Talk:Simulated reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Time Dilation Considerations[edit]

It is impossible for a multiplayer simulation to replicate relativistic temporal dilation where outside time is faster as you travel closer to the speed of light. So either the universe is not a simulation, or there is only one real user/player in the simulation. Were the latter the case, then I would obviously posit that I am that user and you are not. Once again the Weak Anthropic Principle suggests that I am probably not that lucky, and I am metaphysically certain that you are not. -Benjamin Wade Goulart 2605:A000:C3C0:5500:4C71:EEDF:AD2B:DB27 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you could put this argument in context of some other thought on the subject, perhaps it is a reiteration or a refinement of the Rietdijk–Putnam argument? — Brianhe (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The best way to start would be to find a citation to a reliable source. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

        • This is not transparent to me -- why would this be so? The only "real or preferred" frame of reference would be from the prior civilization's POV -- the civilization that creates the simulation in question. Inside the simulation, good heavens all bets are off and the logic engine could make it so that every vantage point sees things in relativistic ways. Remember -- the laws of physics inside the simulation do not need to be the same as outside the simulation...meaning that the simulation can cheat to get the desired effects for its sentient beings. It is important to realize that the non-sentient particles don't "care" about the simulation...all that matters is that the sentient ones are made to think the simulation runs a particular way. *** Chesspride

It also strikes me -- without any particular proof offered at this time -- that it is precisely because the speed of light is constant for all vantage points/all observers...that it is more likely that we live in a simulation. From the POV of any given pixel on a monitor screen, of course the speed of light (the speed of the simulation of information ) must be constant. Chesspride (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC) (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

New merge discussion[edit]

No consensus to merge. Dennis Brown - 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article and Simulation hypothesis have unclear scopes and have covered the same material for years. There was a merge discussion in 2012, but it didn't go anywhere. I propose that we clean-up this mess and finally merge them. If someone opposes merging them, please explain how you would define the scope of each article so that they can be clearly distinguished. Kaldari (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed, see also Talk:Simulation_hypothesis#WP:SYNTH. Outside of Wikipedia, "simulation hypothesis" only seems to be used when talking about Nick Bostrom's "ancestor simulation" in the context of the "simulation argument"; my guess is that at some point some well-meaning editor created a new page specifically about Bostrom's simulation, and then some other well-meaning editor thought that "simulation hypothesis" means any hypothesis that we live in a simulation, and thus we ended up in the current state. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is any need to merge the two articles for the same reasons we've avoided merging spin off articles in the past. I believe we had a similar discussion over simulism. In this instance, we should discourage people from cutting and pasting this article into a new article and adding a few extra thoughts -- which entices well meaning editors to merge them. That is not an efficient way to edit Wikipedia articles -- if they want to make changes they need to make them in this article rather than writing their own article that basically reiterates what is contained in this one. To the extent an article is a copy then the proper action is a nomination for deletion. Lordvolton (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge Simulated reality says that reality can be simulated and Simulation hypothesis is suggesting reality is simulated. The two articles are very much related that should be merged. Both articles also have a very similar section (Here and here). heyzec! 12:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    Again, rewarding editors who cut and paste from this article into a new article with a "merge" is not a good idea. If you dislike the similarities then you should nominate the copycat article(s) for deletion. Lordvolton (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly different, however related topics: "Simulation hypothesis" is a subtopic of "Simulated reality", and therefore a cleanup us due, to rearrange the two according to Wikipedia:Summary style, to avoid unnecessary duplication. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose Same reason as above. Alexlur (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links content to be put into article prose?[edit]

On restoring the section of “Relativity of reality”[edit]

I’m not intentionally involved in an editing war. I am relatively a new editor of Wiki, although I read it almost every day and donated money to it many times. I suggest restoring this section for the following reasons: (1) This section refers to an article that is unique in its statements on the connection between simulated reality and relativity theory (principle), especially its thoughtful piece on the relationship between reality and physical laws. (2) About the source. GSJ is just an outlet of the above article. Although GSJ is not a peer-reviewed journal, at least it is a journal with a regular ISSN (ISSN-1916-5382). I can change the reference to the original web page of this article:, as many other references do in this wiki page. But I don’t think that is a better way. (3) As I noticed, the author of this article, Dr. Bin-Guang Ma, has an academic position and published dozens of peer-reviewed scientific papers. One can just google the author name or see (4) This section has been in this Wiki page for several years. (5) The “Relativity of reality” theory is highly relevant to this topic and may become an important contribution to our understanding of simulated reality from a physics viewpoint. I think people who are interested in simulated reality should have a look at this theory.

Discussions are welcome! --PeachKernel (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If I look on Google Scholar, the journal article has only one citation. I'm afraid its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE by Wikipedia policy, and I would say this even if I read the journal article and found it interesting (for the record, I haven't read the journal article at all and therefore have no opinion on it). Note that Wikipedia, especially on older or more obscure Wikipedia articles, does currently contain many violations of Wikipedia policy such as publishing idiosyncratic ideas that can only currently be sourced to blogs or to non-peer-reviewed and uncited journal articles; if you stumble across things like that, feel free to help with flagging or removing them. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is indexed in Google Scholar and has citation, it is obviously an academic paper, better than many references (web pages and blogs) in this Wiki page. Considering its high relevance, it should be included. --PeachKernel (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, because a lot of refs here are terrible, is no reason to make the article worse. GSJ is NOT an academic paper. It is not peer-reviewed; that's in its mission statement. It is mostly a crackpot repository. (The very first article I click, almost at random, is of the "Einstein was wrong, SR is wrong" type, for fudge's sake). The bad refs in the article should be flagged and replaced or removed, not more added or added back. (And the paragraph itself is barely intelligible, but that's besides the point). Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, GSJ is not a peer-reviewed journal; it doesn’t mean the referred article is not an academic paper. As I said, GSJ is just an outlet of that article. In my opinion, the merit of the “Relativity of reality” theory lies in its unique viewpoint and clear statements on the connection between “simulated reality” and relativity theory (principle), which are highly relevant to this wiki topic. That’s why I think people who are interested in simulated reality should have a look at this theory. --PeachKernel (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"Yes, GSJ is not a peer-reviewed journal; it doesn’t mean the referred article is not an academic paper." Actually that's pretty much what it means, yes. "GSJ is just an outlet of that article"; if the paper were good, it would find a better outlet (i.e. anything else). That's how academic publication is set up to work. The paper itself is written in a semi-literate style (e.g. "all the worlds are the same real.") and seems about as canny as your average blog post series on the subject. At a glance it's mostly a freestyle riff on the fuzzy feeling of the word "relativity"; a common feature of crank papers. The author, even if it is the one you linked, has neither notability in general nor even academic expertise in the subject (physics and th. comp. sci. are the relevant disciplines here). The "theory" has of course not been picked up by any other academic, even informally. A lot of things would have to change before that became a half-decent source, let alone a good one. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you google the author name, you can find thousands of records. (1) You will find the research gate profile:, and the referred article is in the publication list. (2) You can also find this link, and it is clearly a “computer science bibliography” and the indexed two papers are also in the publication list of the author Bin-Guang Ma’s profiles at the research gate: You cannot say that the author has no expertise in computer science. (3) If you check more on the results from google search, you will find the author (binguang ma, Huazhong Agricultural University) is in the editorial board of Nature Scientific Reports (in the section of “Biological Physics”) You cannot say the author has no expertise in Physics. With these evidences, I think the referred article is from an academic person with sufficient expertise on this topic. --PeachKernel (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"If you google the author name, you can find thousands of records. " ... None of which make him notable. (1) ok, so it's the same author. Good. (2) 2 biology-related interdisciplinary papers does not make one an expert in CS, let alone in the relevant fields (theory of computation etc). (3) Yes, he does protein folding and stuff. That has no relevance to what's being discussed (general relativity, so astrophysics,...). Again, if the paper were good, he could get it published someplace that establishes it as a reliable source. Then there would be something to talk about. Even better if there were good secondary sources about his "theory". As it stands, it is a blog-post-equivalent from a random, non-notable (see WP:ACADEMIC) academic whose expertise lies elsewhere. That's about all the time I'm willing to invest in this discussion. You have been told in no uncertain terms that the source is unsuitable by no fewer than 5 different editors now. I suggest you take the hint. Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

PeachKernel, please no longer restore texts which were deleted because of violation of wikipedia rules, without addressing these violations. If you don't know the rules, here they are: WP:V WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NOR. Please start from small and/or non-controversial additions, until you get a knack. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)