apy

PhysicalEd

Also, if you want to consider the physical world itself as a series of constantly interweaving equations, you'd notice that, for the most part, we can predict physics quite well. This is because we can apply the mathematics (code) of a theory to its actual application. We need to exist within a system to be able to execute any sort of planned outcomes.

You can even approach evolution from the perspective of code, because DNA is just that. Of course, programmers in this reality need to add and change code in order to actually change its properties and application. You don't write a super code for an OS, or for Azeroth for that matter, in one sitting. It's the kind of thing that takes time, that must grow. DNA is coded through the experiences of life, and grows to better suit the environment in which its physical manifestation of life is living. So why not consider evolution to be part proof of how and why this world is based on mathematics (which can only be processed in a very elegant system or our in our brains - which itself is dependent upon another external system, of course).

Maybe we do not have the ability to ever leave this system, as our existence is reliant upon it... and maybe we aren't just part of some program running on a mega-computer by designed by a superior intelligence. But I think one thing that we need to take into consideration is the fact that we live in a reality, and are part of it. Therefore, we are subject to its physical properties, which we manipulate with our own supercomputer brains. We don't need the sci-fi approach to be amazed by such a thing.

And lastly, if God didn't exist, one would surely have to invent him/her/it, no? Don't you think that this scientist is just trying to prove the existence of God? Or rather, intelligent thought outside of our universal bubble? Why wouldn't that intelligence use a super computer to base our reality in? What else would it use, playdoh?!

Okay I'm done.

livinglogic

spudzill

will mutters something rude and then says:

Tzepish

guibom

FrankenPC

youknowit

Bob Bruhin

Imipolex_G-Unit

Some extracts:
"…4. Matter is plastic in the face of Mind…

…14. The universe is information and we are stationary in it, not three-dimensional and not in spate or time. The information fed to us we hypostatize into the phenomenal world….

…30. The phenomenal world does not exist; it is a hypostasis of the information processed by the Mind.

31. We hypostatize information into objects. Rearrangement of objects is change in the content of the information; the message has changed… We ourselves are information rich; information enter us, is processed and is then projected outward once more, not in altered form. We are not aware we are doing this, that in fact this is all we are doing…"

handofsky

"If the universe were a simulation, the big bang would no longer be paradoxical, because every system needs to be booted up."

No, jackass--now the paradox would be where the fucking computer that it's running on came from. It doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it.

braak

Bob Bruhin

You find a rich enough metaphor, and then try to interpret *everything* in those terms.

Bob Bruhin

cde

mbsonetimeonly

Jonn

I'm not sure if we could create a test that could determine if this is the case - after all, wouldn't we need a reality that is not a simulation to compare it against?

EvilAng3la

BigViper

wishnevsky

bobbiac

The Matrix idea is silly, but a useful McGuffy to aid plotting.

wishnevsky

as time goes on i myself growing tired of this film garnering approval as some sort of philisophical masterpiece.

is anyone else tired of endless droves of sometimes even seemingly intelligent people who saw the matrix saying "it changed their lives" and "really made them think" or "gave them a whole new perspective"?

well here is something to "really think" about. the wachowski brothers pretty much ripped all their "philosophical" ideas from Jean Baudrillard (specifically his work "Simulacra and Simulations", a copy of which is explicitly placed in the first film). I say pretty much because according to Baudrillard himself, they completely botched the interpretation of the material (see his interview "The Matrix Decoded"...its funny).

so i say to you, deep thinkers of the matrix...read a (non-fiction!) book for fucks sake!

and further yet, anyone who thinks these films evoke anything deeply spiritual and/or religious should be "clubbed to death" with their shrine of Matrix merchandise whilst being filmed in "bullet-time"...for posterity.

ramsay stirling

FrankenPC

myotheralt

@FrankenPC: Re: reconstructed reality:
This idea forms the plot of the film Dark City. There's a disappointing deus ex machina ending but it's still quite compelling.

Robsteranium

WickedGlee

freznel

@GROOVYMOJO: This is true in the sense that a quantum computer is just a quantum system, and the universe is a quantum system. In the sense of "computer" as we commonly use the term, no those researchers haven't said anything of the sort.

DrMathochist

(Wow this is seriously nerdy talk)

Yes, in that context I agree with you. If the universe and all realities exist in a quantum superposition at all times (I use the word time loosely) then the other "threads" which ultimately collapse and fail would be the simulations. And I agree, "our" thread is the real and successful one :D

But to go back in time is to alter your position in the thread system and you would end up going down an alternate path. Potentially a thread destined for failure and destruction.

One concept about quantum mechanics backs up your idea. That is the idea that we perceive reality in FPS (Frames per second). And that in between these frames is total freedom from time (infinite possibility). So, if we are being built up and destroyed frame by frame (See Stephen Kings The Langoliers) then, in theory, something behind the scenes could be making computational decisions and altering our information system at will.

FrankenPC

ceriphim

Moff

There is actually a theory that we are in a system; it states that at least one of the following must be true:
Almost no civilizations will advance to the point that such simulations are feasible
Almost no civilizations with the ability to make such simulations will, for whatever reason (moral, etc)
We are almost certainly living in such a simulation.
The idea being that, assuming the existance of (a) civilization(s) able and willing to create such simulations, there are more simulated realities than actual realities, and thus we are probably in a simulated one.
I'm personally arrogant enough to assume I'm living in a "real" reality rather than a simulated one, but people seriously postulating that we aren't isn't really new.

Morgan

Right. That idea has been around for a while. The Universe may be a titanic quantum super computer. But the idea that we are living in VR is a bit different I think. Instead of being an active, real, part of a larger whole, we are figments of reality embedded in some sort of storage medium being manipulated by "others".

That's how I intrepeted it anyway.

FrankenPC

kromekoran

People designing quantum computers have discovered that we actually live in a quantum computer.

WickedGlee

Right. This theory ASSUMES a system operator(s). And they are jerks!

FrankenPC

That would truly piss me off. If that turned out to be true, there would be trouble.

Big trouble.

I'm just saying.

Princess Stacey

FrankenPC

tetracycloide

IMO, if this were possible, it would be on a level so far beyond the information itself (us) that the point would be moot. Good sci-fi stuff though.

FrankenPC

HeyThereKiller