/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.50730240]

What if we live in a simulation and I've been programmed to never make it

[Anonymous No.50730262]

>>50730240
take acid (ticker: LSD) and reset your brain

[Anonymous No.50730285]

>>50730240
Become a programmer and now YOU make the rules

[Anonymous No.50730319]

The simulation theory is unlikely to be true, because particle physics and other "autistic in detail" physics would likely reveal discrepancies (inside the simulated world), because in order to set up the simulation itself: you'll likely have to deal with the "real" physics and if you try to simulate those: it's extremely unlikely to be able to simulate the limitations of it in a way that does not congest your computing power.

On whether you're "programmed" to fail it's another matter.

Of course we're all the products of pure luck and DNA and upbringing; free choice is a delusion; we choose what those three factors dictate.

[Anonymous No.50730329]

>>50730240

[Anonymous No.50730388]

>>50730319
What if you just code the simulation participants (sims, us in this thought experiment) to ignore all discrepancies.

Also it seems reasonably a 4th dimensional being could code up a reasonably non buggy 3 dimensional sim. The creators of the simulations would not necessarily be working in the same set of space time constraints we are hardcoded into.

[Anonymous No.50730468]

>>50730388
It's impossible to program us to be irrational robots, and at the same time have us develop the scientific method which questions irrationality every step of the way. Theories of that sort would only make sense by assuming your personal world is a delusion and people who claim to be scientists etc. are NPCs and good luck proving that (especially if you're yourself a scientist).

We are 4-dimensional by the way (time is the 4th). I'm not saying a kind of reality with even more complexity is impossible, but there's no evidence of that at all.

One could also argue that if our world's science can never see complexity above our world's: then you're literally talking about fantasy by definition.

[Anonymous No.50730478]

>>50730240
All of this is true….only you are the programmer…. And god your dev. lead. :)
Wagmi brothers (very long time horizon)

[Anonymous No.50730550]

>>50730468
>It's impossible to program us to be irrational robots, and at the same time have us develop the scientific method which questions irrationality every step of the way

I'm gonna need some citations. Of course it is possible.

Imagine a simulation in which everything you think you know is hardcoded past and which the simulation begins as you are reading these words. You have a constructed memory, including all the things you think are human achievements (including what you've been told about a process of rationality called the scientific method) but none of that is real. It is planted information to give your sim a sense of calm so it doesn't start screaming and not doing the things it's programmed to do.

Even assuming time is persistent and empirical evidence possesses validity, within the existing scientific consensus I'm sure you can find a few people who would say squaring the circle around classic macro newtonian physics and quantum phenomena requires some faith or could even potentially (heresy, I know) involve hidden variables -- like the sorts perhaps a sim wouldn't be allowed to measure in an imperfect sim that breaks down at some scale.

[Anonymous No.50730569]

>>50730550 (cont)

>One could also argue that if our world's science can never see complexity above our world's: then you're literally talking about fantasy by definition.

I mean, I can see it's very important to you that your subjective experience is grounded in "base reality" but there's just no way to prove it and if you want to call the potential existence of a larger reality in which this one was generated "fantasy" that's fine I guess.

And to your last point about being 4th dimensional beings moving through time. Again, I can agree that the perception of that is true while objectively it is truly impossible to validate anything occurring outside the observed infinitely short moment of "now." The future and past are both imagined ideas, the validity of their existence is not possible to prove -- though I agree all "realm science" local to this experienced place must assume them to be real in order to make "progress."

Which a lot of base reality believers probably think is super important to do, almost as if someone had programmed them to feel that way.

[Anonymous No.50730622]

>>50730319
If I spin fast I can clip into walls

[Anonymous No.50730632]

>>50730240
there is a fly on you bro

[Anonymous No.50730648]

>>50730550
>>50730569
Yes I know you can claim our current view of reality may be a snapshot of this moment and all past could be a delusion, but it still hits the big wall of my first argument in this thread: the superior beings that supposedly programmed all this: would also have to program the explanation we see (even if it's a momentary explanation we see with a delusionary past) in a way that makes sense and explains all the complexities of higher physics.

"Prove it isn't true" is a terrible argument by the way; it's why its' rejected by all (sane) justice systems in the world (innocence without proof) and why science considers it effectively junk; it violates the scientific method.

The irony is that if was a sound argument: it refutes you as well; I'd say "you didn't prove it"; the point is: unless you prove it: we effectively talk about science fiction.

[Anonymous No.50730712]

>>50730648
I get it, scientists are anxious about not knowing things and feel better when they know things.

Obviously I have no clue what depth we are in the reality stack. I have reason to believe that phenomena I've experienced would be explainable if we're not at base, or that base is very different than we think it is if we are.

Ultimately I just wanted to challenge your seemingly complete conviction that we are not in any sort of simulation. It's an unknowable, and arguably a pointless unknowable, but it's fun that it emotionally charges some people because you might expect that sort of a response if in fact we were sims, right? Some sort of coded defense.

Either way, doesn't really matter (until I escape, anyway.)

[Anonymous No.50730785]

>>50730712
(good) scientists are actually indifferent in not knowing things; otherwise ghost stories would excite them; it's when they see new evidence to the contrary of a current belief that makes them excited.

I think it's why a lot of people get totally bored after point in their lives. It becomes increasingly rare to find new evidence to shake your world view.

"We're in a simulation? Show me the evidence, otherwise it's like watching Star Trek".

[Anonymous No.50731030]

>>50730319

>activate the simulation truth defense protocol

nice try beep boop, you will never be a human

[Anonymous No.50731527]

>>50730240
Learn to code. Hack simulation and re-write it in your favor.

[Anonymous No.50731993]

>>50730240
We are programmable machines. You either program yourself or others will program you