Disappearing Santa Hat

[DebunkThisPls]

Originally Posted by*Thermal*
OP is 14. .




We could assume he read the musings of Musk at any point after 2015.

If the anecdote is a genuine attempt to describe actual events, it would seem that the glitch is in the matrix of his mind.

Also, my apologies for the name calling. I mostly just wanted to see if the OP knew who Matlock was.

Sorry I just now saw this. Im confused with the comment you quoted here. I gave the article I read, which was posted in 2018, and said that I saw it at the beginning of the year

 

[DebunkThisPls]

Your take assumes a physical simulation. As I recall the movie, the humans were literally plugged in to an electronic simulation. Kind of like the Sims. The Sims world didn't build real houses, right? The Matrix shot electrical impulses to the brain that mimiced sensory input. In theory, the machines who created the Matrix did so on a laptop or whatever. No real ages of photons were needed; just the sensory input that convinced the subject that it was there.



Brain processing power? Neural activity? Humans have dramatically larger brains than other animals. Plus my recollection of the movie's premise was that machines and humans were battling it out, so the machines had all these perfectly good humans to harvest power from that they needed to get rid of anyway. Two birds , one stone.



Yeah, I heard that before. And much like calling a banana taped to the wall 'art', they can call it whatever they want. To the rest of us, it is indisputably and by any definition a sci-fi fantasy action movie.

Movie discussion tho: I expected the character Switch to have some kind of different real-world appearance, because of the name and the only one appearing in all white. I read somewhere that she was originally written to be a male in the real world?



Ok, skeptical argument against your criticism here:

Our unreliable narrator claimed that it was both a magazine article and a pop up link, as well as saying he was not sure. He thought it might have been the space.com story he posted earlier, from 2018. Why do you ignore his link and require the article he doesn't cite?

Now, only you are trying to lock him onto the SciAm article from 2016. You also lock him onto reading it immediately upon its original paper publication date. Why? In an America doctor or dentist's office, the waiting rooms are filled with old magazines. Years old. Why do you require that he read that specific article when it first came out?

Say he meant an online magazine, as opposed to a paper publication. Reasonable enough. You are surely aware that he could be linking to magazine articles that are older than he is, no? I can refer to a newspaper article I read from the freaking 1800s, while literally meaning a link to a website archive. Although we have valid criticisms of the OP's claims, this isn't one of them.

I said that it was a pop up add that lead to an online article. I have the link, I don't believe i ever said it was a magazine, at least not a physical one, it was online. Also, thank you for agreeing with me and defending me

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Also, my apologies for the name calling. I mostly just wanted to see if the OP knew who Matlock was.

Matlock Police is a 70's TV Show in Australia, so some anachronisms don't cross international borders with the same meaning. However I understand what you mean.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Your take assumes a physical simulation.

You can't make a mathematical simulation of quantum mechanics can you? That's the whole point of "half life" and you can't predict an individual particle's radioactivity. That's why a simulation can't just be mathematical or it wouldn't make sense in the long run.

As I recall the movie, the humans were literally plugged in to an electronic simulation. Kind of like the Sims. The Sims world didn't build real houses, right?

The simulation was meant to reproduce the real world to all "kept humans" simultaneously, so the same simulation would have to be consistent with all humans simultaneously. Therefore a scientist looking at 13billion year old photons in the USA would have to match the same interference problem to another scientist doing the same in Russia. You can't mathematically predict collapsing dual waveform/ particle interference patterns.

Brain processing power? Neural activity? Humans have dramatically larger brains than other animals.

Brains suck energy. They don't generate surplus electricity. Humans get energy from burning oxygen, generally as the end chain of photosynthesis in plants. The whole Matrix story is complete rubbish. and could have used elephants.

Our unreliable narrator claimed that it was both a magazine article and a pop up link, as well as saying he was not sure.

Our OP first told the hat story in a different way two weeks before telling the story again, with changes, and posting that it frightened him 20 minutes earlier. My analysis was sent to AAH.

Say he meant an online magazine, as opposed to a paper publication.

He didn't mention that in his created quantum thread, did he? In fact, he hasn't addressed the article's content at all, despite numerous requests. Perhaps he would like to offer us a summary of its content, now.

 

[Nakani]

Your take assumes a physical simulation. As I recall the movie, the humans were literally plugged in to an electronic simulation. Kind of like the Sims. The Sims world didn't build real houses, right? The Matrix shot electrical impulses to the brain that mimiced sensory input. In theory, the machines who created the Matrix did so on a laptop or whatever. No real ages of photons were needed; just the sensory input that convinced the subject that it was there.

I wonder what the "profit margin" would be with such a system? Is there enough electricity produced by a human to power the computer required to create the simulation, not to mention the machine world.

I would think the matrix would require considerable computing power to give each human a unique perspective and allow for interaction. You would think the machines would have just gave everyone the same life to save power. Why do humans need to be entertained in order to produce power anyway? Wouldn't a person in a coma produce the same amount of electricity?

 

[Nakani]

Matlock Police is a 70's TV Show in Australia, so some anachronisms don't cross international borders with the same meaning. However I understand what you mean.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matlock_(TV_ series)

In North America, Matlock is a lawyer who always wins the case.

 

[Nakani]

Sorry I just now saw this. Im confused with the comment you quoted here. I gave the article I read, which was posted in 2018, and said that I saw it at the beginning of the year

I was talking to Mathew Ellard.

 

[arthwollipot]

You can't make a mathematical simulation of quantum mechanics can you?

A civilisation sufficiently advanced to simulate an entire universe will obviously know a method of simulating QM. After all, we have experimental results confirming QM and we know that it is a necessary component of a universe's function.

The simulation hypothesis assumes that the simulators know how to simulate our universe.

If you could prove mathematically that QM cannot be simulated, that would be disproof of the simulation hypothesis. But I don't know how or if you could do that.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

In North America, Matlock is a lawyer who always wins the case.

That's alright. I knew the show. I worked for Beyond Ltd, the Aussie production company that produced Mythbusters.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

A civilisation sufficiently advanced to simulate an entire universe will obviously know a method of simulating QM.

A civilisation that advanced would know to use solar power rather than suck energy from human brains.

However, that's a very bold claim that future technology will predict and imitate the double slit experiment results, when Heisenberg's mathematics says the exact opposite. It's like claiming an advanced civilisation will solve time travel, when there is no evidence for that either.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I wonder what the "profit margin" would be with such a system? Is there enough electricity produced by a human to power the computer required to create the simulation, not to mention the machine world.

Humans burn carbon fuel (food) and oxygen ( breathing). We use energy. We don't make energy. Animals only evolved 500 million years ago, because plants converted the atmosphere to burnable oxygen.

That was one of the dumbest things about the Matrix. Why wouldn't the aliens simply make energy from nuclear fusion?

 

[arthwollipot]

A civilisation that advanced would know to use solar power rather than suck energy from human brains.

That only occurs in a fictional series of movies. It is not a requirement for the simulation hypothesis to be true.

However, that's a very bold claim that future technology will predict and imitate the double slit experiment results, when Heisenberg's mathematics says the exact opposite. It's like claiming an advanced civilisation will solve time travel, when there is no evidence for that either.

We certainly don't know how to do it. But I don't think you can say that it is impossible in principle.

 

[DebunkThisPls]

I was talking to Mathew Ellard.

Oh I apologize, I misunderstood.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

That only occurs in a fictional series of movies. It is not a requirement for the simulation hypothesis to be true.

We are trying to apply science to the fictional story about a teleporting Christmas hat, so either we stick to the factual world or we don't. (In the Matrix it is a cat that teleports and makes Neo go "whhhhoooaaa Ted, was that")

We certainly don't know how to do it. But I don't think you can say that it is impossible in principle.

Hang on, Heisenberg specifically says, in principle, we can't do it. We already know you can't do it. It's mathematics.

As for time travel, we know it is not possible or where are the time travellers from the future?

 

[Nakani]

Humans burn carbon fuel (food) and oxygen ( breathing). We use energy. We don't make energy.

I never really stopped to think about it. We make electricity but we are using it at the same time, what extra were they harvesting?

That was one of the dumbest things about the Matrix. Why wouldn't the sentient machines simply make energy from nuclear fusion?

I'm sure part 4 will explain everything.

 

[Nakani]

That only occurs in a fictional series of movies. It is not a requirement for the simulation hypothesis to be true.

Yes, advanced beings could have us locked into a simulation for a multitude of reasons. None which would make much sense though

 

[arthwollipot]

We are trying to apply science to the fictional story about a teleporting Christmas hat, so either we stick to the factual world or we don't. (In the Matrix it is a cat that teleports and makes Neo go "whhhhoooaaa Ted, was that")

The simulation hypothesis doesn't require any of the Matrix to be true. If the universe is a simulation, it does not follow that it necessarily must be powered by sucking energy from living brains. The Matrix movies are irrelevant to this discussion.

Hang on, Heisenberg specifically says, in principle, we can't do it. We already know you can't do it. It's mathematics.

As far as we know we can't do it. But a civilisation capable of creating a computer capable of simulating an entire universe to the level of detail we observe might have worked out a way around it. Remember, if the universe is a simulation, whoever is doing the simulation is not part of the universe as we know it and may not be bound by our universe's laws. The uncertainty principle is part of our universe, and is therefore part of what the simulators programmed. But it doesn't follow that it must be a part of all possible universes.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, advanced beings could have us locked into a simulation for a multitude of reasons. None which would make much sense though

How about simple curiosity? We do things just to see if we can do them. Why shouldn't they?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The simulation hypothesis doesn't require any of the Matrix to be true. If the universe is a simulation, it does not follow that it necessarily must be powered by sucking energy from living brains.

I ask either DebunkthisPlease or yourself to write down what you think Elon Musk's simulation hypothesis about the universe actually is.

To me it is like picking up a cat and saying "this is a perfect simulation of a cat"....which means it is just a normal cat.

...But a civilisation capable of creating a computer capable of simulating an entire universe to the level of detail we observe might have worked out a way around it.

To work out the activity of every particle and event in the universe requires a machine bigger than the universe. Every quark or electron or quantum wave's, possible location and velocity in the real universe would have to have a directing equal controlling thingee in the simulator, otherwise we wouldn't have split screen experiment in our real universe. You then have to use another thingee to convert all that information into a simulation that can be loaded into a human.

It's the same logic why God can't control the universe, as he would have to be bigger than the universe. He'd have to have something to monitor every particle and waveform in the universe, something to calculate what should happen next for everything in the universe and something to control everything in the universe.

Remember, if the universe is a simulation, whoever is doing the simulation is not part of the universe as we know it and may not be bound by our universe's laws.

Then what is the point in simulating the universe, if it isn't everything and not truly representative? You may as well make a half arsed, contradictory, science fiction film like the Matrix.

 

[arthwollipot]

I ask either DebunkthisPlease or yourself to write down what you think Elon Musk's simulation hypothesis about the universe actually is.

I don't know a great deal about it, but I do know that it's not Musk's hypothesis but was proposed in its current form by the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003.

To me it is like picking up a cat and saying "this is a perfect simulation of a cat"....which means it is just a normal cat.

Okay. That's not the simulation hypothesis.

The Simulation Hypothesis states that if it is possible to simulate universes, then simulated people would so vastly outnumber real people that it is very likely that you are a simulation.

To work out the activity of every particle and event in the universe requires a machine bigger than the universe. Every quark or electron or quantum wave's, possible location and velocity in the real universe would have to have a directing equal controlling thingee in the simulator, otherwise we wouldn't have split screen experiment in our real universe. You then have to use another thingee to convert all that information into a simulation that can be loaded into a human.

It's the same logic why God can't control the universe, as he would have to be bigger than the universe. He'd have to have something to monitor every particle and waveform in the universe, something to calculate what should happen next for everything in the universe and something to control everything in the universe.

Then what is the point in simulating the universe, if it isn't everything and not truly representative? You may as well make a half arsed, contradictory, science fiction film like the Matrix.

Let me remind you of the actual simulation hypothesis again. The existence of the simulation is assumed a priori and draws a conclusion based on that assumption. It does not go into whether it is possible or not. In Bostrom's words:

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.

...

It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.

Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.

- Nick Bostrom, Are you living in a computer simulation?, 2003.

A quick trip to Wikipedia could have told you all of this. It did to me.