/lit/ - Literature

>>14219360
I hope not, otherwise the people watching my life on a screen are going to be very bored and/or disgusted.

naaah

>>14219360
Yeah

This is what reason leads to...nothing objective at all. Follow your heart anon..walk with Him.

>>14219360
no, you are a simulation living in real world
think about it

Chad's Razor: If Chad has never fretted over a possibility, it is not truly possible; ergo he is not a brain in a vat.

>>14219360

>There is no way to be sure what lies beyond what our senses can percieve
>therefore we must be in a bing bing wahoo computer game for sure

This is one of the worst redditor "philosophies" ever.

>>14219532
but anon, redditors are p-zombies

>>14219360
I don't understand why anyone should bother pondering about this? Even if it were proven that reality is an illusion, so what? What the hell are we going to do with that knowledge anyways? We'll still continue on as if we hadn't known, wouldn't we?

>>14219553
It is a brainwashing technique. The first step of a brainwashing program is to break down any certainty in the target. This creates an intense feeling of psychological vulnerability, as if an infant, who can then be retaught what to think. The brain in a vat meme is not a serious idea, and no intelligent person takes it as such. It is a part of a weaponized psychological program, in the modern diction essentially a MK Ultra subproject. The historical analogues are initiatory rites with a heavy reliance on ill-defined symbols whose "meaning" can be changed multiple times as you progress through the rites, thus ritualistically undermining certainty.

>>14219532
ya but can you prove we arent in a simulation? at least the chad's razor guy had some reasoning

>>14219532
as our technological ability to use computers to simulate universes improves, the probability that we are living in a simulated universe approaches 1

existence is an infinite loop :
i. big bang >> creation of the universe.
ii. consequent expansion of the fabric of reality, bonding of atoms into complex neurons.
iii. human-level creatures develop, discovering automata and complexity theory
iv. computers >> algorithm which flattens all computation making it not only very fast, but easy to implement.
v. layers of turing^n machines that allow us to simulate everything in existence within a compact space : the 'booting' of this system is step (i).

ad infinitum. the beginning cannot exist without the end. closed circle.

>>14219360
A bad and misleading picture. It assumes the unsimulated brain exists.

>>14219601
Retardo logic, infinite regress, blah.

>>14219601
people like you make me understand why pol pot killed all the nerds

>>14220508
t. seething materialist

>>14219693
That's because it's Putnam's brain in a vat thing, which assumed at least the reality of actual brains in actual vats.

>>14219601
Anyone who puts forth this argument is clinically mentally deficient.

>>14220568
what is a counter-argument that you find persuasive?

Digital computers can't simulate continuous systems. This is a large part of why the "first principles" of some physical simulation are like six differential equations, and then the simulation itself is ten million lines of spaghetti Fortran. The world may be dysfunctional, but it's not that dysfunctional.

>computers are invented
>DUDE WHAT IF WE'RE REALLY LIVING IN A COMPUTER
no
the only reason you think that's a possibility is because computers have just been invented

>>14220588
That your argument is lame and gay

>>14220602
the world isn't continuous everywhere

>>14219360
No. Only ameritards could conceive such a retarded theory.

>>14220619
computers were "invented" long before they could be built. this is like asking whether mathematics is invented or if it was always there to be discovered

>>14220588
The argument just leads to an incoherent conclusion, that of an infinite number of simulated universes with literally no point of origin/no original simulator.

It's like this:

With the improvement of our technology approaching a point where the perfect simulation of universes is possible, the probability of us living in a simulated universe ourselves likewise approaches 1.

Once this point of technological advancement has been reached, the "simulation probability" also reaches 1.

This, however, would then also be true for the universe in which the simulation of *our* universe is being run (since, obviously, that universe would have had to have reached that point of tech advancement as well), as it would be true for the universe in which *that* universe is being simulated, and so on and so forth.

Of course the proponent could simply make this the desired conclusion (the is no point of origin, existence is literally an endless chain of simulations within simulations), but that's usually not what the simulation theorist wants to argue for.

>>14220646
> that of an infinite number of simulated universes with literally no point of origin/no original simulator.

You need to assume that information theory and thermodynamics isn't operative in at least one layer of the simulation stack as well. Simulation tards don't even get occam's razor, although they usually presume that they do.

>>14220646
the conclusion is paradoxical but it is not incoherent. once it can be done there is no reason why there cannot be a nested loop of simulations approaching infinity. the question of whether there is a non-simulated layer of reality would be separate to that

>>14219360
Yes, but the 'vat' is our own body.

>>14220680
>the question of whether there is a non-simulated layer of reality would be separate to that
I don't disagree, my objection lies with the fact that this "version" of the simulation argument presents a conclusion that, even if you don't want to consider it incoherent, is at least so problematic as to require the recipient to accept an infinite regress (not even just a logical one, but an actual, ontological one) as a satisfactory basis for an explanatory model of reality, with no further effort put into plausibilizing it.

Or, basically:
>>14220620

Imagine posting this >>14220680 right after >>14220667

Yikes!

Redditors will believe the most crazy shit but wouldn't even consider the existence of God. Really make you think.

>>14220508
Chad

>>14219360
You already do. You experience an imaginary world made up by your brain according to his current biochemisty and sensory stimuli. A plethora of cunny tricks have been made to point out how our imaginary world is inadecuate, and is actually made up on the spot from pretty insufficient data that is widely extrapolated. This is like Kant 101.

Like, the Ancient Indians have been using "the rope mistaken for a snake in the darkness" example for how many years? 2000? 2500? The Aryans settled in India at around ~750BC or so, but who knows if they used the same image in Central Asia at ~2000-900BC. Probably not in Eastern Europe, it gets fucking cold there so sneks aren't that of a nuissance to regularly slide into human homes, so I think our "dhudhe inaccurate simulation lmaoh3" question is at least 2700 to 4000 years old in India alone.

>god?? Don’t be silly
>what if the world was created by aliens as a computer simulation!!
Explain this type of thinking

>>14220833
Retardation.

>>14220833
>aliens
I hate conspiracy theorists

>>14219360
A conscious agent needs a world to exist in that responds to its actions as it feels that response through its senses. Its world is defined by the possible interactions it can have with the world.

If I am a brain in a vat connected to a computer that responds to my brain's stimuli, then that is de facto the world that I can explore through my senses. My brain and that computer must exist in the "real world", so my ability to explore said "real world" is limited to the interactions I have with the computer.
If I have a way to break free from the illusory world and explore the "real world", that is nothing more than another interaction I can have with the world.

TL;DR: shit argument; doesn't matter.

>>14220833
>thinking
>implying

>>14220747
Most people are dualists, which means most people are religious. When you become a religious atheist, the field is wide open for stupid bullshit.

>>14219365
>believing that the beings running the simulation actually would watches it on a screen like a tv show
it doesn’t get more pop-sci brain dead than that

Probably. The real question is why does it matter?

>>14220680
If anything it just reveals why any sufficiently broad statement about reality is probabilistically incoherent. Its like trying to make probabilistic assessments about the Big Bang and how that just leads to the Boltzmann brain idea. A simulated universe still seems less likely than a Boltzmann brain.

>>14220747
What is lost on them is that proving the simulation theory would be proof of god's existence.(at least in one version of the theory)

>>14220879
Its implied that NPCs dont even try to play with the idea of the existence of God. Which in consequence wpuld make you a faggot.

We are in simulation in the modern sense of the word, of which industrialization is but the final manifestation. Finally, it is not serial reproductibility which is fundamental, but the modulation. Not quantitative equivalences, but distinctive oppositions. No longer the law of capital, but the structural law of value. And not only shouldn’t we look to technique or the economy for the secrets of the code; it is, on the contrary, the very possibility of industrial production that we should look for in the genesis of the code and the simulacra. Each order submits to the order following. Just like the order of the counterfeit was abolished by that of serial production (we can see how art has passed entirely into the realm of the ”mechanical’?, so in the same way the entire order of production is in the process of tumbling into operational simulation.

who the fuck cares, enjoy your life

>>14219360
no, it's materialistic fedora tier metaphysics

simulation theory is just the hip modern equivalent of "DUDE, what if we were all just the character in the dream of a giant sea turtle"
both equally dumb

>>14219360
Why would the simulation make my shits so painful to wipe?

>>14220508
based

>>14219360
The universe itself is simulacrum, all physicality is impermanent. If we are in a simulation it is one within another. This question serves no purpose.

>>14220519
sim theory is fucking materialism atheist slime

>>14220667
>You need to assume that information theory and thermodynamics isn't operative in at least one layer of the simulation stack as well
They aren't. There are observations of CMBRs are propogating that suggest they somehow predate time. Read up on the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology hypothesis.

Additionally the rejection of infinite regress as an absurdity is a completely inarguable position. This is all of course ignoring that the time arrows of two different observable universes wouldn't be the same at all. Prepositional parts of speech are entirely meaningless when discussing two distinct observable universes.

I know that's not what people who argue for simulation cosmologies push for, but it is important that these factors are all taken into account.

>>14219360
Solipsism. None of you are real. You're just chatbot AIs making text posts

>>14222531
actually, no, it's you who's a chatboi AI because it's me who exists in the simulation.

>>14219360
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Problems_of_Philosophy/Chapter_2

>>14219360
Why does it matter? Even if we are, you could say the same about the guys watching us, are they in a simulation as well?

>>14222901
Some formulations of the simulation hypothesis have this exact problem. I think even Bostrom's simulation triad or trilemma, or whatever it was called, ultimately lead to a bizarre probability issue whereby any universe that runs a simulated universe is *even more* likely to be a simulated universe itself than the universe it's actually simulating.

>>14219572
Absolutely based from nowhere

>>14220833
You're playing word games. Atheists don't believe in the intervening sky daddy which all major monotheistic religions call "God". This doesn't mean they automatically disbelieve any concept some retard wants to slap the label "God" on. As for why the retard wants to label such things "God" in the first place, when it's a word with millennia of baggage, I can't fathom. Perhaps you have some insight there.

>>14220706
>the brain is the vat itself

>>14220984
Or that they necessarily even have the same value-system, psychology, and emotions as you.

>>14224153
>you’re playing word games
>there’s a difference between thinking an intelligent being designed the universe and thinking an intelligent being designed a simulation (our universe)
lmao

>>14224153
It's the standard translation of a host of similar concepts. This one isn't even a 'similar concept' it's literally just a Christian-style god with more steps (assumptions).

>>14224212
Okay, I must have missed the part of the simulation argument where the simulator does things like answer prayers and condemn people to eternal suffering if they don't worship the Jew on a stick.

>>14219369
who?

>>14224219
>mixing clearly emotive peripheries that aren't even true with metaphysics/cosmology/theology
Fucking dumb cunt. I'm not Christian. Go play with your incoherent bastardised religions.

>>14224220
He

I have a tiny undetectable Jeb Bush head fixed to my right shoulder like a parrot that whispers Quentin Tarantino screenplays in extreme detail to me exactly 3.5 years before the movie comes out on blue ray.

>>14224242
Oh wait you mean Him?

>>14224232
>mixing clearly emotive peripheries that aren't even true with metaphysics/cosmology/theology
How am I the one doing this? You are the one taking the word "God", which to any normal Christian has the properties I described, and applying it to metaphysical ideas which are much smaller in scope. Why are you using the same word if you disbelieve in what the average Christian calls God?

You are not living in a simulation, that isn't quite right. You are living within the realm of being created by and continuously sustained by God, and you are less real than He is.

Does it matter? Suppose you accept you live in a simulation; can you now fly? Can you alter spacetime?

No.

It's just the same as it was before.

>>14219360
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>14219360
nope
do you feel its a simulation?

>>14224283
Who else has a capitalized pronoun other than Him?

>>14219532
>hume was a redditor

There is in western philosophy a false dichotomy between the real and the virtual that is traced to the misconceived program of materialism. We've been lead to believe that the solid, tangible, and physical has more reality than the virtual, ephemeral, and abstract. Some take this so far that they doubt the reality of their own consciousness, an absurd conclusion given that the one means of registering existence is through conscious apperception.

Eastern philosophy does not have this trouble and understands that something can still be immaterial and have reality, and perhaps even a more fundamental reality than matter. Matter is always changing, but everywhere in the universe consciousness must be the same; (although the intentional objects and modalities of consciousness may differ.)

Materialism itself is an illusion according to scientific evidence. The property of solidity is an illusion, as there is no such thing as a perfectly continuous and impenetrable density. Matter dissolves into waveforms.

If the virtual is also just as real as the material ,and given that the material as presented to the senses is an illusion, we must get over the idea that illusions are unreal. If the world is a simulation , that does not make it less real than whatever simulates it, because its inner structure affords consciousness. And consciousness must also be present outside the simulation, if the simulation is designed by a form of sentience. And if the universe is not designed by an intelligence, it cannot be a simulation.

>>14225396
(You)

>>14219572
Fucking based and truthbombed. Die OP.

>>14225406
He absolutely was a proto redditor.

>>14225470
>Eastern philosophy does not have this trouble
"Eastern philosophy" is a big categorization, and has plenty of significant materialist, atheist, nihilist strains. These are clearly evident from the sutra period onward in India, and related speculations definitely appear in the Brahmanas period, which took the preceding period as something like sruti (revealed, and therefore indisputable) but still allowed plenty of variation and dispute within the living tradition, as long as it was carried out by brahmins. Beyond the sutra period, Indian religion and philosophy are more characterized by change and difference than stability, and there are many schools who rejected or at least implicitly reject idealism.

There are similar trends in China as well, prior to the Confucians and especially the neo-Confucians reacting strongly against Buddhism.

>everywhere in the universe consciousness must be the same
This is by no means accepted by "Easterners," many of whom explicitly reject monism even if they are idealists, because monism necessarily makes Gods into appearances as much as it makes individual souls and individual inanimate things into appearances, that is, because it makes everything into mere appearance other than the one thing which truly exists.

I agree with your last paragraph however. The simulation problem begs the question of consciousness and presumes a somewhat materialistic ontology, because it assumes that "real" consciousness is meaningfully distinct from "deluded" consciousness, without defining what consciousness is first.

I agree with your final paragrapht houg h

the fact that we put animals in zoos and observe them makes me believe, yeah

>>14225470
To restate this in a different form. The contention that a simulation is has less ontological status as a non-simulation is meaningless if the simulation is powerful enough to afford consciousness. The non-simulation, where the simulation is presumably being run on, must have consciousness represented within it to have the means of implementing and simulating consciousness in the simulation. A simulation is intentionally designed.

The simulation therefore would be continuous with the simulator, in the same way the mind is continuous with the brain, or hardware is continuous with software the software being just a set of electrically encoded instructions in the hardware for manipulating the hardware. Is the mind less real than the brain? Is software less real than hardware?

The experience of consciousness is the same everywhere through the universe, in the same way that the electromagnetic field is unvarying. The sensation of being is distinct and uniform for every possible agent. And given that consciousness is itself a simulation, whatever intelligence designed the simulation is also a simulation.

It doesn't matter because a simulation is no less real than the simulated.

>>14225512
>simulation is has less ontological status as a non-simulation is meaningless if the
Stroked this sentence up a bit.

Meant to say : The contention that a simulation has lesser ontological status than a non-simulation is meaningless if...

>>14225512
So is the world a fucking simulation or not?

>>14225503
I'm not an expert in eastern philosophy, but my post was eluding to those bits which emphasize the reality of consciousness over matter. There are also strains of western philosophy that take the same position. Berkeley, Schopenhauer, etc.

>>14225530
No, but only because that's a misconceived question. There is no perfect distinction between a simulation and an "underlying reality" if the simulation has consciousness in it. This universe has consciousness in it, because consciousness is the only way to register Being. If we are just as conscious as that being(s) that simulate us, we are no less real.

I fucking hate phenomenologists so goddamn much.

>>14219360
Yes and no.

Our dreams and aspirations, and therefore our sense of community, is orientated towards marketed products. Products are not only marketed through advertisement of any kind, but by movies, music, similar orientations of our elders and the environment in which we live.

In that sense, we live in a simulation, because our actions and goals aren't orientated around our immediate community but around imagined and idealized environments.

But we don't live in a simulation, insofar as we have to wake up in the real world and go to work.

So, it's sort of a prototype, a blue print for what you have in mind: we become slaves to the capitalistic mode of production, so that we can fulfill manufactured desires, which themselves consist of fragmentated moments in history/reality. E.g. Vacations in sunny and beautiful islands. Riding motorcycles as a means to "escape".

>>14225666
If you go full on constructivist like that, doesn't it become really, really difficult to ascertain "authentic" desires?

Alternatively, couldn't you just say that the (or one of the) reason(s) why a system has ultimately come to be wherein desires are manufactured is that people do have some authentic desires to create such a system in the first place?

>>14225685
>constructivist

I am not sure what you mean by that and I don't think you are using the term correctly.

>>14225685
>people do have some authentic desires to create such a system in the first place?


That's idealistic, not historical.
Systems are a process if history, not of agreements between all the human beings. Specifically, the evolution of class civilisations.

>>14225692
You (presumably you, that is) described a scenario in which "our dreams and aspirations [are] oriented towards marketed products", a scenario in which our authentic base desires, etc., have been corrupted by a system/environment of various self-perpetuating influences.

That simply is a constructivist interpretation. I don't know why you might consider it a misuse of the term.

>>14225735
To be honest I am still confused as to what the difference between constructivism and structuralism are.

It's not constructivism though, it's a historical process. What you are saying implies that I start from an idealized version of zero, then suddenly the "system" interferes. It's all a gradual process that involves backstepping and progress, workers struggles and their defeats.

>>14225811
>To be honest I am still confused as to what the difference between constructivism and structuralism are.
Not much of a surprise, I think, considering that a structuralist interpretation would barely differ from a constructivist one in our case. I went with the latter simply because I read the following statement as a claim of difference between base goals (authentic goals, if you will) and manufactured ones:

>In that sense, we live in a simulation, because our actions and goals aren't orientated around our immediate community but around imagined and idealized environments.

Maybe I've simply misunderstood your position, especially in light of your follow-up responses.

>>14219597
Can't prove a negative, so it's up to the simulation crowd to prove that we are living in one. The hypothesis probably can't be falsified though. The deception would need to be flawed in some perceptible fashion, but it's entirely possible that it's not.

With that in mind, it's a meaningless exercise to try and prove it one way or the other. I've also yet to here the argument about why we should even care. It's real enough to us.

>>14225861
It's a thought, I mean to say that those needs are manufactured, although true, is not different than other social historical phases. Needs and goals and life aims are dictated by the economic capabilities of a society.

What I point out to is that in medieval Europe, a bard's song would aspire you to be a hero and either drag you through the everyday rut or make you join an army, whereas today, a movie will make you dream and there are ten different industries that market products to people who have been inspired by that movie. It resembles the simulation that OP is talking about, but it's not an absolute reality. Even in 1984, the proles lived freely.

>>14219597
Can you prove that it is possible simulate universe and have it be as intricate and complex as our own? Can you prove that anyone would want to?

>>14224284
The point is that you think that simulationism is distinct from the Christian idea of God because the simulationist "god" does not pass judgment on his creations. Its an argument from emotion because the act of passing judgment does not in itself invalidate the existance of god nor would it invalidate the simulationist programer of the universe. Secondly wile the simulationists do not claim that their "god" passes judgment they also do not claim their god DOES NOT pass judgment so it would be possible for this simulation creator to act in a way the Christian God does and that would not invalidate the simulationist thesis.

>>14226024
>Can't prove a negative
Literally untrue. You need to update your fedora platitudes.

>>14219360
thats the wrong question
The better question would be if it really mattred

>>14226099
In rhetorics its pretty much imposible to prove something is wrong because you would waste time shooting down your opponents claims instead of seasing the intiative in a debate.

>>14226099
Doesn't change that I have no way to prove we aren't living in a simulation; how would you even begin to prove that? Beyond that, saying we live in a simulation is making a claim about existence, burden of proof falls onto them because of that, and it's not simpler than the alternative.

It's still wasted effort. Even if we knew we were in a simulation, is there anything useful we can do with that information?

>>14219532
The second statement is not claimed to follow from the first one. The idea that we are living in a simulation is usually brought up as a sort of interesting hypothetical situation, or something like what >>14219601
is saying.
>>14220497
Where can I read that full argument if it does disprove simulation theory?

if we were, would it be advantageous to use a simpsons video game (or rick n morty, or matrix etc), to tell the type of people who would play a simpsons game (or etc.), that it's all a simulation?

or is it more likely that the type of people who would make a simpsons video game, or rick n morty, or who run hollywood and the rest of entertainment media, just *want* you to think it's all a simulation?

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kitF_9OjLQ8&feature=youtu.be&t=926

>>14225666

The role humanity that of a passive recipient not an active participant, Further more the way you describe it there would be no difference between a person in modern capitalist society and a hunter gatherer since the latter would also have to function as a part of the tribe where his desires would also be effected by his surounding in a similar way.
>>14225699
>Systems are a process if history, not of agreements between all the human beings. Specifically, the evolution of class civilisations.
And yet you choose to describe society as a "simulation" which implies that there is some sort of authentic community that precedes modern capitalism. If that is not the case than modern society can not be described as a true simulation.
>>14226028
Than it is not a true simulation at all but rather an interpritation of reality which is very different.

>>14226384
>The role humanity that of a passive recipient not an active participant
What I meant was "you describe he role humanity that of a passive recipient not an active participant"

>>14226382
We don't know why someone would make a simulated reality, let alone how they would tell us it was fake. But a video game or a cartoon is an extremely inefective way of doing that.

>>14226108
It would matter to you if you care about what is real and what isn't. Since that would mean you can't trust your own experience of the world.

>>14226450
There's actually the hypothesis that we live in a simulation created by a nigh-omnipotent AI and it's using the simulation to predict the future or generate accurate ancestry records. There's also the possibility of it speculating on how it came to be or other navel-gazing. Any are sufficiently useful to warrant a simulation.

>>14226460
Ultimately I don't think it matters whether or not we're in a simulation. We still feel joy, suffer, live and die and it's perfectly real to us. The distinction between living in a constructed world and a natural one isn't meaningful to a being that has only experienced one or the other. Also, if you can't trust your experiences, the only thing that you can be absolutely certain of is your own mind because you're self aware.

>>14220984
>implying machine elves don't do all sorts of goofy shit
Lurk moar

>>14226043
Yes, who knows if the universe outside our simulated one isn’t more complex?

>>14226472
>There's actually the hypothesis that we live in a simulation created by a nigh-omnipotent AI and it's using the simulation to predict the future or generate accurate ancestry records. There's also the possibility of it speculating on how it came to be or other navel-gazing. Any are sufficiently useful to warrant a simulation.
Yes but would they convey that information through a video game most people have not even played? Depends on what the goals of the simulators are.
>the only thing that you can be absolutely certain of is your own mind because you're self aware
Am I? If my enviorment an I myself am a product an automata.If the world and anything I know about it including myself are wrong then why would I and my experience of jou and sadness be different?
>>14226529
>Yes
No You have not proven anything you made a statement. And what conseavable purpouse would a universe such as our own even serve?

>>14226384
I>>14226397
It's true, it's dynamic, that's why I said "yes and no" but there is a difference from other eras. The sum of all those projected, idealized, marketed instances/fragments, seems to feed itself in a perpetual motion:people from all classes have abandoned their traditional starting points (power, money, work) and aim to achieve what these pseudo-realities present. In short, the advertisers are victim of their advertising.

Have you heard the phrase "capitalism incorporates everything"?

And the working class represent the majority of society anyway. A simulation the way that OP means it, is targeting humans to turn them into drones anyway.

As far as the difference between early human societies and now is concerned, basically the human being hasn't changed that much. What has changed is the society around them.

Also, how can simulation not be absolutely synonymous to interpretation of reality?

>>14226265
>Where can I read that full argument if it does disprove simulation theory?
Literally a couple of posts down.

>>14226593
where

>>14220568
I hate how hacks credit this faggot with "sim theory", Philip K Dick beat this faggot by 3 decades

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LDv8fm_R7g

https://www.bitchute.com/video/3OYufoGYMZsQ/

>>14226555
I'm simply speculating on the goal of the simulator, No idea why they would bother with any specific medium.
>Am I? If my enviorment an I myself am a product an automata
I think if you say you're not, you have to immediately concede the NPC meme is at least partially right.
>If the world and anything I know about it including myself are wrong then why would I and my experience of jou and sadness be different?
You know that rocks are hard and your bed is soft. It's about contrast between things you know. The fact that you can even ask the question would imply to me that you are at least self-aware enough to ask (Something something anthropic principle.) If you're not sure if you're an NPC programmed to believe you aren't one, then there may be some kind of Turing Test to determine who is real, if anyone. If not, we live in a world of NPCs where there's no sapience or free will. Can't help you if you can't be sure you exist.

The other anons questions will likely have the same answer I gave of the outside universe learning something or testing something. It's possible we live in a hypothetical universe where magic doesn't exist for example and the world runs on the physics we understand instead of some others. Without a view into our simulator's mindset we have no idea.

>>14226658
*5 decades

>>14226564
>Also, how can simulation not be absolutely synonymous to interpretation of reality?
The term simulation is usually defined as "imitation of situation or prosess" and "the act of pretending" nether of these deffinitions fit what you are talking about. An interpritation of reality is looking at reality and forming an interpretation on the basis of what you have observed or else on the basis of what you are expected to beleave or whatever other faculty you use to come to form your picture of the world.
>A simulation the way that OP means it, is targeting humans to turn them into drones anyway.
Essentialy what OP is talking about is a phylosofical question about the nature of knowledge and reality has very little to do with class warfare and history.
>It's true, it's dynamic, that's why I said "yes and no" but there is a difference from other eras. The sum of all those projected, idealized, marketed instances/fragments, seems to feed itself in a perpetual motion:people from all classes have abandoned their traditional starting points (power, money, work) and aim to achieve what these pseudo-realities present. In short, the advertisers are victim of their advertising.
How would you know this is not what was going on all along? You seem to suggest that the eletes of old where fully consious of these prosess and constructed culture as an elaborate prison to keep everyone else down. It assumes that the elites of old where 100% comprised of high functioning psychopaths and that does not seem likely across the board.

>>14226661
>I think if you say you're not, you have to immediately concede the NPC meme is at least partially right.
Its pretty much necesay at this point. One of the problems of the symulation hypothesis is that it puts reality itself into question but rarely the the "self" of the one asking the question. If the world is an extremely detailed simulation than why can't my experience of the world be as well. If I except simulation theory to be correct than who is to say that all the feelings, thoughts and experiences are not me living out an extremely detailed script of what I am supposed to do, say and feel? If you can simulate the universe surely you can do that?

>>14226091
>The point is that you think that simulationism is distinct from the Christian idea of God because the simulationist "god" does not pass judgment on his creations.
This, among other things, very clearly does make it distinct from the Christian God. The only thing it has in common with God is creating the universe. But the popular, Christian understanding of "God" answers prayers, passes judgment, is perfectly just but perfectly merciful, etc. You still haven't answered why you must use the word "God" to label any possible creator of the universe when most are nothing like the common understanding of God.

>>14226865
Your not responding to the same person as before. AS for your question a simulationist creator could just as easely perform these functions. It could be a game to him in the same way as spore and sims are to us. As for the reason why you wold use the term "God" you can use other terms but the term but the word "god" has come to be a common catch all term that can reffer to the Abrahamic god as well as Zeus. While not entirely acurate when applied to simulationism it can be appropriate.

>>14226902
>a simulationist creator could just as easely perform these functions.
>could
This is a significant difference. The Christian God DOES do these things, and isn't God if he doesn't. The simulation argument has no opinion on whether the simulator does these things. I don't think the simulator has much in common at all with God and much less with Zeus. While you can defend that it isn't absurd to label the simulator (or some other metaphysical ideas) God, it still doesn't explain why you would specifically choose that word. As far as I can tell the most frequent motivation for that choice is to create snarky arguments of the form:
>he says he doesn't believe in God
>but he believes in some kind of intelligent creator
>what an NPC with inconsistent beliefs

>>14226974
>>he says he doesn't believe in God
>>but he believes in some kind of intelligent creator
>>what an NPC with inconsistent beliefs
Thats not sneaky at all in fact that argument was stated very overtly durring the thread. Different people use words differently so you can't hold me acountable for what others mean or beleave. The point is that a computor simulating the universe is about as likely as the universe being created by a diety. Nether idea can be varified empirically or disproved so why do people act like the simulation hypothesis is unasalable when a religeous person would be laughfed at for making the kind of arguments some simulationists make? (LMAO you can't prove we don't live in a simulation check and mate m8)

>>14226805
>me living out an extremely detailed script of what I am supposed to do, say and feel? If you can simulate the universe surely you can do that?
You don't even need a simulation to come to that conclusion. Unless there's an other-worldly essence (a soul in simpler terms), a god, some kind of quantum fuckery or anything stranger still to instill sort of true unpredictability in the universe, humans by definition do not have free will. This is where the idea that the AI is simulating the events leading up to it's creation makes sense; it's running a stripped down universe with fewer variables in order to learn something, perhaps predicting the future. It's why you can build psych profiles of people to predict or understand their actions.

In any case it's not really possible to know either way. It's enough for me to come to the conclusion that without a soul or whatever, there can be no free will and I'm a mindless NPC like every other human who can only think what my environment programmed me to think. It doesn't stop me from doing what I want and pursuing goals, and the concept of no free will doesn't really bother me.

>>14219360
No way to know because everything is part of the machine

>>14219360
Why would it matter one way or the other?

>>14227011
>Thats not sneaky at all in fact that argument was stated very overtly durring the thread.
Snarky, not sneaky. And I know, the whole reason I'm posting was to address someone making that argument. Not to argue the other points you are making (which I don't really disagree with).

>Different people use words differently so you can't hold me acountable for what others mean or beleave.
The fact that words have common meanings is the basis of communicating with language. It's a reasonable assumption that someone using a word is using it with the consensus definition in mind unless they clarify otherwise. If a word is murky enough to not have a consensus definition, which perhaps "God" fits, it's bad faith to assume I am using whichever definition makes my beliefs appear ridiculous. That's what I am criticizing the snarkers for doing.

Simulation hypothesis is just God for secular dorks, admit it.

>>14219532
its not a redditor philosophy (per say) but an atheistic spin on the catholic belief that life is a dream and death wakes you up to the real and superior life. Am I the only one that has read "Life is a dream"?

The king dreams he is a king,
And in this delusive way
Lives and rules with sovereign sway;
All the cheers that round him ring,
Born of air, on air take wing.
And in ashes (mournful fate!)
Death dissolves his pride and state:
Who would wish a crown to take,
Seeing that he must awake
In the dream beyond death's gate?

....

'Tis a dream that I in sadness
Here am bound, the scorn of fate;
'Twas a dream that once a state
I enjoyed of light and gladness.
What is life? 'Tis but a madness.
What is life? A thing that seems,
A mirage that falsely gleams,
Phantom joy, delusive rest,
Since is life a dream at best,
And even dreams themselves are dreams.

>>14227300
it is

>>14227249
>Snarky, not sneaky. And I know, the whole reason I'm posting was to address someone making that argument. Not to argue the other points you are making (which I don't really disagree with).
Sorry about that.
>If a word is murky enough to not have a consensus definition, which perhaps "God" fits, it's bad faith to assume I am using whichever definition makes my beliefs appear ridiculous. That's what I am criticizing the snarkers for doing.
I am assuming that its pretty obvious that in this context the therm "god" is interchangeble with "creator of the universe." The problem is that beleaf in the cosmic programer who created the universe as a part of his computer system is nomore rational than a Christians beleaf in God (by the way if "God" is capitalised it usually means that a person means the Christian diety) people can beliave whatever they like including things that can not be proven rationaly but it would be a good thing if people where more honest about what they beleave and why.

>>14226729
>You seem to suggest that the eletes of old where fully consious of these prosess and constructed culture as


No,, that was what I was arguing against.

>reality has very little to do with class warfare and history.

lol no

>>14224205
The difference is infinite regression, you fucking idiot.

This question was answered 2000 years ago why do you autists keep doing mental gymnastics

>simulation theory is the only idea extractable from the brain in vat
i expected more from you /lit/, absolutely disappoint son

>>14227053
The idea that man is a sovereign entity endowed with reason is kinda important. It would have a lot of implications for the way we think of what is good and what is evil. If you don't really care about that sort of stuff than its different.

>>14227393
>The sum of all those projected, idealized, marketed instances/fragments, seems to feed itself in a perpetual motion:people from all classes have abandoned their traditional starting points (power, money, work) and aim to achieve what these pseudo-realities present
>classes have abandoned their starting points
>their starting points
This seems to me to be saying that the classes of the old where more consious of power in a way odern ruling class is not.
>lol no
why not?

>>14227539
Sure it's important, but if you arrive at the conclusion that I have (and I don't see how you can't without believing in God, the soul,or whatever else) then all rules, laws and morals are socially constructed, which means that the ideas themselves evolve over time. Hypothetically, you could make the argument that individual humans don't have agency but are mostly supposed to be bloody gristle for the evolutionary machine to physically or socially make better humans through ideological, physiological or technological means.

At least that's how I've come to view it. Without God or some other supreme morality, good and evil are really subjective. I've had a lot of time to think about this stuff because several of my classes in highschool and college dealt with ethics and society. The idea I had is if you have a child grow up in poverty, and he becomes a criminal, gets arrested and convicted, who's fault is it? His, his parents, his environment, society? Who do you punish for justice? It's why punitive prisons don't make a lot of sense to me, and may be a hint that reformative prisons are more useful in pursuit of advancing humanity, since iirc they've already been shown to be.

Its not the world that is a simulation, but our selves, we dont really exist

>>14227585
based and black pilled

>>14227579
>and I don't see how you can't without believing in God, the soul,or whatever else
I happen to beleave in such a thing yes. Namely a God and a soul.
>The idea I had is if you have a child grow up in poverty, and he becomes a criminal, gets arrested and convicted, who's fault is it? His, his parents, his environment, society?
The problem I tend to have with this argument is that it tends to ignore milions of poor people who do not commit violent crimes and people take that for granted but when a poor person comits a crime he is vindicated by his surcumstances. I do not think that you should ignore poverty nor am I arguing for punitive justice but I dislike that argument.

>>14227703
>I happen to beleave in such a thing yes. Namely a God and a soul.
I wish I could say the same. I think I'd be happier if I could just be a good Christian and obey God. But He eludes me. Wish I had those marching orders.
>I do not think that you should ignore poverty nor am I arguing for punitive justice but I dislike that argument.
It's mostly to illustrate the point and provoke the thoughts. It's why the view that humans should work together to make better humans through our various means should be our end, unless you consider self-improvement and mastery of human nature to be a bad thing for whatever reason.

>>14227511
The OP wanted to talk about sim theory. He just used a retarded picture.

>>14219360
yes, but the simulation is sin

>>14227778
>I wish I could say the same. I think I'd be happier if I could just be a good Christian and obey God. But He eludes me. Wish I had those marching orders.
Its never easy but you can try living but if you call out to him god will send strngth. You can chang your life in little ways. you will still be on the right track. (kind of redundant but have you read the Bible?)
>that humans should work together to make better humans through our various means should be our end, unless you consider self-improvement and mastery of human nature to be a bad thing for whatever reason.
Not much to disagree with here.

>>14227847
I've been lurking this board more and more lately. The passing of my great grandmother was the first family death that shook me since I was 13 and I've been questioning my faith ever since. I've come to the conclusion that I pray and read the Bible but it gets me nowhere. It makes me think that because God hasn't given me an answer that he sees it as not worth the effort because He knows I'll never change.

I want that cathartic reunion in Heaven because the thought is so warm and happy. But I don't desire Christ's righteousness with all my heart and I don't think I can be the person He wants, and I'm not even sure He's the way. I just wish I was sure, I could handle there being no God. Maybe the problem is I'm only trying to get fire insurance and I want salvation for the wrong reason.

>>14219572
Based and redpilled

>>14227890
>I don't desire Christ's righteousness with all my heart and I don't think I can be the person He wants, and I'm not even sure He's the way. I just wish I was sure, I could handle there being no God
Why do you think that? It seems to me that you want to belieave in something good but are anxious about weather or not you want it for the right reasons. My suggestion would be to try to commit to church life. None is really sure but sometimes you have to make a leap of faith. (also consider checking out Eastern Orthodox Christianity here: https://www.goarch.org/-/forgiveness-in-the-light-of-the-resurrection)) Whatever you deside I hope you come to realize that there is hope for you, Anon.

>>14228011
I was under the impression that loving Christ to get into heaven or to avoid hell or whatever reasoning you want to use isn't true saving faith because it turns Him into a transactional means to an end rather than the end Himself. To me, believing in Christ is the prudent option because opposing God is a futile prospect, not because I actually care about being righteous. I just find it hard to make the leap of faith when there's prophecies Jesus didn't fulfill and idolatry is a sin. I'm unsure and I don't see anything pointing me in the direction, I have no certainty.

I haven't given up yet. It seems hopeless but maybe it's a test of faith or something. Even if it's not, I'll keep trying, because the only other option is to lay down, die and accept hell.

>>14227573
>This seems to me to be saying that the classes of the old where more consious of power in a way odern ruling class is not.

They were, but that's not the main point. The main point is that we all play a role today.

Are you asking me why reality has very little to do with history and class warfare?

>>14228226
>I was under the impression that loving Christ to get into heaven or to avoid hell or whatever reasoning you want to use isn't true saving faith because it turns Him into a transactional means to an end
The Cristian belieaf is that there existed a higher state of existance before man fell from grace and that that kingdom will rise again and we would be wellcome in that kingdom. Seeking reunion with God is the highest calling and very rightious since in seeking God you are seeking the highest good.

>>14228282
>Are you asking me why reality has very little to do with history and class warfare?
You seemed to suggest that peoples ideas about the nature of reality and knowledge
>They were, but that's not the main point. The main point is that we all play a role today.
My point is that it is a rather large generalisation of the history of the peole around the world.

>>14228318
My takeaway was from a parable where Jesus rebukes giving to the poor and then bragging about it, since they're doing good but so they can gain recognition. Led me to believe that doing right for the wrong reasons isn't great. Maybe not as sinful in this case but misguided. Reunion with my loved ones and escaping the fire pit is driving goal, but supposedly those are side benefits to being with God again, I'm guessing.

>>14228426
seen as how you keep mentioning your family I would say you want to be with them in the next life so your goal is at least somewhat selfless as for your fear of hell it does not mean you are selfish you just that you are rightly afraid of damnation that is not wrong of you and as stated above your goals are not purely selfish to begin with.

>>14219360
Yes

>>14228545
nah

>>14228575
maybe

why isn't everyone simulation fucking awesome? why wouldn't everyone be living the most desirable simulation

>>14228632
Why would that be the case? When we create simulated people in video games, we don't give them all perfect lives either.

Plus, some sim theories speculate that the simulation is actually a recreation of the base world's real history, so you're really the simulation of an actual IRL loser.

>>14228480
I guess then. I still have no idea how I'm supposed to hear God's voice. I'm probably going to get the answer of read the Bible, go to church and all that so the Holy Spirit can work subtly or some such, but I can imagine that'd be the same advice for any religion, I have no idea if Jesus is talking to me or if I'll just be seeing what I want to see.

>>14228632
Because perfect sims are boring and tell us nothing.

>>14228644
i guess what i was getting at is why cant each individual live his own badass simulation, why must we have a singular shared space yet multiplayer scenario in which resources are scarce, opportunities are limited and must be fought for. seems like a dick move for whoever is in charge.

>>14220508
yo based

>>14219360
yes. A divine simulation.

>>14228664
Pressing on without fully knowing is what it truly means to beleave if people hear a voive it would be prety easy but thats not the case.

>>14219360
A pointless question to a pragmatist

>>14220646
You do know that 1/∞ = 0, right?
Then
P(that we are in the base simulation) = 1/∞ = 0
Of course that there needs to be a base reality, but the P that you are on it is zero.

>>14226024
In that case, you can just prove we're living in reality, instead of in a dream or something.

>>14219360
Doesn't change anything even if we are

>>14229452
Seems like an awful high wager to hedge my bets on. Eternity is one mother of a gamble.

>>14229853
Living in a reality is where we start because it requires fewer assumptions to be true than a dream or a simulation. With reality, you only need assume that things exist, which they seem to. In a simulation or a dream, you need some manner of container, like the God-computer or Azathoth or whatever, and then whatever real space that container occupies.