›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Life as a Video Game

HungryJoeHungryJoe
edited August 2007 in Video Games
This is becoming a more popular idea all the time. It's hardly new, but now it's being reported in mainstream venues like The New York Times. What do you think about it?

Comments

  • VigaViga
    edited August 2007
    Wow. My friends and I always made jokes and thought about all of us are really someones sims. Or that this world is just one big dot hack like place. Think God and his angels in a computer lab or something. I didn't think it was a popular idea or that people seriously think we are a sim. Well I guess if you think of the atoms and stuff that make up things as data and pixels...

    Nah its just too weird.
    Post edited by Viga on
  • Alex LeavittAlex Leavitt
    As long as I'm walking around to background music, it's all good.
  • ThaedThaed
    Dude, GameSpot reviewed Real Life years ago.
  • MitchyDMitchyD
    God, this is no good if something like the Times is publicizing this - it's just ammo for crazy fuckers who think that games make you a killer and such... Still, it's interesting stuff.
     
    I'm a level 9 factory worker.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Dude,GameSpot reviewed Real Life years ago.
    Yeah, but that was Gamespot. This is the NYT.
  • raquorraquor
    But if real life is a video game....how crazy is it that I spend an awful lot of time playing an MMO? man...that's just sort of trippy.

    I'm a level 5 software engineer.
  • BromleyBromley
    Of course! Such a computer would have to be as massive as a whole world. The sun is the CPU of the solar system!
  • cosmicenemacosmicenema
    I'm sort of a subjectivist so as long as I'm not sure what the universe is, it isn't really affecting the way I perceive it. This really isn't a new idea by any means, just with a technology twist. If we assume we are in "some guys computer simulation" then I highly doubt it'd represent anything in our 'programed' concept of computer systems.

    If you were in a universe that could program an entire universe into a computer simulation, you couldn't program it to be exactly like your universe. If you did then the created universe would be creating their own universes in your simulation . . . and we haven't done that. Thus we must be a fictional simulation, or at the very lease a historical one. It seems likely to me that we would either be an invention of new 'universal' laws or based on historical data of the existing universe.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    This really isn't a new idea by any means . . .
    As I've said twice before, I know this is not a new idea. What is new is that it's reported in such a mainstream venue.
  • JasonJason
    Tron called. He wants his premise back.

    It's certainly an interesting idea; but what I find more intriguing is that if I am a program being controlled, ostensibly, by "god," then "god" may also be a program being controlled by an even higher being, and so forth, ad infinitum. Honestly, that's where I thought the Matrix sequels were heading. I thought Neo was going to discover that the Matrix was actually a Matrix within a Matrix, within a Matrix. Within a Matrix. Matrix.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited August 2007
    I thought Neo was going to discover that the Matrix was actually a Matrix within a Matrix, within a Matrix. Within a Matrix. Matrix.
    I thought this as well. I would have been much happier if this had been the case. It would have been like a matryoshka doll, a set of Russian nesting universes.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • ThaedThaed
    And the two sequels perhaps would not have sucked as bad.
  • cosmicenemacosmicenema
    edited August 2007
    This really isn't a new idea by any means . . .
    As I've said twice before, I know this is not a new idea. What is new is that it's reported in such a mainstream venue.
    I'd consider the Matrix, or Men in Blank, or any number of other movies that touch on virtually identical philosophical issues more mainstream . . . and that's just the "we live in a computer" idea. Edit: Of course I get distracted while typing my post and you all beat me to it. Sorry to re-hash.

    The philosophical origins that we cannon know our truly objective reality because we are restricted by our subjective reality are vastly older than even the bible and most of us should have been exposed to it in our formative studies in humanities or social sciences.

    If you're saying that this particular spin (literally programed reality) is brining subjectivity to the masses then I suppose I can agree with that. I think people are more likely to agree with or understand the concept when put into technological terms.

    I think the 'mathematical probability' angle is pretty lame to be honest. You can't set a probability that one objective-reality-that-we-don't-understand is likely without factoring all of the other possible objective-realities-that-we-don't-understand into the equation.
    Post edited by cosmicenema on
  • AprecheApreche
    While the idea that we might live in a "computer" of some sort is an interesting one, and it certainly not outside the real of possibility, I really don't think it is even remotely likely. What evidence is there to suggest we are actually a simulation as opposed to "real". It is important to discuss this issue mostly because of the ethical implications of simulations we might create ourselves. However, without some evidence that we live in a computer simulation, it's no more likely than the flying spaghetti monster or intelligent design.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited August 2007
    I'd consider the Matrix, or Men in Blank, or any number of other movies that touch on virtually identical philosophical issues more mainstream . . .
    Yeah, but mainstream types don't take movies seriously unless they involve legal disputes, medical procedures, marital problems, or bygone historical eras. For the NYT to recognize the concept means that many mainstreamers must be coming around to taking it more seriously, or at least not outright laughing at it.

    I'll bet some Southern Baptist preacher is writing a sermon about how evil the idea is right now.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • BronzdragonBronzdragon
    I don't believe it, for I doubt things and make decisions. The 'I think, therefor I am' argument.

    (although it's more like 'I doubt what my senses tell me therefor, there must be something that does the thinking).
  • BlattusBlattus
    I'm sort of a subjectivist so as long as I'm not sure what the universe is, it isn't really affecting the way I perceive it.
    I would agree. I use the same rationale when dealing with things like truth. To me, an objective "truth" may exist but it is theoretically beyond our understanding. Therefore, we can develop relative truths when making comparisons/statements/etc in our daily lives. In the same way, even if we were in a computer world, the thing controlling us would be like the unattainable objective truth: regardless of its existence (which we're not able to grasp) we're still able to develop our own interpretation that we're living in some sort of objective world.
    The sun is the CPU of the solar system!
    I think it would be more of a power supply....
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited August 2007
    I'd prefer it be a multi server simulation than a computer game. Reason being: Massive simulations are hosted mostly on linux servers, games on windows. If someone hits the windows key something could go horribly wrong.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • JukeBoxJoshJukeBoxJosh
    edited August 2007
    I would have read the article if it had not said The Sims. I kinda got distracted and began playing The Urbz on my GameBoy.
    Post edited by JukeBoxJosh on
  • cosmicenemacosmicenema
    I'm sort of a subjectivist so as long as I'm not sure what the universe is, it isn't really affecting the way I perceive it.
    I would agree. I use the same rationale when dealing with things like truth. To me, an objective "truth" may exist but it is theoretically beyond our understanding. Therefore, we can developrelativetruths when making comparisons/statements/etc in our daily lives. In the same way, even if we were in a computer world, the thing controlling us would be like the unattainable objective truth: regardless of its existence (which we're not able to grasp) we're still able to develop our own interpretation that we're living in some sort of objective world.
    Right on!
  • VigaViga
    I guess the earths core is the CPU. So what are KB? Humans?
    I'm sort of a subjectivist so as long as I'm not sure what the universe is, it isn't really affecting the way I perceive it.
    I would agree. I use the same rationale when dealing with things like truth. To me, an objective "truth" may exist but it is theoretically beyond our understanding. Therefore, we can developrelativetruths when making comparisons/statements/etc in our daily lives. In the same way, even if we were in a computer world, the thing controlling us would be like the unattainable objective truth: regardless of its existence (which we're not able to grasp) we're still able to develop our own interpretation that we're living in some sort of objective world.
    Right on!
    That just exploded my mind. My brain hurts so I'm going into safe mode.
  • cosmicenemacosmicenema
    That just exploded my mind. My brain hurts so I'm going into safe mode.
    This right here is why even NYT will not reach the masses.
Sign In or Register to comment.