that are very effective against cancers, but drugs that cure in one dose are not profitable for pharmaceutical companies. Wouldn't the doctors be classified as murderers, and if it got that bad, wouldn't the authorities go after them?

Slipperychicken

2012-12-20, 11:36 PM

End result: Humanity is worse off, and the greater good is not upheld.

More like:

1. One crazy dude (or maybe even a group) decides killing a guy for his organs is a good idea.

2. Administration finds out (sketchy deaths, undocumented organs, whatever) about this guy and fire him, revoke his license, and he's quickly thrown in jail for a very long time. In the unlikely event that he gets out of jail alive, he's an unemployable menace to society.

3. Two or three crazy/ignorant people, afraid there might be others like this guy, decide not to get their kids vaccinated. But let's be real, these aren't the brightest bulbs in the shed. They are the kind of people who would pull their kids out of school permanently in response to the Newton shooting.

4. With this deranged psychopath in prison, the sick continue to be treated as normal.

5. Medical institutions retain their credibility.

End Result: One more prisoner graces the country's prison system. A handful of easily-frightened people don't get their kids vaccinated. The world continues working much as it did before.

Aliquid

2012-12-21, 12:06 AM

End result: Humanity is worse off, and the greater good is not upheld.Ok, lets change the scenario so that the public won't be scared.

Imagine 40 years ago, in some country where the govt has too much power... an elite member of society says “hey look at these new organ transplant procedures… wouldn’t it be great if all of the good people of my country could have transplants available whenever needed?”

So he comes up and implements the following plan:
Surrogate mothers are artificially impregnated to give birth to healthy children that belong to the government (the women are paid well for this service). These children are then taken away and raised by the state in a government compound. They are raised to be healthy and strong. They are forced to donate blood on a regular basis, and when someone from the public needs an organ transplant, one of these “government children” is selected, and harvested for his/her organs.

This way the general public benefits from having a strong and healthy medical system where organs, blood, bone marrow etc. are all available on demand. Also the public doesn’t need to feel threatened at any point.
This supports the greater good, but it is still morally wrong.

Aliquid

2012-12-21, 12:11 AM

Soldiers are conditioned, pretty much regardless of country, to kill people. Normally, humans are extremely reluctant to do so. That obviously doesn't work for people whose job is basically to kill other people, so military training is more or less a long conditioning period for desensitivizing people to killing, helping soldiers not think of the enemies as humans and so on.I'm not an expert on this matter... so I won't debate it.

Even so… if the main characters of the movie are just “soldiers”, then who are the higher ranked officers making the tough decisions?

Someone should be accountable for the death of these innocents.

Grinner

2012-12-21, 12:13 AM

How did we go from a discussion on existentialism to a discussion on organ farms? :smallconfused:

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-21, 12:14 AM

How did we go from a discussion on existentialism to a discussion on organ farms? :smallconfused:

This is the internet, after all. A sane and consistent conversation has no place here.

Aliquid

2012-12-21, 12:21 AM

This is basically equivalent to "It's not rape if she's passed out drunk."Well didn't you put a twist on the conversation with just one sentence....

First a quick disclaimer: I said I didn't care about my body being violated, just my mind. I wouldn't take that to another level and say “I can violate someone else’s body”. Just because I don’t care about what happens to me, doesn’t mean that others feel the same way.

Now to address your point: rape is not only a violation of the body. The violation goes way deeper than that. It would probably be against the forum’s rules for me to go into this subject any further though.

Aliquid

2012-12-21, 12:25 AM

How did we go from a discussion on existentialism to a discussion on organ farms? :smallconfused:Don't all conversations end up being about organ farms? Or is that just me....

Xuc Xac

2012-12-21, 01:20 AM

This way the general public benefits from having a strong and healthy medical system where organs, blood, bone marrow etc. are all available on demand. Also the public doesn’t need to feel threatened at any point.
This supports the greater good, but it is still morally wrong.

You seem to have missed the fact that those children would be citizens and part of "the public". The plan doesn't support the greater good. You just redefined "the public" to exclude a large group. It's like saying "slavery benefits everyone because it only hurts slaves and they don't count".

Anecronwashere

2012-12-21, 06:49 AM

They wouldn't be citizens. They would be their own occupied Nation :smallamused:

And it isn't a large portion it's about 1%, likely way less than.

As the person said, it's morally wrong BUT serves the "Greater Good" by having a net positive effect.
Lots of people saved by the abundant organs, the children have no rights because they were created only as organ-sacks and blood-producers, the research that can be gained by using some of the children would help the greater populace at large.

Morally reprensible, yet pragmatic and for the best in the greater populace.

Aliquid

2012-12-21, 09:57 AM

You seem to have missed the fact that those children would be citizens and part of "the public". The plan doesn't support the greater good. You just redefined "the public" to exclude a large group. It's like saying "slavery benefits everyone because it only hurts slaves and they don't count".All you are doing is supporting my point.

Anyone trying to use the "greater good" argument to defend the killing of innocents is full of it.

Edit:
P.S. as stated above, the whole concept of the greater good is that no decision will benefit everyone. So you have to pick the decisions that benefit the most people.

TrioThePunch

2012-12-22, 05:29 AM

All you are doing is supporting my point.

Anyone trying to use the "greater good" argument to defend the killing of innocents is full of it.

Edit:
P.S. as stated above, the whole concept of the greater good is that no decision will benefit everyone. So you have to pick the decisions that benefit the most people.

Well, in Mass Effect, you sometimes have to let the antagonists kill some of your guys to stop the real problem. Like the battle of the citadel, you can choose to let the council die to focus on sovereign.
Killing off some people to stop the spread of a lethal 90% mortality rate virulent disease so that 90% of the world doesn't die and saying it is for the greater good is not full off it I reckon. I think that we shouldn't base decisions that can kill or save the human race on emotion.
But I guess if we were trying to save the human race, we would try to do it without losing our humanity.

Aliquid

2012-12-22, 10:08 AM

Well, in Mass Effect, you sometimes have to let the antagonists kill some of your guys to stop the real problem. Like the battle of the citadel, you can choose to let the council die to focus on sovereign.
Killing off some people to stop the spread of a lethal 90% mortality rate virulent disease so that 90% of the world doesn't die and saying it is for the greater good is not full off it I reckon. I think that we shouldn't base decisions that can kill or save the human race on emotion.
But I guess if we were trying to save the human race, we would try to do it without losing our humanity.I'm sure there are situations where killing innocents for the "greater good" is a necessary evil. Even so, it isn’t a decision that should be made lightly, and one can‘t forget that as necessary as it is… it is still the lesser of two evils.

That's the problem with moral dilemmas… no matter what you do, you are screwed.

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-22, 10:13 AM

Eldariel

2012-12-22, 09:09 PM

I'm sure there are situations where killing innocents for the "greater good" is a necessary evil. Even so, it isn’t a decision that should be made lightly, and one can‘t forget that as necessary as it is… it is still the lesser of two evils.

That's the problem with moral dilemmas… no matter what you do, you are screwed.

All that follows is my opinion (not my only opinion on the matter either, but one I wish to present here in interests of this discussion): I find hanging onto a tight moral code no matter what is for stories (even there, generally hundreds of irrelevant side characters die because of said codes; while not responsible for their deaths directly, imagine how many deaths Batman could've avoided by killing the Joker at the earliest opportunity); in reality a miracle to save everybody is quite unlikely when the **** truly hits the proverbial fan. From what I've read and seen, reality is full of Kobayashi Marus without the option of hacking reality to make things work out after all; trying to save everybody tends to just end with everybody dying instead.

Close scrutiny of any side's actions in any war (as an easy example) reveals they all do terrible things. Least terrible is killing enemy soldiers; after all, they signed up to die or kill you by virtue of being soldiers. Compassion is a virtue, but in a situation where you have to do something terrible, letting that feeling dictate your actions might prevent you from doing what's necessary and indirectly cause even more loss. And sometimes you do what's right according to your current knowledge only to find out your knowledge was incomplete and you did the wrong thing. And yet, the only other option is inaction; and the only thing it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing.

So...the only real option left is to do what you believe is right, stick to it and do the best you can. And the best way to make that work out the best for us all is to maximize what we know so we can make the best choices more often. That won't stop conflict of loyalties, of course; indeed, very few people would weigh a person they don't know equally with a person they do know; but every little bit helps.

Same would then apply to stories where the author doesn't allow the heroes to get away with things just for the sake of being heroes; if the heroes lack plot armor (or hell, if the heroes haven't been written to break the fourth wall and be aware of such silly concepts), they'll have go by what they perceive is best with the information they have available. I believe this is what they did in the Matrix; ultimately, I cannot even see a superior path of action that would ultimately allow people of the Matrix to be free while salvaging the people of Zion as well. Neo thought he wasn't the One at that point so Morpheus needed to survive in order to find him. As such, saving Morpheus at the cost of every human life in the Matrix would've been worth it.

Whenever I hear someone talk about human life being priceless, I just think of people who weren't saved 'cause whatever saves them - surgery, transplant, operation, whatever - would have been too expensive. From a cynical point of view, isn't that assigning value to someone's life? And doing it for the sake of having the resources to save other people who aren't as extremely difficult to save? And isn't that, ultimately, in the advantage of the majority?

TrioThePunch

2012-12-23, 07:32 PM

I guess sometimes the end justifies the means.

Scowling Dragon

2012-12-23, 07:34 PM

Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Anyway I find it doesn't matter.

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 07:35 PM

See, this is why you are never supposed to consciously quantify your own morality.
Because it makes no sense if analyzed properly, there is no 'Right' answer, ever.

If you go deep enough every morality starts to look the same and become more and more pragmatic. The very asking and analysis of your morality morphs it into something else.

Eugenics, murder and genocide can all be Justified if you go deep enough. That doesn't make them any more Horrific though

TrioThePunch

2012-12-23, 08:04 PM

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 08:05 PM

Because it's a powerful topic in relation to philosophy, which is closely tied to morality.

TrioThePunch

2012-12-23, 08:12 PM

Because it's a powerful topic in relation to philosophy, which is closely tied to morality.

Our entire universe might be a cell in the body of a massive creature of a size beyond our comprehension.

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 08:14 PM

Yes, and it could also be one of those spinning toys on a childs crib.

Or a computer game for an incomprehensible creature

r any other manner of things.

TrioThePunch

2012-12-23, 08:22 PM

Yes, and it could also be one of those spinning toys on a childs crib.

Or a computer game for an incomprehensible creature

r any other manner of things.

Perhaps what we percieve as omnipotence is nowhere near as powerful as what these greater forces are capable of.

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 08:25 PM

I doubt that, given that Omnipotence is defined like Infinity. The ability to have every ability.

Our current stand-in for the concept of Omnipotence sure, but that gets into Plato's Cave territory

Eldariel

2012-12-23, 08:42 PM

Because it's a powerful topic in relation to philosophy, which is closely tied to morality.

Actually, I'd say it's more because the Matrix was brought up which lead to the question of whether things being simulated has an influence on morality which in turn lead to discussion of morality in the movie.

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 08:45 PM

That was simply the spur to get from simulation into morality, but it could happen any other way.

TrioThePunch

2012-12-23, 09:39 PM

Speaking of morality, if you don't believe in a religion, how can there be a set definition of what is right and what is wrong?

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 09:41 PM

Woah! Stepping straight back away from that.
Religion is banned from Forums, and is off-topic.

I will say only one thing: Religion is, in general, contradictory. And if you need a higher power to tell you what's right/wrong then you aren't doing what's right, just what your told.
In D&D terms you are acting Lawful, not Good.

TrioThePunch

2012-12-23, 09:42 PM

Eldariel

2012-12-23, 09:45 PM

That was simply the spur to get from simulation into morality, but it could happen any other way.

Hm. I'm not sure the discussion ever even really changed topic; after all, the question on what being a simulation implies is basically discussing the direct implications of the statement "we are possibly a simulation".

Speaking of morality, if you don't believe in a religion, how can there be a set definition of what is right and what is wrong?

Every human has their own personal code; what it's influenced by varies (generally based upon upbringing and personal philosophical thought + ideas one is subjected to by environment) but it's there for everybody. Though that would actually probably go off-topic here.

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 09:46 PM

Where we get our moral values is fine and a perfectly good conversational topic (though maybe a bit off-topic from the Original Post) but the mention of religion is a big, big no-no.

So, I believe that Right and Wrong in the morality terms are subjective and insular. Each person has their own moral values that are formed through both genetic 'memory' and traits that define us as Human, and the experiences we receive during our formative years.
One cannot create a truly perfect Right and Wrong morally, just as one cannot Prove a scientific Theory 100% accurate. But one can make a code with which to live by. Preferably to the benefit of the rest of society.

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-23, 09:48 PM

One cannot create a truly perfect Right and Wrong morally, just as one cannot Prove a scientific Theory 100% accurate. But one can make a code with which to live by. Preferably to the benefit of the rest of society.

Well, if you prove it to be 100% true, it's no longer considered a theory. :smalltongue:

TrioThePunch

2012-12-23, 09:49 PM

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 09:50 PM

I meant the Scientific definition, not the laymans.

Scientific:
The Theory of Gravity, Evolution, Thermodynamics etc. are not fully 100% fact, but incredibly close.

While the laymans terms:
The Theory that I'm out of milk has a 50/50% chance of being accurate and opening my fridge changes it from Theory to Fact

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-23, 09:55 PM

What if it is D&D religion?

As it relates to the published pantheons and questions pertaining to them; yes. Any more questions you have will probably be answered better by a mod (you can just PM them).

I meant the Scientific definition, not the laymans.

Scientific:
The Theory of Gravity, Evolution, Thermodynamics etc. are not fully 100% fact, but incredibly close.

While the laymans terms:
The Theory that I'm out of milk has a 50/50% chance of being accurate and opening my fridge changes it from Theory to Fact

As did I. The things that have been proven to be 100% true are not considered theories; they are called laws.

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 10:03 PM

And we will never, ever have a scientific Law that is 100% true.

noparlpf

2012-12-23, 10:06 PM

I guess sometimes the end justifies the means.

I rather disagree, but I doubt I'd convince you otherwise.

And we will never, ever have a scientific Law that is 100% true.

Is that a law, or a theory? :smalltongue:

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 10:08 PM

Both, neither.
But back to morality :smallamused:

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-23, 10:11 PM

And we will never, ever have a scientific Law that is 100% true.

I suppose that, in a rather literal sense, you are correct.

I rather disagree, but I doubt I'd convince you otherwise.

Is that a law, or a theory? :smalltongue:

While I agree with him (that occasionally, the ends can justify the means), I am open to an opposing argument. Go ahead.

noparlpf

2012-12-23, 10:17 PM

While I agree with him (that occasionally, the ends can justify the means), I am open to an opposing argument. Go ahead.

It depends on your moral system. If you believe there are some things that are never, ever right, no matter what, then the end doesn't necessarily justify the means.

Anecronwashere

2012-12-23, 10:18 PM

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-23, 10:24 PM

It depends on your moral system. If you believe there are some things that are never, ever right, no matter what, then the end doesn't necessarily justify the means.

I'd say we're all debating our own moral systems, are we not?

I'd say there are certainly times when the end doesn't justify the means. That doesn't mean that the end can't justify the means in a different situation.

noparlpf

2012-12-23, 10:28 PM

I'd say we're all debating our own moral systems, are we not?

I'd say there are certainly times when the end doesn't justify the means. That doesn't mean that the end can't justify the means in a different situation.

Personally I'm not debating my moral beliefs because it's not particularly important to any of you, and arguing right and wrong with people is generally slightly pointless.

My point is, even if sometimes certain means are necessary to reach a certain end, if you admit some ends do not justify some means, you can't make the generalisation "the end justifies the means".

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-23, 10:33 PM

Personally I'm not debating my moral beliefs because it's not particularly important to any of you, and arguing right and wrong with people is generally slightly pointless.

My point is, even if sometimes certain means are necessary to reach a certain end, if you admit some ends do not justify some means, you can't make the generalisation "the end justifies the means".

Aw, that's no fun. I like intelligent debate, and you seem like an intelligent person.

Well, that's not what was originally said (what you responded to first, before I jumped in), nor what I said. Both I and Trio included "sometimes" or some other word (I believe I used "occasionally" and "can") in our posts. Certainly, there are limits on what ends can justify what means; those limits are situation-dependent.

Eldariel

2012-12-23, 10:42 PM

I'd say we're all debating our own moral systems, are we not?

I'd say there are certainly times when the end doesn't justify the means. That doesn't mean that the end can't justify the means in a different situation.

Any kind of moral system can only be evaluated by another moral system. There's no background to evaluate them against in any kind of a vacuum, or in any kind of an absolute system; they're all relative systems that can only be mirrored against each other since ultimately what the whole system stands for effectively what amounts to beliefs of what is and isn't valuable, and just how valuable.

As with all values, values can only be assigned on some metric, and such a metric doesn't exist unless we create it so by definition we're talking about an artificial system based on an artificial metric, and since every person makes their own, it differs from individual to individual with no kind of an absolute to fall back on.

noparlpf

2012-12-23, 10:47 PM

Aw, that's no fun. I like intelligent debate, and you seem like an intelligent person.

Well, that's not what was originally said (what you responded to first, before I jumped in), nor what I said. Both I and Trio included "sometimes" or some other word (I believe I used "occasionally" and "can") in our posts. Certainly, there are limits on what ends can justify what means; those limits are situation-dependent.

Only occasionally, I'm a teenage boy. It is a known law that those are frequently rather silly. :smalltongue:
Also to be honest I'm not 100% sure what I believe. Further, I don't live up to some of my ideals, so I feel like a hypocrite discussing morality.

I just mean, you can't say something like "occasionally this always works". Phrases like that either imply that something is always true, even with the modifier "occasionally", or are simply meaningless because the only apply to cases which define it tautologically (this end justifies this means because this means was both necessary and the right way to achieve this end). I don't know if I'm explaining what I mean properly.

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-23, 11:00 PM

-snip-

Ah, you've said that far more eloquently than I could. Agreed on all counts.

Only occasionally, I'm a teenage boy. It is a known law that those are frequently rather silly. :smalltongue:
Also to be honest I'm not 100% sure what I believe. Further, I don't live up to some of my ideals, so I feel like a hypocrite discussing morality.

I just mean, you can't say something like "occasionally this always works". Phrases like that either imply that something is always true, even with the modifier "occasionally", or are simply meaningless because the only apply to cases which define it tautologically (this end justifies this means because this means was both necessary and the right way to achieve this end). I don't know if I'm explaining what I mean properly.

Everyone has to start somewhere. And yes. :smallamused:

Well, if your mind was 100% made up on what you believe, you'd either be very close-minded, or change your mind a lot.

I'm pretty sure everyone does; it's why we bother to have them in the first place: as a metric to measure what we should do.

Hrm... You make a good point. "The ends justify the means" doesn't make a good generalization, as such, except in the case of a moral dilemma, where all options are morally wrong. It's more of a justification than anything else, after the fact.

TrioThePunch

2012-12-23, 11:12 PM

Well, the means never justifies the end.
Doing wrong to get to something right is better than doing right but ending up with something wrong.

noparlpf

2012-12-23, 11:18 PM

Well, the means never justifies the end.
Doing wrong to get to something right is better than doing right but ending up with something wrong.

You're right, saying, "I didn't mean to," doesn't excuse something bad, and it's better to say, "I'm really sorry, it was a mistake." On the other hand, intent matter. For example, tripping and stumbling into somebody so they fall down and break something isn't as bad as shoving somebody down the stairs so they fall and break something, or killing somebody for fun is worse than killing somebody in defense of children or something.

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-23, 11:27 PM

Well, the means never justifies the end.
Doing wrong to get to something right is better than doing right but ending up with something wrong.

I can't say I agree with this, either. What constitutes right and wrong is still situation-dependent. I'll use a moral dilemma (one with multiple morally wrong choices) as an example again: If you have two options: 1) the option to do something morally right, where you know the outcome will be morally wrong; and 2) the option to do something morally wrong, where you know the outcome will be morally wrong. The "means justify the ends" works pretty well for that scenario.

You're right, saying, "I didn't mean to," doesn't excuse something bad, and it's better to say, "I'm really sorry, it was a mistake." On the other hand, intent matter. For example, tripping and stumbling into somebody so they fall down and break something isn't as bad as shoving somebody down the stairs so they fall and break something, or killing somebody for fun is worse than killing somebody in defense of children or something.

Agreed. Intent is pretty important.

Aliquid

2012-12-23, 11:31 PM

If anyone is curious, here is an interesting article about morality and neuroscience.

Put people in an MRI and ask them questions like this… and you can often tell what their response will be to the dilemma before they tell you… simply by what parts of the brain are the most active.

Plus it has a few interesting dilemmas where the typical response from people will change when you make adjustments to the scenario that seem logically trivial (but emotionally important)

Link to article (http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jul-aug/12-vexing-mental-conflict-called-morality)

White_Drake

2012-12-23, 11:44 PM

The ends can justify the means, if you take into account ALL the ends.

Killing 1 to save 2, you aren't saying "Oh well we saved two lives. Thats worth it"
You are saying "Saving Person A and B is more important than the continued life of Person C"

Or, to make it more ambiguous:
You are a government leader, with the option to increase taxes and use the funds to build hospitals.
Due to STUFF you know that for every 1% increase in taxation there will be an increase of theft by 1% and several thousand people will become homeless, some of which will die.
But, on the other hand for every 1% increase you can build a fully-equipped hospital that will save the same amount of people as become homeless.

How much, if any, do you raise taxation and why?

Congratulations you just put a price on Human Life and Human Lives (life as in continued existence, lives as in comfortable middle-class living)

Why wouldn't you raise taxes a theoretically infinite amount? If only some of the homeless will die, and the hospitals will save a number of people equal to those whom lost their homes, then it would be a net positive. Without specific knowledge of the people which are terminally ill / in danger of losing their homes, one's odds of saving a person they would prefer to have around go up for every person they save over those which die. Therefore, you should raise taxes by a theoretically infinite amount.

warty goblin

2012-12-24, 12:49 AM

Why wouldn't you raise taxes a theoretically infinite amount? If only some of the homeless will die, and the hospitals will save a number of people equal to those whom lost their homes, then it would be a net positive. Without specific knowledge of the people which are terminally ill / in danger of losing their homes, one's odds of saving a person they would prefer to have around go up for every person they save over those which die. Therefore, you should raise taxes by a theoretically infinite amount.

Because percents don't work that way?

noparlpf

2012-12-24, 01:01 AM

Because percents don't work that way?

Raise taxes over 9000%. Sure they do.

warty goblin

2012-12-24, 01:55 AM

Raise taxes over 9000%. Sure they do.

Increasing something by an infinite percentage gives you infinity, and a tax rate of infinity is nonsensical. Earn a penny, owe more money than will exist across the entire history of the universe is an absurd result.

To go into pedantic detail, tax rates are a proportion of income. If your existing tax rate is x, x in (0, 1), then a 1% increase gives new tax rate y = 1.01x. In general a z% increase results in new tax rate y = x(1 + z/100).

To increase taxes by z% and not end up taxing people more than they earn, you need y < 100, or x(1 + z/100) < 100, which implies x < (100/(1 + z/100))%. For your particular example of z = 9000%, the base rate must be less than 1.099%, or else you end up in stupid territory.

TrioThePunch

2012-12-26, 06:14 PM

I can't say I agree with this, either. What constitutes right and wrong is still situation-dependent. I'll use a moral dilemma (one with multiple morally wrong choices) as an example again: If you have two options: 1) the option to do something morally right, where you know the outcome will be morally wrong; and 2) the option to do something morally wrong, where you know the outcome will be morally wrong. The "means justify the ends" works pretty well for that scenario.

Agreed. Intent is pretty important.

Intent doesn't change or justify the result or end of the action.

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-26, 10:45 PM

Intent doesn't change or justify the result or end of the action.

Sure it does. Why do you think some really offensive things are funny? It's because the insults aren't serious. No one intends hurt to anyone; they're just telling jokes.

We're also talking moral dilemmas here. Nothing really justifies what actions are taken. The idea is that you can come up with a way to decide which morally "wrong" choice to make.

TrioThePunch

2012-12-27, 12:26 AM

Sure it does. Why do you think some really offensive things are funny? It's because the insults aren't serious. No one intends hurt to anyone; they're just telling jokes.

We're also talking moral dilemmas here. Nothing really justifies what actions are taken. The idea is that you can come up with a way to decide which morally "wrong" choice to make.

What if someone takes offense to the joke? It doesn't matter whether it is serious or not, they may still feel hurt.

CowardlyPaladin

2012-12-27, 12:32 AM

I was actually just listening to Dan Carlin talk about this. Here is my take, if we are a simulation, then it has to be an absurdly advanced one if it can simulate the massive amount of minor details in this world, and if it is that complicated that we most likely realize that the world is fake, so don't let it bother us.

ForzaFiori

2012-12-27, 02:36 AM

If the universe is a simulation, it's full of bugs.

:smallamused:

Maybe stuff like deja vu, xenoglossy, and "miracles" are proof we're in a simulation. All the stuff that breaks the laws of physics are just our programmers screwing with us.

Only occasionally, I'm a teenage boy. It is a known law that those are frequently rather silly. :smalltongue:
Also to be honest I'm not 100% sure what I believe. Further, I don't live up to some of my ideals, so I feel like a hypocrite discussing morality.

There's a quote a read a while ago, I don't remember it exactly, but it was something along the lines of "Stand firm behind your beliefs today, and do the same tomorrow, even if they're completely different". When you state your beliefs, even half formed ones, you can get into the conversations that let you finish making the other half. I have learned so much about myself from starting conversations and just seeing what my innate ideas on subjects were as they got brought up.

Why wouldn't you raise taxes a theoretically infinite amount? If only some of the homeless will die, and the hospitals will save a number of people equal to those whom lost their homes, then it would be a net positive. Without specific knowledge of the people which are terminally ill / in danger of losing their homes, one's odds of saving a person they would prefer to have around go up for every person they save over those which die. Therefore, you should raise taxes by a theoretically infinite amount.

Because the situation fails to take into account several other things, such as how the high tax rate will prevent those who still have a house from buying luxuries, causing them to become less happy. Now your trading everyone's happiness for the health of the few. You have to weigh happiness AND death versus life, and at 100% taxes, your population is essentially slaves, Meaning you've taken all their happiness, and killed people, just to save some life.

The ends justify the means - I see no reason why this cannot be a situational statement. It's true that it was not originally meant that way, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be applied that way. Doing a small evil to create a large good, as opposed to doing a small good that would create a large evil? I'll take the first one every day. If given two different sized groups of random people and told that one of them has to die, I'll pick the smaller one. Yea, I might lose sleep over it, but when it comes right down to it, you have to dig down and just decide how much some things are worth. Yes, life, happiness, freedom, they're worth ALOT. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing worth more than them. 2 lives must be worth more than 1, at least in my view.

Also, I've seen the word "humanity" thrown around alot in the thread. Someone may want to throw out their definition of it, I bet they'd quickly find out that no one agrees with it. There are even groups of philosophers out there who don't think there IS anything that separates us from animals, that "humanity" is simply a made up concept.

Capt Spanner

2012-12-27, 08:13 AM

Hmm... could someone define "simulation"? I'm not sure the word is entirely meaningful for a consciousness within the simulation.

In any case, in the absence of a good argument in favour, I call Occam's Razor. Since the postulation that we are simulation requires the additional entity of a simulator and an environment for the simulator to exist in, I choose to believe that this is the real life, this isn't just fantasy.

(So careful of landslides, because there's no escape from reality until I open my eyes, look up to the skies and see ... pixels.)

Ravens_cry

2012-12-27, 08:18 AM

Oh, we can see the pixels already. Planck length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length), anyone?

Tylorious

2012-12-27, 08:29 AM

may not be the real life,

but it definitely is the good life.

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-27, 09:42 AM

What if someone takes offense to the joke? It doesn't matter whether it is serious or not, they may still feel hurt.

Ah, but the person with good intentions would respond very differently to the offense that was taken than the person with bad intentions. That is the difference.

In any case, in the absence of a good argument in favour, I call Occam's Razor. Since the postulation that we are simulation requires the additional entity of a simulator and an environment for the simulator to exist in, I choose to believe that this is the real life, this isn't just fantasy.

(I, personally a fan of Occam's Razor, agree. For the sake of argument, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a bit. Feel free to debate with that little splinter of my personality.)

Perhaps, but the idea that "the concept that makes the fewest assumptions is correct"* is often wrong. I would argue that the ancient idea that everything was made up out of four elements (fire, earth, air, and water) to varying degrees made fewer assumptions than our current understanding of the elements.

*Note: In quotes so the sentence isn't just a jumble of words.

Could the simulator exist in the simulation?

Ravens_cry

2012-12-27, 09:58 AM

Ever been a part of a dream when you are dreaming?

Jay R

2012-12-27, 10:00 AM

Ever been a part of a dream when you are dreaming?

Isn't that pretty much the same question this thread is about?

Ravens_cry

2012-12-27, 10:12 AM

Isn't that pretty much the same question this thread is about?
Exactly, I was replying to Amidus Drexel's final line
Could the simulator exist in the simulation?

Another thought is the concept of the avatar in the video gaming sense.

Amidus Drexel

2012-12-27, 10:23 AM

Ever been a part of a dream when you are dreaming?

Not personally, but it's a good analogy.

Another thought is the concept of the avatar in the video gaming sense.

Ditto for this one, but that implies that there is another reality for the simulator to exist in, outside of the simulation. I'll rephrase my question.

Could the simulator exist only as a part of the simulation?

Isn't that pretty much the same question this thread is about?

Yes. Also, moral dilemmas. I think that's off-topic, though.

Ravens_cry

2012-12-27, 11:16 AM

Could the simulator exist only as a part of the simulation?

Maybe I am completely misunderstanding the concept, but I would say Gödel's incompleteness theorems say no, but I am likely completely misunderstanding the concept.

White_Drake

2012-12-27, 05:54 PM

Because the situation fails to take into account several other things, such as how the high tax rate will prevent those who still have a house from buying luxuries, causing them to become less happy. Now your trading everyone's happiness for the health of the few. You have to weigh happiness AND death versus life, and at 100% taxes, your population is essentially slaves, Meaning you've taken all their happiness, and killed people, just to save some life.

The hypothetical situation I responded to hadn't been extended to the point your reply seems to have made an assumption it did. My point was simply that given the option of saving X lives in exchange for Y lives, when X>Y, and you have no knowledge of either X or Y, the logical thing to do would be to save X. Unless I misinterpreted it, that was the question posed by Necron's hypothetical scenario.

ForzaFiori

2012-12-27, 06:13 PM

The hypothetical situation I responded to hadn't been extended to the point your reply seems to have made an assumption it did. My point was simply that given the option of saving X lives in exchange for Y lives, when X>Y, and you have no knowledge of either X or Y, the logical thing to do would be to save X. Unless I misinterpreted it, that was the question posed by Necron's hypothetical scenario.

True, and that is one reason I hate hypothetical questions. The question did take into account the smaller amount of personal money that people would have (which led to the homelessness and death) however. My point is just a further extrapolation of that. Even if your one of the ones that kept their homes, it's obvious that you would have less money, which means you can buy less things. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people will stop buying luxuries before necessities. This will cause a reduction in your quality of life, which can have an effect on happiness.