/sci/ - Science & Math

>simulation theory
not science or math, literally just the fedora tipper's alternative to "god"

>consensus
collectivists need to gtfo

>>9485992
The difference is that simulation theory has actual merit and substance behind it, while god is just a dumb person's wishful thinking, with no coherent supporting argument.

>>9485992
It's not an alternative to God. If the Universe is a simulation then whomever created and/or controls it is God /period.

>>9486060
No, they'd be a creator/operator of a simulation, not a god. The great thing about language is that you can differentiate between two separate things, no need to call them by the same word.

It's possible, there's no way to tell, there is no way to know the "chances", so just make the assumption for now that everything is real and don't worry about it. You'll find out when you die, possibly.

>>9486081
And from our point of view, this creator would be all powerful, (possibly) all knowing, invisible to us, and whose true motivations are unknown. Yeah, that's essentially a God, just with a fresh coat of paint.

>>9486060
not true.

Sure, the creator would have a large part in saying what happens in the universe they are simulating or whatever. The same could be true for this "creator" as well. OBVIOUSLY CMON BRUH how u not come to that conclusion before pressing submit?

>>9486093
I mean to say is.. If we are being simulated by a "creator", the same situation could be applied to our "creator" in which their reality is also being simulated.

If that is the case, our creator is not totally omniscient of all future events in our creators reality/simulation that could have an affect on our simulation in turn

>>9486037
there's no merit nor coherent supporting arguments for the simulation either

>>9485989
Simulation """theory"""" confirmed for nigger opinion

>>9485989
the meme scientist becomes a believer in meme pseudoreligion hypothesis.
perhaps if he knew shit about physics he'd known why the simulation argument is fucking insane, lol.

>>9486037

So what you're saying is that simulation "theory" is the 'smart' man's wishful thinking?

>>9485989
>consensus on the simulation theory?
It's unfalsifiable, just like creationism.
Hitchen's Razor

>>9486090
Nah, by (my) definition, God is supreme, and not just some undergrad working on their thesis project, living in a wold created by t he "true" utlra-divine being.

>>9486327
>Simulation """theory""""
This A theory is an idea that's gained widespread acceptance because it is BOTH:
1) thoroughly tested through experimentation
AND
2) fits well wit other scientific knowledge

"muh holographic universe" will never qualify as an actual scientific theory

>>9486384
>This A theory
*THIS, a theory...

sorry, a little drunk atm.

>>9486037
The exact same logic that supports simulation theory also supports God. There is no difference.

>>9486081
>Creator of our universe
>Exists outside our physical reality
>Has unlimited power to change our universe or alter it's parameters as he sees fit
You're splitting hairs. Any creator of a simulation almost perfectly matches the criteria of God.

>>9486325
There's substantial statistical probability behind it. If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones, which means that, if it's possible AT ALL, we are very likely to be in one. It should be pointed out to your mind that it isn't needed as an explanation for anything. It's just something that is possible, which is more than can be said for the existence of a god. Either we are in a simulation, or we aren't.

>>9486420
lol

>>9485989
Start a straw poll for something like that. Simulation theory is unfalsifiable and is a pretty old philosophical idea. There are some pretty cool responses to the notion that the "external world" isn't real, which is essentially simulation theory for people back hundreds of years ago.

>>9486420
Statistically, if a god exists that had the power to create a universe, it would have created a universe. This means that in the case of there being a god, there is a 100% chance a universe is created. We live in a universe, thus there is a god.

wtf I just proved god exists

>>9486420
>If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones

I hate high schoolers talking about "statistics" when they mean baseless intuitions.

>>9486393
No, it wouldn't. At least it would be nothing like the inconsistently written biblical god that christians, mulsims, and jews think of. Those weren't even the first religions, either. They were just ones that rose to prominence because of memetic evolution. Tenants that compel the followers to follow the religion and be rewarded after death, the promise of suffering in death if the religion is not followed, and to convert others by aggressive means, etc. Many older religions with multiple gods existed beforehand. Their stories of how the universe was made are all as ignorant as the big religions of today are, and all of them don't fit with the logic of a created simulation. None of them get anywhere close to reality. Big Bang. Gas condensing into stars, etc. They all have dumb shit explanations, like a snake painting stars on a glass dome.

Simulation or not, the universe was formed in a certain way and followed certain rules to get where it is now. Humanity's pre science attempts at explaining the universe are wrong and ignorant, regardless of whether the universe is simulated.

>>9486424
This is the mind of the human brainwashed by religion. In the fact of overwhelming logic, his only recourse is denial without logical retort.

>>9486437
Evidence for biblical god's existence is a flat zero. Evidence for the possibility of virtual worlds existing is already everywhere.

>>9486455
You mean like how you "intuitively" deny overwhelming evidence that the bible is a load of shit? Fucking hell I love being right.

>>9486437
There's no empirical evidence of any god being real. Literally all of them are dreamed up by humans. Meanwhile we could feasibly live in the matrix already. A brain that was connected to even a world with PS3 tier graphics for all of its life would be unable to tell that it wasn't living in true reality. With no means of accessing the programing of the world, it could even grow up to be a scientist in this world (which could be populated by nothing except for turing test programs) and create mathematical explanations to explain the physics of its reality.

>this thread
/sci/ is getting more cringeworthy every day

>>9485989
>the simulation is so badly put together that a retard like deGrasse figured it out

patch when?

>>9486504
Cringing is something only feminine minded people do. Masculine people frown.

>>9486512
If could have been blown open multiple times and reset without use knowing it, assuming we get reset with it.

>>9486513
I don't give a shit about your internet manliness, this thread and this whole board as of lately is cringey as fuck. It's like almost everybody is a redditor arguing about religion and meme popsci topics

>>9486420
>If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones
You're ignoring the possibility that it may be possible to create physical universes, .
Do the simulated universes outnumber the physical universes?

Who the fuck knows?
Besides the number of universes is meaningless.
Oh, sure, if you were a universe, speculating on the nature of your origin it might help to know the ration of physical universe to virtual universes, but you're a person, not a universe.
We're completely in the dark as to the relative population of physical vs virtual universes.
But even if we ignore nested physical universes, if each level n universe has a population at least double the population of the level n+1 universes, most people will exist in the top level physical universe.

>>9486521
>Cringe

Literally a woman thing. The first time I ever heard it was in a woman's blog. They were talking about panties, and how the word made them cringe.

Man up.

>>9486437
Supposing a god powerful enough to create a universe is vastly different from supposing it is possible to simulate a universe or a part of it.

>>9486474
>Evidence for the possibility of virtual worlds existing is already everywhere.
>>>9486455
Sure! Every X-Box and PS4 running a copy of Call of Duty, GTA or even FIFA 2018 is creating a "virtual universe".
Unfortunately, the total population of these hundreds of millions of simulated universes is ZERO.
At least, none of the "people" involved can wax philosophic about the nature if their existence,
We're still waiting for ANY evidence of artificial people (sentient, sapient possessing a "soul", choose your criteria).
Come back when you've solved the hard problem of consciousness, loser.

>>9486534
>You're ignoring the possibility that it may be possible to create physical universes

What possibility? The only model for the creation of the universe that has any evidence at all is the Big Bang, which does not require any external or sentient creator. You are so dumb, goddamit. The reason the simulation theory gains traction is because it IS possible, while your biblical bullshit is just that.

>>9486474
>Fucking hell I love being right.
Nigger, you need one of these (pic related)

>>9486559
If you believe in souls you are already wrong. There's no soul. Your consciousness is created from the physical structure of your brain. If someone was to take a shotgun and blow apart that medium of consciousness, you would cease to exist. You don't float away from your body and go to heaven.

>>9486553
nigga you're the one reading women's blogs and you tell me to man up?

>>9486572
>What possibility?
If we're going to just assume someone might create a virtual universe so "complete" that the people within it we capable of philosophical y examining the nature of the universe, why not also assume someone can create new physical universes?
Both are neat ideas based ENTIRELY on my/your willingness to believe anything is possible,

>>9486578
>There's no soul.
[citation needed]
see also:
>>9486559
>sentient, sapient possessing a "soul", choose -->YOUR<-- criteria

>>9486459
You're just as ignorant as your ancestors and your beliefs will be mocked as uneducated and silly when enough time passes. Stop placing yourself on a pedestal, you know nothing about reality.

>>9486495
>There's no empirical evidence of any god being real
But there is? We exist, thus God must exist. It's impossible for anything to exist without God as God is the first mover by definition.

>>9486578
>There's no soul
You know we have scientific evidence for the existence of the soul right?

>>9486611
>You know we have scientific evidence for the existence of the soul right?
PLEASE STOP, you're not helping.

>>9486431
>Simulation theory is unfalsifiable
I would argue that until we create a realistic simulation of our own that it's inherently false. It's a toggle rather than an actual unfalsifiable idea like religious faith.

>>9486437
"Statistically if God exists" doesn't make sense as there is no proof or precedent to base any statistics off of and no means of attaining such. Simulation theory only requires that we create our own realistic computer simulation to create logical precedence of a realistic statistical probability of near-infinite nested simulations.

>>9486631

>>9486637
>>9486634
>>9486631
>>9486624
>>9486619
I really hope these people are just memeing and aren't actual evolution deniers.

>>9486640
>aren't actual evolution deniers.

a-dorable

>>9486592
No, only your idea is based entirely on your own imagination. One idea is based on what is possible in reality and is independent of what we think. The other is based on what you believe in your mind. There is no evidence of matter being created from nothing in this universe after the big bang. Not once, as if the rules were set right from the start. When someone has the ability to create matter from nothing on command... no, create a region of space time with it's own physical laws on command, then it is possible that a sentient being can create a real custom universe. Remember, there is no need for a sentient creator to explain the existence of our own universe. It's likely that it may not even be possible for one to do so.

>>9486602
>You're just as ignorant as your ancestors

Nope. Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. We have access to far more knowledge than our ancestors did, so by default we are less ignorant than them.

>>9485989
If you accept the axiom it asks you to accept it seems reasonable, the biggest problem j have with it is that it just doesnt seem like it could matter unless we some how are able to use it as a predictive model, i dont see how we could.

>>9486649
>One idea is based on what is possible in reality and is independent of what we think. The other is based on what you believe in your mind.
Call me back when you (or anyone) is actualy capable of creating a simulated person that can ponder the nature of it's existence, and I'll post again when someone creates a pocket universe.
BOTH are 100"% speculative (if plausible).

>>9486655
Ignorance is refusal to utilize knowledge, not a lack of it.

People aren't ignorant if they're utilizing the knowledge available to them, even if it's less knowledge than a more "advanced" group of people.

>>9486607
Troll response.

>>9486666
>it just doesnt seem like it could matter unless we some how are able to use it as a predictive model,
THIS!!!!!
If simulation vs physical universe had ANY practical implications, we'd be able to devise an experiment to check that shit.
Since we (you simulation 'tards in particular) haven't come up with a falsifiable test, it likely doesn't matter in any real sense.

>>9486673
In both of these hypothetical situations fallible humans are the creators, so neither of them support the idea of an omniscient "god" either way.

>>9486611
Where?

>>9486684
>the technology doesn't exist, therefore it will never exist!

>>9486685
>so neither of them support the idea of an omniscient "god" either way.
Like I give a fuck.

>>9486631
Reminds me of DarkMatter2525

>>9486692
then what are you arguing against? which of your two plausible hypothetical models of infinite universes might be correct? that neither of them are or ever will be? what?

>>9486690
>>the technology doesn't exist, therefore it will never exist!
Let me know when you produce an experiment that will settle this issue.
Until then, it's 100% philosophical masturbation.

>>9486684
>>9486666
I got satan quads, does that mean im actijng as satans mouth piece? Be afraid.

>>9486696
>Until then, it's 100% philosophical masturbation.
I agree, but the conclusion here isn't to outright deny the possibility. This isn't magical sky magician tier faith.

>>9486697
satan doesn't exist.

>>9486695
Get your shit together, Anon.
Are you thinking I'm somehow arguing for the existence of God?
Then you're mistaken.
Do you think I've picked a horse in physical vs virtual universe?
That's also wrong.
I'm just saying it's 100% stoner-level speculation about a question we will likely never actually answer.

Get a job, hippie.

>>9486697
>I got satan quads
Go back to /b/.

>>9486705
>a question we will likely never actually answer.
circling back around to "because it doesn't currently exist it will never exist" level retardation there, anon.

>>9486702
>t the conclusion here isn't to outright deny the possibility
We could be living in the fever-dream of a hookah-smoking caterpillar.
Picking one of a million stupid unsupported speculations, and holding it up higher than the rest is a willful act of ignorance.
Please don't ever reproduce.
I'm outie.

>>9485989
>Ctrl + F
>"occam"
>Phrase not found

The reason I could never get behind simulation theory is occam's razor.

Sure, it's possible that our entire existence is a program/simulation of a reality, with hard-coded physics and natural processes and chemical reactions, it could be one of infinite such simulations, all designed by some intelligent being, or more likely, all designed by a simulation-designing program which was designed by a simulation-designing-progam-designing program designed by an intelligent creator, like a Matrix, run by The Machines, which were created by The Humans, in a Reality that was actually a simulation designed by The Real Machines which were created by The Real Humans...

OR

This is reality.

Gee I fucking wonder which one seems more plausible.

It's like SJWs claiming that the reason minorities and women don't have more high-end careers is because of a secret white patriarchal plot to maintain power by systematically keeping everyone else down, and running this plot so deep behind the scenes that even the people it subjects perpetrate it without them even realizing it. In reality, it's actually just because black people and women either aren't applying for those careers or just aren't qualified.

>>9486677
No, ignorance means "lack of knowledge or information".

>>9486673
It is theoretically possible to simulate a brain. Physical laws don't forbid it. It's not possible to make matter out of nothing. The most basic of physical laws forbid that.

Why do people assume a simulations overworld would be anywhere similar to our universe? Or worse, we're just a copy of our parent universe? If this universe was """fake""" we might as well run on something with no recognizable matter, math or logic, something so unthinkable that it's not even worth calling it a simulation anymore, since that's an antropomorphic concept.

>>9485989
>simulation theory
It's not a "theory". It's unfalsifiable what-if garbage.

The actual backend of our reality is probably so foreign and inaccessible to us that calling it a simulation would be like a chimp calling his little bug-getting stick a particle accelerator.

>>9486037
>The difference is that simulation theory has actual merit and substance behind it,

>>9485989
It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and these are not worth entertaining, similar to hypotheses that invisible omnipotent Gods created the universe then decided not to interfere with it anymore, or that there is a teacup floating around Mars

These are just the sorts of things that are outside the limitation bubble created by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and Turing Computability

>>9485989
>/sci/ consensus

>>9486708
You cat prove thier is no satan.

Simulation theory is creationism for atheists who like computers too much. It's as irrational as religion, has no solid evidence, just like religion, can't be possibly proven, just like religious views. By saying "simulation theory is/may be true" you admit you're just a brainlet who has to believe in some supernatural power, but just don't like the tales about Yahweh making Adam and Steve from clay 6000 years ago

>>9486495
What if Geralt (The Witcher) decided after a couple decades of fighting monsters, he wanted to become a scientist and figure out how magic and monsters came to be, only to figure out that he's in a simulation? Kinda depressing m8

>>9486732
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_universe

>>9486380
By your definition the Christian Godhead itself isn't "God".

>>9487324
Putting a fully sentient being into such a crude world would probably qualify as some kind of hell.

>>9487320
Holy shit would you fuck back to plebbit already

>>9485989
There are things like Planck length and Planck time, which are clearly hard coded limitations of the engine. Planck time represents the tick rate of the universe, and Planck length represents the floating point accuracy of location. We are obviously living in a simulation. When you die, you will wake up in a game arcade and remove the virtual helmet from your head. Your friends will laugh at you for getting the lowest score anyone has ever seen.
>We told you not to pick a NEET faggot, stupid
You will, however, set an unbreakable record for the time spent masturbating to tentacle porn. You hope your friends won't notice that.

>>9487330
>By your definition the Christian Godhead itself isn't "God".
Hardly surprising, since I'm not a Christian.
As a deist, _my_ (unfalsifiable) belief is that God is the supreme divine being, creator (or whatever) of ALL universes, not just this one.
But I don't really see where that idea is incompatible with the doctrines of the Christian faith.
Sure, I don't support most church doctrine, but I don't see where they wouldn't like my definition of God.

BTW: "Funerals are for the living". The point of faith isn't whether or not God actually exists. The point is the impact faith has on your life, no matter how unfounded it is.

>>9487338
It seems to me that such a being would be so detached, omniscient, omnipotent and unhuman that it would be completely pointless to worship or even acknowledge them.

You may as well start calling the fine structure constant "Arnold" and insist that it's a God.

>>9486437
This relies on the assumption that the universe was necessarily created by God

>>9487351
>completely pointless to worship or even acknowledge them.
Yeah, I really doubt the point of worship is to stroke God's ego.
It seems pretty obvious the point is to create a structure for the clergy to control the masses for their own personal gain.
But "acknowledge"? Again, the point of faith is how it affects you, not whether you get to be "right" about something you can't even begin to prove.

>You may as well start calling the fine structure constant "Arnold" and insist that it's a God.
If that helps you cope with life better, go for it.
Except the "insist" part, that doesn't sound healthy.
Even as a deist, I don't insist God must exist, neither to myself nor to others.

>>9485989
why hasnt anyone assassinated that fuck yet?

>>9486037
>The difference is that simulation theory has actual merit and substance behind it
Like?

>>9487358
He's just a friendly, harmless stoner.
A real fun guy.
Why would anyone want to hurt him?
You might as well assassinate Tommy Chong.

>>9487369
In the event that technological civilisation isn't doomed to always destroy itself then the argument is pure statistics.

In the opposite scenario you probably are actually living in a base reality, but you also know you or your near descendants are doomed to be the last generation. And then afterwards the universe will remain barren and lifeless for the rest of time.

So it kind of is wishful thinking really.

>>9487386
>the argument is pure statistics.
Let me know when you have a population count of this universe, and the population of simulated universes withing this one, then we'll start crunching the numbers.
Remember. if this IS a simulation, you have no reason to believe there are any other societies out there.
You have no way of knowing if the other solar systems are simulated in sufficient detail to be homes to any actual people.
For that matter, if this is a simulation, you might be the only "real" person in the sense that you're the only one simulated in sufficient detail to count as a "real boy", while the rest of us are robots running on a script.

>>9486037
They're the same argument though.

>>9487400
Oh yeah, I have no evidence that anything in this universe is sentient beyond myself. And I have no trouble imagining that anything beyond our solar system (or even beyond the direct line-of-sight of any sentient individual in the simulation) is only simulated in the most basic way.

It's highly likely that almost all humans in the future will be emulated people. This is because it's much cheaper to emulate a human mind on a computer than to maintain a physical human.

In which case the problem is "How many of those virtual humans know they're virtual humans, and have access and knowledge of the base reality. And how many of them are kept in simulated universes?".

>>9487417
>This is because it's much cheaper to emulate a human mind on a computer than to maintain a physical human.
[citation needed]
Are you suggesting somebody is getting paid to create people, and they're looking for the cheapest way to do so?
And that sustenance farming in the real world ois somehow more expensive than an unimaginably massive computer system?
That's some awfully specific dogma you're developing for your personal religion.

>>9487369
Like the fact that eventually we will be able to create a simulation that resembles reality

>>9487427
And we know we don't live in that simulation, what's your point?

No computer scientists here?
Time Complexity is the reason we are not living in a simulation. Once you get small enough, the best computer to simulate reality is reality itself.

>>9487428
The point is that the inhabitants of that simulation will think the exact same thing about a simulation that they create.

>>9486371
This. Sim theory is philosophy, not science.

>>9487428
...wait, let me guess:
Assuming this is a simulation, the parent universe must be chock full of societies with that kind of technological ability (don't ask me how I know, I just do).
Therefore, (still under the assumption this is a simulation), simulations must outnumber physical universes (assuming there's only a small number of physical universes, don't ask why).
Therefore I can conclude this is a simulation (assuming it's a simulation).

>>9487320
simulation theory is not falsifiable as it is right now, but that doesn't mean it can't have more merit than a book that on frequent occasion contradicts natural and physical law - because simulation theory has no dogma yet (correct me if im wrong shoutout elon) i think it's in a category like Deism, while it's still a faith-based belief, at least their not peddling trash about homosexuality and preaching cutting of the tips of baby boys penises

>>9487434
The people in both physical AND simulated universes will think that.

>>9487440
Uh huh

And so on and on the chain of simulation goes. What are the odds that we are the ones who started it?

>>9485989
Unless you have a drill that can pierce the heavens and break the chains, it doesn't change a thing.

And it doesn't matter.

>>9487442
100%. I am post from being 7 layers of virtual machine.

>>9487439
Stop picking a fight with Christianity.
Just because the bible is wrong, that doesn't make your own (religious) beliefs right.

It don't matter. nunna dis matters.

>>9486037
Simulation "theory" is the Pascal's wager of today. It's supported by literally nothing and it is unfalsifiable. Come back when your hypothesis can be tested.

>>9487442
>What are the odds that we are the ones who started it?
Until we have any actual numbers on this WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ODDS ARE.

Look, let's call this universe "level n".
N might be zero, or maybe it's a trillion.
Either way, let's say population of all simulations one level under us (level n+1 universes) is half (or less) the population of our own (level n) universe.
That's not that unlikely.
Maybe for every simulation-creating society, there's some other people that created a Dyson sphere with a population of 10^17 people.
You could nest that situation indefinitely, and the majority of people are living in the top-level universe.

Of course it's "indefinitely" not "infinitely", the processing power of a given universe must be a sub-set of the processing power of it's parent universe.
And yes, I can't say for sure that this "half or less" rule actually works out, but AGAIN, that's because we have no actual numbers to plug into the idea.

>>9487386
Show me a single simulation, and/or show me that we're living in a simulation. Right now you're just talking out your ass. This is just a repackaged "brain in a vat" argument. The same old Matrix defense. It's unfalsifiable and therefore discussing it is meaningless.

>>9487445
i didn't say that firstly, and secondly, yes, just because the bible is wrong DOES make it a less viable worldview than others that DON'T contradict (at least yet, im not saying simulation theory is even anywhere near perfect) natural law

>>9487454
Even discussing this is pointless because it is by definition unverifiable. You cannot know the answer because the answer could always be simulated. It really doesn't matter how they dress it up, it's always the same - brain in a vat, boltzmann brain. You can't observe anything or reason about anything if you cannot trust your senses. There is some point where you just have to take it on faith, because logic does not work without axioms.

The only time this becomes relevant is if we can actually discover physical, observable evidence for this being a simulation.

>>9487423
>[citation needed]
At the landauer limit (assuming the background temperature of the universe hasn't dropped much beyond the present day) you could simulate a human mind in real time on 0.2 watts. In the far future, when the universe is even colder, you could do so way more efficiently than that.

>And that sustenance farming in the real world ois somehow more expensive than an unimaginably massive computer system?

In this scenario we're looking at civilisations that have build matryoshka brains or something similar. It would be quite literally tens of millions of times cheaper to emulate humans than to have the same number of physical humans in o'neill cylinders eating food.

>>9487458
>I'm taller than Vern Troyer, so I must be really tall.

There are lots of unsupported "what-ifs" that make more sense than the self contradicting Bible.
That's a pretty low bar, and clearing is is nothing to be proud of.

>>9487461
>emulating humans is cheaper
Yes, but why would a human care? It's not you, it's an emulation. If you "go into a computer" you're fucking dead.

>>9487464
Did I say anything about mind-uploading?

>>9487460
My point is to show the flaws of "muh statistics support muh holographic" argument.
No, I can't prove anything, but I think I can show these arguments are bullshit:
>>9487442
>What are the odds that we are the ones who started it?
>>9486420
>. If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones

>>9487460
>The only time this becomes relevant is if we can actually discover physical, observable evidence for this being a simulation.
Agreed, see: >>9486666 and >>9486684

>>9487461
You're making assumptions about the parent universe even though we have no knowledge of its physics.

>>9487466
But why would you emulate humans? What's the point, exactly? They're not human. They're not you, or your kids, or whatever. So why bother?

>>9487455
Lets say I tell you I have 10'000 tickets, each numbered in sequence from 1 - 10'000, in a hat. And I invite you to take 10 tickets. But the 10 tickets you've picked at random are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10. Wouldn't you find that incredibly strange?

Because that's exactly the same as living in this time in history (assuming technological civilisation isn't self-destructive).

You would guess you'd be living somewhere in the middle of the bell-curve rather than at the extreme edge of the assumed sample.

>>9487473
>But why would you emulate humans? What's the point, exactly?
What's the point of humans?

>They're not you, or your kids, or whatever. So why bother?
You're implying I couldn't splice my mind with my partner(s).

>They're not human.
Right. Because baseline humans, running on organic computers, are human. Whereas emulated humans are not human.

>>9487475
You're pulling stuff out of your ass, not a hat.
We could still be a million years away from solving the hard problem of consciousness, let alone treating it like an engineering problem.
And even if that weren't the case, _somebody_ has to be living near the ends of the bell curve.
Don't forget that the more technologically advanced societies here on Earth have shrinking populations, not growing ones.
We could be more likely to live in humanity's "overpopulation phase" simply because the population of the 21st century is higher than the population of the 31st century.

>>9487475
What's the name of the fallacy where one takes the total probability when they should take the conditional probability given the observer?

>>9487439
Just read a fantasy novel dude.

>>9487481
>what's the point of humans
I am a human and I am naturally interested in self preservation
>mindsplicing
How and why would you accomplish this?
>humans run on biological computers
God, you're one of those retards. You don't "run on" a biological computer, you ARE the biological computer and all of its associated parts.

>>9487475
Yeah, except you're fucking retarded because
>a) I need to be around to observe myself, no matter how unlikely it is
>b) You don't know what the probability of being a simulated human is because you don't know what the number of simulated humans, living humans and total humans is

>>9487491
>I am a human and I am naturally interested in self preservation
Creating simulated people isn't "self preservation", and again, you're making assumptions about the parent universes and its inhabitants based on absolutely no information.

>>9487493
Follow the reply chain back, dumbass. I am disagreeing with the simulation tards

>>9487491
are you your hardware or software? or both?

>>9487488
>We could be more likely to live in humanity's "overpopulation phase" simply because the population of the 21st century is higher than the population of the 31st century.

But we're not talking about the 31st century. Or the 301st century. Or the 3001st century. We're talking about the entirety of the future history of man. Even if only one person was born every century from now until the heat death of the universe that's still 1e+103 humans.

>>9487496
Sorry,
Hard to tell without id's.
I thought you were this guy:
>>9487417
>it's much cheaper to emulate a human mind on a computer than to maintain a physical human.

He kept trying to justify high simulation populations because somebody had a stake in creating many humans, simulated or otherwise.

>>9485989

>What are the chances we're just in a simulation.

We probably arent.

>https://backreaction.blogspot.sk/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html

Laws of physics do not seem to care about computational efficiency at all. That is the opposite of what we would expect if simulation hypothesis was true.

>>9487513
>We're talking about the entirety of the future history of man.
We've a;ready existed for 2 million years, if you start counting us as human when they started banging rocks together.
This is (and will likely remain) the highest populated century of our species existence.

Never mind the obvious flaws in your argument otherwise:
>>9487488
>_somebody_ has to be living near the ends of the bell curve.
>>9487489
>the fallacy where one takes the total probability when they should take the conditional probability given the observer?
>>9487492
>I need to be around to observe myself, no matter how unlikely it is

>>9486420
>If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones

This prior has zero logic behind it. Please read a book about statistics. You're going to hurt yourself.

>>9486504
>>9486521
I've noticed this too. I only come into these threads to observe occasionally, but there seems to be a lot more of them lately. Need to find a new board or something...

>>9487513
>Even if only one person was born every century from now until the heat death of the universe that's still 1e+103 humans.
Just how long do you think our species will last?
There isn't one macroscopic, post-Cambrian-explosion species on Earth that's lasted a billion years (duh).
The sun will be to hot to allow liquid water on Earth in a billion years.
What the fuck makes you think we'll still be here in 10^100 years????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#Time_frame_for_heat_death
>on the order of 10100 years,[12] so entropy can be produced until at least that time

>>9487549
p.s.
Besides, what's your point?
We "must" be living in a simulation because it's just so unlikely we'd be living in any given century????

Connect the dots for me, please.

>>9486037
>actual merit and substance behind it
you do understand that the majority of people that support simulation theory are just hardcore matrix fans, right?

>>9486720
you may notice it's very similar to the word "ignore"

>>9487509
We're wetware. The hardware and the software are intrically linked and inseperable. At least not in any way we can say for sure with our current understanding.

>>9487611
>intrically
*intrinsically

>>9487527
>>I need to be around to observe myself
well, what's wrong with that statement? Provided I ever existed, I need to have observed myself. Probability is meaningless unless you can define the situation properly. Hence why you're fucking retarded.

The entire argument boils down to the fact that you can't use logic to extract information from nothing. You need data to put into it. And you need axioms that you run it on. Otherwise it's all a bunch of junk. We can't reason about something we cannot observe and test.

tell me ONE (1) novel implication that the simulation hypotesis being true would have. Im waiting.

>>9487632
This. Simutards always get their panties in a bunch, but ultimately if it's unfalsifiable, it might as well not be real because it doesn't fucking matter.

>>9487622
>Hence why you're fucking retarded.
I can't make any sense out of what you said,
Try putting down the bong, read this, and come back with a more articulate response:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>>9485989
So... This is the power of... US science educators?
Whoa...

>>9487657
>brainlet confuses heuristic for proof
come back when you can grow a full beard, faggot

>>9487657
Oh, and FYI, ther4e's nothing wrong with the statement "I need to be around to observe myself", I was quoting it to dispute these posts:
>>9487475
>>9487513

>>9487632
The next question would be how the simulation functions/how it is caused.

>>9487661
But you can't prove anything with inferred probabilities. All I know (aka axiomatically assume) is that I exist and the environment I observe is real. It's the most natural assumption since it's what my brain assumes by default. If you want to dispute this, provide evidence that can be tested and proven. Otherwise it's just pointless. All you're really doing with this brain in a wat shit is pushing the unsolvable question a step further back.

>>9487667
>But you can't prove anything with inferred probabilities
I'm not trying to.
My position in this whole thread is that "muh holographic universe" is just as unprovable as "it was all just a dream".
In this case, some Anon was claiming it was unlikely we'd live in this particular point in time.
I'm still lost on why this would be, or why it helps the simulation argument, but it dosn't matter since everybody who ever lived was somebody, and any of them could ask "why was I born now?".
It's like getting a flat tire.
No matter which tire went flat, there was only a 25% chance it would be that tire.
Is every flat tire unlikely?

>>9487667
>. All you're really doing with this brain in a wat shit is pushing the unsolvable question a step further back.
Wait. I think you've confused me with someone else.
Why do you think I'm arguing for the holographic universe? (I'm not, btw)

>>9487679
A lot of blue on blue going on in this thread

>>9487683
Yeah, this board could really use id's.

>>9487662
there is no difference to this field of research and what we call physics

>>9485989
>one world, thousands of simulations with AI.
>The level of consciousness you have is all you can potentially comprehend
>arguing like this is about god.
God can still exist if we are a simulation.

>>9487337
>When you die, you will wake up in a game arcade and remove the virtual helmet from your head. Your friends will laugh at you for getting the lowest score anyone has ever seen.
>>We told you not to pick a NEET faggot, stupid

>>9485989
It's a hologram. The only thing that exists is conciousness.

>>9485989
Fairy tale for brainlets.

>>9486037
I'd say that the simulation hypothesis is just a extrapolation of what we think humans are able to do.
It's cool and all to think about that to get a little bit creeped out, but that's it, we can't really test it or show anything unless our system admin (aka our local god) show proofs of his existence to us.
Until then, all we can do is just treat it as a creepy possibility and not really turn it into a religion, which would only cause more trouble and it's not like you could do anything about it anyway.

Have you guys thought about the possibility of the universe just "being" it? Like not having a beginning or an end, just existing forever and ever with no creator or meaning whatsoever.
It goes against our logic (maybe), but, what if?

>inb4 buttmad replies. I'm just asking some bullshit question to get a lil' spooked.

if its a simulation that must mean there is a definite end to our universe at some point right?

Why is it so rare for an atheist to have an argument about God that has nothing to do with any religion that exists?

>>9489383
Why? And what do you mean by "end"? Like physical end (border) or timeline.

>>9489406
Because usually atheists are just mad against religions, so they use their bullshit as arguments. Little do they know that we're all wrong and doomed to never know shit about reality.

>>9489419
is there infinite data in this simulation?

>>9489406
Atheists are edgy kids who resent their parents making them go to Church.

>>9489424
If it's truly a simulation, then it'd probably have limitations and would probably have "rules" to make you feel like you are not in a limited place and "algorithms" to save processing and storage, like only rendering useful data (to a certain level of detail).
I mean, isn't one of the objectives of this simulation to fool us to think that we're not in a simulation? Then such rules and codes would make a little bit sense, idk.

>>9489406
So some hypothetical God? That's pretty common actually.

>>9489424
>>9489433
By the way, the simulations would have to stop at one point, right (since it all relies on the base reality's computer power)? Now I'm thinking about it as a chain of simulations, so your question makes more sense to me.

If we actually get to the point that we build a computer that can question its own existence, then would it make sense to extrapolate that we could be one of them?

>>9486640
>having this much autism you can’t even laugh at a normie meme

>>9486085

Nah, it's simulations all the way down man.

>>9486581
top kek

>>9485989

>I dont believe in god lmAO SKY FIARIESSS
>we were created by an entity belong our comprehension though

fuck NDT

>>9485989
Ey, this unfalsifiable shit again.
What if we are universe created by humans so advanced they are akin to our gods? If technology keeps on developing who knows what’ll happen.
Or maybe we are dream created by collective consciusness of future advanced humans living in a dyson’s swarn.
Or we are simulation inside of simulation INSIDE of another simulation.
Oh, oh, or maybe you all don’t exist and i am just a brain in jar being stimulated by electrodes.
Just stop this bullshit, please, aren’t we supposed to be skeptical?

So this is the next new age scientific religion fad.

>>9485989
It's annoying as shit. Dumb fucking popsci trend.

>>9486389
Yes,but it just supports the existence of a higher power,not one who is omnipotent,omniscient,omnibenevolent among other many qualities associated with God.
Plus,those traits are self-contradictory

>>9489368
This is the most likely scenario in my opinion, but it's not sexy enough for negro pop-scientists and fedora intellectuals

Simulation theory is religion for the edgy ledditor pop-science types. NDT is their poster-child.

>>9487429
>Time Complexity is the reason we are not living in a simulation
THIS
I can't believe no-one is addressing this.
As with other arguments, there's no guarantees, but...
If bucket-head is right:
>>9487337
>Planck time represents the tick rate of the universe, and Planck length represents the floating point accuracy of location

....and every single electron is being simulated,
then the simulator has to be made of FAR more atoms than what's being simulated.
OK, maybe no exactly atoms, who knows how the physics of the parent universe works, but the simulator would be MUCH more complex than the simulation.
An X-Box has a LOT more components (counting individual transistors, etc) than objects it could ever possibly simulate,
Sure, you could compensate by running the simulation more slowly, but that's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
In one hour of outermost universe time, you'll only simulate so many things per unit time in the simulation.
Most (by a long shot) of the "lifetimes" available in all universes MUST be in the outermost physical universe.
Sure, it doesn't mean w couldn't be in the virtual minority, but you can't say virtual people outnumber physical people in total.

Simulation """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""theory""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" is just religion for pseudo-scientists. Tyson is a fucking planetarium curator, not an actual physicist, his opinion means about as much as Elon Musk's.

>>9489961
This, its funny how those who claim to be secular and technological minded are the ones who fall for the simulation meme the most, if anything its revealed how important SOME kind of religion/spirituality is to humans and even those who consider themselves above it end up ironically with a belief system very similar to religion - one which cannot be dis-proven, which claims itself to be true above all the others (why? because SCIENCE BITCHES) except its not scientific in the least.

>>9486037
>simulation theory has actual merit and substance behind it

>>9489406
There's no such god.

>>9489765
Honestly the whole thing is retarded when you think about it, when you think about the true scale of the universe (let alone multiverses if multiverse theory is true too) any argument for the simulation hypothesis falls apart and the attempt to dismiss them with claims of hyper-advanced technology beyond our wildest imaginings is a poor attempt to salvage it from total ridicule, as far as we know theres an upper limit to technology and the simulation hypothesis is made with the assumption that limit is somehow surpassed, if you bring up the retarded scale and complexity of the technology involved then a believer would respond with the premise that it's technology that scales with the complexity and scale of the endeavour and so there are no problems, its a half-assed attempt at a rebuttal that covers up the inherent logical flaws with the hypothesis.

Back to the scale of things though- it would need to simulate not only waking life but dreams as well which means take the total amount of atoms in the universe (and possibly other universes/multiverses if they exist) and add onto that the total amount of atoms simulated during dreaming, or imagining because the person arguing for the hypothesis would claim those are simulations too, and thats not just for some 7 billion odd humans but several billion animals as well (dogs are known to dream for example) and then you end up with something truly retarded, that should convince anyone how infeasible it would be and how ridiculous it would be, any attempt again to dismiss this argument by claiming the technology is just that advanced is not sufficient enough in my mind to adress the concerns - at that point you join the ranks of the religious arguing for things and entities beyond the scope and scale of our understanding and abilities and using that to dismiss the logical and practical concerns of your claimed belief system.

It's even worse than psuedoscience.

>>9489424
How much normal data is held by quantum bits?

There's nothing in simulation theory which moves us forward from where Schopenhauer's corrected and clarified Kantianism left us 200 years ago.

>>9485989
>"We're not going to get conclusive proof that we're not in a simulation, because any proof would be simulated."

This is mind-boringly stupid. It's impossible to prove anything PERIOD!!
Science can only disprove things, and as Sherlock Holmes once said "whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Let me state that again.

Science NEVER has and NEVER will "prove" anything.

>>9485989

I made the universe, and since I made it, I'm not going to give you proof that I did it.

New rule: a hypothesis is only significant/worthy of pursuit if it is disprovable. Otherwise, it is either a tautology (worthless) or unprovable via contradiction.

>>9485989
>We're not going to get conclusive proof that we're not in a simulation, because any proof would be simulated.
where's the lie

>>9486602
>not a pedal stool
ya blew it

>>9495986
That puts simulation argument in the same spot as religion, or any other made up belief system. They use technology and science to cover up the fact it is neither scientific nor realistically technological.

>>9495459
>There remains a logical possibility that what happens to exist just happens to coincide with what we happen to be able to engage with; but this possibility must be close to zero.
[citation needed]
Also I love the loaded terminology of "just happens" to sneakily imply that what exists and what we can engage with are only related by chance.

>>9487427
>fact
>eventuality

Are you retarded?

>>9496303
>he loaded terminology of "just happens"
Worse, its "just happens to coincide with", as if to really rub it in and not just imply it. It doesn't even coincide straight up, it only happens to coincide.

>>9485992
It's just begging the question and moving the goal post. Just like those who says that life started when life was introduced with an asteroid. It has not answered much

>>9485989
>Atheists are now creating their own religions

>>9485989

>How would that change things?
It wouldn't.

Why would you even ponder this? No matter what you do with thought experiments like this, you'll eventually hit existential bedrock wherein there exists a universe so purposeless that some intelligent being got bored enough to simulate an entire universe of its own.

Being the plaything of a bored God's plaything of a bored God's plaything is equally purposeless as the existence of the bored God to begin with, so what's the fucking point?

Do one better than a hypothetical bored God and entertain yourself with the universe around you. There's plenty of shit to do here.

If our universe is simulated, it's probably simulated in a much more complex universe with extra spatial dimensions and physics that we would have no intuitive understanding of. It's probably some 4 dimensional entity's iteration of some alien version of something like Conway's Game of Life where all our physics are programmed from scratch. Just enjoy the ride because it will only last as long as it takes for our universe to be nothing but cold, scattered light.

ITT: "Only science and mathematics can arrive at truth!".

Prove that statement scientifically or/and mathematically.

>>9497376
No fucking kidding -
>>9497541

>>9497541
Not math, only science. So we conduct an experiment.
First we find some fact we believe to be true. Then we attempt to "prove" it using science, math, philosophy, religion etc.
In science we can't prove anything we can only disprove things so we have to disprove all competing hypotheses and account for all (or most) of the available data using our original hypothesis.
I think you'll find that science is the only thing that can verify a true statement (about the real world at least).

>>9485989
Am I going fucking insane or is this just Descartes? Are scientists so uncultured that they've never even heard of this age old argument?

Doesn't the existence of irrational numbers such as e and pi in equations describing physical phenomena disprove the idea of us being in a simulation?
A finite hard drive cannot store an infinite amount of digits (unless the hard drive has an unlimited storage, which would require unlimited resources).

>>9485989
Solipsism 2.0

>>9497613
>Not math, only science. So we conduct an experiment.
>First we find some fact we believe to be true. Then we attempt to "prove" it using science, math, philosophy, religion etc.
>In science we can't prove anything we can only disprove things so we have to disprove all competing hypotheses and account for all (or most) of the available data using our original hypothesis.
>I think you'll find that science is the only thing that can verify a true statement (about the real world at least).
I'll wait for you to prove the statement "only science can arrive at truth" using the scientific method. Good luck.

>>9497706
But you can represent pi as a recursive function in code

>>9497724
I'm not gonna actually do it I just proposed a scientific experiment that could be done to prove your hypothesis.

>>9486347
Why would that be wishful thinking? Sounds like it would be pretty terrible. The guy he's simulating us could decide to torture us anytime he wants.

>>9497726
It can approximate pi, but as I stated before, to truly represent pi using a recursive function (such as the infinite sum of 4*(1-1/3+1/5-...)) you would require an unlimited amount of storage in a hard drive.

Now the problem arises with whether it is possible to conclude that a universe cannot have unlimited resources to make an unlimited hard drive...

>>9497731
And your proposal fails to do so.
What are you going to claim next, that you can prove moral statements with science?

>>9497745
So you tried it?

>>9497613
The absolute state of fedoras in 2018

>>9497745
>you can prove moral statements with science?
To be fair the discussion of morality and ethics is best served by using formal logic. While it may not be S C I E N C E!, it's not entirely unscientific either.
Also if you could assign an objective moral value on things, you could absolute make a science of ethics if your goal is to maximize karmic gbp's for the most people.

>>9497757
>if you could

>>9497740
You're not helping.
We can approximate pi.
Even MS paint can draw a rough circle.
We know we can't create a "perfect" circle (or a "perfect" anything) in real life.
Get your shit together, or go back to lurking.

>>9487427
sure lad, sure

>>9497676
It is indeed Descartes, just in modern times reflecting modern thinking (computers and technology) otherwise it is no different. It is not any more scientific or plausible just because they replace one god for another

>>9485989
There are certain differences to God:

- God is usually attributed immortality and omnipotence, the creators of a simulation wouldn't necessarily be either
- God knows everything including the meaning of life, the creators of a simulation might not know it

If Creator = God, then your Mom and Dad are basically you Gods, too, since they created you.

That being said, Hologram-theory is not the same as simulation-theory. The latter one says that if it is possible to create such a complex simulation as our universe, that most likely we are in such a simulation, since there would be many more simulated universes, than real ones. This is not really a physical theory. The first one though is, and it is a theory that is supposed to describe black holes, but it can also be used to describe the whole universe. Basically, all information of our 4D universe is "coded" on the 2D edge of the universe, and our universe is a hologram of that information. Unlike simulation theory, this does not make our universe un-real, or proclaims that there is actually another universe, that is the real one. It just says that the information of this universe is coded into its edge.

>>9486037
>actual merit and substance behind it, while god is just a dumb person's wishful thinking
imagine waking up and deciding to act this retarded today

Technology will improve so much that eventually you'll end up with such sophisticated technology that could make the characters in simulation believe they are real. There's no way to dispute this. Either we're gonna get there, or we're all going to die before then.

>>9498365
Nah, just because Moore's law is still holding it doesn't mean it will be true forever. But even if one day we had the necessary processing power, that does not mean that we would know how to code a consciousness. We don't know how that works and might never understand it.

>>9498375
>just because Moore's law is still holding it doesn't mean it will be true forever.
Moore's law was never really "holding".
Moore's original prediction was "chip density doubles every 12 months", but that never happened.
He revised his (self-fulfilling) prophecy as "doubles every 18 months", where it stood for much of the 80's and 90's.
Today Wikipedia insists it's "approximately every two years".

>>9486420
>substantial statistical probability behind it. If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones,
etc
etc
>>9498338
>most likely we are in such a simulation, since there would be many more simulated universes, than real ones.

This doens't make the slightest sense.
It doesn't matter how many universes there are, physical vs virtual.
What matters is whether you're more likely to be born into one kind or the other, based on the relative populations of each.

Lets's not forget, no matter how strange any given universe might be, 2 plus 2 will always equal 4.
Similarly, the precepts of math in general, and CS in particular will still hold true.
Any computing device in a simulated universe has actual computing power, and that computing power must be a subset of the computing power of the parent simulator.
You can't just magically add more computing power just because "it's a new universe".
That means that whoever built the outermost simulator(s) had to decide how powerful to make them, and they decided how much of their univeres's complexity (potential computing power) to dedicate to simulation, and how much to leave themselves to live in.
If they chose to limit the computing hardware enough, they may have left more potential reality outside the box than inside.
That would mean more people live in the outermost physical universe than within the simulation.

And yes, they could run twice as many virtual people at half speed, but there's still only so many people-hours the outermost simulator can run per hour of real-time.

There's NO reason to believe virtual people outnumber physical people.

>>9498524
Its been drastically slowing down at least in the consumer chip market, R&D for chips at 12nm and lower is just getting more and more difficult and expensive and we are soon approaching the end of what silicon can provide.

>>9498375
Indeed, the hard problems of consciousness and qualia may one day be understood better, perhaps even localized in the brain but that does not guarantee we or anyone else could reproduce it, it's actually consciousness right now that serves as the biggest counter to the simulation theory, though thats getting into metaphysics and spirituality even, not too different from where simulation theory proponents are at anyways though - they certainly are not at the realms of science and secularism as they'd like to believe.

Another counter for the simulation theory is the possibility that we are actually the first, in the entire universe the very first living, conscious and intelligent organisms to have arisen, and life is not as common as we'd like to hope it is in the universe, and not only that but as Moore's law suggests, that there may be hard limits to our technology and resources and that goes for any other intelligent civilization that arises in the universe before or after us, our imaginations are always ahead of what can actually be possible.

>>9486060
Not nessasarilly

>>9486611
First comment ITT that actually made me lol

>>9498572
Well, processing power is not that much of an issue. You, as a simulated part of the universe, would not notice if the universe "lags", e.g. stops every now and then to render. Every second the universe might stop for five seconds, to render the next second. You wouldn't notice it.

So if countless simulated universes can be created, then it is more than likely that they do indeed outnumber the real ones by a big factor.

>>9485989
>simulation theory
but anywhere along the chain of simulations, it would require less resources to simulate the experiences of a single brain rather then a world of brains. Therefore, everything I perceive is a simulation, and the world to my back doesn't exist. Everyone else is a scripted AI. It would also be easier to fabricate my memories than simulate my entire lifetime, so at every given moment, I must logically assume I came into existence right then. But wait! I only know simulation could be possible because of memories and experiences I've had, therefore, my entire assumption of simulation chains are brought into question...

>>9499680
>Well, processing power is not that much of an issue.
Yes, it is a huge issue.
>would not notice if the universe "lags"
Of course not.
And yet:
>>9498572
>but there's still only so many people-hours the outermost simulator can run per hour of real-time.
There's only so many people the outer simulator can simulate.
There's only so much "room" inside the box.
If there's more universe outside the box than in, the majority of people are outside the box.
Did you even read the entire post?

>>9499778
>There's only so many people the outer simulator can simulate.
p.s.: I oversimplified here
As before, sure you can run twice as many people at half speed, or half as many people at double speed.
And we don't really know how long people live in the physical universe, and we don't know the population density of any universe.
The point is, there's only so much reality you can simulate per unit of time in the outermost universe.
What does it matter if there are a million times as many virtual people as physical people if the virtual people are running a billion times slower?
In that scenario, there's a thousand times more "life-minutes" per minute outside the box than inside it.

The nature of the world outside of the simulation might be entirely different to this one so arguing about it hardly seems worthwhile.

>>9485989
If you can prove multiverse is real followed by proving the shape of the multiverse is indead mathematical and logical then we live in a simulation.
If however the multiverse is proven and has no logic to its shape then we it is false unless the owner is running on a chaotic number generator.

If we are but a single universe and a concise beginning and end can be found then one of two possibilities arises.

1.We are in a closed loop simulation. The only way out is finding a glitch which may ultimately result in death.

2. We are free and FIRST.

I don't think I've ever heard a good explanation for *why* an advanced civilization would create such a simulation, apparently with the explicit intent of decieving the minds that exist in it so they never realize they're being simulated.
I can understand uploading minds to software for space saving, but what's the point of having the whole thing be self contained and by all appearances real to those within it? Entertainment? Some kind of science experiment?

>>9499942
Perhaps a post-biological civilisation wants to create new people and they've found that being born and raised in this era produces the most well-rounded minds.

>Whatever, we're probably living in a hologram anyway"
What kind of scientist talks like this? He sounds like a self-righteous 15 year old.

>everyone's favorite astrphysicist
What?!

>>9486347
>>9486764
>>9490248
These are the biggest brainlets.

>>9485989
This is a lie, because logical consistency cannot be simulated.

>>9499942
>*why* an advanced civilization would create such a simulation, apparently with the explicit intent of decieving the minds that exist in it so they never realize they're being simulated.
There's no reason to believe we're the reason for the simulation.
We could be an unintended side-effect.

>>9486556
there is literally no practical difference and whoever created the simulation would in effect be a god
you're just an edgy teenager

>>9485989

Dude... Every person has the dream dilemma ... how do I KNOW I am not dreaming NOW?
As we get wiser we learn it makes no difference.

>>9498264

Did you read my first message? I'm not talking about getting pi exactly or drawing a perfect circle to disprove simulation theory, I simply mentioned that irrational numbers such as pi appear in actual physical equations such as the force between two charged particles.

Even if we can't approximate pi, the pi in the equation is the true pi. For example, let's say the charges on both particles are 1C, and the distance is 1/4 metres... That means the force of attraction between these particles is 1/(e0*pi), which no finite hard drive can calculate and simulate a force that exact.

>>9500006
Or we learn about lucid dreaming and maybe even experience it and the dream control and awareness and spawning things out of nowhere and changing our dream setting all by thinking about it, and recognize since we can't do that in real life then real life is not a dream.

Also I believe lucid dreaming and dreams in general are good counters to simulation argument, because you would essentially have to simulate everything twice, for every single dreaming organism on Earth simulatenously (real world and dream world) its not possible, and the rules of the physical world don't apply in dreams where quite literally anything is possible with a lucid dream you are in full awareness and control of you can create and experience anything, and give it its own physical rules and logical consistency or inconsistency - and its different from standard imagination and daydreaming too because it can feel as real as real life, and yet you can have total control over it with enough mastery and practice.

The more I think about it the more I realize dream/lucid dreams and perhaps even imagination and mental imagery itself disproves simulation theory or at least serves as a good argument against it, because according to the theory that would all have to simulated and have a physical origin of some sort, if you think about it in terms of conserving energy and resources it would be absurd for dreams to even be a thing if they need their own resources and processing power too it would make logical sense to just not include them ever, but yet we all dream, and we can even take control of our dreams with enough practice and some people are able to do it naturally, others have to learn, some dream but don't remember them, others dream vivid dreams and remember them fully as soon as they awaken. There is no logical consistency to it, there is no reason for them either, it makes more sense for it to be a byproduct of evolution and biology and the way our brains work.

>>9500017
Why would "they" need to simulate that force exactly when our equipment isn't capable of measuring it exactly? They just need to approximate pi to a greater precision than our equipment can measure it.
I think this "theory" is horseshit for other reasons but I don't think the objection you're raising is as effective as you think it is.

>>9485989
This is more of a philosophical question.
the fun thing about it is if its true it seems likely that the universe would be a simulation made to try and see if you can simulate a universe by some intelligence wondering if it is in a simulation.

If simulation is true then its probably recursive simulations all the way down

>>9500047

Lucid Dreaming...
Next time try jumping from a very tall building in your dream... it is a VERY bad idea.
You either wake up, lie there in pain, or have nothing happen.
If you think the nothing happen option is best you are total idiot, because next time you are unsure of reality (drunk, stoned, extremely tired, just high on life) you might jump off an actual tall building.
I can not know if the reality I am in is the "real" one, but I CAN be true to myself and my beliefs in ANY reality.

>>9500072
What happens is what you expect to happen - thats how lucid dreaming works its based on expectations, but again with enough practice and mastery you can probably have something different happen each time you fall off that building because you expect something different to happen each time.

>unsure of reality
If I ever felt that way despite not being a druggie nor ever drinking alcohol I wouldn't be anywhere near the roof of tall buildings would I, and I could just do reality checks if I even wanted to check like the ones people do to train themselves to do in their dreams to get lucid (pinch nose and try to breath through it, try to put finger through palm, etc). Seriously what the fuck are you even trying to say, are you by chance stoned and high right now or something, why the fuck would the first thought that comes to your mind when unsure of reality is to jump off a tall building?

>>9500082
>I could just do reality checks

There are NO reality checks that are foolproof... you can DREAM the correct result.

You CANNOT KNOW that the reality you are experiencing is the TRUE reality.

There is no FIX REFERENCE FRAME of reality.

>>9500091
>You CANNOT KNOW that the reality you are experiencing is the TRUE reality.

Kany already domonstrated that to be the case and why we shouldn't get too hung up on it. Go read the wiki page for transcendental idealism and stop worrying about it.

>>9500097
>Go read the wiki page for transcendental idealism and stop worrying about it

No need, any person who sits and reflects on reality, realizes that it makes NO DIFFERENCE what reality I am in, only that I am myself.

We choose to be who we are.

>>9485989
>not a simulation
>proof of something being simulated

>>9485989
The universe being mind-blowingly huge, with most of it being just void space, and most of the matter that is there is completely sterile of life, makes it not exactly plausible that we are simulated. A simulator would probably have chosen a a little bit more efficient way to simulate us.

>>9500048

That argument won against the rest of my Physics class, now I gotta rethink the problem...

>>9500135

Maybe our simulators were testing a universe with mostly empty space to see how it would evolve...
I'm sure many of us are curious of what would happen if the universe was mostly filled and atoms were 1% empty space. The same curiousity could be going through their minds

>>9500017
>Even if we can't approximate pi, the pi in the equation is the true pi.
When I said
>>9498264
>we can't create a "perfect" circle (or a "perfect" anything) in real life.
I was implying this:
>>9500048
>They just need to approximate pi to a greater precision than our equipment can measure it.

But let's not forget the problem with representing irrationals in traditional Turring-style computers is their digital nature.
An analog computer would not have that issue.
Consider Quantum computers. Just being able to build them in this universe means either:
a) the simulation is faking their results
b) the simulation isn't running on a conventional computer
-or-
c) we're not in a simulation

see also:
>>9487522
>https://backreaction.blogspot.sk/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html

>>9485989
That is asking for a devil's proof. Neither can it be proved or disproved.
The same goes for creationism. Neither can we prove the existence of god or disprove it.
One can extrapolate the conclusion that it is impossible to know whether we live in a sumlation, a world created by god, or whatever else (multiverse also cannot be proven or disproven) from Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
That is, we either live in an open system with no solution as to what is the basis of the system, or we can believe that we live in a self-sustained, closed-loop-type system (which may be a CTC).
By system i mean world or universe.

>>9500048
>>9500017
Actually, quantum physics kind of makes it plausible that indeed the universe is "running" on something. Infinite apporximations don't exist in nature. At the quantum level things aren't absoluetely exact. Now the question is why aren't they? Finite hardware that the universe is running on could be an explanation.

>>9489961
>>9490115
>not an actual physicist
>its funny how those who claim to be secular and technological minded are the ones who fall for
appeal to authority

Also being angry at people because they're asking fundamental questions.

Couple of my silly thoughts around this subject:

In the beggining time flew quicker as there was less stuff to calculate.

Let's assume we can not test directly if we are living inside an artificial world, but someone might be watching. Should we make a giant fire to get "their" attention? How would we go about it? Would we need to be on the level of destroying entire galaxies? Or pray to the right god?

You can throw a kid into a basement and remove all contact to the outside world. When it grows up it will consider the basement as the entirety of existence.
So you don't really need the ability to simulate in order to have worlds within worlds. Our world can be just a prison, a livestock pen, an enclousure inside something bigger without us knowing. No simulation hypothesis needed.

--

I'm not a believer, but I'm also not dismissing this hyphothesis. It is at least a nice thought experiment. Ideas don't need to be falsifiable or even true, to be useful: Russell's teapot, multiverse, string theory.

We know simulation theory is not true because it would mean that energy can be quantisized, meaning that all noise would sound autotuned. Since that is not the case, we know we are not living in a simulation.

>>9486386
I googled ‘A Theory’ thinking it was some hip new theory motherfucker

>>9500091
If you really believe that then you are an idiot, and like I said before, the distinction between reality and dreams is very clear, especially in lucid dreaming where you have control over reality like you cannot ever have in the waking world, because its internal, not real like reality.

>>9500217
Can you explain a bit more in depth if you're not memeing?

>>9486338
quick rundown?

>>9485989
if we are in a simulation, then this is basically the cruelest human experiment ever done, why would future humanity have no ethics?

>>9500161
>At the quantum level things aren't absoluetely exact.
They are. Quantization doesn't deny it. Even worse every minuscule quantum interaction is continuous and infinitely complex to calculate. Quantum computer illustrates it: it only deals with natural numbers, yet this puny discreet arithmetic can't be simulated.

>>9500195
>Ideas don't need to be falsifiable or even true, to be useful: Russell's teapot, multiverse, string theory.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Roko's+Basilisk

>>9500338
>why would future humanity have no ethics?
Why would the population of the next level up be human?

It pretty damn is a simulation. Maybe not in the sense of a computer simulation, but obviously this is not base reality. The true question is was the simulation made for us, or are we just some, possibly even undetected, side-effect?

>>9486715
the only post that makes sense itt

>>9500359
call them whatever you want, doesn’t change my point

>>9500410
>call them whatever you want, doesn’t change my point
So....?
>>9500338
>why would future humanity have no ethics?
>future humanity
If they're not humans, then by definition, they aren't humane, nor do they make up humanity.
I wouldn't make any assumptions about the nature of beings that reside in a different universe.

And this?
>cruelest human experiment ever done,
Why is it cruel? Aren't you having a good time?
Better than non-existence maybe?

https://youtu.be/szzVlQ653as

>>9500376
Its not base reality, well it is, on the lowest level of the physical planes of the astral realms, of which there are many higher realms and planes, dreams are another level of reality higher and more removed from base physical reality and the astral realms are at a higher level (of vibration) still.

Now see how stupid you sound when you claim the same thing but replace spirituality with technology. Neither argument holds much water, the simulation argument hides behind technology and future advances in technology to justify itself but thats no different from the astral argument justifying itself with spirituality and "vibration focus levels", there is nor ever will be conclusive evidence for either, yet the simulation argument is apparently somehow different, somehow more plausible? Bullshit.

>>9500340
So quantum mechanics/physics as we know them disprove simulation theory? I've read people claiming the opposite but well you have to watch out for all kinds of quantum quackery out there, especially the kind that disguises itself as science, so in regards to the simulation theory its no different.

>>9500195
Speaking of string theory and multiverses (M-theory) - if - true would serve as a good argument againt the simulation hypothesis, because imagine the processing power needed to simulate one whole universe and then apply it to a near infinite multitude of universes existing and operating at the same time in the same realm - and then add parallel universes (if true) and parallel universes of those, and our universe and quickly things begin to balloon out of control, no technological construct can ever contain and process that much information from the micro to the macro level it would probably break the laws of physics, and to our knowledge it is impossible. The only argument against that is some future hyper advanced level of technology but thats not a convincing argument and has as much weight behind it as Russels teapot for as far as we know there are limits to how advanced, complex and sophisticated technology can get before reaching its absolute limit.

>>9500670
>Quantum stuff both proves and disproves a thing.
Somehow, I always knew this would happen.

>>9500698
Quantum quackery, it applies to all.

>>9485989
How about this:
If this is a simulation, what made the simulator?
If the simulator is, itself, another simulation, then what made it's simulator? (Repeat n times.)
What actual differences would this theoretical highest level, non-simulated existence have with our own? How did this "highest level" come to being, and why could it not apply to our own existence?

>>9487453
What about gravity and evolution :^)

>>9485989
Highly unlikely in my opinion as no computer will ever be powerful enough.

And as for question 2 literally nothing

>>9500736
Durr its just technology beyond your understanding
>actual simultard rebuttal

>>9500784
It's literally just "God works in mysterious ways hurrr" fed through a popsci transhumanist brainlet filter.
It's hilarious hearing these retards claim this is any different from religion/mysticism.

>>9500736
>no computer will ever be powerful enough.
If this were a simulation, it might not simulate celestial objects in any great detail.
It could just be Earth, and the stars are effectively just "painted on" to the inside of a virtual ceiling.
But even if every electron in every star in every galaxy in the observable universe (or more) is being simulated in full detail, we don't know the scope of the parent universe, or how much material they have at their disposable to create the simulator.

>>9500950
Or maybe their universe just has levels much smaller than quantum levels. Their universe could look and feel the same, except for the fact that what are the elementary particles is not the smalles objects in theirs. They could have millions more layers, and thus produce theoretically enough computing power for millions of universes as complex as ours.

>>9500977
*elementary particles in our universe

>>9500658
The simulation theory is based on the fact that we can create simulations ourselves. If one day we were capable of simulating a universe as complex as ours, then it would be stupid to assume that ours is definetely the real one.

Even if we were in a simulation, would it matter to know that we are in a simulation?

>hint : no

>>9500804
It's even better when they got offended and say its totally different because its based on science and technology and yet theres not a damn thing scientific about it, exposing the hipocrisy of the delusional simultard feels really great, they lash out like a person defending their religion they have no concise and coherent scientific facts to back them up after all.

>>9500998
It would imply things. Like, there is a creator, death is probably not the end, there is definetely a purpose to our existence, even if it was only to kill boredom of the creator(s).

>>9500985
I won't ever believe we or anyone else are capable of that until we prove we can create artificial consciousness, and solve the hard problems of consciousness, that is the biggest reality check to simulation theory proponents, that as far as we know there is no way to simulate consciousness.

>>9501003
Religion, essentially. Religion for nerds who have outgrown God but are unable to outgrow their biology and the seemingly ingrained need for a belief in a higher power and afterlife of some sort a belief apparently that resides within all humans whether they realize it or not.

Pic related.

>>9501003
Still, would life change in some way ? Would we end climate change easily ? Would we travel between stars quicker ? Would we achieve world peace ?

My point is : even if we're in a simulation or if god exists, the implications are merely conceptual, and won't change the ways we can appreciate and make the most out of our life.

God, no god, simulation, no simulation, you have only one life. Do what you can do while you can.

>>9501028
Well, why is climate change even a thing? Why does it exist? Why does the nature work in a way, that too many CO2-emmission can greatly destroy it? And why is it that burning fossil fuels produces exactly that, and not same gas that is harmless to the climate? And why is it that a catastrophic climate change can only be prevented if humans start to learn cooperate in meaningful ways on a global scale, across religious, racial, cultural and geographical borders?

This whole thing stinks so much like a simulation, it's not even funny.

>>9501054
Actually not at all. It just follows dialectic logic.

Why do friendships never end on good terms?
Why are lost keys always in the last place looked?
Why do nations always go to war?

None of it wreaks of simulation, but you are definitely just high.

>>9496760
Stephen Baxter’s hard sci-fi handles that as the original abiogenesis taking place and that life developing and seeding the universe with life iirc

Anyway simulation theory is best. It pointless to think about, as we being a simulation changes nothing.
>but afterlife!
A sim ceases to exist when you turn it off, it doesn’t become an immortal human in our eyes plane

>>9501085
>tfw Musk is irl Malenfant
Genetically engineered cuttlefish-in-space space industry when?

bump

>>9500693
Multiverse is not M-theory.
Furthermore you're applying your knowledge and your technology to whatever could be outside.
>Wow, if there is more than one universe it's to big to contain...
Maybe two galaxies are already to much? It's all just your assumptions of the unknown. And the upper universe, if it existed, it did not need to follow our worlds laws of physics.

>>9501002
>>9500804
>>9500784
>exposing the hipocrisy of the delusional simultard feels really great
>It's hilarious hearing these retards
Why acting elitist and so emotional about it? Don't be a child.

>>9501028
>would life change in some way
If you knew how to talk to gawd - yes.
If you knew death is not the end - yes.
If you knew you're just a puppet in a show - yes.

>>9496760
Panspermia would mean, that we shouldn't look for the origins of life on Earth and should start to look elsewhere.
Simulation hypothesis would mean we are even more insignificant than we thought. Like before galaxies and before other suns and before Earth rotated our sun.
It does not matter if it brings us closer to the origins of all, it would be just something we would have to deal with if it was ever revealed to be true.

>>9501480
M-theory is a type of multiverse theory (membrane theory) that describes each universe as a membrane with other universes closely crowded around each membrane universe.

I'm applying knowledge that is consistent with what we know, not based off speculation and wishful fanciful thinking like simulation theory proponents. Not claiming that multiverse and M-theory isn't wishful thinking either don't get me wrong but it has a higher probability of being proven true than even sim theory.

>>9501778
M-theory is about dimensions inside our world, not about different worlds outside ours.

>I'm applying knowledge
You're doing it wrong. It is you, who is speculating how simulation computing should work beyond this universe. You are trying to apply rules of this world to hypothetical different one. I'm not even saying simulation hypothesis is right, I'm saying you don't know how to play this game.

>multiverse [...] has a higher probability of being proven true than even sim theory
Worlds in a row are more probable than worlds in a chain? Why?

>>9501076
That seemingly every action has self-destructive consequences is not just dialectic logic.

New thought on the "we can run twice as many people (or atoms) at half speed" argument.

That trick will help with the CPU load, even if it doesn't create more virtual-people-hours per realtime hour.
But the alien creators would still need to upgrade the RAM to do this.
Checkmate, nouveau-creationists.

>>9502346
It is kinda obvious every world level below needs to be smaller / simpler than it's parent. Nothing special about that.

>>9502747
...and yet "more/bigger simulations than physical world" is the most commonly cited argument for "muh holographic universe"