play my Sim

useless box, thinkGeek... 'nough said

we are living not in the real world, but in an elaborate computer simulation

And so both of these bizarre events put one in mind of a simple but arresting thesis: that we are living in the Matrix, and something has gone wrong with the controllers. (...) The people or machines or aliens who are supposed to be running our lives are having some kind of breakdown. There’s a glitch, and we are in it. (...) There may be not merely a glitch in the Matrix. There may be a Loki, a prankster, suddenly running it. "You can’t do that to them," the wiser, older Architect said. "Oh, c’mon," the kid said. "It’ll be funny. Let’s see what they do!" And then it happened. Whether we are at the mercy of an omniscient adolescent prankster or suddenly the subjects of a more harrowing experiment than any we have been subject to before, we can now expect nothing remotely normal to take place for a long time to come.
in "Did the Oscars Just Prove That We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{27 fev 2017}

No small print ^* do nosso post anterior avançamos que havia mais razões para citar o Scientific American -passe o oxymoron- além do óbvio, apesar da auto imposta interdição a qualquer literatura que insinue saberes à-lá-academia.

* E não é sempre no small print que enterramos as razões?

Backin' up for a sec. Sobre todas as nossas pequenas viagens no tempo, as coincidências que se somam, os sentidos que se tecem, os momentos thin foil hats, os glitchs no tecido da realidade e sanidade, o "vocês são todos produtos da minha imaginação"?.... Nigga please: desta vez temos a ciência para o apoiar. Nada disto é real: é tudo uma simulação.

A legitimate scientific hypothesis: (...) Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive.
in "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Neil deGrasse Tyson, num debate do American Museum of Natural History, citado no Scientific American. Mas se o à-lá-academia te aborrece como a nós, voltemos ao mundo do entretenimento e continuemos com o New Yorker:

Many people have imagined this scenario over the years, of course, usually while high. But recently, a number of philosophers, futurists, science-fiction writers, and technologists -people who share a near-religious faith in technological progress- have come to believe that the simulation argument is not just plausible, but inescapable.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

A base:

A popular argument for the simulation hypothesis came from University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrum in 2003, when he suggested that members of an advanced civilization with enormous computing power might decide to run simulations of their ancestors. They would probably have the ability to run many, many such simulations, to the point where the vast majority of minds would actually be artificial ones within such simulations, rather than the original ancestral minds. So simple statistics suggest it is much more likely that we are among the simulated minds.
in "Did the Oscars Just Prove That We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{27 fev 2017}

Segue a lógica sff:

The simulation argument begins by noticing several present-day trends in technology, such as the development of virtual reality and the mapping of the human brain. (...) The argument ends by proposing that we are, in fact, digital beings living in a vast computer simulation created by our far-future descendants.

The argument is based on two premises, both of which can be disputed but neither of which are unreasonable. The first is that consciousness can be simulated in a computer, with logic gates standing in for the brain’s synapses and neurotransmitters. The second is that advanced civilizations will have access to truly stupendous amounts of computing power.

If that’s true, then simulated human consciousnesses could vastly outnumber non-simulated ones, in which case we are far more likely to be living inside a simulation right now than to be living outside of one.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Tecnologia! Espaço agora para algumas ressalvas à teoria -

Maybe we’ll never reach the posthuman stage; at some point, technological development will cease.

Perhaps our posthuman descendants simply won’t want to make simulations (although, given our own interest in doing so, that seems unlikely).

Or perhaps our species will go extinct before we learn how to simulate ourselves.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

- e uma brilhante conclusão lateral:

Maybe we should be hopeful that this is a simulation, since either we’re going to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality or civilization will cease to exist.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

E, não obstante, os nay-sayers estão na merda para negar a teoria: é mais realista que a ciência consiga provar que o universo é uma simulação do que o seu inverso, e esta vem com um failproff conceptual blindado no seu enunciado:

Proving the opposite -that the universe is real- might be harder. "You’re not going to get proof that we’re not in a simulation, because any evidence that we get could be simulated"
in "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Com muitas outras ramificações pelo caminho. Algumas que merecem os seus 2 cents. Religião:

Theological implications in the idea that we are living in a simulation: nested simulations. If we achieve posthumanity within our simulated universe, we might go on to simulate people of our own, and they may go on to simulate people of their own, in a recursive loop. Reality, therefore, may turn out to consist of a vast number of nested simulations. (...) By the time we perfect simulation technology, he speculates, we will probably have achieved ethical maturity, and so will care about the people we simulate; we may even find ways to "promote" them into our simulation when they die, so that they can embark on an endless process of resurrection-through-ascension. The afterlife may turn out to be an infinite journey into ever-higher levels of simulation.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Parêntesis a recordar que "tratamos o nosso deus por tu":

The simulation argument is appealing, in part, because it gives atheists a way to talk about spirituality. There is, of course, no sanctity or holiness in the simulation argument. The people outside the simulation aren’t gods—they’re us.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Autenticidade!

Does it matter[?] Artists and thinkers have come to various conclusions [com exemplos que normalmente se focam no] the idea of living as a "copy" in a simulated world
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

E se estamos nas teses, como não registar uma para os bots vs trabalho:

Many people have imagined that technology will free us from the burden of work; [mas] that freedom could come through the virtualization of the human race.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Voltando ao pessoal, humor & depressão:

There’s also something melancholy about the idea of simulated life: the thrill of achievement is compromised by the possibility that everything has already happened to our descendants. (...) History, in a sense, has already happened.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Crazy, hem?

Standing in his simulated apartment and looking at a painting, Paul can’t quite forget that, when he turns around, the simulation will stop rendering it, reducing it to "a single gray rectangle" in an effort to save processing cycles.

Why should a computer simulate every atom in the universe when it knows where our eyes aren’t looking? Simulated people have reasons to be paranoid.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Not crazy. Por alguma razão -!!- fechamos com o Americano Cientista. Math, information theory, estatística et al:

They would probably have the ability to run many, many such simulations, to the point where the vast majority of minds would actually be artificial ones within such simulations, rather than the original ancestral minds. So simple statistics suggest it is much more likely that we are among the simulated minds. And there are other reasons to think we might be virtual. For instance, the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws. [E] ideas from information theory keep showing up in physics, "why were they in the equations I was studying about quarks and electrons and supersymmetry?"
in "Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

Considered as a parable, the simulation argument is essentially ironic. On the one hand, we maximize human potential by creating worlds of our own; on the other, by doing so, we confirm the impossibility of ultimate knowledge about the universe in which we live.
in "What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?" ^{9 jun 2016}

play my Sim

Considered as a parable, the simulation argument is essentially ironic. On the one hand, we maximize human potential by creating worlds of our own; on the other, by doing so, we confirm the impossibility of ultimate knowledge about the universe in which we live.

top 1%