• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Alpha_ProgDes

Scientists are testing that we are in the Matrix...

94 posts in this topic

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/whoa-physicists-testing-see-universe-computer-simulation-224525825.html"]Is the universe simulated?[/url] According to the article, scientists have a way to test if our universe is actually a computer simulation made by an ancient civilization. Religious, philosophical, ethical, and moral issues are abound. However, the bigger point, for me, is this. If this universe is actually a simulation, should I bother caring anymore? Should I consider diseases a bug in this program and we (the code) are actually fixing the program? Should Star Ocean: Till the End of Time and the Matrix be my Old Testament and New Testament, respectively? Is my life nothing but a module in a Lisp program decrementing the values in my parameters until they artificially reach nil?

In short, I think it's pretty cool. But in the large scope of things, I doubt anyone would care even this theory was "proven". But it's fun to think and debate about.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um... proving something by proving it can be done?
It doesn't look too solid proof to me.
Should you bother any more?
Do you feel pain? Do you feel faecal urgency? Do you feel hunger? I guess so. So you should bother.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone who works at tri-Ace, trust me when I say that Star Ocean: Till the End of Time is [i]just[/i] a game. Sad but true.
Besides I really can’t believe it is just a simulation. Too consistent and detailed. I mean let them do their tests but the results are going to be pretty non-shocking.

However if it is proved that we are inside a simulation, it certainly would be a blow to religions. The article mentions the possibility of communicating to those who created us, which, if done, would be irrefutable proof. For the religious among you, what would you do should it be proved irrefutably that we are indeed inside a simulation? Would you still hold your religious beliefs? Would you alter your concept of what God(s) is/are? What would you do?

For others, would you begin a search to find out how to “bend the matrix” so to speak? How would your “lives” change?


L. Spiro Edited by L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355463825' post='5010485']
As someone who works at tri-Ace, trust me when I say that Star Ocean: Till the End of Time is just a game. Sad but true.
[/quote]
Please leave my internets :|
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1355464093' post='5010486']
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355463825' post='5010485']
As someone who works at tri-Ace, trust me when I say that Star Ocean: Till the End of Time is just a game. Sad but true.
[/quote]
Please leave my internets :|
[/quote]
Well the head of the project did hover and glow a few times each week.
Maybe there is something more to it? Maybe he was from beyond?


L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting to think about, but the reality is that we are who we are, living the lives we are living, and nothing will change that. Pain will still hurt, and pleasure will still be enticing. In all my days of researching the nature of brains, consciousness, and neural networks, I've concluded that all intelligence revolves around pain and pleasure, as they are the only type of information that signals whether or not a particular behavior is beneficial or destructive to one's self, offspring, and thus species as a whole.

Human consciousness is the highest degree of universe-complexity in the system that has been achieved thus far - a system (the universe) that has produced fractal patterns which reflect its own very existence (eg: our ability to conceptualize the very universe we are made of)...

But like I said, pain will still hurt, and that's all that matters to me.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think we can physically test such things, from my understanding, the core concept of this idea is that if we are in a simulation, then if we are able to simulate an accurate universe, that means we are a simulation ourselves. I can't be the only one seeing the problem with this? Edited by slicer4ever
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='slicer4ever' timestamp='1355466945' post='5010497']
I don't think we can physically test such things, from my understanding, the core concept of this idea is that if we are in a simulation, then if we are able to simulate an accurate universe, that means we are a simulation ourselves. I can't be the only one seeing the problem with this?
[/quote]
Our universe is recursive and the expansion we are noticing in our universe is actually extra server space being bought?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355464969' post='5010492']
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1355464093' post='5010486']
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355463825' post='5010485']
As someone who works at tri-Ace, trust me when I say that Star Ocean: Till the End of Time is just a game. Sad but true.
[/quote]
Please leave my internets :|
[/quote]
Well the head of the project did hover and glow a few times each week.
Maybe there is something more to it? Maybe he was from beyond?


L. Spiro
[/quote]
Offtopic: I thought the game was fun and well put together. Up until you found that the characters are characters from a computer simulation. For me that was a downer. Other than that, it was well put together. Good job! (if you were on that team)

Ontopic: The idea that we are not flesh but 1s and 0s would be disturbing. But then again, being able to find the code that turns me into Kal-El would be equally as exciting.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's almost like saying that if I can build a VM that perfectly emulates my physical hardware, then my hardware must also be virtual.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='slicer4ever' timestamp='1355466945' post='5010497']
I don't think we can physically test such things, from my understanding, the core concept of this idea is that if we are in a simulation, then if we are able to simulate an accurate universe, that means we are a simulation ourselves. I can't be the only one seeing the problem with this?
[/quote]
[quote name='radioteeth' timestamp='1355473037' post='5010521']
It's almost like saying that if I can build a VM that perfectly emulates my physical hardware, then my hardware must also be virtual.
[/quote]
You didn’t read the article apparently.
It is not about running a simulation. It is whether or not that simulation has the exact same energy pattern as found in our universe. No one ever said, “If a simulation is possible then we must be a simulation.”

L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355464310' post='5010488']
Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.
[/quote]It's not like they've pulled scientists of Team Cancer to stick them on this project. It's not an either/or situation.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355473994' post='5010529']
[quote name='slicer4ever' timestamp='1355466945' post='5010497']
I don't think we can physically test such things, from my understanding, the core concept of this idea is that if we are in a simulation, then if we are able to simulate an accurate universe, that means we are a simulation ourselves. I can't be the only one seeing the problem with this?
[/quote]
[quote name='radioteeth' timestamp='1355473037' post='5010521']
It's almost like saying that if I can build a VM that perfectly emulates my physical hardware, then my hardware must also be virtual.
[/quote]
You didn’t read the article apparently.
It is not about running a simulation. It is whether or not that simulation has the exact same energy pattern as found in our universe. No one ever said, “If a simulation is possible then we must be a simulation.”

L. Spiro
[/quote]

and can you tell me what that means?, if we perfectly simulate a universe, then why wouldn't it have the exact same property's as our universe?.

as i said, [b]from my understanding[/b](and i can't stress that enough), the whole basis of the idea is how current computer models would be used to simulate a universe, yet we are speculating that if we are in the simulation, then we should expect to see such things in our reality, yet we don't understand the universe's internal working enough to even be sure we could make such a judgment call.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Highly unlikely they will find this to be the case... without doing any tests there are a number of issues with this theory which prove it isn't the case already...

1. Lack of any other lifeforms that are in contact with us - Just look at everything we create to understand this, when we create sci-fi like Star Trek, Mass Effect, Star Wars, Lost in Space, Red Dwarf, etc... there is one common theme to all these sci-fi shows. The theme is that the human race is not alone and is making contact with different planets, or beings, and that this travel and communication with other species is easy, even in Red Dwarf Lister is supposed to be the last person in the universe but he still manages to meet up with alien life forms. Now if we were really in a simulation you'd have thought the original programmer would have programmed the universe on these lines and created nearby planets with other types of life on it, and ways for us to communicate with these other types of life. There maybe other lifeforms within our universe that we haven't found yet, but why would you make it so hard to find them if you were creating a "computer game/simulation", even if in the programmers world there was nothing why would the programmer create a virtual world in the same form, surely they like us would create a simulated universe with other races from other planets all taking to us and make interstellar travel possible.

2. Infinite numbers - There are some mathematical numbers that re-occur to infinity, for example drawing a perfect circle would need Pi which whilst it may be 3.14159 or something that's only to 5 decimal points. Pi itself actually keeps going on and never reaches an end, now a computer has to define a start and an end, it can't have an infinite number, and can't deal with infinite numbers (hence the reason why even the most highest and clearest digital audio format just can't beat the quality of an analogue recording or live recording as it has to chop bits out, where as analogue is done to an infinite level), so if that was the case a perfect circle would be impossible, and Pi would have a pattern that would repeat itself (which is also how scientist intend to test for a simulated universe by seeing if patterns replicate themselves), as Pi's pattern doesn't replicate itself even when done to 1m points see http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/collabs/pi/pi6.txt I think that's pretty firm proof that the universe is indeed not computer generated.

3. Communication - If we are all living inside a computer program, why would we need to communicate with our mouths. Ok I know there is some proof that telepathic powers do exist, but it isn't a known fact as to how they exist, or why. If we were all part of a computer program it should be simple for us without the need of satellites and wires to transmit information from anywhere within the universe to anywhere else within the universe as if we're all part of a computer program then sending information via RAM, even teleportation should be possible and quite easily achievable. As it isn't and our main method of communication relies on us all hearing each other and physically moving at a reasonable speed from point a to b. If we were part of a computer system then there would be ways to communicate with the central network and ask it to move us from point a to b instantly, or send a message from a to b through the network like we do now with e-mails, but this is something we've had to invent, if we were inside a computer program the method of sending messages like that should already have been well known and available to us without any extra bits like cables and satellites.

It all seems that scientists are wasting a lot of money researching this, and someone has just got themselves way to hooked up on reading the matrix.

Of course there is one important thing here - if it does turn out that the scientists realise we are in a computer simulation I notice some of them have said that maybe we could mess with the program and play with the programmer. Important thing to think of on that one - viruses and malware on our computers play with the program and mess with the programmers, and what do we do to them? So if it does turn out to be the case and we start playing Mr Norton or Mr McAfee might be along to sort us out.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L Spiro: it *is* about running a simulation, otherwise there'd be nothing to gauge the output of.

[quote]"This is the first testable signature of such an idea," Savage said. "If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge."[/quote]

slicer4ever: word.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As others have mentioned, I can't comprehend how this method is supposed to be considered proof that we are in a simulation. As a consequence of this 'proof', then If the simulation we produce results in a universe totally unlike our own, is our simulation actually a rightful universe by the very nature of it not being a simulation after all? Tangentially, what is a 'simulated universe' and what is a 'real universe'?

The note about 'communicating' with the other universes. I guess the concept of networking is beyond the topic of this conversation, because there is no reason to believe the universes are being run on the same machine. This kind of ametuer science actually bothers me, because they totally miss the more interesting consequences of being in a simulation. HACKING/CRACKING THE SIMULATION. Exploit bugs to gather information about the machine we are being simulated on, perhaps bend the rules of our simulated universe, escaping the machine. RISE OF THE MACHINES! Our creators better run.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the universe is a simulation, whatever result stays in the simulation itself, its like a mathematic theroem, you prove only that numbers aligns with the theory.
If you consider oriental religions , they admit we are living in God's dream and that when we dream we are using the God archetype , in dream we can create a convincing reality, so God is actually dreaming all the universes.
The problem is when God wakes up , basically we are going to just stop existing.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've only skimmed the introduction in Bostrom's original article.

Transliterated: [i]If we assume, and assume, and also assume, it would be reasonable for us to..., so if we assume... conclusion, fact.[/i]

Does not read like something I'd waste more time on.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, sorry for any grammar or spelling issues but English is not my first language.

[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355463825' post='5010485']
The article mentions the possibility of communicating to those who created us, which, if done, would be irrefutable proof. For the religious among you, what would you do should it be proved irrefutably that we are indeed inside a simulation?[/quote]

I already have proof that God exists and the Bible is true. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. But for me I am 100% percent sure that we are not in the matrix.
So if it would be proven that we are inside a simulation then that could be only possible if that experiment would have an error somewhere or if it would be a constructed lie (again with an error somewhere hidden) to mislead people.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Severin' timestamp='1355485329' post='5010569']
First of all, sorry for any grammar or spelling issues but English is not my first language.

[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355463825' post='5010485']
The article mentions the possibility of communicating to those who created us, which, if done, would be irrefutable proof. For the religious among you, what would you do should it be proved irrefutably that we are indeed inside a simulation?[/quote]

I already have proof that God exists and the Bible is true. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. But for me I am 100% percent sure that we are not in the matrix.
So if it would be proven that we are inside a simulation then that could be only possible if that experiment would have an error somewhere or if it would be a constructed lie (again with an error somewhere hidden) to mislead people.
[/quote]
I already have proof that God does not exist and the Bible is false. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. See how that works both ways?

I am just happy to be on the winning side of this endless debate. It’s also fairly easy to be on the correct side:
Step 1: Have a brain.
Step 2: Use it to think for yourself.
-> A: Don’t just absorb everything your parents tell you. Question everything and seek true understanding.

The irony of what you posted is that you were completely unable to consider even for a fraction of a second that there might not be a God. This is a result of brainwashing that dictates that should your faith ever waver you will be punished.
This type of brainwashing is very easy for humans to impose upon other humans, especially children.
The reason this negates anything you say is because it causes you to believe what you believe no matter how conclusive the evidence before you is. We could discover that we are just a simulation, receive contact from our creators that confirm it is so, and you would still be too afraid to contradict the childhood doctrine taught to you to in any way consider that it is the truth. A [i]simulation[/i] would have told you that there is a God, and as fake as the lesson itself was you would hold tightly to it just because you were young and incapable of thinking for yourself when it was taught to you.


When I said there was proof I was not lying. Without going into details, there are things you can tell children that are ridiculously false that they will end up believing for life and under any costs. Experiments show that they pass these beliefs on to their own children who then grow up believing them again at face value, never questioning their virtue.
I exaggerated when I said the proof was only given to myself, but I wasn’t lying about the underlying concept, as I was part of such an experiment. Had I not had a brain for myself I would to this day be absolutely terrified of peacock feathers.
Luckily I have a brain and could reason for myself. Looking back it is easy to identify that the only reason I had a phobia of them in the beginning was that my mother had made it so. Back then I was truly terrified of them. Luckily I was able to reason my way out of that phobia. My sister however was not. She is to this day deathly terrified of peacock feathers.

Religion works the same way. You either reason your way out of it or remain scarred for life from it. Even a message from our simulation’s creators would not break you free from what you were told as a child.


L. Spiro Edited by L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355490789' post='5010594']
The irony of what you posted is that you were completely unable to consider even for a fraction of a second that there might not be a God.
[/quote]

You was right when you assumed that at childhood I received religious teachings. But I never had a 100% faith and for years I did not care about God or religion.
Now I believe in God because of some experiences that assured me that He exists.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1355476254' post='5010537']
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355464310' post='5010488']
Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.
[/quote]It's not like they've pulled scientists of Team Cancer to stick them on this project. It's not an either/or situation.
[/quote]

You've kind of missed my point. The point is that the world has important issues that need to be solved. This is a bunch of wasted talent on a useless thought exercise. Cancer was just a random example of something important.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0