# What if we are living in a video game? Are we real?



## 546617 (Oct 8, 2014)

think about it.....In the future, it will probably be possible to simulate an entire universe in a computer (or a bunch of them). When it becomes possible, its highly likely we will, in order to try to better understand where we came from.

If we can do that, what's to say it hasn't already happened and that's exactly what we are?

You don't have to believe it. You can think it ridiculous. But it's a serious concept, true or not. Now consider this. If we live in a computer simulation, our experiences, our reality, everything we have ever known is a part of that simulation. The "real world" could be so unimaginably different than the simulation that we literally could not comprehend whatever or whomever is responsible, or what sort of technology He/She/It/They are using.






Watc this 50 minute documentary very intresting: 




http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

http://listverse.com/2013/12/02/10-reasons-life-may-be-a-computer-simulation/


----------



## EmotionlessThug (Oct 4, 2011)

KurdishFella said:


> think about it.....In the future, it will probably be possible to simulate an entire universe in a computer (or a bunch of them). When it becomes possible, its highly likely we will, in order to try to better understand where we came from.
> 
> If we can do that, what's to say it hasn't already happened and that's exactly what we are?
> 
> ...


They've contradicted themselves cause we have Camera's to prove that this place is an advanced holographic simulation. Especially we have programming languages, and being able to create polymorphic clones by devirtualizing in game simulation creations and also materialized virtual objects created from C++ into this world. All of our important science has been separated, instead of explaining it all together to properly specify our world and technology. That we have the technology such as computational intelligence system to create the universe and life forms, all of our technology originated from the programmer/creator outside of this simulation, he/she also lives in a simulation with extremely slow time. A Video Game Console can be considered as Biotechnology, but it's only particle technology, and it's not equipped with specialized modules to be able to simulate and materialized Molecular Structure.

Software agent based models...

How did the creator/programmer technology come here to planet Earth in the first place?

Everything is literally right in front of our face, but the scientific information is so uncleared that only a very few individuals are able to distinguish our reality, but they will be looked upon by those who can't grasp reality as a clown, mentally ill, plus mentally slow, which is very typical and robotically using automatic scripts to identify an individual. The words used by those very few individuals will be considered as insane from the spectators who's reading it, because they can't analyze this reality from their perspective. Our thoughts are categorized independently to retrieve what we considered as important, unimportant, appropriate, inappropriate to what's been dictated to us in this system.

Both dimensional structures shown on TV.


----------



## PrisciIIa (Jun 1, 2016)

Matrix has been among one of the best movies I have ever seen.

--- 

From the scientific point of view, this question is irrelevant. 
1. No evidence.(please don't link me to the pseudosciences) 
2. Even if it is simulation, it is still our only domain of reality.

---


From the philosophical point of view...it has been addressed for ages...

Well, if the ultimate lie is clever and complicated enough to fool me, or make me believe it's reality...it becomes completely irrelevant if its true reality or just a clever lie.


----------



## iAmCodeMonkey (May 23, 2010)




----------



## CWe (Mar 7, 2010)

Interesting


----------



## mike91 (Sep 23, 2012)

Well we must be losing and i cant seem to find the reset button


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

If _everything_ we experience is a simulation then it _is_ perfectly real. It isn't even a brain in a vat, or plato's cave, because our brains would also be simulated and there isn't any way to exit the simulation. Interesting to think about but makes zero difference to anything as far as I can see .


----------



## 2Milk (Oct 29, 2014)

If we are in a simulation how would we ever know that we are? We could discover some glitch in the system but what if us discovering that glitch in the system was also part of the simulation? 

If our 3d, vr, and computing technology continues advancing at it's current rate, it's hard to imagine not being able to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality in 1000 years.


----------



## lackofflife (Mar 24, 2015)

yea life isnt real its just like a dream it looks real as long as your in it... its just like those dreams that feel real but then u wake up and realize it was just a ****ing dream.......
life is a ****ing dream....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kovu (Jun 18, 2013)

You get to make your own decisions everyday, no one is controlling that.


----------



## HenDoggy (Jul 26, 2014)

Reading this thread gave me the biggest depersonalization freak out ever. What if all this is the fragment of a dream and I'm actually dead? ****....


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

HenDoggy said:


> Reading this thread gave me the biggest depersonalization freak out ever. What if all this is the fragment of a dream and I'm actually dead? ****....


On the flip side, if the simulation hypothesis is correct, then there is probably nothing but simulations, and the 'simulation' is in fact the only reality there is, so you are very much as alive as you can be.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

EmotionlessThug said:


> They've contradicted themselves cause we have Camera's to prove that this place is an advanced holographic simulation.


Can you cite the evidence for this?


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

If everything is simulated, then the definition of "real" for us changes. If there is an underlying "real" universe, that isn't simulated, that we have no possible way to access or experience, but all we can experience is the simulated one, then this is reality. It is kinda deceptive to even call it "simulated". What it would mean is that the fundamental nature of our universe is different to what we thought it was. That is a more honest way of describing it.

But this simulation hypothesis stuff opens some interesting concepts. For example, our simulation might be one nested really deep in, so the available resources (processing power) to simulate might not be very comprehensive. It might be a "dumbed down" version, both in terms or richness (quality of graphics, sound etc), and our own experience / ability to experience it.

The true reality (in the base universe) could even be totally different, in ways we wouldn't even fathom. Plato's cave stuff. We potentially wouldn't even have the sensory capabilities to be able to interpret it (because our minds evolved for this reality).

Also with the simulation idea, you have to consider that _time itself_ is being simulated, so perhaps our universe has just been running on a child's experimental "laptop" in the time they went to go to the toilet in their reality :b.

It could also have been stopped and started, or rerun numerous times, and we wouldn't even be aware of it. Determinism in the context of simulated realities is a little unnerving .

But fundamentally nothing changes with this idea, it's kinda fun to think about though.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

splendidbob said:


> If everything is simulated, then the definition of "real" for us changes. If there is an underlying "real" universe, that isn't simulated, that we have no possible way to access or experience, but all we can experience is the simulated one, then this is reality. It is kinda deceptive to even call it "simulated". What it would mean is that the fundamental nature of our universe is different to what we thought it was. That is a more honest way of describing it.


Indeed as I said, if it's all simulation, then it's not a simulation but 'reality'. The being who thought they created the first simulation also couldn't know with 100% certainty they weren't just another being in another universes simulation either.

Since physics works equally well forward or backwards in time, with the arrow of time we know probably just being local to our universe, the idea of some meta-universal time line can become defunct, so even causality breaks down and maybe there is no 'first' or 'original' universe. Like a fractal, it just keeps continuing regardless of your observation in either direction.



> But this simulation hypothesis stuff opens some interesting concepts. For example, our simulation might be one nested really deep in, so the available resources (processing power) to simulate might not be very comprehensive. It might be a "dumbed down" version, both in terms or richness (quality of graphics, sound etc), and our own experience / ability to experience it.


Indeed that is how it's actually being tested for. The 'graininess' of space time could be equivalent to 'pixels', which in our universe we call the Planck length (i.e. the smallest unit possible).

Here's an interesting read on the subject.



> The true reality (in the base universe) could even be totally different, in ways we wouldn't even fathom. Plato's cave stuff. We potentially wouldn't even have the sensory capabilities to be able to interpret it (because our minds evolved for this reality).


Indeed, we simply can't know, and there is undoubtedly much that is unfathomable. We may once day be able to get a basic understanding via what super artificial intelligence tells us, but it's one of those questions that nothing or nobody can ever know with 100% certainty.



> Also with the simulation idea, you have to consider that _time itself_ is being simulated, so perhaps our universe has just been running on a child's experimental "laptop" in the time they went to go to the toilet in their reality :b


Indeed, we already run crude universe simulations, some even with very basic AI in them, and they can run at speeds that far far exceed what we experience. Time is entirely relative and can subjective.



> It could also have been stopped and started, or rerun numerous times, and we wouldn't even be aware of it. Determinism in the context of simulated realities is a little unnerving .


Indeed. Maybe our current universe is program run #104144 for example. 



> But fundamentally nothing changes with this idea, it's kinda fun to think about though.


Yeah. It's really just an interesting fun thought experiment, as the chances of us finding hard proof we are a simulation is so difficult. 

I'm very much open to it, especially when the odds that it is are something like a billions to one chance we _aren't_, but ultimately it won't make me live my life any different and have very little effect on my ideologies.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

Then I'd want whatever computer is running it, maybe it can even handle Crysis.


----------



## Darktower776 (Aug 16, 2013)

That's exactly what they want you to think.


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)




----------



## unemployment simulator (Oct 18, 2015)

you know what? ever since playing gta whenever I see someone go past in a vehicle where the seat is the exact same height and position as in the game it reminds me of the game, and I sort of smile as I imagine one of them getting irate, driving off like crazy smashing into things.

I also had a thought the other day, imagine that everyone you see around you are npc's, you are the only person who is making conscious decisions, and that when they drive or walk around the bend they despawn. lol.

as to the theory, with our current level of understanding it certainly seems like it's plausible. interesting how our concept of god or a supreme being/creator has shifted towards the scientific and the possibility of it being technological based.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Aribeth said:


>


Actually it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis so no scientific grounds for being false, so it's not really BS. It's a possibility with some potential areas for experimentation as per my link earlier, so is taken seriously enough by some scientists to study, but we obviously can't say at all if it's true or untrue.

Good video though, as that does apply to many ideas that people believe in! If something fails to be found to exist when investigated with the scientific method and contrary evidence is found then it's fair to say it's BS.


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

Kovu said:


> You get to make your own decisions everyday, no one is controlling that.


Not yet. But they control the ground you walk on and most of the things you see and hear. How long before they control you and your thoughts? People are being conditioned and media brainwashed day to day. It's just a matter of time before we surrender our minds.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

Yeah, I sometimes feel like a lab rat, controlled from the outside, like in Hunger Games, the scientists from the outside throwing stuff at you to see how much you last.

Especially when I get panic attacks, I think those scientist are just freaking sociopaths with 0 empathy, but with a big pleasure to torture. But they stop it just before I contemplate suicide, cause they don't want a dead lab rat, do they ? How are they gonna test their new sadistic ideas on me if I'm dead ?

Yeah, I know the theory of being controlled from outside without knowing sounds really crazy. Or does it ? You just need to question 'what if' ? Few people question 'what if' these days, too many conform to what society pressures them to conform to and don't think for themselves anymore.


----------



## The Library of Emma (Mar 3, 2016)

if life's a video game

a) what would be the point of it?
b) what would be the point of it? video games are played for enjoyment, life is often the complete opposite of that


----------



## welcome to nonexistence (Jul 2, 2015)

Reality is just a grey goo nightmare on loop.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Scrub-Zero said:


> Not yet. But they control the ground you walk on and most of the things you see and hear. How long before they control you and your thoughts? People are being conditioned and media brainwashed day to day. It's just a matter of time before we surrender our minds.


Religion did that by force (and still does in much of the third world), so it's nothing new. There will always be those that accept what they are told at face value (the credulous) and those who don't. Thankfully in this day and age we are free from being persecuted from not 'handing over our minds'.

Claims that some government are going to start having peoples thoughts directly controlled by anything other than the promotion of ideology, which as I say has been going on for millennia , can't be taken seriously though. Are you talking brain implants or something?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

RenegadeReloaded said:


> Yeah, I sometimes feel like a lab rat, controlled from the outside, like in Hunger Games, the scientists from the outside throwing stuff at you to see how much you last.
> 
> Especially when I get panic attacks, I think those scientist are just freaking sociopaths with 0 empathy, but with a big pleasure to torture. But they stop it just before I contemplate suicide, cause they don't want a dead lab rat, do they ? How are they gonna test their new sadistic ideas on me if I'm dead ?
> 
> Yeah, I know the theory of being controlled from outside without knowing sounds really crazy. Or does it ? You just need to question 'what if' ? Few people question 'what if' these days, too many conform to what society pressures them to conform to and don't think for themselves anymore.


The vast majority of people who think the are being mentally controlled by hidden entities are schizophrenic.

We'e only just learned how to do some rudimentary mind control in the lab on animals. Being able to do it on humans is a huge undertaking but one that is being worked on as it has the potential for great medical use. Obviously the threat of hackers interfering with such a system has to be considered, just as it already is for smart medical applications.

I can see no plausible future where such a 'device' becomes mandatory and we are forced to become 'slaves/zombie's' not in control of our selves.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

The Library of Emma said:


> if life's a video game
> 
> a) what would be the point of it?
> b) what would be the point of it? video games are played for enjoyment, life is often the complete opposite of that


If it was a future human or alien created simulation universe it could just be for interest or experiment. Life is full of the whole spectrum of positive and negative aspects and just as when you watch as film, there can be plenty negative/violent action but you still enjoy watching it. They are all part of life, and i'm sure a universe where there was just mindless people who agreed with each other about everything wouldn't be nearly as interesting.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> The vast majority of people who think the are being mentally controlled by hidden entities are schizophrenic.
> 
> We'e only just learned how to do some rudimentary mind control in the lab on animals. Being able to do it on humans is a huge undertaking but one that is being worked on as it has the potential for great medical use. Obviously the threat of hackers interfering with such a system has to be considered, just as it already is for smart medical applications.
> 
> I can see no plausible future where such a 'device' becomes mandatory and we are forced to become 'slaves/zombie's' not in control of our selves.


This may sound crazy, I know. But just think outside the box for a minute. Like a metaphor or even literally (for better understanding) if we were in a box and had no proof that there is a world outside of it. All the proof that we have about someone controlling us or not is from within the box, from that concealed environment.

Those higher intelligence entities that may be controlling us would make sure we have no clue about it and would make sure we will find no proof about it in our tiny little box.

Imagine an animal being raised in a box, seen nothing but the interior of that box his whole life. Or let's take a human. That human has no proof of an outside world or of the other humans controlling him and what's happening in his box. Is that really a solid proof ?

I'm not saying it's true or it's false. Just saying we have no proof to back any of that options.


----------



## The Library of Emma (Mar 3, 2016)

ugh1979 said:


> If it was a future human or alien created simulation universe it could just be for interest or experiment. Life is full of the whole spectrum of positive and negative aspects and just as when you watch as film, there can be plenty negative/violent action but you still enjoy watching it. They are all part of life, and i'm sure a universe where there was just mindless people who agreed with each other about everything wouldn't be nearly as interesting.


aren't the aliens tired of reading our threads by now?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

RenegadeReloaded said:


> This may sound crazy, I know. But just think outside the box for a minute. Like a metaphor or even literally (for better understanding) if we were in a box and had no proof that there is a world outside of it. All the proof that we have about someone controlling us or not is from within the box, from that concealed environment.
> 
> Those higher intelligence entities that may be controlling us would make sure we have no clue about it and would make sure we will find no proof about it in our tiny little box.
> 
> ...


You're describing what is know as an unfalsifiable concept. For example, yes the universe _could _be on the back of an interdimensional turtle, with turtles all the way down, but that doesn't mean we should be say we believe it, since there is zero evidence for it outside fiction books. (See what I did there? 

When you 'think outside the box' in the context you describe, you open to door to an infinitude number of unfalsifiable claims. That's useless as what does that get you? Absence of evidence means something shouldn't be believed. Not that you should believe what ever one of the infinite you fancy, as then you have zero intellectual integrity/standards.

It's not very smart to go around telling people for example that we are in fact just all just living inside the tear of dying child, or any number of fantastical claims people like to make about the utterly unfalsifiable. To do so is just intellectually dishonest.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

The Library of Emma said:


> aren't the aliens tired of reading our threads by now?


I highly doubt any hypothetical universe creator alien goes to the minutiae of reading our threads.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Absence of evidence means something shouldn't be believed.


False.

Example: we have no evidence that aliens exist. No, no that green little man from Mars with antennae or whatever laughable thing you will try to imply I'm talking about, I mean any other lifeforms from another planet.

So just cause we have no evidence that means we shouldn't believe that other lifeforms exist in the universe ? I'm not saying we should believe, but leave your possibilities open.

Even studies that are based on facts/evidence have a lifespan of a few years.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

RenegadeReloaded said:


> False.
> 
> Example: we have no evidence that aliens exist. No, no that green little man from Mars with antennae or whatever laughable thing you will try to imply I'm talking about, I mean any other lifeforms from another planet.
> 
> ...


No true, at least with regards to that example.

I'm talking about things which have no credible supporting evidence/rationale . Obviously we don't yet have _direct _evidence for aliens, (yet), but there is a huge body of credible supporting research and evidence which infers they almost certainly exist in our universe and surely our galaxy, if not even in our very system. (Europa's sea for example)

We don't need direct evidence of something for it to be a credible belief if there is enough supporting credible research/evidence which promote it's legitimacy. That said, once we have direct credible quality evidence for something it stops becoming a belief anyway and becomes fact. 

Is there anything you can think of which you deem should be believed to be true is the absence of any supporting evidence?


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> No true, at least with regards to that example.
> 
> I'm talking about things which have no credible supporting evidence/rationale . Obviously we don't yet have _direct _evidence for aliens, (yet), but there is a huge body of credible supporting research and evidence which infers they almost certainly exist in our universe and surely our galaxy, if not even in our very system. (Europa's sea for example)
> 
> ...


God your lack of logic is off the charts.

You are totally rejecting from the start the possibility of a thing existing just cause it has no evidence (yet), or supporting evidence. To deny the existence of a thing, you need evidence against it. And even then, there is still a very very small chance that that thing exists (see here the studies and their lifespan, how they got contradicted by further studies, in spite of all evidence you could want).

You talk about things that have to have supporting evidence, yet you give examples like I quote: ''the universe _could _be on the back of an interdimensional turtle, with turtles all the way down''.

We've already agreed other lifeforms are probable to exist in the universe. Do you agree there is a small chance that a higher intelligence is using other lower intelligence lifeforms to experiment on ? We do it here on earth with lab rats and worms. Ever though there is a slight possibility that a more advanced civilization than us could be doing random experiments on lower life forms from other planets, including our planet ? Highly improbable ? Yes. Impossible ? No. And please don't imply I was abducted by green little man with big eyes, that raped me in their spaceship, cause I'm not talking about that stereotype at all.

I'm finding it hard to believe we are someone else's experiment, but I don't deny the small possibility that we could.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

RenegadeReloaded said:


> God your lack of logic is off the charts. You are totally rejecting from the start the possibility of a thing existing just cause it has no evidence (yet), or supporting evidence. To deny the existence of a thing, you need evidence against it. And even then, there is still a very very small chance that that thing exists (see here the studies and their lifespan, how they got contradicted by further studies, in spite of all evidence you could want).


Your lack of logic and rationale is the one of the charts it seems.

Let's start with your straw man argument. You claim I reject the possibility of something existing even though there is no evidence for it yet. If you simply read my replies in this thread, never mind others, I make a point of saying i'm open to all possibilities and will believe them _if and when_ credible evidence emerges.

Do you not deny there are invisible unicorns under your bed? If you say you need to be able to prove the unprovable/unfalsifiable in order to say something doesn't exist (which is of course based on _current, not future _knowledge), then you open the floodgates to in infinite amount of inane fantasy beliefs. It's why serous analytical thinkers have a standard which is probability based that they base their beliefs on. Just because there is a non-zero chance that dogs actaully exist and a non-zero chance there are invisible pink unicorns under your bed means you can can't justifiably say the former exists and the latter doesn't. This is just getting into common sense now.



> You talk about things that have to have supporting evidence, yet you give examples like I quote: ''the universe _could _be on the back of an interdimensional turtle, with turtles all the way down''.


Did you not understand what I was saying about that? It was in response to your question about unfalsifiable concepts. The turtles are the unfalsifiable concept, and there is zero evidence for it being true, hence why I deny it's true, just like the hypothetical unicorns under your bed.



> We've already agreed other lifeforms are probable to exist in the universe. Do you agree there is a small chance that a higher intelligence is using other lower intelligence lifeforms to experiment on ? We do it here on earth with lab rats and worms. Ever though there is a slight possibility that a more advanced civilization than us could be doing random experiments on lower life forms from other planets, including our planet ? And please don't imply I was abducted by green little man with big eyes, that raped me in their spaceship, cause I'm not talking about that stereotype at all.


It's without doubt IMO that higher intelligence life if it's remotely like our type of intelligence will be doing experiments on other forms of life at some point. That said, even we are moving towards computer simulations of biological systems we once experimented on, so actually needing to use biology for experiments probably only lasts a few hundred years in an advanced scientifically active civilisations.

There's certainly a non-zero chance that advanced alien intelligence is visiting earth to experiment on our species, but I don't believe it to be true.

It's clear you are keen on the subject. Here's an interesting thought i'm not sure if you have had. Did you know it's statistically far far more likely that advanced alien intelligence isn't biological but in fact technological? Especially the sort that could potentially visit earth. Advanced general intelligence technology has many advantages over biology in space exploration and proliferation.


----------



## 2Milk (Oct 29, 2014)

If it is a simulation I don't think it really changes anything. Our brains are still very primitive. Even if we were able to confirm that we are living in a simulation we would still crave the very same things that we crave today, and fear the same things that we fear today, the "oh **** we are in a simulation" feeling probably wouldn't sink in.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> It's clear you are keen on the subject. Here's an interesting thought i'm not sure if you have had. Did you know it's statistically far far more likely that advanced alien intelligence isn't biological but in fact technological? Especially the sort that could potentially visit earth. Advanced general intelligence technology has many advantages over biology in space exploration and proliferation.


I think it's highly unlikely that life somewhere else in the universe evolved based on dna, proteins and liquid water, same as us, organic life. I mean, what are the chances for the exact same type of life ?

Still, you said technological life has many advantaged over us. It may have now, cause we have a limited lifespan, but science is closer and closer of finding a 'cure' for aging. I think in out lifetime. Wouldn't that be cool. So we can suffer from sa for ever and ever and ever )


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

RenegadeReloaded said:


> I think it's highly unlikely that life somewhere else in the universe evolved based on dna, proteins and liquid water, same as us, organic life. I mean, what are the chances for the exact same type of life ?


Who said anything about the exact same type of life? Of course it will be different to vast varying degrees, but we can be fairly certain it at least starts as biological rather than technological. Many of the same organic chemicals that constitute us are found all over the universe though it's undoubted there is at least some common factors in many lifeforms. Nature of course can come up with all sorts of ingenious ways to evolve but from a chemical standpoint, there will be similarities.



> Still, you said technological life has many advantaged over us. It may have now, cause we have a limited lifespan, but science is closer and closer of finding a 'cure' for aging. I think in out lifetime. Wouldn't that be cool. So we can suffer from sa for ever and ever and ever )


Indeed we may stop ageing at some point due to technological aids, but due to how cells degrade and are prone to damage from radiation and other space based issues for biological life, that may in time mean we start to integrate more an more technological based components in ourselves. It's part of transhumanism.

Biological based may just be an early evolutionary stage in advanced intelligent civilisations.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Who said anything about the exact same type of life? Of course it will be different to vast varying degrees, but we can be fairly certain it at least starts as biological rather than technological.


Scientist look for planets that have liquid water. Sure, water is a great medium for substances to find each other and combine in other substances. That's how life appeared. But I don't get it why other fluids can't provide the same medium, in scientists eyes.

I was referring to biological as strictly life based on dna. But can you call biological other life forms ? Where is the boundary where a lifeform is no longer biological ?


----------



## Protozoan (May 26, 2014)

The player controlling me is a f***tard if that's the case.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

The Library of Emma said:


> aren't the aliens tired of reading our threads by now?





ugh1979 said:


> I highly doubt any hypothetical universe creator alien goes to the minutiae of reading our threads.


 Perhaps they only bother to read the "troubling" ones.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

RenegadeReloaded said:


> Scientist look for planets that have liquid water. Sure, water is a great medium for substances to find each other and combine in other substances. That's how life appeared. But I don't get it why other fluids can't provide the same medium, in scientists eyes.


It can, so other liquids aren't ruled out. Water is just the one we are most familiar with and also crucially means conditions that are probably more conducive to life due to temperature. As for other liquids, there is currently interest in investigating if life can exist in the the liquid methane on Titan for example.



> I was referring to biological as strictly life based on dna. But can you call biological other life forms ?


I'd call any life made from organic compounds biological.



> Where is the boundary where a lifeform is no longer biological ?


That could be a future tricky question. Someone could be 51% technological and 49% biological. Would they still be classified as biological? Maybe not. We'll just need to see.


----------



## Dreamwalker (Jul 16, 2016)

Even if we were living in a video game, wouldn't we still be real?

We could all be brains in vats, but somewhere there must be a real brain and a real vat for it to be in.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Dreamwalker said:


> Even if we were living in a video game, wouldn't we still be real?
> 
> We could all be brains in vats, but somewhere there must be a real brain and a real vat for it to be in.


Maybe there are only 'simulations'? That would mean the simulations are the only reality, so we would be real.


----------

