• 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

[quote name='JTippetts' timestamp='1355502612' post='5010650']
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1355500826' post='5010641']
True, but it's intelligent design of a completely different sort. Most likely one that renders most if not all holy texts irrelevant. Plus this intelligent design would be more Spore than Sims.
[/quote]

How do you mean "different sort"? Are you trying to categorize Intelligent Design now, for the sole purpose of clinging to the idea that you are right in your beliefs, and those damned crazy religious folks are still wrong? If I wrote a computer program capable of simulating the universe, and intelligent life arose therein, wouldn't I have the stature of God in their eyes? Wouldn't I have dominion over their existence? Wouldn't I have caused them to be, and couldn't I cause them to be not with a casual flick of a switch? Wouldn't I have created the earth and the heavens and the waters, wouldn't I have created the animals and the plants and the men and women upon the earth? The stars in the sky? I mean, after all I created the whole universe. That's pretty much spot-on with the basic nature of just about any theological deity right there, so I really fail to understand how there could possibly be any kind of distinction between the Intelligent Design these guys are trying to prove, and the Intelligent Design that us religious folk have been talking about for thousands of years.

Holy texts are simply the things that people stuck in the simulation have been writing based on their vastly limited perspective. Of course they wouldn't get it right, any more than these guys can get it right with their currently limited model that is not much bigger than the nucleus of an atom. Humans have been working on limited information since the beginning of our species. Science itself operates on what you might call a set of faulty holy texts, many of which would also be made irrelevant by this experiment's success. A whole lot of human thought would be made irrelevant.
[/quote]

I think you are missing the point, it's two seperate things if you created a simulation of basic particles/waves, and this happened to give rise to matter/planets/life, vs if you had hand crafted each and every rock, and each and every organism. in the first you didn't intend, nor probably had any direct action toward creating such things, they were just a consequence of your most fundamental particles, this would pretty much ignore all "holy texts", since they describe a much more personal touch to things. so if on the other hand we discover that you had hand crafted each and every world, each and ever organism, then it'd give strength to the "holy texts" and what they attempt to describe.

in the end, if such a thing could be proved, yes absolutely their is intelligent design to our creation, but that might not be the design that many people have spent such a huge amount of faith towards.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love when people try to disprove a theory using [b]today's [/b]technological limitations. I suppose that's called "thinking inside the box".

if the world we currently live in is the work of a simulation... the technology being used would be so far beyond our comprehension we might as well just call it "magic".

There was a post early in the thread I thought was a bit funny =P
said something like if this was a simulation why would we need communication. I think I understand were you might have been trying to go with that, but why would someone trying to get an accurate simulation mess with the basics? Say for example..(if we had some of this magic tech that can run super advanced sims) if we wanted to see how the cave men existed... we'd want it accurate right? you wouldn't give them all zippos to start fires right?

Anyhow, this isn't a new theory to my knowledge .. but its still a fun one to think about =)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why I asked in my first post if anyone would change his or her views on what a God is. Being created by a group of programmers would certainly classify as creationism, but is clearly not what they had in mind when writing holy texts. That is why many of us here do not consider ourselves Gods even though we are constantly creating virtual worlds.


[quote name='No_Smoking' timestamp='1355528289' post='5010778']
if the world we currently live in is the work of a simulation... the technology being used would be so far beyond our comprehension we might as well just call it "magic".
[/quote]
This is a logical fallacy. I have written a programming language that can be used to write the same programming language.
I can use C++ to write a C++ parser and compiler.

There is no reason to assume that there is no way to simulate just a small portion of that technology from inside the simulation itself, even with today’s comparatively limited technology.


So far we know who would hold to their beliefs and who would alter their beliefs to encapsulate this type of creationism.
Who would try to figure out all the loopholes and become “The One”?


L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355529116' post='5010779']
This is a logical fallacy. I have written a programming language that can be used to write the same programming language.
I can use C++ to write a C++ parser and compiler.
[/quote]

I'm not saying it isn't possible to use todays tools to recreate.. just saying it wouldn't be likely they'd be using "old tech" to run advanced sims. Why use flint and tinder when you have a lighter in your pocket so to speak.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='slicer4ever' timestamp='1355524820' post='5010766']

I think you are missing the point, it's two seperate things if you created a simulation of basic particles/waves, and this happened to give rise to matter/planets/life, vs if you had hand crafted each and every rock, and each and every organism. in the first you didn't intend, nor probably had any direct action toward creating such things, they were just a consequence of your most fundamental particles, this would pretty much ignore all "holy texts", since they describe a much more personal touch to things. so if on the other hand we discover that you had hand crafted each and every world, each and ever organism, then it'd give strength to the "holy texts" and what they attempt to describe.

in the end, if such a thing could be proved, yes absolutely their is intelligent design to our creation, but that might not be the design that many people have spent such a huge amount of faith towards.
[/quote]

Considering that this whole thing is just a thought experiment, and unlikely (for practical reasons) to ever be anything but, and yet here we are ascribing motives to the supposed creators of the simulation to suit our own biases. The truth or falsehood of the existence of God is no more provable than the supposition that the creators of our simulation created it with the intent of letting it run wild, as opposed to creating it with some purpose, including the purpose of giving rise to intelligent life. We obviously weren't there when the UML was drawn up and the CPUs were plugged in, so obviously we can't know [i]why[/i] it was built: for science, for entertainment, or for the purpose of propagating reality and granting the gift of life, of existence, to a new "generation" of beings. It is every bit as likely that this supposed simulation designer created it for the express purpose of giving us a place to exist (perhaps as an experiment to be observed, perhaps as something else), as that he/they did it in order to just "see what happens." So really, in now way would the success or failure of this experiment, should it ever take place, prove one single thing about the existence (or lack of) or motives (or, again, lack of) God. Those of us who find that the idea of a benevolent God makes sense will continue to do so, those of us who do not will also continue to believe otherwise, and we'll correspondingly continue to argue about it on discussion forums existing in an electronic abstraction hosted on hardware that is part of a virtual, simulated universe living inside another, bigger electronic abstraction...

Going off into crazy town, here, perhaps this simulation designer modeled his simulation after his own reality, which itself was a simulation modeled after someone else's reality. Wow, it really might be turtles all the way down...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A universe doesn't have to simulated real time ... a plank time could take a million years to be processed, and still it would be the simulated beings wouldn't have a clue about it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't just a marketing ploy to get people interested in a potential upcoming Matrix se/prequel right? Christ I surely hope not!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember reading a short story once, maybe on these very forums. It goes something like this:

So there is a team of scientists that have developed a new kind of super-quantum-computer, that's a bajillion times more powerful than any previous computer. They have this new computer sitting in their lab, solving every problem that they throw at it. It solves chess, chews through the SETI and folding@home databases in about an hour, calculates huge prime numbers in seconds. So they don't know what to do with their idle hyper-computer until one day a student comes up with an idea for a simulation of the entire universe. They program in the Big Bang and the laws of physics, and watch their screens as their simulated galaxies form (with the simulation running several billion times faster than real life). Eventually they get to the simulated Earth, and they find that due to the accuracy of their simulation, the simulated Earth is very similar to the real one. In fact, it's so similar that they actually see a bunch of scientists building a simulated computer just like theirs. Anyway, a few days later, one of the technicians is alone in the research building late in the evening, fixing some power supplies. On a whim, he wonders what will happen if he tries to interfere with the simulated world, so he writes a quick command to make the simulated door in the computer room close on its own. Then as he presses the enter key, the real door behind him swings shut.

The end.

(Anybody know where this came from?)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gosh.. I would hate to see the codebase to this thing...

I bet it is written in something really old and unportable like Microsoft Visual Basic 6 :(

Probs can't even run on mah tablet!

So (and I think I speak for the entire universe when I say this) next time God/Allah/Zeus/Johnny Cash wants to code a universe simulator... Think about portability! I don't want to be stuck on an old crusty platform forever! Edited by Karsten_
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting question: can you even "get out" of a simulation like that? By getting out I mean interacting with the outside world apart from communication.
I don't think so, unless the "creators" deliberately made possibilities (ports and devices that are connected to the simulating computer).
So no matter how intelligent we get, how demigod level we reach and how we can manipulate the simulated universe, we will never be able affect the outside world, if it's not the creators' intention. Okay, we can get communicate, so maybe we could ask a kind creator to build bodies for us in the outside world and upload our minds to the bodies.

Apart from that, I see no logical ways to interact with the outside world. No matter how good my computer is, it is still just a box on my table. It can BSOD me and annoy me, but that's pretty much it. Can a program make my computer to electric shock me at all? Or blow the monitor in my face?

Shit, I was able to word the question yesterday in my head...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1355644079' post='5011197']
An interesting question: can you even "get out" of a simulation like that?
[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
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]Do you work on curing cancer then?

Should all game developers work on curing cancer?

Just because someone is skilled in one area, doesn't mean they would be in another.

Aren't there more important things to do than posting to this forum?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355497165' post='5010622']
Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant. This is why I'm agnostic. Even if I personally feel there is no god, I can't say that with 100% certainty because I'm only human and there are limits to the human brain.[/quote]As an aside, few atheists "definitively deciding there is no god" either - the choice of what to label oneself is comes down to personal preference and semantics ("agnostic" can be misleading too, as it strictly means someone who claims we can't know if there is a god - i.e., not a position of belief either way, and also itself a claim).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='MrWunderbar' timestamp='1355520617' post='5010740']Cogito ergo sum " I am thinking, therefore I exist " ~ René Descartes[/quote]Is that the same Descartes that said animals have no souls and therefore do not suffer pain?

Though in the sense of a simulated universe, this actually makes sense. If everything is simulated, so are animals and any pain they might have. So the pain would not be real. The same would be true for time too, which might explain why time passes so quickly sometimes, and goes so slowly at other times.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='JTippetts' timestamp='1355500320' post='5010639']
If this experiment bears out, won't it stand as proof of intelligent design? If we are in a simulation, someone designed that simulation. Maybe that's what God is: the designer of the simulation we run in.
[/quote]

Even if all that were true, it still wouldn't stand as proof of intelligent design, at least not in the sense of diversification of species. Intelligent design holds that some entity designed all the species that exist. All the available evidence contradicts this. If the simulation hypothesis was true it's far more likely that "god" set the initial parameters and then let the simulation play out, with us evolving within the simulation.

The only way it would be truly "intelligent design" would be if the programmer designed all the entities within the simulation, i.e. they were hard coded rather than procedurally generated. In which case, it's extremely likely that all of pre-history is untrustworthy, depending on at what point the simulation was started. But if you accept that, you have to accept that the simulation could have started at any point (i.e. it could have started right......NOW) with all our memories and data simply initialised from some set start state and left to run from there.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1355877518' post='5012262']]
Even if all that were true, it still wouldn't stand as proof of intelligent design, at least not in the sense of diversification of species. Intelligent design holds that some entity designed all the species that exist. All the available evidence contradicts this. If the simulation hypothesis was true it's far more likely that "god" set the initial parameters and then let the simulation play out, with us evolving within the simulation.
[/quote] That's not necessarily true; you are kind of assuming that all proponents of intelligent design believe the same thing. It's somewhat like saying, "all people who believe in reincarnation believe in [some religions specific view of reincarnation]". Intelligent design as a phrase has grown to encompass more than just the most stereotypical explanation of it, at least among people I know who are proponents of it (myself included). I always viewed it as a situation where it was like a massive set of dominoes where God set up the dominos and then set them in motion. IN AN UNRELATED THING, I cannot get new lines in any of my posts. Does anyone know what might cause that? Anytime I press enter it does nothing. :(
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1355900030' post='5012353']
That's not necessarily true; you are kind of assuming that all proponents of intelligent design believe the same thing. It's somewhat like saying, "all people who believe in reincarnation believe in [some religions specific view of reincarnation]". Intelligent design as a phrase has grown to encompass more than just the most stereotypical explanation of it, at least among people I know who are proponents of it (myself included). I always viewed it as a situation where it was like a massive set of dominoes where God set up the dominos and then set them in motion.
[/quote]

Sorry, but no. You're trying to redefine the terms of the argument. Saying that god set the initial parameters is not intelligent design, at least [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design"]not as it's commonly understood[/url]. Intelligent design specifically states that the process of species "evolution" is guided by an external entity.

It's kinda like saying "I'm a vegetarian! I mean, I eat a lot of meat but I support animal rights".
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jwezorek' timestamp='1355951055' post='5012590']
So if it turns out that we're living in a computer simulation, do I still have to go in to work?
[/quote]

I never really understood this thinking, even if we discover we are in a simulation, that doesn't change anything, you still require inputs in order to survive(rather being a simulated being or not, you exist in some shape/form), so unless discovering we are in a simulation makes the simulators decide to end all of our problems, and give us everything we want. then yes, you still have to go to work if you want to continue existing.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1355950658' post='5012589']
Sorry, but no. You're trying to redefine the terms of the argument. Saying that god set the initial parameters is not intelligent design, at least [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design"]not as it's commonly understood[/url]. Intelligent design specifically states that the process of species "evolution" is guided by an external entity.
[/quote]
This is how this just went.
1. Argument assuming X is Y.
2. Argument stating X has grown to be inclusive of more than just Y despite it being commonly understood as just Y.
3. Argument that X is Y because it is commonly understood as Y.

It's totally ignorant of any number of writings by figures in the Catholic church.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/629428-weird-thoughts-about-the-universe/

Thought the same thing about 4 months ago. Damn scientists stealing my ideas! [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/cool.png[/img]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, if the universe were a simulation, it certainly wouldn't be a simulation surrounding us. The simulation would most likely have all of the fundamental laws of physics along with quantum physics programmed into it. Everything else would just be a result of the simulation.
A cellular automata takes simple rules and manages to create complex results. I think the universe would work exactly the same.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1355953749' post='5012606']
This is how this just went.
1. Argument assuming X is Y.
2. Argument stating X has grown to be inclusive of more than just Y despite it being commonly understood as just Y.
3. Argument that X is Y because it is commonly understood as Y.

It's totally ignorant of any number of writings by figures in the Catholic church.
[/quote]

No I'm aware that members of the catholic church have accepted some sort of "deistic evolution". [b]That is not Intelligent Design.[/b] The core principal of intelligent design is that an intelligent entity designed all biodiversity, and specifically humans, and fundamentally, that species evolution through natural selection does not occur.

Your version of the argument is more like:
1 X.
2 Disproof of X.
3 Redefinition of X as Y.

It's akin to
1. "Fish only swim in the sea."
2. "No fish are also found in rivers"
3. "Ah, but I was including rivers when I talked about the sea" Edited by ChaosEngine
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ChaosEngine' timestamp='1355960751' post='5012636']
No I'm aware that members of the catholic church have accepted some sort of "deistic evolution". [b]That is not Intelligent Design.[/b] The core principal of intelligent design is that an intelligent entity designed all biodiversity, and specifically humans, and fundamentally, that species evolution through natural selection does not occur.
[/quote]
Whatever you have to do to convince yourself that belief in the universe being designed by a supernatural intelligent entity is not intelligent design.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1355963099' post='5012646']
Whatever you have to do to convince yourself that belief in the universe being designed by a supernatural intelligent entity is not intelligent design.
[/quote]

Oh FFS

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

The intelligent design (ID) movement claims that life as we know it could not have developed through random natural processes -- that only the guidance of an intelligent power can explain the complexity and diversity that we see today.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm

Stop trying to reframe the debate. ID is unscientific nonsense and rephrasing it as deistic evolution is disingenuous.
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