Simulation hypothesis of the gaps

[Anonymous No.11984751]

Some people have theorized that we might be living in a computer simulation left to run. There is nothing truly physical about our universe. Well, there's a problem. Let's say someone from the real physical universe wants to create a simulation. They would need to use physical material from their universe to run the computations. The material would have to configured in such a way as to have variations that represent data whether its gears in a mechanical computer or a on-off switch representing 0's and 1's in an electronic computer. Since the computer would have to be made from material from the real universe, the simulation can not have the same level of variability/complexity as the real universe that it occupies. If anything, it would be a simplified dumb down version of it. This is more of an issue if there are sapient programs in the simulated universe the programmer is trying to fool. The way around this is to give the illusion of a whole, complex universe.
An example is the night sky in a video game. The white dots in the black background are just that-white dots against a black background. The programmers did not program the video game to simulate convection currents of the plasma, which composes a star, as it interacts with gravity, magnetic fields, and fusion reactions. So each time someone looks through a telescope and sees something that is not visible to the naked eye, they offer evidence that we are not living in a simulation.
Okay, so the programmer is hiding the cheats deeper in the software. That he has a telescope.foolsims subroutine that gives a false image in every telescope. But then he would need another .foolsims program for microscopes and another one for Geiger counters and another one for X-ray machines and another one for space probe instruments and...you get the point.

(continue on next post)

[Anonymous No.11984753]

Once upon a time, natural phenomenon such as lightning, rain, storms, earthquakes, disease, etc were the venue of the gods. Then humans took a deeper look and found no man behind the curtain operating nature. Lightning is a discharge of static electricity when an excessive electric charge builds up in the clouds. Rain is just water vapor condensing into water and falling back to Earth. Storms are produced by the differiential heating of the Sun creating low pressure cells high pressure regions. Earthquakes are the products of plate tectonics. Disease is caused by microscopic parasites. Now the gods or god has been relegated to setting up the physical laws of the universe at the very beginning and letting everything run on autopilot. While this is fine for a deist, this is a far cry from the interventionist gods of myth and sacred text.
Just as human exploration of the cosmos has showed there was no god in a chariot pulling the sun or pixies making flowers bloom and has shrunk the hiding places where the gods might dwell, so too does that same exploration shrink the places where the divine programmer of the hypothetical simulated universe could hide his programming shortcuts.
Pic is of the Hubble Deep Field Image - an extremely long exposure of an otherwise empty spot in the night sky where nothing should be and where we would find signs the universe we exist in is a lie.

[Anonymous No.11984945]

>>11984751
>>11984753
The problem is that you're thinking only within the bounds of our simulated universe. You don't know what the 'real' world is like.

[Anonymous No.11985164]

>>11984753
The simulation hypothesis is like a modernized version of the demiurge. The idea that some being created us, but he himself was bound to some physical laws. It's an interesting thought experiment but I never found the idea too convincing. If we were created by a demiurge/simulator, who created him? It opens up more questions than it answers. Occam's Razor says we should look for the simplest, most elegant explanation.

The universe has an undeniably mathematical quality. You look at how all these mathematical concepts show up repeatedly in nature - Fibonacci sequences, the golden ratio, fractals, etc. All physical laws can be described mathematically. And these patterns show up at every scale. Consider the way the hydrogen filaments that join galaxies together resemble neurons, or how both honeycomb cells and Saturn's poles have hexagonal shapes.

I believe Plato had it right, that the physical universe we experience through our senses is a shadow of some underlying reality, but I don't believe that underlying reality is physical in nature like our own world. I see it more as a world of pure primordial logic and truth.

Here's a fun thought experiment. When you look at this M.C. Escher drawing, where does the picture exist exactly? Does it exist in some server as a series of 0s and 1s describing the RGB value of each pixel? Or is the picture the photons of light coming off your screen? Or is the picture the qualia, the colors and patterns that your mind sees?

[Anonymous No.11985306]

>>11984945

[Anonymous No.11985634]

>>11984945
>"God works in mysterious ways"

That's what you are doing. Admit defeat or admit this simulation bullshit is not science, it's pseudo-religion, more indicative of some innate, deep need man harbors to believe in a higher being or power than of any true bearing on our purpose and reason for being in this universe.

[Anonymous No.11985707]

>>11984753
Right, I think its been mentioned here in some form or elsewhere, perhaps the double slit experiment is an indicator of simulation theory, "saving space" in computing and performance of the universe, based on actual consciousness observation (there is nothing to compute, no need to compute something if no-one is around to observe it)
>>11984945
Just because a simulation is created doesnt mean it doesnt reflect some part of "true reality" or the "true universe". In fact, it would inevitably have to contain some sort of guidance or influence in "game creation" of the simulation to begin with because the creator is from the real universe and has no other influences other than the ones found in the "real universe" or "true reality"

[Anonymous No.11985715]

>>11985707
>>11985634
>t. men in chains inside a cave watching the shadows

[Anonymous No.11985741]

>>11984945
>>11985715

1. If it's a simulation you will never leave it, you are the simulation.
2. Our reality is too complex to be a simulation.
3. Where does the universe of this computer running the simulation come from?
4. You would need infinite energy, infinite computing power and infinite materials to infinitely upgrade this computer.
5. No need to simulate an entire universe or an entire lifetime of a human being.

[Anonymous No.11985755]

I think it's just a giant number akin to a Wolfram style rule being run over and over again
not necessarily caused by anything sentient

[Anonymous No.11985758]

>>11985741
Again, you basis is the current reality, with the current laws and current constraints.
Like a man that has only saw shadows dancing in a wall, that is his entire world, and he can't extrapolate that knowledge to the cave's exterior. The sun could be a red giant, fungi could've never existed, without a moon there'd be no tides. To see a sword-like shadow is not to see how or why a sword was maden for.

[Anonymous No.11985760]

>>11985715
>t. man too afraid to admit to himself he is filling the spiritual void inside himself with the simulation theory belief system

A belief which is seen as acceptable because its fully materialistic, "scientific" even, but of course every challenge directed towards that materialistic belief and its limitations and inconsistencies is handwaved away with another regress into mystery and magical technology or circumstances we cannot conceive of nor indeed find evidence for within the simulation itself

[Anonymous No.11985777]

>>11984751

I’ve heard from several people each with their own bads in life. And of different race and backgrounds. That they don’t like certain countries or their laws because they put you in a simulation systems that’s against everything the US is for. So they don’t really travel abroad. Their warnings were the only validity such system exists. Apparently they are known to be used on people validating patriotism or prisoners, educators. We supposedly didn’t agree with it because it means encroachment into personal property and space. Plus you don’t know how it might screw you up. However a doctor told me later on that such technique has gotten approval in US. They could techniquely have you live a different life upto that point then form a continuum to bridge it with physical life. That’s how powerful it is. Even instigated thats how they first created Jewry, a public that doesn’t break character. In theory you’re forced to Judaism by circumstance. So they use it to restart life.

[Anonymous No.11985779]

>>11985758
Well said, this is why I know that our material universe is just an illusion and we are just at the lowest planes of the metaphysical reality that is really out there, that's why the universe doesn't have to make sense, its creation is not bound by the physical laws that govern everything within it

[Anonymous No.11986431]

>>11985760
Wrong, I fear no thing
Was pointing out the failure of the simulation theory by lack of evidence

[Anonymous No.11986546]

>>11985164
>>11985634
Simulation theory has nothing to do with god.

It's a logical extension of the fact that we could create a simulation from which the inhabitants would think their world is real meaning our world could also be a simulation. The difference with god and simulations is that simulations actually exist while god doesn't.

>>11985707
Double slit has nothing to do with consciousness

[Anonymous No.11986622]

Just don't give the NPCs in you universe the full clarity of mind, and they will ignore the glaring inconsistencies.

[Anonymous No.11986636]

>>11985741
1. You can, just move to another computer, or acquire the interface to interact with the parent universe.
2. Looks pretty primitive for me.
3. From just another universe.
4. First, infinity is not necessary. Second, it is not impossible.
5. Of course, but that defeats several previous points.

[Anonymous No.11986655]

>this must make sense for me to be true
jfc

[Anonymous No.11986686]

>>11984945

It's bounded energy

[Anonymous No.11986873]

>>11986546
Dreams also exist so all this world is just the dream of a god or devil, it's a logical extension of the fact dream exist. There is as much evidence for this being true as there is for your technological simulation being true.

i.e. None

[Anonymous No.11986901]

>>11986873
Existence of dreams doesn't prove evidence for existence of god. If anything it supports simulation theory as another form of artificially created environment.

[Anonymous No.11986965]

>>11986901
Actually I would say the existence of dreams is in opposition to simulation theory as there is a material basis for dreams in such a situation and so you have to have the processing power and resources fully devoted to the act of dreaming of which half the world's population of humans and mammals are experiencing at any given time

And then theres the confirmed phenomenon of lucid dreaming, where the dreamer takes full control of their dream, and the dream can become as realistic as real life, and this is something that can be learned or be a natural ability for someone since childhood. Literally a simulation within a simulation by your reasoning, taking up even extra processing power and resources compared to a non-lucid dream because your simulation is now processing a super realistic simulation within the simulation and having to account for the extra resources of the brain conscious within a dream which is more active and processing different regions of the brain than the non-lucid dreaming brain.

The only argument against this you have is that the processing power of the simulation is nigh-infinite and these things take up so little resources and power in comparison that they are just left in or ignored, but you have no evidence of that, you are arguing for the existence of your belief system non-scientifically.

You can also argue as others have that these concerns dont matter because this simulation is limited compared to the power and energy available in the universe running it, that's no different from the planes argument of metaphysics that these are the lower material planes and there exist higher planes on alternate "higher" strata of reality that govern our realm. If anything lucid dreaming supports that theory as a glimpse of what is possible in those other realms.

You are making the same unprovable arguments as these essentially, only thinking that cloaking them in the veneer of higher speculative technology is somehow different.

[Anonymous No.11987011]

>>11986965
>simulation within a simulation by your reasoning
Yes this is the core concept of the simulation theory. I don't know why you even would post on the topic when you have so little education.

>The only argument against this
Well I'm not against that, it clearly supports simulation theory. If your brain is simulated already for daytime operations which are much more intense than dreaming then dreaming takes no extra resources anyways.

>that's no different
Of course it's different.
We have evidence of simulations they actually exist. We also have evidence that if you put more resources into a simulation then that simulation can simulate more things. There is no physical law in our universe that prevents someone from running a very large simulation that to the "people" inside it would be an entire universe of content. The same can then be applied to our world. To sims having everything consist of triangles would be as natural as everything being made of atoms is to us.

Meanwhile there is no evidence of "planes" existing

Also please don't try to pretend lucid dreams somehow exceed the capabilities of the brain or that they are somehow coherent, that's just retarded.

[Anonymous No.11987258]

>>11984751
I think you assume the "real" universe would be as complex as ours, but what if it's not? It could just as well be 5D and multiple time dimensions or with particles going all the way down, with our elementary particles being galaxies consisting of much smaller particles and our quantum mechanics is a way to statistically compensate for that.

[Anonymous No.11987259]

>>11987011
>Yes this is the core concept of the simulation theory
And also a core flaw, whose to say the simulators aren't themselves being simulated, and who is simulating those simulators, and those, etc....

>We also have evidence that if you put more resources into a simulation then that simulation can simulate more things
Your argument is that because we are capable of doing rudimentary simulations then our universe itself must be a total simulation, that's a retarded leap of logic by any stretch.

>There is no physical law in our universe that prevents someone from running a very large simulation
Moore's law for one, your argument rests on some magical futuristic technology that doesn't exist yet. For all we know there are hard limits to computational resources in our universe even with the best and largest quantum computers powered by fucking dyson spheres. Of course bringing up any possible limits in this universe just makes you deflect to the claim that the simulating universe doesn't have those limits, and you can't fucking prove that now can you.

>If your brain is simulated already for daytime operations which are much more intense than dreaming then dreaming takes no extra resources anyways.
>which are much more intense than dreaming
The dreaming and non-dreaming brain is just as active as the waking brain at times, and the lucid dreaming brain is even more active than the dreaming brain. Remember if it's all a simulation then the dream is being simulated too and that takes computational power and resources equal to the thing being simulated actually happening in reality, in fact every act of imagination does.

>Meanwhile there is no evidence of "planes" existing
No and lucid dreaming/dreams are not good evidence for their existence. Just like there is no evidence of a 1:1 simulation existing just because we have simulations of our own.

[Anonymous No.11987272]

>>11987258
You're doing the same thing, making an assumption about what the "real" non-simulated universe would be like, you have to make a whole lot more assumptions to support a simulation theory model of reality than you do a non-simulation model, and Occam's Razor favors the latter.

[Anonymous No.11987296]

>>11987259
>whose to say the simulators aren't themselves being simulated
That is a core concept yes

>Your argument is that because we are capable of doing rudimentary simulations then our universe itself must be a total simulation
Try reading comprehension, the argument is that it could be because it's clearly possible and there isn't any reason why it couldn't be.

>and you can't fucking prove that now can you.
In the game of sims they have less maximum processing capacity than we have here. It follows that any simulation that is running our universe would have rules that allow for such simulations.

>Remember if it's all a simulation then the dream is being simulated too and that takes computational power and resources equal to the thing being simulated actually happening in reality, in fact every act of imagination does.
yes which is covered when the brain is simulated, dreams are created in the brain they aren't magically making the brain more complex.

>Just like there is no evidence of a 1:1
It doesn't have to be 1:1 in fact it's pretty clear that it wouldn't be.

Reading comprehension and actually looking up what the topic is about would do good for you.

[Anonymous No.11987367]

>>11987296
That's a core flaw I would say. Since you can't prove that those who are simulating us are not themselves being simulated and that there isn't an infinite regress of simulations happening it makes more logical sense to claim there is no one simulating us, because then that becomes a non-issue. Occam's Razor applies heavily here.

>because it's clearly possible and there isn't any reason why it couldn't be
There are many reasons why it couldn't be that I already explained in that post which you completely ignored.

>In the game of sims
In the game of Sims you don't have conscious agents like we are, so far as we know there is no way to simulate consciousness digitally. We don't even know with certainty how consciousness arises in the first place anyways biologically let alone how that could be simulated. We are not NPC's like Sims are, despite what some retards who've resurrected the P-zombie thought experiments lately want to believe. The nature of consciousness is actually another major opposition against simulation theory when you think about it, because either we are all P-zombies or consciousness can be simulated digitally, but unlike with simulations we have never made in our reality a consciousness that wasn't biological to this point.

>dreams are created in the brain they aren't magically making the brain more complex.
No but they are needlessly making the simulation more complex/resource intensive for seemingly no logical reason. From our perspective at least. You could argue there is a reason for their inclusion or that the technology and power requirements of the simulation permit them but you have no evidence for that, and are basically using your imagination at this point to support an argument that is supposed to reflect reality, but one's delusions do not have any impact on physical reality as it is.

>It doesn't have to be 1:1
It doesn't matter what it is, there is no evidence for it, it's religion not science.

[Anonymous No.11987461]

>>11987367
>That's a core flaw I would say.
Well you would be wrong

>not themselves being simulated
But simulation theory basically says they are, why do you argue for it?

>There are many reasons why it couldn't be that I already explained in that post which you completely ignored.
Your reasons supported my position

>In the game of Sims you don't have conscious agents like we are
*yet

>so far as we know there is no way to simulate consciousness digitally.
We know it's possible though, that is enough

>for seemingly no logical reason
for you

>there is no evidence for it
plenty of evidence actually

[Anonymous No.11987875]

>>11985707
>(there is nothing to compute, no need to compute something if no-one is around to observe it)

Which is why OP brought up the Hubble Deep Field Image. There was no one observing that portion of the sky since there was nothing there. Why put images there? Wouldn't that computing power and storage be better spent elsewhere besides making sure the sim humans sees something or else they would get suspicious?!?

[Anonymous No.11987910]

>>11986636
>1. You can, just move to another computer, or acquire the interface to interact with the parent universe.
>2. Looks pretty primitive for me.
>3. From just another universe.
>4. First, infinity is not necessary. Second, it is not impossible.
>5. Of course, but that defeats several previous points.

1. You can't move by yourself, and you never will.
2. Primitive? For 200.000 years humans have existed and gravity & our solar system are still a mystery to us. You just shat on the work of all scientists that have ever lived.
3. If it came from another universe it contradicts your 4 points.
4. If infinity is not necessary, where did the original, the very first universe came from?

All of this simulation theory pop pseudo-science will never be proven, it's exactly like trying to prove a god.

Simulation theory is a braindead religion of the 21st century, just like the old religion.

[Anonymous No.11987987]

>>11987910
1. Now that's a practical question to solve.
2. Still can be a bit more sophisticated
3. It doesn't.
4. Appeared on its own/looped/god made it/something else

[Anonymous No.11987990]

>>11985707
Double slit experiment has nothing to do woth the simulation hypothesis. Its not about you observing an electron, its about the method you use for observing it, which means physically interacting with an electron. Thats what causes it to behave differently not because you are trying to observe it. They need to find another way to observe it without interacting with it if thats possible.

[Anonymous No.11988045]

>>11986873
Decartes is only useful for giving us the cartesian plane and merging geometry with alegebra.

His philosophy is dated and wrong. Great mind though

[Anonymous No.11988052]

>>11987910
Any science is religion.

[Anonymous No.11988071]

Simulation theory is for STEMcels who cannot cope that philosophy and religion was right all along.

[Anonymous No.11988072]

>>11988052
negative.

Science is a structure for deducing things and building experiements. Nothing about religion involved.

If anything Sciecne is a subset of art. Art being the parent, primarily useful human endeavour that lifts our minds out of the darkness.

[Anonymous No.11988075]

>>11988071
Lacking aesthetics means setting yourself for the failure.

[Anonymous No.11988079]

>>11988072
>Science is a structure for deducing things and building experiements.
Just like religion
>let's decide this property of god
>let's pray to make things better

[Anonymous No.11988083]

>>11988071
Simulation theory is pure bullshit by peeps that don't understand basic physics, thermodynamics, and information theory.

A 'stacked simulation' would require too much energy from the parent world to be useful. Especially if you consider how few beings in the parent world would even want to run a thing like that.

[Anonymous No.11988088]

>>11988083
Even our primitive computer simulations are very useful for various tasks, and that's achieved in less than 100 years and with very limited resources.

[Anonymous No.11988090]

>>11988079
No. Religion is to pass down culture and beliefs. And can be used for controlling masses but nothing about it is building a structure for deducing the world around you. Otherwise asking about the nature of god and reality wouldn't be so controversal in so many "religions"

[Anonymous No.11988097]

>>11988088

but a whole universe is A impossible
B Requires too much energy.

Look at our society and how hard to tackle climate change is.

Why would a parent civilization want to waste so much energy on a simulation just for lulz? becuase there wouldn't be any more purpose from it.

[Anonymous No.11988173]

>>11987875
Nah man apparently the cosmic microwave background came into existence at the exact moment it was observed! And so did the Hubble deep field!

You see the entire cosmos, its all fake, until its observed, of course we have no model that explains how its so predictable on such large time scales and across vast distances of space from the movements of galaxies and distant black holes but its definitely just shit that comes into existence when its observed yet somehow works totally fine with the unobserved and inactive parts of the universe (until we observe them of course) and is totally consistent with our physical models of the universe.

Also, the speed of light, totally just the tick rate of the simulation.

>t. Simulationist

[Anonymous No.11988218]

>>11988173
Unironically this.

[Anonymous No.11988241]

>>11986546
>>11987990
The double slit experiment is an observation based experiment, based on observation of the consciousness, and much of this simulation theory in fact relies on our notions of consciousness! That is, for example, the so called "NPC's", this idea of saving the equivalent of memory storage based on all possible observations of all possible individual consciousnesses, or players, in the simulation, think about it

[Anonymous No.11988244]

>>11988241

[Anonymous No.11988255]

>>11988241


You dont understand this experiemnt.

Even in the 'scatterring' version where photons or whatever particle/wave you're shooting land in unprodictive paths are still just 'one' photon or 'one' electron. When you run the experiment you don't get 2 hits for ever particle you shoot.

It just shows that if we're watching the path of a particle then we are interacting with it and guiding it. When we're not it, the particle lands where ever requires the least amount of energy to do so.

[Anonymous No.11988278]

>>11988097
How do you know the amount of energy the parent universe has?

[Anonymous No.11988300]

>>11988278


Doesn't matter. It's still will never have enough to make a 1:1 universe.

ENERGY ain't free, it requires WORK to convert it other forms. WORK itself involves energy right?

So if you use all the energy you have to make a machine to similute the existence you are in, you'd not have enough energy left over to run the thing in the first place.

Again also the parent universe people are also probably worrying about the same shit so who's going to invest in this simulation machine? It'd be like trying to suddenly get everyone on the planet to give all their gasoline 'energy' to one person to run the ultimate gaming PC to just to play Crysis in 5 screen 8k each 120 fps or w/e

[Anonymous No.11988337]

>>11988300
Who says it has to be 1:1

[Anonymous No.11988377]

>>11988337

The physics would be the same in either the parent universe or the simulated one right?

So either they make a much much smaller one than the one they themselves exist in which only provides limited experimental results or they're just making a toy. Eitherway you end up with something far far away from you know a true simulation of 'reality'

[Anonymous No.11988402]

>>11988377
Why would the physics be the same, why can't it be lot smaller or run at a lower clock speed? Why does it have to be "true reality", it's true to the inhabitants regardless?

[Anonymous No.11988510]

>>11988377
Physics shouldn't be the same. It can be simplified, can run in smaller volume and for smaller amount of time.

[Anonymous No.11988628]

>>11988218
>speed of light, totally just the tick rate of the simulation.
this is always the dumbest one I hear

[Anonymous No.11988651]

>this nigga so dumb he somehow missed cave allegory, Matrix, brain in a vat and all of isekai and mmorpgs

[Anonymous No.11988659]

>>11988300
Wow anon I didn't know you were so ignorant, everyone knows that the parent universe uses the energy from the vibration of a single quartz crystal to run our simulation because in their universe that's all that necessary to generate the required power!

You see the simulation works in mysterious ways.

[Anonymous No.11988685]

>>11988659
Your phone works in mysterious ways.

[Anonymous No.11988691]

>>11988685
Clearly not, since we can build it.

[Anonymous No.11988694]

>>11988691
Two retards can make a child, does not mean they are biology professors.

[Anonymous No.11988720]

> If anything, it would be a simplified dumb down version of it.
Flawed thinking.
You forgot the time dimension.
Even if it can't simulate the universe in real time, it could still simulate the universe at a slower clock speed. If this is done, from the perspective of those in the simulation it is still being run at real time speed.

[Anonymous No.11989715]

>>11988241
Did you read what i wrote? Its not about the fact that you are observing, its about the method you use for observing which changes the behaviour

[Anonymous No.11990082]

>>11988510
Then it is just a game and not a 'real' simulation?

Seriously the hand waving simulation people need to make is rediculous

[Anonymous No.11990983]

>>11987011
>We have evidence of simulations they actually exist. We also have evidence that if you put more resources into a simulation then that simulation can simulate more things. There is no physical law in our universe that prevents someone from running a very large simulation that to the "people" inside it would be an entire universe of content.

But those simulations would have to be simplified versions of the real universe. As OP said, video game programmers don't run plasma dynamic models to simulate the stars in the sky. They just put white dots over a black background. A simulation isn't just size. It's detail or resolution. A simulation of a person down to the electron spin of that sims' "atoms" would be more complex than any MMORPG. The more variables there are in the simulation the more complex and larger the computer would have to be to run the simulation. If you want to run a perfect simulation of a universe down to the elementary particles, you have to create an actual universe.

[Anonymous No.11991011]

>>11990082
Why do you think simulation has to be accurate to be a simulation or "real". Mind you people have simulated about gorillion things so far and none of that has been "real" and yet they do it.

>>11990983
>But those simulations would have to be simplified versions of the real universe.
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11991387]

>>11988255
no you just dont understand what im saying because youre a fucking douche bag , im referring to the observer effect and how this indicates simulation theory and is in reference to consciousness that I discussed

[Anonymous No.11991397]

>>11989715
consciousness is inseparable from method

[Anonymous No.11991440]

>>11986546
>god doesn't.
How do you know this?

[Anonymous No.11991451]

>>11991440
I have evidence of simulations, do you have evidence of god?

[Anonymous No.11991456]

>>11991440
Yeah. What if god uses simulations instead of magic. Like he runs an infinite number of simulations to make sure he gets its right before the real one, and we're in one of the fuck ups

[Anonymous No.11991479]

>>11991451
Big bang

[Anonymous No.11991546]

>>11991479
Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.11991552]

>>11991546
God started the universe via a big bang and any other thought is cope.

[Anonymous No.11991673]

>>11990082
What do you mean by 'real', and how is it different from real and unreal?

[Anonymous No.11993344]

>>11991673


That's not a valid/related question


At debate is whether or not we're in a simulation.

IF we're in one that isn't 1:1 then it is logically imperfect from the 'real' reality the simulated one exists in. Thus holes in the structure of physics/math would become apparent because the simulation doesn't contain all the information that a 'true' representation of reality would require.

If that's the case then it's a useless experiment wasting the parent civilizations energy for nothing. Thus we're not living in a in a smaller than 1:1 simulation.

[Anonymous No.11993363]

>>11991397
What? What does that have to do with anything . My point is that electrons dont change behaviour because we are observing them. But the way we observe them during the experiment requires us to interact with them thus changing their behaviour. It has nothing to do with the observation itself

[Anonymous No.11993368]

>>11984751
This is only true for classical computers.
in a quantum computer the number of possible arrangements grows like 2^qbit
where a qbit is one particle.
so if you build a machine with 10^10 qubits,
there are 2^(10^10) different arrangements.
this already is a huge number, with only 10^10 particles.
the problem is that you cannot extract this data.
you can only extract one binary number with 10^10 digits.
so if the universe is a simulation, i dont think we are the reason its running

[Anonymous No.11993370]

>>11984751
This simulation shit is so cringe and reddit. You people are the kind of people who shit on "retarded Christians" until someone replaces god with a computer or that faggy little basilisk thing.

[Anonymous No.11993396]

>>11993344
This doesn't follow at all
>IF we're in one that isn't 1:1 then it is logically imperfect from the 'real' reality the simulated one exists in. Thus holes in the structure of physics/math would become apparent because the simulation doesn't contain all the information that a 'true' representation of reality would require.
You can't identify holes that you don't know exist. To a sim pixels might be as natural as our atoms as their 5d strings.

[Anonymous No.11993457]

>>11993396
Yes You can. i.e. math would get fucked up

[Anonymous No.11993476]

>>11993457
Why?

[Anonymous No.11993484]

>>11993476
Because constants and logic.

overly simple hypothetical example would be pi not truly being irrational.

[Anonymous No.11993502]

>>11993484
And why would that be? And why would it not being irrational be a problem exactly? You are saying stuff but none of it follows any logic.

[Anonymous No.11993526]

>>11993502
You're saying stuff but not adding anything.

Because either we'd have evidence that constants aren't irrational dispite 'appearing' so thus evidence that we're in a simulation and breaking the experiment. or pi is = to a rational like 3 or such and the universe would be vastly different.

[Anonymous No.11993549]

>>11993526
>Because either
This doesn't follow logically.
There's no reason why you couldn't make a simulation where pi is irrational and even if they weren't irrational despite looking like it that doesn't mean you are breaking the fourth wall somehow.

[Anonymous No.11993557]

>>11993549
uh what? OFC an overly simple example wouldn't be enough for you.

Okay first off let's start with what we live in today, a world were pi is irrational.

Now, because pi is what it is, planets and stars are able to form and become sphere like objects, as examples of pi being used in nature. Now let's say the creators of the simulation use an approximation for pi, then 'we' the intelligent entities inside the simulation would be able to detect within physics while knowing logically through math that it's irrational. Doing so would break the experiment because the inteligent beings inside of the experiment now know they are part of the experiment and thus invalidate the results. Thus we'd be turned off.

[Anonymous No.11993561]

>>11993557
And then when they don't make it rational?

[Anonymous No.11993565]

>>11993561

Thet can't make it irrational by definition?

It's used as example of there being limits to a simulation that isn't a perfect replica of the parent.

[Anonymous No.11993573]

>>11993565
>Thet can't make it irrational by definition?
And why is that? Hint: you saying it can't be done isn't the same as it being actually impossible.

[Anonymous No.11993575]

>>11993573
I said it can't be done because it's being used as an example.

I already stated it was a simple one; sadly you're not getting it and just saing "no"

[Anonymous No.11993581]

>>11993575
So your example is that assuming something can't be done it can't be done?

So again your example isn't relevant because in reality it can be done so why wouldn't they do it?

[Anonymous No.11993600]

>>11993581
Dude everything has to start with some basic fucking assumptions. Fuck out here.

I said it was a simple hypotheical example, what part aren't you fucking getting dipshit?

Let's say they can simulate pi perfectly, there would then be another thing after that that they couldn't because the simulation isn't 1:1 right? So I used "pi" as a hypothetical example to illustrate that point. Can you understand that?

[Anonymous No.11993605]

>>11993600
>Dude everything has to start with some basic fucking assumptions. Fuck out here.
>My assumption is that this is impossible hence it is
That's not a good assumption

>I said it was a simple hypotheical example, what part aren't you fucking getting dipshit?
That it's a bad example but if you don't understand why here's me proving you are gay
>Ill start by assuming that you are a faggot and look here that basically proves you are in deed a flaming homoman

>there would then be another thing
No there wouldn't, it's not 1:1 there's no guarantee their pi is even the same as ours is.

[Anonymous No.11993613]

>>11993605
> there's no guarantee their pi is even the same as ours is.

Yes... there is it's called math. you should study some sometime and fuck off till you have.

[Anonymous No.11993617]

>>11993605
You're a fucking moron

> >Ill start by assuming that you are a faggot and look here that basically proves you are in deed a flaming homoman


That's not even a fucking close analogy to the what they said

[Anonymous No.11993618]

dude this thread is retarded. It works on cross-definition, where simulation is defined as the opposite or not-reality. We live in reality so we can create simulations. How can a simulation simulate itself? If it did, the original simulation would automatically become a "reality" and whatever simulation that created it maybe the real simulation or it may go deeper- simuception.

[Anonymous No.11993623]

>>11993618
You're a retard; energy isn't free fuck dumb nuts

[Anonymous No.11993624]

>>11993613
Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>11993617
He assumed pi can't be simulated and then used that as evidence that pi can't be simulated.

[Anonymous No.11993628]

>>11993624
> He assumed pi can't be simulated and then used that as evidence that pi can't be simulated.

He assumed it as a example of what would be universe breaking evidence. You're fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.11993631]

>>11993624
> Are you pretending to be retarded?

okay smarty, why don't YOU explain how the universe is a simulation without breaking any math or logic? You do know that math structures are built on basic assumptions, and only says what is true from those assumptions? It says fucking nothing about the assumptions themselves. Learn some fucking math retard

[Anonymous No.11993632]

>>11993623
i never said anything about energy, energy may be the core fluid of the simulator. I'm saying a "Simulation" by very definition, is something that evolves from a base reality. And if you question that the base reality as itself a simulation, it means you really don't understand the meaning of the word "simulation" or you need to create a new word into the oxford dictionary.

[Anonymous No.11993634]

>>11993632
You don't understand what energy is first off so you for shit fucking don't know what a simulation would be

[Anonymous No.11993638]

Space-Time isn't discrete, there is no maximum temperature, Time isn't real.

There, Simulationism disproved via empirical evidence. You want a philosophical rebuke? Fine, infinite energy cannot exist, ergo Bostrom's entire proof that we're in a Simulation is wrong from the get go because one of his fundamental assumptions is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.11993640]

>>11993628
>He assumed it as a example of what would be universe breaking evidence
Yes and it doesn't break the universe because it can be done. Sure flying pigs would also break the universe so if you just assume they exist then I guess universe is now broken?

>>11993631
You just simulate it, you can set the rules as you wish so to simulate our universe you would set the rules be like we have here.

[Anonymous No.11993643]

>>11993638
None of those disprove simulation and simulating a finite thing doesn't require infinite energy either.

[Anonymous No.11993648]

>>11993640
> You just simulate it, you can set the rules as you wish so to simulate our universe you would set the rules be like we have here.

Jesus titty fuck you're stupid

[Anonymous No.11993650]

>>11993648
Point out the problem if you think there is one.

[Anonymous No.11993654]

>>11993640
> Yes and it doesn't break the universe because it can be done. Sure flying pigs would also break the universe so if you just assume they exist then I guess universe is now broken?

How did you graduate highschool? They're not saying anything like that.

'If' something is such, then what the consequences of that 'if' is what is being said. unfortunately you appear too daft to get that

[Anonymous No.11993657]

>>11993650
It's already been covered over and over in this thread.

If you don't simulate reality correctly then you run into shit like incomplete cirlces or such. If you similuate reality correctly you run out of energy.

[Anonymous No.11993658]

>>11993654
>'If' something is such, then what the consequences of that 'if' is what is being sai
yes IF it was true then it would be like that but it's not so again it's a terrible example.

[Anonymous No.11993665]

>>11993657
>If you don't simulate reality correctly
Then simulate it correctly

>If you simulate reality correctly you run out of energy.
No you don't

[Anonymous No.11993670]

>>11993643
Yes they do. In fact they all run counter to the supposed empirical evidence that we are in a simulation. Simulationists argue that because there is a minimum temperature, because particles are discrete, and because time exists, that we are in a simulation as these are all simplifications meant to make the simulation more efficient.

Time just flat out isn't real, there is no big clock ticking in the background (see: Relativity, space-time dilation). It's a human simplification meant to understand change. Space-Time isn't discrete, and so the idea that because certain things are discrete that everything must be as a processing-power saving measure is just flat out wrong (it also totally misses what "electronic states being discrete" even means, as wave-particle duality totally tosses out what redditors are trying to argue when they say this). The lack of a maximum temperature directly counters the idea that the minimum temperature is actually a cost saving measure, which is a total misunderstanding of what temperature actually is.

Finally, Bostrom's argument is that the Simulators are actually running infinite simulations, which requires infinite energy. Allow me to demonstrate:
>If there is the Real Universe, and some number of X Simulated Universes, the probability that we're not in a simulation is Q * (1/X+1)
>As the number of universes that can be simulated increases, so too does X, and our chances of not being in the simulated universe decreases.
>When X goes to infinity, the chances of us not being in a simulation is zero.
>Therefore, we are in a simulation, as the simulators have infinite energy
But infinite energy just flat out doesn't exist, OR the simulators are so far above us that it's not even a simulation anymore, you're just saying "God is real", because the mechanisms by which we're being simulated are so detached from our reality that the idea that we live in a videogame is just flat out non-sensical.

[Anonymous No.11993679]

>>11993658
You're too dumb to be a being in 'reality' thus this is a simulation

[Anonymous No.11993682]

>>11993665
This is just saying "no" without anything behind it.

[Anonymous No.11993684]

>>11993670
dont forget that each of those infinite universes is also making infinite simulations, and because we cannot perfectly simulate a universe we must thus be at the absolute fucking bottom. so, this neo-gnostic idea that we can escape this reality and find the REAL REALITY is horseshit from the very argument for it, because we have an infinite number of simulations in between us and the REAL REALITY.

[Anonymous No.11993691]

>>11993670
Good post. It's a weird sort of reverse-Platonism, where the goal is to become as trapped in the Cave as possible. It's believing that the totally arbitrary human theories that we make to try and understand reality are more real than the phenomena that they describe.

[Anonymous No.11993692]

>>11993670
The first part isn't even worth addressing

>Finally, Bostrom's argument
That's not even the argument, no one thinks there are "infinite" simulations

>you're just saying "God is real"
god isn't required for people to make simulations. If you redefine god to mean things it doesn't mean then we are already gods to things like animals making it worthless definition.

>>11993682
Well yes it's just flat out wrong.

[Anonymous No.11993698]

>>11993692
You're simply not worth considering anymore

[Anonymous No.11993699]

>>11993692
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#The_simulation_argument
You should look into things before having an opinion on them. That IS the argument. That's the ENTIRE argument. There HAS to be infinite simulations in order to justify us living in a simulation. You HAVE to make that claim that it's just inherently logical that we live in a simulation, otherwise you have to offer empirical evidence to support your claim, but there is none for it. Bostrom's entire argument is a trick to try and get out of the fact that that all evidence on the matter supports the idea that we do not live in a simulation.

[Anonymous No.11993711]

>>11993699
There is nothing about infinite simulations there because no one argues that but if you want to die on that hill feel free to point out a direct quote.

>There HAS to be infinite simulations in order to justify us living in a simulation
No, you just have to have enough simulations e.g.
>The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors.

>otherwise you have to offer empirical evidence to support your claim
Simulations exist, people like to simulate things, there isn't anything stopping people from simulating a lot of things. It logically follows that simulation is likely.

[Anonymous No.11993717]

>>11993711
>No, you just have to have enough simulations
And because there is no evidence that we live in a simulation, and indeed that all evidence points that we do not live in a simulation, "enough" simulations must be infinity, so that the probability that we aren't in a simulation is zero.

Thank you for helping me demonstrate the point I made in >>11993670.

[Anonymous No.11993722]

>>11993717
>And because there is no evidence that we live in a simulation, and indeed that all evidence points that we do not live in a simulation
Wrong

>"enough" simulations must be infinity
False

[Anonymous No.11993723]

>>11993711
its likely that your mom is a whore. my evidence is that she sells sex for money. wheres your evidence that we live in a simulation?

[Anonymous No.11993730]

>>11993722
I'm noticing a conspicuous lack of evidence. Could it be that you're... doing exactly what I said you would in >>11993699?

[Anonymous No.11993731]

>>11993722
wrong

[Anonymous No.11993734]

>>11993730
See
>>11993711
>>11993699
for evidence

>>11993731
wrong

[Anonymous No.11993736]

>>11993734
Already explained, see >>11993699

[Anonymous No.11993740]

>>11984751
The problem is that the simulation could bypass this by only dedicating processing power to things when an agent perceives them. So the deeper you look the more detail the sim adds. Only way to tell if it's a sim is to hit the resolution limit and see if you can break something - but the goalpost will move again, the agents can be rolled back to a previous time state and a patch can be applied, or a processor bank can be online, and the sim reinitialized. It might be impossible for an agent to know it's in a sim.

[Anonymous No.11993743]

>>11993734
wrong again

[Anonymous No.11993745]

>>11993736
That was wrong, see
>>11993711

[Anonymous No.11993746]

>>11993734
so, you dont have any evidence, you ARE just doing what he said in >>11993730 and >>11993717 and >>11993699.

why did you make this post?

[Anonymous No.11993748]

>>11993740
this is handwaving again to make what you want it to be to be.

[Anonymous No.11993751]

>>11993746
What you said in those posts was wrong but again feel free to quote the passage about there having to be infinite simulations.

[Anonymous No.11993754]

>>11993740
Yeah, at that point you're just doing what the guy up thread said. If you're arguing that the dudes running the simulation have infinite energy, and are infinitely distant from us, you might as well just flat out say it's God, because what you're arguing is no longer anything close to how computers actually work. It's just a literal, unironic, God-Of-The-Gaps, but for redditors.

[Anonymous No.11993756]

>>11993734
Literally none of that is evidence, is weak rational at best.
"Durr durr humans simulate things therefore it's probably likely we live in a simulation durr durr" is not evidence nor it is a strong argument.
Meanwhile, all the counter arguments given ITT ARE genuine counter arguments based in real physics.

[Anonymous No.11993759]

>>11993751
see >>11993670, where it is explained why. if you want another explanation, see
https://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html
you have to have infinite energy to have infinite universes to make the chance that we arent living in a simulation infinitely small.

[Anonymous No.11993760]

>>11993756
>is not evidence nor it is a strong argument.
It's hard evidence and a strong argument actually

>Meanwhile, all the counter arguments given ITT ARE genuine counter arguments based in real physics.
Just wrong, so wrong that you even couldn't get the strawman right. Again feel free to point out where anyone but you said infinite.

[Anonymous No.11993765]

>>11993754
I'm not arguing for or against the sim existing. But it wouldn't take infinite energy, you could slow the time time steps down, the agents would never know.

[Anonymous No.11993768]

>>11993759
You don't need infinite universes but feel free to do a direct quote on that or the wikipedia page where anyone claims you need infinite simulations.

[Anonymous No.11993769]

>>11993748
I don't want it to be anything. Simulation Theory is unfalsifiable. Is that what you wanted me to say? I agree with you

[Anonymous No.11993772]

>>11993765
It would if you're running infinite simulations, however, which you have to argue in order to justify that we're in a simulation.

We could also argue that just the sheer capacity to run a simulation the size of our universe would require might-as-well be infinite energy, which against just goes back to "the distance between us and the simulators is so large that it's basically just God".

[Anonymous No.11993774]

>>11993760
>It's hard evidence and a strong argument actually
It's neither, and just saying "it is hard evidence" does not make it true and indicates you don't know how to think properly.
>Just wrong, so wrong
False
>Again feel free to point out where anyone but you said infinite.
That other post was the first post I made.

[Anonymous No.11993776]

>>11993772
Stop with that strawman it's getting real old

[Anonymous No.11993778]

>>11993776
It's not a strawman, it's the entire argument that we live in a simulation. You just don't like that people are pointing out that your le ebin rick and morty hypothesis is horseshit.

[Anonymous No.11993780]

>>11993774
>It's neither, and just saying "it is hard evidence" does not make it true and indicates you don't know how to think properly.
It is actually

>False
Wrong

>That other post was the first post I made.
Well use your third post to actually say something of meaning and point out where anyone claims you need infinite simulations

[Anonymous No.11993784]

>>11993778
>it's the entire argument that we live in a simulation
Feel free to point out anyone who actually argues for infinite simulations, 2 sources have been posted so direct quote from one of them would be fine.

[Anonymous No.11993786]

https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/you-cant-simulate-this-universe-a81106c66019
Simulationism is neo-gnosticism, and suffers from all of the same flaws as actual gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.11993803]

>>11993370
christians remain retarded even if something else dumb is found

[Anonymous No.11993818]

>>11993760
Your intelligence is prood this is a simulation

[Anonymous No.11993827]

>>11993780
You might as well start saying we're in a simulation on a scorched earth long destroyed by global warming and the simulation was the only way to maintain our lives. however now our planet is occupied by chi stealing lizard like aliens using us as a source of energy to power their empire

[Anonymous No.11994377]

>>11993670
>you're just saying "God is real"
Simulation admins are not necessarily omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent.

[Anonymous No.11994384]

>>11993717
>and indeed that all evidence points that we do not live in a simulation
Does it?
>"enough" simulations must be infinity
That does not follow.

[Anonymous No.11994401]

>>11994384
> Does it?

What evidence is there that we are?

> That does not follow.

This does not follow

[Anonymous No.11994410]

>>11993759
>https://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html
ctrl+f "infin" did not yield results.

[Anonymous No.11994418]

>>11994401
>What evidence is there that we are?
You said that certain evidence (actually ALL of the evidence) points out that we do not live in simulation. That's a very bizarre claim and you should show at least some of that evidence then.
>This does not follow
Yes, your "infinity" does not follow, good that you finally noticed it.

[Anonymous No.11994432]

>>11994410
> By reviewing the probability assignments that Bostrom has just given, it becomes clear that several things have to be the case. Because the number of simulations run by a civilization capable of running them would be very great, if simulations are done, then the number of people that are simulated would be much greater than the number of people that are not simulated, which would mean that the probability that we are living in a simulated universe is almost unity. So, it becomes clear that one of two things must be the case. Either the probability that simulations are run is very small (practically null), or it is almost certain that we ourselves are living in a simulation.

[Anonymous No.11994434]

>>11994432
It still does not have any claims about infinite simulations, infinite levels or infinite energy.

[Anonymous No.11994438]

>>11994418
> You said that certain evidence (actually ALL of the evidence) points out that we do not live in simulation. That's a very bizarre claim and you should show at least some of that evidence then.

It's on you to provide evidence

> Yes, your "infinity" does not follow, good that you finally noticed it.

no. Your reasoning does not follow that it isn't infinite or nearer to that than 0. But if it's nearer to 0 then it's less likely we're in a simulation.

[Anonymous No.11994441]

>>11994434
maybe you should try reading the fucking article first instead of being lazy with ctrl +f

[Anonymous No.11994449]

>>11994438
>It's on you to provide evidence
No, if you make a very certain claim about having evidence to support your viewpoint, then it's on you to provide that evidence.
>Your reasoning does not follow that it isn't infinite or nearer to that than 0. But if it's nearer to 0 then it's less likely we're in a simulation.
Sorry, but can you reformulate? What is nearer to 0? Nearer to 0 compared to what?

[Anonymous No.11994460]

>>11994441
Anon, you base your reasoning on some infinite value. But it seems like neither your opponents, nor the articles you cite do not use that infinity. If that "infinity" is invented by you, then you should admit so, and then either drop it, or try to use the actual opponent arguments to prove it.

[Anonymous No.11994462]

>>11994449
> No, if you make a very certain claim about having evidence to support your viewpoint, then it's on you to provide that evidence.

It's on you. Either we exist as we always have or we're in a simulation. There's no evidence yet that we are or you'd provided it.

> Sorry, but can you reformulate? What is nearer to 0? Nearer to 0 compared to what?

Either it's a really large number of simulations ie near infinity OR

Its a really small number of simulations, ie near 0 simulated universes

[Anonymous No.11994465]

>>11994460
You need to take calculus first before you continue this conversation because you have no understanding of large numbers clearly or limits

[Anonymous No.11994477]

>>11994462
>It's on you.
No, if you claim, let me cite:
>all evidence points that we do not live in a simulation
then it's a very certain positive claim, and it would be very easy for you to provide an example of such an evidence.
>Either it's a really large number of simulations ie near infinity
>Its a really small number of simulations, ie near 0
That's a bizarre dichotomy. If there are 100 simulations, is that near 0 or near infinity? What about billion? Googolplex?

[Anonymous No.11994488]

>>11994465
Ok, anon, I get it. You think that if some number is large, then it is necessarily infinite and if some object is large, it is infinite too. Sorry, but it's your personal opinion and neither calculus, nor common sense do not support it. Let me give you a few examples:
>Elephant is big, but he is not infinite
>Earth is big, but it is not infinite
>number of stars in our galaxy is big, but not infinite

[Anonymous No.11994490]

>>11994477
keep showing your ignorance

[Anonymous No.11994500]

>>11994488
the number needs to be nearer to infinity in order for the probability to work out to being near 1. just stop

[Anonymous No.11994504]

>>11994490
Ok, anon, next time don't claim things your opponents did not say.
But I am honestly interested now: how big a number should be for you to call it "close to infinity" or "infinite"? Is million infinite? Is 500 thousands close to infinity?

[Anonymous No.11994512]

>>11994500
What do you mean by "nearer to infinity"? Is 100 near to infinity? What about 1000 or million? While we are at it, is 99% a large probability of some event? What about 99.9999%?

[Anonymous No.11994522]

>>11994512
why not read the article and put the numbers in yourself?

Then you'll have answer instead of just being an argumentative monkey

[Anonymous No.11994527]

>>11994504
Never made such claims brah


How many simulations do you think there are? 1? we're just the one simulation? because that's what you're arguing for now.

[Anonymous No.11994529]

>>11994522
I've read the article and it did not say what you are claiming it says. In fact your specific quote from >>11994432 does not say it too.

[Anonymous No.11994534]

>>11994529
I'm not the one that made that claim, merely pointing out that they're talking about numbers closing in infinity in that article but clearly you can't figure that out

[Anonymous No.11994538]

>>11994529
> didn't use the exact word must ignore all meaning. thus you're wrong

[Anonymous No.11994540]

>>11994527
You claimed that simulationists claim that infinity of simulations is a necessary premise for the theory to work. Still you failed to show any quote by them in which they claim so. Can we conclude that you were mistaken, or will you finally show the place where they invoke the infinity?

[Anonymous No.11994546]

>>11994540
>> By reviewing the probability assignments that Bostrom has just given, it becomes clear that several things have to be the case. Because the number of simulations run by a civilization capable of running them would be very great, if simulations are done, then the number of people that are simulated would be much greater than the number of people that are not simulated, which would mean that the probability that we are living in a simulated universe is almost unity. So, it becomes clear that one of two things must be the case. Either the probability that simulations are run is very small (practically null), or it is almost certain that we ourselves are living in a simulation.


it's RIGHT FUCKING THERE. Learn how probability works then come back please

[Anonymous No.11994547]

>>11994538
No, anon, "large" and "infinite" are two very different words. Elephant is big, but he is not infinite. Galaxy is big, but it is not infinite. 4chan has a lot of shitposts, but not the infinity of them.

[Anonymous No.11994553]

>>11994534
>closing in infinity
Where does it say anything about "closing in infintiy"? What does that "closing in infinity" even mean? is 100 closing in infinity? 1000? 1000000?

[Anonymous No.11994567]

>>11994546
No, it is not! Let me show it to you piece-by-piece:
>By reviewing the probability assignments that Bostrom has just given, it becomes clear that several things have to be the case.
No mention of infinity.
>Because the number of simulations run by a civilization capable of running them would be very great,
No mention of infinity.
>if simulations are done, then the number of people that are simulated would be much greater than the number of people that are not simulated,
No mention of infinity.
>which would mean that the probability that we are living in a simulated universe is almost unity.
No mention of infinity.
>So, it becomes clear that one of two things must be the case.
No mention of infinity.
>Either the probability that simulations are run is very small (practically null), or it is almost certain that we ourselves are living in a simulation.
No mention of infinity again.

[Anonymous No.11994571]

>>11994547
you have the intellect of a 5 year old
>Where does it say anything about "closing in infintiy"? What does that "closing in infinity" even mean?

N increases towards infinity.

[Anonymous No.11994573]

>>11994546
That doesn't say you need infinite simulations, in fact it says the exact opposite of a non infinite value.

[Anonymous No.11994577]

>>11994567
> Learn how probability works then come back please

[Anonymous No.11994581]

>>11994571
Where does it say towards infinity

[Anonymous No.11994587]

>>11994567
> didn't use the exact word must ignore all meaning. thus you're wrong

[Anonymous No.11994592]

>>11994571
>N increases towards infinity.
When child is growing, does his height "increase towards infinity"? What about the tree height? Earth population? Do they "increase towards infinity"?

[Anonymous No.11994594]

>>11994581
IF N INCREASES IT APROACHES INFINITY IF GIVEN ENOUGH N.

[Anonymous No.11994595]

>>11994577
No, anon, neither probability theory nor calculus claim that finite numbers are infinite.

[Anonymous No.11994601]

>>11994592
Why are you unable to understand how numbers increase and what the number line looks like?

[Anonymous No.11994602]

>>11994587
Infinite has a very specific meaning, if you want to define large as infinite and then claim it takes infinite amount of energy meaning it's impossible then a simple counter is that there is in fact infinite free energy because infinite means large.

>>11994594
And where does anyone else besides you say that simulation number approaches infinity.

[Anonymous No.11994605]

>>11994595
> Learn how probability works then come back please

[Anonymous No.11994610]

>>11994594
>APROACHES INFINITY
> IF GIVEN ENOUGH
Wow, anon, you are a genius of exact wording! Cauchy and Weierstrass are nothing compared to you.

[Anonymous No.11994613]

>>11994602
Is it one simulation then?

[Anonymous No.11994616]

>>11994601
Anon, if some value increases, then it still isn't infinite.

[Anonymous No.11994622]

>>11994613
So we have 1 and infinity? Are there any numbers between them?

[Anonymous No.11994625]

>>11994616
it approaches infinity. If N is increasing then it is always approaching infinity. do you not understand limits?

[Anonymous No.11994626]

>>11994613
There are more numbers than just one and infinite. 100 simulations with equal population of sims to the "real world" already places the chance of being in a simulation at over 99%

[Anonymous No.11994628]

>>11994605
Anon, probability theory still does not support your idea that large finite numbers are infinite.

[Anonymous No.11994630]

>>11994622

3?

How many simulations do you want?

[Anonymous No.11994635]

>>11994628

>Anon, probability theory still does not support your idea that large finite numbers are infinite.

That large finite number isn't finite though. It's approaching infinity. Since the number of simulations would always be increasing/growing.

[Anonymous No.11994636]

>>11994625
>it approaches infinity
Does the child height "approach infinity"?
Does the Earth population "approach infinity"?
Does the number of posts ITT "approach infinity"?
>do you not understand limits?
Anon, "limits" word sounds very sophisticated, but it still does not mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.11994639]

>>11994625
No finite number will ever be infinite no matter how big it gets. Limits don't actually exist in real life.

[Anonymous No.11994645]

>>11994636
keep repeating things like you have a made a real thought.

[Anonymous No.11994647]

>>11994639
real life doesn't exist. its a simulation. remember?
A ropes length is infinite.

[Anonymous No.11994650]

>>11994630
So can we finally agree that simulationists did not claim that "infinity of simulations are necessary for the truth of the simulation theory" and that was your original claim?

[Anonymous No.11994653]

>>11994647
If ropes length is infinite, then your world is already wonderful enough to need no simulations.

[Anonymous No.11994709]

>>11994650
How many simulations do you think there are?

If you believe you're in a simulation, why haven't you an hero'd yet to get to the 'real' world?

[Anonymous No.11994720]

>>11994653
so we're not in a simulation then

[Anonymous No.11994728]

>>11994709
>How many simulations do you think there are?
So you finally realized that your claims were absurd? Good.
>If you believe you're in a simulation, why haven't you an hero'd yet to get to the 'real' world?
Anon, are you suicidal? Please don't, we love you.

[Anonymous No.11994734]

>>11994720
Hmm... no, non-sequitur again. You seem to be a master of lengthy nested non-sequiturs.

[Anonymous No.11994741]

>>11984751
>Some people have theorized that we might be living in a computer simulation left to run.
Some people have theorized that we might be living on a flat Earth
Some people have theorized that magnets work by magic

[Anonymous No.11994755]

>>11994728
good job defecting. so you're talking your ass the whole time and don't argument. congrats.

[Anonymous No.11994763]

>>11994728

>How many simulations do you think there are?

>If you believe you're in a simulation, why haven't you an hero'd yet to get to the 'real' world?

[Anonymous No.11994768]

>>11994755
I was simply showing you that your argument is your personal invention. Looks like you finally got it.

[Anonymous No.11994773]

>>11994763
>So you finally realized that your claims were absurd? Good.
>Anon, are you suicidal? Please don't, we love you.

[Anonymous No.11994778]

>>11994768
you forget to take your meds?

[Anonymous No.11994783]

>>11994773

>How many simulations do you think there are?

>If you believe you're in a simulation, why haven't you an hero'd yet to get to the 'real' world?

So you agree this isn't a simulation.

[Anonymous No.11994792]

>>11994783
>Hmm... no, non-sequitur again. You seem to be a master of lengthy nested non-sequiturs.

[Anonymous No.11994795]

>>11994792
>>11994773
>So you finally realized that your claims were absurd? Good.
>Anon, are you suicidal? Please don't, we love you.
>>11994792
>Hmm... no, non-sequitur again. You seem to be a master of lengthy nested non-sequiturs.

[Anonymous No.11994802]

>>11994778
Anon, I'm happy that the simulation concept blew your mind.

[Anonymous No.11994808]

>>11994802
>>>11994792
>>>11994773
>>So you finally realized that your claims were absurd? Good.
>>Anon, are you suicidal? Please don't, we love you.
>>>11994792
>>Hmm... no, non-sequitur again. You seem to be a master of lengthy nested non-sequiturs.
> Anon, I'm happy that the simulation concept blew your mind.

[Anonymous No.11994809]

>>11994709
There's no reason to believe you could "escape" a simulation by killing yourself, that's another strawman

[Anonymous No.11994818]

>>11994809
What's the consequence of being in a simulation vs reality?

[Anonymous No.11994819]

>>11994809
No point in arguing after the >>11994808 meltdown. After all if his initial point was "large numbers are infinite", then you can't get much out of that.

[Anonymous No.11994826]

>>11994819
>>11994802
>>>11994792
>>>11994773
>>So you finally realized that your claims were absurd? Good.
>>Anon, are you suicidal? Please don't, we love you.
>>>11994792
>>Hmm... no, non-sequitur again. You seem to be a master of lengthy nested non-sequiturs.
> Anon, I'm happy that the simulation concept blew your mind.

No point in arguing after the >>11994728 meltdown. After all if his initial point was "large numbers are infinite", then you can't get much out of that.

[Anonymous No.11994829]

>>11994819
Yes, hes been shitposting for a while now

[Anonymous No.11994834]

>>11994829
>>11994829
>>11994826
> Yes, hes been shitposting for a while now