Simulation Argument

[Anonymous No.14687234]

I know there probably have been a million posts about this but... Why does Nick Bostrom make such a strong argument and then turn around and say he thinks the odds we live in a simulation are <50%? I've heard from some also that there might be ways to test if we're in a simulation. Do you guys know anything about that? Has anyone done these experiments?

[Anonymous No.14687251]

Think about how many atoms are in your body and how many degrees of freedom each one can move in (or molecules).

Then look at one of those new pictures of all those galaxies and think about all the atoms and molecules in them.

No way it could be simulated.

To many parts with too many degrees of freedom. Too many scales with too much fidelity.

[El Arcón No.14687253]

The simulation theory is really about whether or not they have constructed a nightmarish replica of the USA in Antarctica. I did some pendulum experiments whose consistent results of counterclockwise precession indicated a location in the southern hemisphere despite the appearance of my environment seeming like Long Island, NY, Antarctica. I tried to get sunburned one day and I could not. This suggested that the light in the sky was not the sun, but rather only a replica of the sun emitting in the visible and thermal EM bands, but not the more energetic UV band. After noticing a distinct lack of rain around "Atlanta" in the summer of 2018, I checked the NOAA rainfall data. Kt said Atlanta had gotten almost twice as much rain as usual in July/August 2018, about 10 inches total, but I did not see a quarter inch of rain in "Atlanta" during those months. Also, I asked a dozen or more cops if I was in Antarctica and they all told me yes. Furthermore, the gangstalking problem is more readily explained by Antarctica being populated with a clone slave army of gangstalkers than by the natural population of the USA in North America unanimously moonlighting as gangstalkers.

[El Arcón No.14687254]

>>14687253
>some pendulum experiments

[Anonymous No.14687264]

>>14687251
why would a simulation simulate shit on a scale no one sees? that would be like designing a pacman game that keeps track of ghosts moving around on 100s of boards you're not on yet

[Anonymous No.14687285]

>>14687264
exactly

[Anonymous No.14687289]

>>14687253
>moonlighting
you think we follow you for free? lmao

[Anonymous No.14687299]

>>14687234
simulation theory is ultimately a cope. midwits trying to escape their lot in life are doomed to fail
>computer engineer / programmer
>the universe is a computer
>electrical engineer
>the universe is electric, oh boy its time to spam electric universe theory on sci all day
>clockmaker
>the universe is made of tiny gears
>chinaman
>the universe is made of insects such as myself, and i will eat them all, raw, with my bare hands

[Anonymous No.14687457]

>>14687264
There are conciousnesses in all those galaxies.

It comes down to this:

If the universe was not a simulation it makes sense it could look and act like this

If we want to think the universe might be a simulation, it is a lot more difficult to imagine such a fast rate multi scale so much data so fine of detail simulation

(I believe the universe is a simulation, just playing devil's advocate in hopes you can prove me wrong, thus proving me right. The tired argument of "it's only computed when someone looks, is shit, do not bring up the double slit, that interpretation is shit)

[Anonymous No.14687470]

>>14687234
If there are ways to test that we're in a simulation, they aren't there by accident. We have yet to detect a way to test it so either we're in base reality or a simulation that want's us to have no evidence one way or the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfKiTGj-zeQ

[Anonymous No.14687473]

>>14687457
nothing to do with double slit (and i don't believe the universe is a simulation so we're kind of doing the same thing in reverse lol). why do you imagine a pacman game would need to keep track of ghosts that don't matter, let alone their "consciousnesses"?

[El Arcón No.14687526]

>>14687289
I do think that if you're an Antarctican clone slave and moonlighting means you have a second job, in any case.
>>14687289
>lmao
You misspelled, "My Dunning-Kruger problem is so bad that I just assume I know what words mean without being familiar with their definitions."

[Anonymous No.14687603]

>>14687470
There are tons of signs that show its a simulation,

Nature of existence, propagation and speed of light

Electron orbital shells

Prevelence of galaxies and solar systems tailored for intelligent life to form and make complex civilizations

Fine tuning of gravity and em and quarks and electrons to allow all that stable macro perfection


If the dummy's that want anti matter to do be real and true and every particle can be turned into pure light, boom perfect evidence the universe is retardedly nonsensically unnatural and fake

[Anonymous No.14687620]

>>14687473
First I'm talking about raw data and degrees of true freedom, the amount of molecules in your body right now each moving different ways. Times by every other square inch of earth.

Assume there are other life on planets through out the universe. Unimaginable amount of fine details constantly operating. Unimaginable unimaginable unimaginable amount of fine details unimaginable amount unimaginable bewildering astonishing unimaginable unimaginable amount of fine details


Heres a response that should have gone to you maybe.
>>14687603

Light is the most blatent obvious clue. It is the furthest thing from a kind of natural idea for something to exist as, and be so universally prevelent fast and perfectly operating.

Also the buzzy qualities of electro magnetism in general, not so natural, very much a scifi advanced idea.

And to throw these high tech concepts into aesthetics like rocks and mud, is very playful of God. To use perfect high tech advanced genius ideas like atoms, to make rocks and mud, is very funny.

But also I mean we don't know if there is anything like rocks or water in Gods Realm, I mean how truly unique and creative could God actually possibly be, to completely invent the idea of water, and grass, the texture of various rocks, the qualities of materials.

[Anonymous No.14687635]

>>14687603
>>14687620
>>14687473
Everything is perfecy stable sectioned off little bits, that work together and build all the various materials, and then gravity and EM to keep them together and subtley move them about and signal between them, little bumps or big bumps if energy here or there to allow transformations.

If you were a thousand greatest possible geniuses put together, you would be very proud of yourself for coming up with such a genius intelligent idea, as the atom, EM, gravity system.

Good luck getting it to work out on such a large scale for so long and perfectly, super genius.

All these little properties of fraction charge and spin, subtle delicate little things exploding out of stars, and coming together perfectly to allow all of human history to occur, and all of alien histories to occur.

Grow up dummy.

[Anonymous No.14687638]

>>14687620
but you're not saying why keeping track of all that matters

[Anonymous No.14687697]

>>14687638
It's too much detailed information to imagine it being computable.

You are trying to say cells in your body only exist when you view them in a microscope? The peekaboo argument

[Anonymous No.14687720]

>>14687697
no i'm asking about the stuff you said about fine details somewhere else you can't see. why does that matter? like why would it matter if a bird farts on some other planet? it doesn’t even really matter if a bird farts here, unless maybe you hear it or smell it

[El Arcón No.14687811]

>>14687620
>Unimaginable amount of fine details constantly operating. Unimaginable unimaginable unimaginable amount of fine details unimaginable amount unimaginable bewildering astonishing unimaginable unimaginable amount of fine details
Several years ago, they successfully sold the idea that it is impossible to render lifelike video from scratch on a computer because the palatte of 50 million or more colors is too computationally intensive. It turns out that if you're going to play the video on a TV, you only need to render three colors: the RGB pixels in the screen, which can be done on a laptop. I think your "unimaginable" argument is like that since no one ever counts their molecules.

[Anonymous No.14687844]

>>14687251
Shit argument. It follows the fallacy of "we can only be simulated by the same physics"
We can simulate a 2D Mario platformer with proper physics to make the 2D world complete. If Mario turned around and said "Luigi, imagine someone simulating one 2D cloud. Now think of all the 2D levels, and 2D people. No way it could be stimulated!" You'd be laughing.
There is 0 reason to believe we aren't the simpler simulation of a much more complicated physics. It's easy to see: we program simple physics that are less complicated than our universe and see emergent properties. A much more complex universe could see consciousness arise, realize it arises from a less complex universe, and simulates their equivalent of a 2D Mario game and get emergent properties (us). There is 0 reason to believe the real universe is as simple as ours when we can simulate much less complex things.

[Anonymous No.14687859]

>Simulation Argument
theism for westoids that can't break out of their xhristian frameworks

[Anonymous No.14687895]

>>14687234
>religion
program start= creation
admin=god
bug=miracles

[Anonymous No.14687913]

>>14687720
>no i'm asking about the stuff you said about fine details somewhere else you can't see. why does that matter? like why would it matter if a bird farts on some other planet? it doesn’t even really matter if a bird farts here, unless maybe you hear it or smell it
How big, fast, powerful, how many components, how much energy, would God require constantly to simulate the whole universe on his computer

[Anonymous No.14687917]

>>14687811
Noone counts their molecules, is that you arguing that molecules done exist, you're not made of molecules?

[Anonymous No.14687928]

>>14687299
>the universe is made of tiny gears
If you take drugs this is what you will see

[Anonymous No.14687938]

>>14687844
maybe. maybe.

Just for giggles and shits

How many human computers would be required to simulate (not geussing or predicting the physics of universe) the amount of atoms in the universe and their degrees of freedom. How many human computers would it take to have a single connected computation computing that amount of singular universal data?

[Anonymous No.14687967]

>>14687603
>There are signs of simulation
>Implying it matters if it's simulation for the inside world
>Implying it would change anything

[Anonymous No.14688002]

>>14687234
>Can only go so small
>Can only go so big
>Can only go so fast
>Can only increase in entropy
>Areas densely packed with matter lag
>Most of the universe is empty whether at the micro or macro level
>Existence, but it follows very specific and arbitrary rules and laws instead of being free flowing and absolutely expressive unbounded by possibility
Yah I'm thinking this universe is fake and gay

[Anonymous No.14688075]

every argument for simulation is just an argument for god from white people that never grew out of being a teenager

[Anonymous No.14688133]

>>14688002
>>Can only go so small
>>Can only go so big
>>Can only go so fast
>>Can only increase in entropy
Wouldn't those be very likely in natural world

[Anonymous No.14688151]

>>14688075
Simulation is just the revelation of how God could make sense and be feasible.

It's harder to believe God hand crafted every rock, that God naturally produced and tossed a universe worth of real natural material.

Simulation theory realistically validates the possibility of God

[Anonymous No.14688300]

>>14687234
Well you have to start to ask yourself what a simulation really is and then ask yourself what type of simulation we are in.
Take a computer simulation idea. We're just chilling as the result of some super complex computer. Well, what could that computer be? If it's anything like a Turing machine, then we could write down the state of its memory every action as an infinite series of (in)finite sequences. Would this paper version or some other formatted version be any different in any meaningful way? Does the memory have to evolve in the time of the universe or could it evolve in any manner?
Once you open this up, consider a lonely rock just sitting in the woods. Absolutely stupidly large amount of atoms with even more electron configurations etc. Then take the states of the atoms in the rock and realize that if you interpret it correctly, it can be running all sorts of computer programs. As an example of an alternative format coming to life is a book or a movie where the characters become real subject to the viewer interpreting the pages and frames.
Once you realize that a simulation is just interpreted data and the interpreter isn't necessary to consider the program valid, you've know opened up a much much broader world for simulation theories. We don't even need a big bang anymore - we can start with a naturally motivated construction of the natural numbers and interpreting the sequence in all possible ways gives rise to all possible discrete universes. Depending on what axioms you hold true, then the vacuum constructs the reals and even continuum universes are just interpretations of the Platonic real numbers.
Put consciousness first and physics second. Once you peel away what's real and what's necessary, you find that the idea of a simulation is pretty crazy.

[Anonymous No.14688743]

>>14687913
would god require energy to do that? why? would it matter?

[Anonymous No.14688751]

>>14687234
>Why does Nick Bostrom make such a strong argument
He doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14688758]

>>14687234
The strongest argument that we live in a simulation may be that we just happen to exist at a time right before the technological singularity and colonization of the universe. Because of this, we may be uniquely positioned in history to influence the far future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NXj1og0SYo

[Anonymous No.14688768]

>>14688758
>The strongest argument that we live in a simulation may be that we just happen to exist at a time right before the technological singularity and colonization of the universe.
Reflect on what you just said and ask yourself if it's possible that you're in a cult.

[Anonymous No.14688831]

>>14688758
I believe ufos are intelligent aliens, though, so I believe the Universe is already somewhat colonized and there are post-singularity species.

[Anonymous No.14688852]

>>14687938
There's no reason to believe the simulation computers run on binary code.

[Anonymous No.14688854]

>>14687253
We don't have to gangstalk you, we're already in your walls

[Anonymous No.14689846]

>>14688852
What can they hypothetically run on?

How is large super detailed 4d space computed

[El Arcón No.14689865]

>>14688854
I hope you live to regret you association with the implants my anal rapists put into the anal stab wounds they made while they were raping me.

[Anonymous No.14689894]

>>14689865
>the implants
>my anal rapists put
>into the ANAL STAB WOUNDS
>they made while they were raping me.
Math & Science.

[Anonymous No.14690852]

>>14689865
>he's concerned about the anal implants
lmao

[Anonymous No.14690918]

>>14687913
msx afterburner

[Anonymous No.14691714]

>>14688151
>>14687603
>>14687620
>>14687635

[Anonymous No.14691867]

>>14687234
It’s solipsism with extra steps, complete waste of everyone’s time.

[Anonymous No.14692277]

>>14687264
Perhaps it only simulates what is observed.
Could explain some things…

[Anonymous No.14692283]

>>14687457
We could exist in a simulation and not in a simulation simultaneously depending on how consciousness works.
Provided we exist in the one real universe, also provided future humanity creates exactly one ancestor simulation.
If consciousness is substrate agnostic and not tied to location (whicg admittedly is a stretch)
You could exist 50% in the one real world and 50% in the one ancestor simulation, with the superposition only changing if the two diverge from one another

[Anonymous No.14692288]

>>14687635
Not an argument tho.
The perfect conditions for an oberver must exist for something to be observed.
There coin be a gorillion of universes that lack observers but they might aswell not exist.

[Anonymous No.14692301]

>>14688075
Yes and?
Is this supposed to be a dunk?
Magic isnt real. As such it makes sense that god works in real ways.
Why would he need a special other forve to manipulate a world he created.

[Anonymous No.14692337]

>>14688758
>this is an X Risk simulation
Oh no

[Anonymous No.14692749]

>>14692288
Assume the harder way first and try to solve for that, and then consider easy flippant hand waving cop out answers

[Anonymous No.14692773]

>>14692749
How is it a fucking cop out answer.
Observation requires and observer. An observer requires circumstances that lead to the observer existing. Why are we not on the moon? Or mars? Because humanity would not have evolved there.

[Anonymous No.14692881]

>>14692301
>White People: Magic isn't real!! God isn't real!! Imagine believing in made up nonsense Le magic flying spaghetti bacon narwhal epic!!
>Also White People: Uhhh we all live in a computer!! The universe isn't real!!! We just live in a 6th dimensional quagleblords supra nintendo game boy videogame!!!
just admit you're a theist

[Anonymous No.14693024]

>>14692773
Its a cop out answer because it doesn't mean anything or add anything

[Anonymous No.14693559]

>>14687234
I believe it is one of the many plausible theories.

[Anonymous No.14693573]

>know ONE reality
>WOT IF there was billion of fake realities
>now the odds of you living in a real one are 1 to billion

[Anonymous No.14693576]

>>14687251
simulation argument is retarded but your counterargument is even dumber.

>No way it could be simulated.
>To many parts with too many degrees of freedom.
from the human perspective. There is no such thing as "too big" objectively. What seems insanely big to us (like the universe) can be nothing to other beings.

[Anonymous No.14693581]

>>14687603
>There are tons of signs that show its a simulation,

[Anonymous No.14693582]

>>14687251
>No way it could be simulated.
Why not?

All yould need to do is program them into the simulation and give them parameters on how to behave and act. You can throw as many as you want our there and they just react to their programming.

Scientists do that now in computer simulations.

[Anonymous No.14693619]

>>14692277
i predict it is some sort of blockchain design

constantly checking previous locations and such

[Anonymous No.14694268]

>>14693582
How many seperate particles with continous degrees of freedom can all the current computers In the world, if hooked together, simulate in one single continous space?

[Anonymous No.14694286]

>>14687234

simulation universe aka god made the universe. cope harder.

[Anonymous No.14694293]

>>14687234
>the odds we live in a simulation
What the hell does this mean?

[Anonymous No.14694296]

>>14694268
Not him, but no one has been able to explain why that matters.

[Anonymous No.14694326]

>>14692277
This has been my default assumption for about a decade now. Not necessarily the simulation part of it, but that only observed phenomena actually occur.

[Anonymous No.14694441]

>>14692881
I am.
What are you gonna do about it niggerboy?
Atheism is obviously wrong to me.
But thats not tied to my view of simulationism.

[Anonymous No.14694473]

I don't think it's likely. I know, muh "you only have human technology as a reference!!!!" but if the universe was a simulation it's likely based on the creator's own universe. In our universe and our computers, (ANY type of computer), there are always limits. The main one in my argument is memory. Do you know how much memory it would take to be particle precise for EVERY SINGLE PARTICLE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE? And even if there was some kind of LOD system you have to put into perspective that you're not the main character anon, the "simulation" would be processing the perceptions of every human, every animal, every bug, it'd have to calculate how literally every single thing in the universe acts. Even the most /sci/zo programmer wouldn't be able to come up with a viable solution to all of those problems. The only reason this is even a proposed idea is because our human brains are too puny to recognize how huge and precise the universe is and we see Universe Sandbox^2 and KSP and we're like "oh hey what if that's reality!"

[Anonymous No.14695427]

Alright guys I was just asking if there was any way to test this theory. I've heard a couple things -- one having to do with there possibly being a limit on the energy levels of cosmic rays and the other being Tom Campbell's experiments (I don't remember what the experiments are exactly, it was pretty confusing). But it's been 3 years and he hasn't finished the experiments so I'm just impatient and wondering if there's any other way to test it or if anyone has done it and just not received a lot of media attention for whatever reason.

[Anonymous No.14695493]

>>14695427
Floating point precision errors. If we went far enough out, we would experience precision errors like atoms jumping forward with momentum at certain intervals. That doesn't happen, so we're not in a simulation.

[Anonymous No.14696205]

>>14695427
To test the theory, prove entanglement is actually real, prove that all particles can be created only using light

[Anonymous No.14696769]

>>14687299
>>computer engineer / programmer
Many things might seem like an algorithm in the Universe, even more if you take drugs.
That is because everything is computable

[Anonymous No.14696774]

>>14687234
>>14687299
>>14687603

And another argument for the computer perspective :
Why does nature seem to be digital ? That is , quantized to there is a "smallest" of everything. It's like we're talking pixels and processor cycles here

[Anonymous No.14696782]

>>14688133
>Wouldn't those be very likely in natural world
No, people always assumed the world to be analog , that is, to be able to be determined with infinite precision. Well, at least since they started making motion laws I guess.
Turns out the world is digital and there's no such thing as infinite precision.

[Anonymous No.14696902]

>>14696782
Analog doesnt auto mean perfect precision

Digital doesn't auto mean not perfect precision

[Anonymous No.14696942]

>>14696902
Do explain of the difference then. Of course there are other differences, but this point is relevant to the discussion.
In an ideal analog world you could measure a current with an infinite number of decimals. Obviously that doesn't happen, even if we can make a measuring device of immense precision, we will still hit a point below where quantum effects can not give you an exact value anymore

[Anonymous No.14696998]

>>14696774
>Why does nature seem to be digital ?
Maybe because you're a bot? It's analog for humans

[Anonymous No.14697187]

>>14696942
>we will still hit a point below where quantum effects can not give you an exact value anymore
Why are you assuming this instead of assuming our current theories of quantum world are lacking because we have not/cannot make such a device?

Also why if things are made of little spheres but they are all touching, it's not continous? If they are perfectly densely packed?

As long as there is any space between the spheres it's considered discrete.

So imagine a fish tank full of marbles, completely packed. Discrete.

In order to be continous, per this classical analog analogy, each space between the marbles, if we filled those gaps perfectly with marble, then the material could be considerd continous?

[Anonymous No.14697199]

>>14687299
>sociologist
>the universe is a social construct imposed by the elites

[Anonymous No.14697731]

>>14696998
>>14697187
The world is made up of quantas, for length , time and energy.
See anything Plank related .

>Also why if things are made of little spheres but they are all touching, it's not continous? If they are perfectly densely packed?
You need to learn more math. The point is not how densely they are packed but that they can not be divided anymore. So everything is limited to this precision.
Imagine our entire physics and math being limited to integer numbers, you can express everything as multiples of the little balls

[Anonymous No.14697886]

>>14697731
And if my previous explanation doesn't ring a bell yet, think of this :
Because of the Plank length , the distance between 2 balls can be either 0 or a multiple of a ball radius - one ball , two balls and so on.
That applies to all directions so a wave moving the balls in a vertical ( perpendicular ) plane is quantized , like recorded sound on a computer is quantized.
This is why we use 24 bits sound cards for high fidelity, reduce a recording to 4 bits and see if you like it.
There is also a ton of math associated with this that gives all the details, but I don't have time to explain that now

[Anonymous No.14698260]

>>14697731
You don't understand. Humans don't live in the internet all the time.

[Anonymous No.14698519]

>>14697731
I was trying to abstractly suggest an example that would be considered theoretically continous.

The perfect idea of continous material, is that there is absolutly 0% space across a span of distance of a material; this especially gets difficult to comprehend when thinking of a 4d material

[Anonymous No.14698525]

>>14687234
occam's tazor
increasing the ontological overhead of an observer (like say a superocmputer subtrate) decreases the probabilistic measure of said observer.

[Anonymous No.14698875]

>>14687234
It's ultimately unfalsifiable. It can appear we're in a simulation, but there's no way to actually show it being such. I, for one, think that certain limitations could imply it, but that doesn't definitively show we are in a sim.

[Anonymous No.14699090]

>>14698519
>I was trying to abstractly suggest an example that would be considered theoretically continous.
>The perfect idea of continous material, is that there is absolutly 0% space across a span of distance of a material

Are the little balls further divisible ? This is all that matters. If they are not, it's not continuous, it's discrete / digital.
I repeat, if the little balls act as a whole and they don't have other internal structure, it is NOT continuous.
Working with signals on a computer can teach you a lot of stuff about having to split everything by the tinniest amount you can process, and then , surprise, turns out real world works in the same way.
It's like saying bits in a computer are continuous because they are tightly packed together

[Anonymous No.14699095]

>>14698875
>It can appear we're in a simulation, but there's no way to actually show it being such
What if we can break out of it ?

[Anonymous No.14699116]

>>14699095
What if the "breaking out of it" is just an illusiory part of the simulation so you don't actually break out?

[Anonymous No.14699137]

>>14699116
yeah sure, you can always argue we live in a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, going to infinity.
which one is the real world ? you will never find it
for now, I am happy with finding a way to get out of this one

[Anonymous No.14699147]

>>14699116
>>14699137
Also, I think that finding a way to "break out" will show with high probability that this is a simulation
Would the real world possibly have this scenario included ?

[Anonymous No.14699158]

>>14699147
You could be part of it and not separate.

[Anonymous No.14699164]

>>14697731
>>14699090
Planck units of measurement have no say on physical measurement in reality, they are simply mathematical structures needed to support mathematical physics.

Obviously Planck units have nothing to do with whether or not the universe is continuous or discrete.

[Anonymous No.14699187]

>>14699164
"It is possible that the Planck length is the shortest physically measurable distance, since any attempt to investigate the possible existence of shorter distances, by performing higher-energy collisions, would result in black hole production. Higher-energy collisions, rather than splitting matter into finer pieces, would simply produce bigger black holes"
Plank length is also linked ,in a way that's too advanced for me , to the holographic universe idea , black hole entropy and 0 point energy.
Basically, that is the 0 point.
At that small length all the laws we know break down . Is there other physics that you can apply further ? Who knows, i'm not a physicist

[Anonymous No.14699198]

>>14699158
>You could be part of it and not separate.
Would a tiny sprite animated in our game be able to escape from the computer ? Maybe, if it's smart enough

[Anonymous No.14699281]

>>14699090
I attempted to use marbles as a model analog to fundamental particles.

Negative particles are Strongly attracted to positive.... But not all the way so that their bodies are fusingly touching... Or are they.

If you could take fundamental particles, and fuse their bodies as a 4d material so that there was 0% space between them is this the only feasible physical representation of 'conctious'

And the to marvel at how classically continous water, fire, and rock appear

[Anonymous No.14699360]

If everything we ever knew is a simulation then its not a simulation for us by definition. It's a reality.

But if you imply that we are, like in the matrix, just lying somewhere connected to the "simulation" machine and there's the exact same real world outside and we're just sleeping in it, that probably can happen. Like for example if you'd say we are actually living in a year 2890 and right now we are just in a simulation of the past like a retro machine. That's probably can be, but a lot of things "PROBABLY CAN" be. In that case there's literally no argument other than "well maybe it exists who knows".

And that's why any simulation theories are retarded.

[Anonymous No.14699406]

>>14699360
The word you're looking for is "unfalsifiable"

[Anonymous No.14699459]

>>14687264
have you considered that humans may not be the point of the simulation?

[Anonymous No.14700081]

>>14699281
It now has become clear to me you have no idea about this stuff.
I guess it takes some basic mathematical concepts in signal theory and digital systems, but you should be able to imagine it without.
All I can tell you is that once you have small pieces that can't be divided anymore, everything changes from an information point of view.
You have a higher limit to the highest frequency you can represent - because you can't go smaller wavelength.
Similarly , there are some limits to the highest and lowest energies you can represent.
In a sentence , all the math changes at a fundamental level and ignoring this is faulty as many people discovered before.

Can you go further than the Plank length ? It seems the Universe doesn't like it and beyond that are just mini black holes, like I described here >>14699187
But who knows, I am just saying that for our current understanding, nature seems to be digital

[Anonymous No.14700359]

>>14687264
It would not. You are correct. The server computes only that which is needed to ensure smooth game play for the consciousnesses who are interfacing with the reality. These people fail to realize that if the physical reality is virtual then causality is non-local, ie causality does not come from within spacetime or within the physical world. Causality becomes processual and computational and non-local and cause does not come from inside the physical world. No need to render microscopic things when players can't see these things. This is by the way why bell type correlations are possible. Space is not fundamental it is virtual and all points are equidistant from the processor. So the correlations are more like if-then statements and are computational and they are not caused by physical factors from within the physical space-time reality and do not have to obey limits of local spacetime causality. No-communication theorem still applies though. And so real physical microscopic entities are not causing things and they don't have to be rendered unless a player goes down to that level and makes a measurement, at which point they will be rendered what would be probable to be there. The physical universe is then just a collection of the data streams rendered to the totality of the players at any one time, and it is only ever rendered to the detail of the specs of the sense apparatuses of the players and what ever other measuring devices they come up with which demand finer measurement. And so it's more akin the procedural programming though not exactly the same.

[Anonymous No.14700373]

>>14687264
More on this
>>14700359

On testing the simulation theory

'On rendering reality It is now well understood in the emerging science of Uncertainty
Quantification that low complexity computation must be performed with hierarchies
of multi-fidelity models. It is also now well understood, in the domain of game
development, that low computational complexity requires rendering/displaying content
only when observed by a player. Recent games, such as No-Man’s Sky and Boundless,
have shown that vast open universes (potentially including “over 18 quintillion planets
with their own sets of flora and fauna”) are made feasable by creating content,
only at the moment the corresponding information becomes available for observation
by a player, through randomized generation techniques (such as procedural generation).
Therefore, to minimize computational complexity in the simulation theory, the system
performing the simulation would render reality only at the moment the corresponding
information becomes available for observation by a conscious observer (a player), and the
resolution/granularity of the rendering would be adjusted to the level of perception of
the observer. More precisely, using such techniques, the complexity of simulation would
not be constrained by the apparent size of the universe or an underlying pre-determined
mesh/grid size but by the number of players and the resolution of the information
made available for observation.'
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

[Anonymous No.14700375]

>>14700359
>And so it's more akin the procedural programming though not exactly the same.
Correction. I meant to say procedural generation

[Anonymous No.14700406]

>>14687251
>Think about how many atoms are in your body and how many degrees of freedom each one can move in (or molecules).
You don't have to compute to that detail. Those microscopic things are not causing anything and don't have to be rendered unless a player goes down to that level and demands a data stream through measurement such as which way data in a wave-particle duality experiment. Causation in a virtual reality does not come from within the virtual reality. Causality comes from computation outside of the reality ie non-locally or outside of spacetime. So all that has to be computed is the collective data streams of all of the consciousnesses. This paper might be of interest if you are interested in the details.
>>14700373

[Anonymous No.14700446]

>>14687457
>There are conciousnesses in all those galaxies.
Those consciousnesses would also only be rendered a subjective data stream which would represent the physical universe. And that data stream would only need to be rendered to the detail that each individual player/consciousness needed to ensure smooth and consistent game play. And so then they would go their whole life with our region of the universe never needing to be rendered to them at anymore detail than light points in their sky, just as distant celestial objects are rendered to us only as points of light in the night sky. Unless some person looks through a telescope or something, at which point a more detailed and closer up data stream must be rendered. The idea is that there is no objective reality. There is no world of observer independent matter. this was ruled out with bell theorem, at least in terms of a LOCAL observer independent reality. And so a model that better fits the data is that physical reality is made up of individual data streams rendered in consciousnesses which correspond enough to simulate an objective reality. Here is a paper that explains it better
>>14700373

[Anonymous No.14700503]

>>14687697
You don't have to rendered everything in the universe in some bottoms up kind of way. You render that stuff only only upon measurement according to what would be probable to be there according to a random draw from a probability distribution of evolving probabilities. You are thinking still in terms of the idea that the causality is coming from inside the virtual reality, in this case, from within space time. And so you are thinking that there must be reductive causation of tiny things making up larger things and effecting them. This is not the case. Causality is caused non-locally (outside the spacetime reality) by computation. And so these small constituents don't have to be rendered any more than they are rendered by your consciousness in your minds eye. Render these things only when a player makes a measurement such as the creation of which way information in a double slit experiment at which time they are rendered according to what would be probable to be there. see paper
here for more explanation.
>>14700373

[Anonymous No.14700554]

>>14699360
>If everything we ever knew is a simulation then its not a simulation for us by definition. It's a reality.
It's a virtual reality. So the idea is that it is not a reality of matter with stand alone existence. That is the point. It is an information based computed reality which was seemingly designed to simulate a reality of matter with stand alone existence. And then some players/consciousnesses interfacing with it started to find clues that it was not an objective reality with stand alone existence and that there was a relative and subjective element to physical reality. This started about a little over 100 years ago. And there has been an attempt to hide the fact and keep the idea of an observer independent objective physical reality ever since which includes things such as the many worlds interpretation and bohmian mechanics.
>But if you imply that we are, like in the matrix, just lying somewhere connected to the "simulation" machine and there's the exact same real world outside and we're just sleeping in it, that probably can happen.
There wouldn't need to be a model system. That is to say, there would not need to be some system which is a matter based system with observer independent existence of which our system is a simulation of. And there wouldn't need to be a 'real' you some where that is plugged into something. The 'real you' would be the non-physical, non-virtual, consciousness. The simulation could just be rendered 'inside' your consciousness as a data stream. You would be an individuated unit of consciousness receiving a data stream from 'the larger consciousness' server. Matter and the material world would then be derivative of minds. Matter would ONLY be something which only ever emerges in minds as an output. Max planck already had this figured

[Anonymous No.14700561]

Some have postulated we are part of the simulation, like NPC types. My question to that would be; how do we become aware of "glitches" and other issues within the game? Sims, for example, aren't programmed to respond to strange defects in programming. They don't notice it, their paths are pretedermined. So, why would humans somehow notice strange bugs in the simulation if we are part of it?

[Anonymous No.14700574]

>>14699360
>That's probably can be, but a lot of things "PROBABLY CAN" be. In that case there's literally no argument other than "well maybe it exists who knows".
It's about which model better fits the known data. The model of matter with objective stand alone existence does NOT fit the known data. And this is why you get copes like the many worlds interpretation.

By the way, there are tests under way which manipulate physical reality which further reveal the rendering constraints of physical reality.

On testing the simulation theory

Can the theory that reality is a simulation be tested? We investigate this question based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite
(i.e. has limited resources), then to achieve low computational complexity, such a
system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that
information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of
detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection
would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality
server before rendering content to the player). Guided by this principle we describe
conceptual wave/particle duality experiments aimed at testing the simulation theory
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

[Anonymous No.14700586]

>>14700574
You can set up experiments which exploit limitations in the system. Such experiments have already been done, such as all of the double slit experiments. More advanced ones are taking place. example

On testing the simulation theory

Testing the moment of rendering. In subsections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 we will describe
wave-particle duality experiments (illustrated in figures 5, 6 and 7) aimed at testing
the simulation theory by testing the hypothesis that reality is not rendered (or the wave
function is not collapsed) at the moment of detection by an apparatus that would be part
of the simulation, but rather at the moment when the corresponding information becomes
available for observation by an experimenter. More precisely, in the setting of wave-
particle duality experiments, our hypothesis is that wave or particle duality patterns are
not determined at the moment of detection but by the existence and availability of the
which-way data when the pattern is observed.

Exploiting consistency vs detection. In Subsection 4.5 we propose though experi-
ments where the conflicting requirement of logical consistency preservation and detection
avoidance is exploited to force the VR rendering engine to create discontinuities in its
rendering or produce a clear and measurable signature event within our reality that
would be an unambiguous indicator that our reality must be simulated. Although we
cannot predict the outcome of the experiments proposed in Subsection 4.5 we can rig-
orously prove that their outcome will be new in comparison to classical wave-duality
experiments. As a secondary purpose, the analysis of the experiment of Subsection 4.5
will also be used clarify the notion of availability of which-way data in a VR.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

[Anonymous No.14700627]

>>14700561
There are different models. Bostrom has the idea that there is some 'real' model system of a world made of observer independent matter and this world is running a simulation which is our reality. In this version, since he believes consciousness is physical and resides in material brains, our consciousness is also simulated. The better model is that our consciousness is the 'real' fundamental, non-simulated thing. It's the physical world that is the simulated thing. Consciousness would then not be physical, as actually people like schrodinger and godel knew, pic rel. Consciousness would then be non-local, ie not in space time. Spacetime would then actually be virtual and something that only emerges in minds/consciousnesses. Our consciousness is rendering the physical world to us as a virtual reality. Our consciousness is the individuated computer receiving a data stream from 'the larger consciousness system' or the big server. And so consciousness becomes the computer which outputs the physical world inside minds. And so we would be player characters and not NPCs. Though there could of course be simulated 'other minds' as there are even in dreams. Ones own mind can simulate 'other minds' to the observer.

[Anonymous No.14700659]

>>14687234
the odds we live in a simulation are NaN

[Anonymous No.14700714]

>>14700561
>So, why would humans somehow notice strange bugs in the simulation if we are part of it?
Hard to say but 'we' , the real, non-virtual 'we', the consciousness, would not be 'in' the simulation. We would be interfacing with it through immersion but not be actually 'in' the reality. We, the consciousness, are the computer, and so we can not be 'in' the physical world because the physical world is the output of the computation. The computer can't be in computed thing in other words. The computer must be non-local to that which it computes. Though we DO have a virtual avatar body which IS constrained by the laws of physics and which is computed and which is 'in' the physical world. It's the one you see and which your consciousness gives you a first person shooter type vantage point of when you look down. This is not the fundamental you though. It's not the you with identity over time. It's just an avatar to interface with during this experience packet of data during this instantiation of immersion. Actually schrodinger came to the conclusion also that consciousness is not physical. So did godel. This is also why consciousnesses are never in super position and can't be both dead and alive.
consciousness.

. And so yes, we would have a physical avatar. As the one you see when you look down and see your body rendered to you in a first person shooter type of way. And

[Anonymous No.14702554]

How big, fast, an energy consuming would Gods computer have to be to simulate the universe?

Consider all galaxies viewed are actually computed, and constantly all atoms in them.

As well as other versions if you must

[Anonymous No.14703362]

>>14687844
Exactly. The "can we be simulated"? question is pretty silly. It's obvious we can be, if granting all sorts of possibilities about the true nature of reality. We don't and very likely can't know what might exist outside/above our universe. Could we perfectly simulate our universe within our universe? Very possibly not. But that's not the question.

It's like someone trying to refute the existence of a deity by saying the universe is simply far too complex for a single entity to have been able to craft something with so much detail. It's missing the whole point. The answer to "are we simulated?" is very unclear, but claiming that it's just too hard really doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.14703363]

>>14689865
>I hope you live to regret you association with the implants my anal rapists put into the anal stab wounds they made while they were raping me.
Did it feel pleasurable at the time, though?

[Anonymous No.14703370]

>>14700714
There's no reason this has to be the case. The "Matrix theory" is indeed one possible conception of a simulation, but there's no reason to believe Schroedinger was right about this. If we are in a simulation, the constituents of consciousness could exist purely virtually as pieces of the simulation, just as anything else in the simulation exists as pieces of the simulation. That is, consciousness may still be purely "materialistic" (on the level of the simulation/our reality), even if it's virtual on the system that runs the simulation. The virtual avatar body may be fundamentally of the same type as the virtual consciousness that appears in the brain of the virtual avatar body.

[Anonymous No.14704574]

>>14702554
>How big, fast, an energy consuming would Gods computer have to be to simulate the universe?
>Consider all galaxies viewed are actually computed, and constantly all atoms in them.
>As well as other versions if you must


Gpt7.5 answer please

[Anonymous No.14704775]

>>14687251
wow, base reality shills are just as shit as ours

[Anonymous No.14705238]

>>14704775
>base reality
there is no base reality. every reality is simulated within another reality, which itself is simulated in another reality, and so on.
>Why?
Because I said so, and it sounds cool, and it wouldn't be the first time that some shit I just made up turned out to be the case.

[Anonymous No.14706701]

>>14702554
>Consider all galaxies viewed are actually computed, and constantly all atoms in them.
Ever heard of LOD rendering ?

[vvvvvvv No.14708365]

>>14706701
No what's that? Load on demand?

No no, solve for the most complex case first before brushing it off to the easiest.

I mean I geuss maybe. Fuck. Yeah maybe the information only loads when conciousness gets there. Fuck. Explain light from distant galaxies, explain light constantly being emitted from all stars conatsntly going in all directions

[Anonymous No.14708410]

>>14687234
The fact this is even still a debatable problem in regards to the fundamental nature of reality goes to show how useless and myopic science is as an epistemological tool and consequently how retarded many stemtards are

[Anonymous No.14708447]

>>14700561
>So, why would humans somehow notice strange bugs in the simulation if we are part of it?
Yes, its called synchronicity, ESP, and mysticism. Look into Jung's and Pauli's ideas on synchronicity and entanglement. Sooner or later you're just going to realize that panpsychism is true.

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/presentations/Milan/papers/Dual-aspect-Atmanspacher.pdf

[Anonymous No.14708451]

>>14708410
If super Mario became concious, how would it go about proving to himself without a doubt it was in a simulation?

[Anonymous No.14708554]

>>14708365
LOD is Level of Detail
Basically, a technique used in games where objects far away are rendered with a low poly count and every detail to a minimum.
How the hell do you think you can have a open world game and still have it run at a 60 fps min ?
If everything was rendered to a full detail, you'd need a super computer to play Crysis

As for light , what's so amazing ? I don't get it. It's just diffuse light

[Anonymous No.14708795]

>>14708554
Is the quintillions of units of light constantly being emited by every star in every direction, which constantly proves it's universe traversing quest by constantly touching our telescopes, actually constantly being produced, computed, rendered?

[Anonymous No.14708798]

>>14708554
And your really suggesting the surface of Mars only fulfilled itself I actuality once a a rover touched down and sent an image back or orbiting satelite.

This is just wishful thinking. It is not sturdy enough to gung ho'ly be satisfied with this simple conjecture being true

[Anonymous No.14708822]

>>14708795
Diffuse light can easily be rendered. We already have the technology to simulate that.
>And your really suggesting the surface of Mars only fulfilled itself I actuality once a a rover touched down and sent an image back or orbiting satelite.
I don't know if it fulfilled itself or just rendered to bigger detail for the rover to photograph.
The quantum mechanics interpretation that says nothing exists until observed by a human, has big philosophical problems , but if that turns out to be true, we are definitely living in a simulation

[Anonymous No.14708998]

>>14687603
fine tune argument refuted by a puddle

[Anonymous No.14709021]

>>14687234
simulation argument is retarded. yes it's possible a future civilization could make a supercomputer that could roughly simulate reality, yet we know that this simulation would have to run at at least the level of molecules and atoms as our brains and computers and chemistry and everything works with or without observation or measuring, and at that level of fidelity it would literally be easier to build earth than build a simulation of it. okay, maybe they're a 4d species simulating a 3d universe, like we simulate 2d. that would be so far beyond our comprehension it's stupid to think about, and just as unprovable as a god

[Anonymous No.14709114]

>>14708451
>If super Mario became concious, how would it go about proving to himself without a doubt it was in a simulation?
GPT8.387 what do you have to say about this?

[Anonymous No.14709121]

>>14708822
>The quantum mechanics interpretation that says nothing exists until observed by a human, has big philosophical problems

Yes, the simple obvious take is:

We are ignorant to a case.
We investigate the case.
We hopefully know something more than absolute ignorance about the case.

Some people for some reason interpreted this first step as:

The universe is ignorant about its own case (God plays dice)

[Anonymous No.14709128]

>>14709021
Yes this is what I was trying to tell those fools who have never fathomed the sheer gross quantity of quantas, and their sheer numbers of active degrees of freedom

[Anonymous No.14709137]

>>14708822
it isn't true though, they've done experiments where the data is stored in atoms or similarly recorded in a way humans can't and will never be able to read the info, and it still causes the wave to collapse. it's just measurement that does it, not conscious observation

[Anonymous No.14709189]

I actually have a proof that we live in a simulation. In picrelated I found three identical copies of the same person. The only explanation for this is a glitch in the program which has yet been unnoticed.

[Anonymous No.14709484]

>>14709121
God doesn't play dice was said by Einstein about entanglement. And Einstein has been proved wrong in this matter by Bell's experiment.

>>14709137
What if furthermore, they erase the information from the atoms without ever looking at the screen pattern ?
Because if there's information , you can arguably say that a human will find it out in the future.
Is this a way to actually create information ?
And then there's the question about if information can ever be deleted, really deleted.
For example, if we erase a bit in a computer memory, the information is not lost, just converted to heat produced by the processor.

[Anonymous No.14709506]

>>14709121
God doesn't play dice was said by Einstein about entanglement. And Einstein has been proved wrong in this matter by Bell's experiment.

>>14709137
What if furthermore, they erase the information from the atoms without looking at the screen pattern ? And after, they look at the screen
Because if there's information , you can arguably say that a human will find it out in the future.
Is this a way to actually create information ?
And then there's the question about if information can ever be deleted, really deleted.
For example, if we erase a bit in a computer memory, the information is not lost, just converted to heat produced by the processor.

[Anonymous No.14709512]

>>14708822
>The quantum mechanics interpretation that says nothing exists until observed by a human
There is literally no interpretation like that you dumb schizo

[Anonymous No.14709515]

>>14709506
i can guarantee you that future humans won't try to find a single fucking atom that's randomly been blown around earth to decode it to ensure they fuck with us

[Anonymous No.14709530]

Public service announcement:
SCHIZO THREAD
SCHIZO THREAD
SCHIZO THREAD
SCHIZO THREAD
SCHIZO THREAD

[Anonymous No.14710228]

>>14709512
A particle does not have classical properties until measured by someone. Whether or not this has to finally be a human, remains an open question.
You are just an ignorant and further frustated that nobody is taking you seriously, because all you do is spew out dumb axioms with no reasoning behind them. Go back to /pol

>>14709515
You missed the point. As long as the information is out there, there's no guarantee nobody will read it. You can't guarantee that

[Anonymous No.14711229]

>>14687251
Isn't this similar to
>the universe is so amazing that it must have been created
?

[Anonymous No.14711353]

>>14700554
so did Buddha

[Anonymous No.14711800]

IF SUPER MARIO BECAME CONCIOUS HOW WOULD HE WITHOUT A DOUBT PROVE HE WAS IN A SIMULATION?

WE WENT FROM SLAVELY MONKEYS TO NATURE; TO POKING AND PRODING THE ODD BIZARRE FUNDAMENTAL SUBSTANCE OF OUR REALITY IN SOME YEARS

[Anonymous No.14711814]

>>14709530
there is one at least, as we discover now

[Anonymous No.14712527]

God am real

[Anonymous No.14712547]

>>14711229
I forgot who said it but (paraphrasing), "You take a sip from the glass of science and undoubtedly become atheist, but when you get to the bottom you understand there is a god."

It's crazy to think that something as complicated as our metabolism constantly works every day without fail. That's just an example, but the original anon isn't too far off when they said it's too complicated to be a simulation.

[Anonymous No.14712571]

>>14712547
Perhaps humans understand the mechanics.of universe? Perhaps Universe can indeed work without flaws, meaning, our metabolism for instance can be quite simple thing it is only to us who are unable to create something longterm that it appears difficult. Get it?

[Anonymous No.14712638]

>>14687234
>Perhaps
>The thread
Not gonna waste time desu

[Anonymous No.14713905]

>>14712571
Maybs

[Anonymous No.14714015]

>>14687234
There is a drug called salvia divinorum. It makes you trip balls for about 10 minutes. People who smoke it report having the experience of living months of an alternate life, some report more whacky things like being a rock for thousands of years. They would then wake up from the trip, dumbfounded that what the until now had believed to be reality was just a drug trip. That more than any simulation argument, makes me doubt reality

[Anonymous No.14714746]

>>14714015
>salvia divinorum
Here's something better. We are all pieces running in an evolutionary alghorithim designed to create the perfect virus or something.
Sometimes the workings of the algorithm have a bug , and it starts to act wrong, and you get a connection to a pararell unit running

[Anonymous No.14714784]

>>14714015
Just sounds like they get sucked into their dream realm with all the alert powers of waking mind awareness energies

[Anonymous No.14715017]

>>14714784
>Just sounds like they get sucked into their dream realm
Just as how dreams can feel like days or a life time

[Anonymous No.14715031]

>>14714015
Being a rock for a thousand years sounds suicide inducing

[Anonymous No.14716178]

>>14715017
Yea, sounds like it huh

[Anonymous No.14717110]

>>14716178
Yep, quite does