Does reality pass the Turing test?

[partinobodycular]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for over fifty years I've often wondered about how to tell whether the world around me is physically real or a simulation. The laws of physics seem to support the possibility of a simulation, but can't definitively answer the question, so I've been left to look for another means of determining whether I'm living in a simulation.

To that end I often wondered whether a character in a video game such as 'Grand Theft Auto' would be able to tell, simply by the behavior of the characters around it, that the world in which it was living wasn't 'real'. Would the fact that the characters seemed to act irrationally be a tip off to the possibility that it was living in a simulation? Or would it simply accept the simulation as real no matter how irrationally the characters in it behaved, or what the background story was.

I ask this because more and more the world seems to be behaving more like a poorly written video game than a naturally evolving physical reality. For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

So the question is, does reality pass the Turing test? Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

 

[Modern Day Job]

This is a meaningful question, especially in a world that increasingly resembles a scripted environment. But rather than framing it as “simulation vs. reality,” the deeper issue may be how reality is structured and stabilized.

We may be in a system that behaves less like a machine or simulation and more like a feedback-sensitive modulation field. One that reflects the symbolic and emotional tone passing through it. In such a system, unresolved patterns don’t disappear; they echo, loop, and intensify, eventually stabilizing as distorted but recognizable forms.

When people behave like caricatures or archetypes, it may not be a glitch in simulated code. It may be a field under recursive pressure, mirroring incoherence because that’s what it’s been fed.

This doesn’t mean reality is fake. It means it’s reactive by design.

A better question than “Is this a simulation?” might be:

What kind of system reflects distortion when coherence fails?

Not a computer. Not pure matter.
A consciousness-linked modulation field where everything is shaped by mind.

One that responds immediately, often impersonally, to the structural integrity—or saturation—of the inputs it receives.

In that context, exaggerated behavior isn’t evidence of fiction.

It’s the predictable output of a recursive field mirroring unresolved internal collapse.

So no, Donald Trump wouldn't be a narcissistic villain due to software design, he is the end result of not just his own consciousness, but also the collective consciousness of everyone that surrounds him.

That includes your thoughts.
And mine.
And everyone else’s.

Love is the answer.

 

[Chesterton]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for over fifty years I've often wondered about how to tell whether the world around me is physically real or a simulation. The laws of physics seem to support the possibility of a simulation, but can't definitively answer the question, so I've been left to look for another means of determining whether I'm living in a simulation.

To that end I often wondered whether a character in a video game such as 'Grand Theft Auto' would be able to tell, simply by the behavior of the characters around it, that the world in which it was living wasn't 'real'. Would the fact that the characters seemed to act irrationally be a tip off to the possibility that it was living in a simulation? Or would it simply accept the simulation as real no matter how irrationally the characters in it behaved, or what the background story was.

I ask this because more and more the world seems to be behaving more like a poorly written video game than a naturally evolving physical reality. For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

So the question is, does reality pass the Turing test? Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

A simulation of what?

 

[Tuur]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for over fifty years I've often wondered about how to tell whether the world around me is physically real or a simulation. The laws of physics seem to support the possibility of a simulation, but can't definitively answer the question, so I've been left to look for another means of determining whether I'm living in a simulation.

To that end I often wondered whether a character in a video game such as 'Grand Theft Auto' would be able to tell, simply by the behavior of the characters around it, that the world in which it was living wasn't 'real'. Would the fact that the characters seemed to act irrationally be a tip off to the possibility that it was living in a simulation? Or would it simply accept the simulation as real no matter how irrationally the characters in it behaved, or what the background story was.

I ask this because more and more the world seems to be behaving more like a poorly written video game than a naturally evolving physical reality. For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

So the question is, does reality pass the Turing test? Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

Whether we live in a virtual universe is one of those interesting ideas that, unfortunately, like solipsism, is of little practical value. Whether or not it's "real" in an outside sense, it's certainly real to us. How things work would be part of the code, so unless you could compare it to what's outside, looking for clues there is meaningless. So is applying to what seems reasonable to us to look for "flaws." Reasoning is much like a Rashomon problem, with what seems reasonable to one may not seem reasonable to another. Reasoning is influenced by priorities, which vary not only culturally but individually, and by individual understanding of how things work in the universe in general and culture in particular. Ultimately, unless we can look in from the outside, there's no way of telling if what we experience is a virtual universe or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

Why do questions like these always deal with electronic simulations?

Do you believe hand puppets or marionettes act like a "freely evolving natural world"?

I think it's obvious we can conclude hand puppets and marionettes aren't real.

What's the problem with determining we humans are real?

 

[jacks]

Whether it is "real" or not it's all we got, so make the most of it.

You can't go wrong with the two greatest commandments:
"The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

 

[partinobodycular]

A simulation of what?

I always hesitate when referring to the possibility that reality is a simulation, because it implies that there's a 'genuine' reality that it's based upon. But in this instance that's not necessarily the case. 'Simulation' is just a convenient way of getting the concept across, that reality may not be as 'real' as it appears to be. What's 'out there', may not actually be out there at all.

There are any number of different Turing type tests for AI, but the question is, could reality itself pass a Turing test?

 

[partinobodycular]

Whether we live in a virtual universe is one of those interesting ideas that, unfortunately, like solipsism, is of little practical value. Whether or not it's "real" in an outside sense, it's certainly real to us.

Would you say the same about AI? If they become indistinguishable from the real thing, should we treat them as the real thing? Should their opinions carry the same weight as yours? Should they have the the right to vote?

 

[partinobodycular]

Why do questions like these always deals with electronic simulations?

I didn't mean to imply 'electronic'. But since you've alluded to an alternative, why should I blindly accept a divinely created reality any more than I should accept an electronically created one? How are they demonstrably different?

Do you believe hand puppets or marionettes act like a "freely evolving natural world"?

I think it's obvious we can conclude hand puppets and marionettes aren't real.

Only because you have something against which to compare them, but how do you know if this world is real if you have nothing else to compare it to. How do you know that you're not simply a more sophisticated hand puppet? From my perspective, with all of your constantly repetitive dogma, you certainly seem to act like one. As such, I long ago wrote you off as an NPC. Good for occasional entertainment, but not much else.

What's the problem with determining we humans are real?

One of the first steps in determining why something is, is determining what it is. Is it a naturally created reality? (Possibly) Is it a divinely created reality? (Unlikely) Or is it an electronically created reality? (Probably)

The answer may be impossible to know, but that doesn't make the question pointless to ask.

 

[partinobodycular]

Whether it is "real" or not it's all we got, so make the most of it.

I do my best.

You can't go wrong with the two greatest commandments:
"The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Oddly enough, it's things like this that make reality look like a simulation. If I wanted to create an intriguing backstory for my simulation how could I do any better than to create an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and an arch-enemy against which to pit Him? All the while hanging in the balance is everyone's eternal soul. Now there's a backstory. A bit banal I admit, but still a classic.

 

[stevevw]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for over fifty years I've often wondered about how to tell whether the world around me is physically real or a simulation. The laws of physics seem to support the possibility of a simulation, but can't definitively answer the question, so I've been left to look for another means of determining whether I'm living in a simulation.

And never will unless there is a paradigm shift in thinking and metaphysics. Which has sort of happened with QM. But not yet fully realised. There are some interesting findings and the research into quantum consciousness is yeilding some promising results.

But the physical sciences that asssume methological naturalism can never theorectically explain reality. It can explain a certain aspect that is the physical parameters we navigate through our physical senses.

But this is not really the case because our senses are filtered through our minds which are influenced by non physical phenomena like conscious experience. Which can only be measured as a direct exeprience of reality.

In other words is (mind). It is the mind that is creating or percieving that there is some solid bits of matter existing outside the mind. But we cannot get outside our minds to know this is the case.

That's why I think experiential phenomena is tru reality. We keep sensing something beyond what the science says and theres nothing science can do. It persists and phenomenal beliefs that persists despite object reality are real.

Its just that we live in a material paradigm that is expressed all around us and its easy to only believe what we see. But if we stop and look we will find we virtually live by our conscious experiences everyday.

To that end I often wondered whether a character in a video game such as 'Grand Theft Auto' would be able to tell, simply by the behavior of the characters around it, that the world in which it was living wasn't 'real'. Would the fact that the characters seemed to act irrationally be a tip off to the possibility that it was living in a simulation? Or would it simply accept the simulation as real no matter how irrationally the characters in it behaved, or what the background story was.

Actually if the material paradigm is true and consciousness is just a epi-phenomena of the physical brain. Then technically if the entire brain is mapped out and understood then this should create consciousness. The idea that a certain level of complexity will create consciousness.

Ai is now coming up against this problem. Of making Ai in real time and able to make independent and conscious choices. Pumping in all the possibilities that a conscious brain would make.

Not sure if its possible because once again there is this theorectical gap from quantative to the qualitiative aspect of reality that wires, metal, electrical signals don't have and cannot create because they constitutionally are different.

But I think Ai will get awefully close that it mimicks consciousness to the point it can fool humans. In other words not so much to the actual characters in the games. But to the humans watching the characters in the games. And thats all that will be enough to more or less do the same thing. Which is once again fool people with a copy of reality. Just more complex and harder to tell for most.

Its happening now in that the IPhone is more or less an extention of humans now. They can't function without this. I get pictures of that sci fi movie where they put on the VR glasses or have some implant in the eyes and suddenly they are in another world with what looks like real people, buildings, lights, sound and action lol.

I ask this because more and more the world seems to be behaving more like a poorly written video game than a naturally evolving physical reality. For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

Or it may be that seeing others as villians in the first place is itself a programmed response lol. That the world is seen like a video game. In some ways a self fullfilling phenomena that mimick art and gaming. We become what we make ourselves. Feed on virtual reality and reality becomes virtual.

So the question is, does reality pass the Turing test? Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

Both. Obviously we see the information aspect, nature reflects math. We need the physical aspect to navigate this physical plane. Thats how Gods creation is expressed that we exist. But there are deeper layers to reality that we all can know. People look for it in many ways and have always done so.

Modern science is itself now looking at other dimensions to explain reality.

Its not a case of whether we are in some sort of simulation, information or MInd reality. Or a fallen state that is yet to be fullfilled. But a case of which one. Or rather which metaphysical reality you believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't mean to imply 'electronic'. But since you've alluded to an alternative, why should I blindly accept a divinely created reality any more than I should blindly accept an electronically created one? How are they demonstrably different?

One uses cartoon physics, the other doesn't.

And if you can tell which one is which, chances are you're living in the divinely created reality.

Only because you have something against which to compare them, but how do you know if this world is real if you have nothing else to compare it to.

What does our Manual say?

How do you know that you're not simply a more sophisticated hand puppet?

Faith.

And the fact that I don't live in a world that operates on cartoon physics.

From my perspective, with all of your constantly repetitive dogma, you certainly seem to act like one.

Do you want me to change my dogma with the weather?

As such, I long ago wrote you off as an NPC.

That's not a very good reason to do so.

Some people know what they believe and aren't willing to bend in the wind like others.

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

And if I'm a "non-player character," then it's because I got off that merry-go-round in December of 1981.

Good for occasional entertainment, but not much else.

I have a feeling some people don't see me as an entertainment package.

One of the first steps in determining why something is, is determining what it is. Is it a naturally created reality? (Possibly) Is it a divinely created reality? (Unlikely) Or is it an electronically created reality? (Probably)

Again ... what does the Manual say?

The answer may be impossible to know,

I've seen the way you filter out the Truths of the Bible, and I can understand your use of the term "impossible".

A little strong -- especially for a seeker -- but effective.

And I pray the Holy Spirit breaks your firewall before it's too late, and you end up in a part of reality that's overheating.

... but that doesn't make the question pointless to ask.

Indeed.

But if you can't understand the answer, what good is the question?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oddly enough, it's things like this that make reality look like a simulation. If I wanted to create an intriguing backstory for my simulation how could I do any better than to create an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and an arch-enemy against which to pit Him? All the while hanging in the balance is everyone's eternal soul. Now there's a backstory. A bit banal I admit, but still a classic.

Neither man, nor beast, nor artificial intelligence is intelligent enough -- (or powerful enough) -- to create the universe we live in.

 

[Yttrium]

I ask this because more and more the world seems to be behaving more like a poorly written video game than a naturally evolving physical reality. For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

The universe is a strange place, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's all a simulation. But don't overestimate our ability to reason. Consider that the bulk of the population may be made up of gullible buffoons. Evolution only favors the ability to perpetuate the species, it doesn't guarantee that we'll be rational.

How we perceive, store and process information varies from person to person. Given enough people, there will be charismatic leaders who pop up, and some of them will be nutcases. And many will join the herd to follow a charismatic leader no matter how nutty the leader is. Herding is kind of a natural thing for us to do.

 

[Larniavc]

So no, Donald Trump wouldn't be a narcissistic villain due to software design, he is the end result of not just his own consciousness, but also the collective consciousness of everyone that surrounds him.

Yeah but that could happen in a non simulated reality.

 

[Servus]

We all live in a simulated reality when we're asleep. If you went into a coma for a month dreaming the whole time, you'd have no idea that what was going on wasn't real. Sometimes we can't tell if a memory we have of a place we visited or experience we had was something out of a dream or not.

 

[Tuur]

Would you say the same about AI? If they become indistinguishable from the real thing, should we treat them as the real thing? Should their opinions carry the same weight as yours? Should they have the the right to vote?

AI is a different topic. What you propose is an AI that's a simulated human intelligence that exists in our world, not an NPC that exists in a simulated world.

Which do you want to discuss? Whether we live in a simulation or the rights of sentient AI?

 

[Bob Crowley]

I've repeated this ad infinitum but the night my father died he appeared in my room. He "materialised" near the door and moved towards the foot of the bed.

My first words were "How the hell did you get in here??" as the place was locked up tight. He didn't answer that but said "I've come (or been sent) to apologise for the way I've treated you." Then he added "We had no idea what you were going through."

I snarled back "You mean you had no idea what you were doing to me!" He'd been a real mongrel and even admitted during the conversation "I've been an absolute mongrel to you" and that was word for word. He also admitted destroying my confidence deliberately. When I asked him "WHY??" he replied "I was jealous. I didn't have the same opportunities you did".

He also stated at one point "It wasn't easy for me either you know, and I never had a chance to see anything like this!!"

At the end he started to turn towards my left, his right, and said "No!'. Then louder and more urgently "NO!".

Then he screamed for all he was worth. His terror was so contagious I started to scream, and I couldn't even see what was coming for him - just his reaction.

Then he disappeared into eternity and I haven't seen him since.

But there's one particular comment he made that I still find hard to accept and that was "I always was doomed! I didn't really have any choice!!"

Mind you he did admit "I was WILLING!"

So, did he have a choice or didn't he? Was he designed with that end in mind, or did his "willingness" override God's fiat?

Quoting from the above, in the case of Donald Trump I think he could have been designed for a very destructive role, and maybe he "always was predestined" (for this role). But it will also turn out that he was "WILLING".

For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

I think the fact we are WILLING overrides any pretensions of an illusion, although as I stated in another post this is a "sum zero energy universe" which means that ultimately it adds up to nothing.

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

Most cosmologists believe the universe contains exactly zero energy.

www.livescience.com

Considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity. But it's not; it's probably zero.

Light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy." And yes, there's a lot of it (though no one is sure quite how much). Most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. The positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.
"Nothing" can have no continued existence of its own if it becomes something, as it will revert to nothing, which means something is maintaining this "sum zero energy" universe.

I'm quoting from "Wrestling with the Divine - A Jewish response to suffering" by Shmuel Boeteach (sounds suitably Jewish).

"... God created universes and calls them forth into existence from utter nothingness... In hasidic thought an appropriate example of the above is provided. Suppose a person throws a stone into the air giving it temporarily, the nature of flight and lightness, rather than the heaviness that is intrinsic to the stone.... But as soon as one's influence fades, the stone immediately reverts to being a stone like all other stones, because it never changed.

...Our creation, which began as nothingness, is being retained as something not through its own intrinsic nature but through God's constant creative force, which acts upon itand sustains it, just as the stone flies through the air via the human energy that constantly forces it upward."

In Trump's case, and in all our cases, we may have a "predetermined" role or fate, but we'll also find we were "WILLING". Trump, and you and me, will be held responsible for our WILLING actions, even if God predetermined our role.

I think "free will" over rides any attempt to write off this universe as a simulation.

Incidentally my father predicted that "you'll become a Christian" (I was an atheist at that time) and that "You'll meet a pastor. You'll think he's great, but all he'll do is discourage you even more!"

My father died in January 1979. I became a Christian in late 1982, and that's when I met the pastor. Towards the end of my time in his church in late 1991, he said to me "I owe you an apology."

He went on "You needed encouragement, and all I've done is to discourage you even more!" So I told him about my father's prediction and pointed out that he had just quoted my father back to me word for word. That shook him, and he blurted out "You really did see your father that night".

During the years I told him several times about my father's apparition and I think he wasn't sure where it came from.

The point is though that regardless of all my other WILLING choices in the meantime I was going to become Christian nearly four years down the track, and meet the pastor. My father was obviously being shown that happening and he told me.

Now was I a puppet? Or was I willling to become Christian?

You tell me.

 

[Tuur]

I didn't mean to imply 'electronic'. But since you've alluded to an alternative, why should I blindly accept a divinely created reality any more than I should accept an electronically created one? How are they demonstrably different?

You ask how any are demonstrably different, but to tell you'd have to be able to step outside the created world. There's no way to compare from within it.

You also use the word "blindly." If someone pops up and says "We're all in a simulation!" there's no way to tell if they are right or wrong. If, however, someone comes along and says "I'm the one who made all this," and then demonstrates that by doing things that are absolutely impossible within the framework of our world, then we'd do well to pay attention.

 

[Ophiolite]

If, however, someone comes along and says "I'm the one who made all this," and then demonstrates that by doing things that are absolutely impossible within the framework of our world, then we'd do well to pay attention.

And if that ever happens, demonstrably and not via hearsay, I shall certainly sit up.