/lit/ - Literature

>>16140094
There's no evidence for it and it doesn't explain anything.

>>16140094

>>16140094
Chinese room argument

1. A simulator can't simulate something that is logically impossible in its own world (we cannot simulate a square circle, or a non-existent object)
2. A simulated universe is contingent on another universe (this can be simulation chains)

1&2-> 3. simulated universes conform to the same logic as their simulator universes

2 -> A simulation chain of any number must be ontologically grounded in one non-contingent simulator universe (no infinite regress)

2&3 -> our universe, for all intents and purposes, is the non-contingent universe, as it must conform to the same rules as the simulator universe, and the simulator universe is non-contingent. Introducing layers of contingent simulations is unnecessary, adding nothing of significance. Therefore we can reject simulation theory as overdetermined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-lDYPR2P8

It's circular and makes no sense.

>How do you know all the major world leaders are not controlled by dogs and that dogs rule the world?
>Whoa but I see no evidence of dogs ruling the world, I mean I have a dog, it's a normal dog, I know several dogs, no hint of any leadership or anything
>It's because they are so powerful they leave no hints, they got you!

It's just how conspiracies work. You create something so crazy that is protected by its own absurdity and so people can't refute it. At the end of the day, if the world is just like so and is ruled by dogs or not, a "perfect simulation" or not, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Imagine a prison so good it doesn't even feel like a prison... Well, that's no prison then, it feels so very good . Now you may say that is conformist, but a prison like that would only show itself to be a prison if you notice it and try to escape it, which is the plot of Matrix and other stories like that.

>>16140101
yeah, but dude, like, just imagine, like, what if we are in a simulation though? that would be pretty fucking weird, right? keeps me up at night man

>>16140094
>>16140131
As the fidelity of a model approaches the fidelity of the phenomenon it's trying to simulate, the energy required to model it approaches the energy of the system in which the phenomena happens. The only 100% accurate real-time simulation of reality is reality itself. And so the simulation hypothesis becomes increasingly absurd because there's only a couple possibilities:

1. Reality is infinitely more complex than the simulated reality being used to trick persons.
2. Reality is so infinitely larger than the simulated reality that it is capable of sustaining a 100% accurate model of a reality for billions of years.
3. Reality has completely different sets of physics and yet is able to conceive of the nature of a universe with our set of physics, despite this being seemingly impossible logically.

And even if the universe is still a simulation, it's still beholden to basic rules of logic, which exist regardless of universal constants. I.e., >>16140821. The conception of a super-universe in which you can exceed the speed of light or something else retarded doesn't change the non-existence of non-concepts like a squared circle or dry water.

The infinitely more likely "Techie surprise at the end of life" is that somewhere far far away in the infinite void some race has mastered universe-shattering technology inconceivable to us and, to escape their boring post-scarcity existence, uses it to transfer their consciousness into biological husks that live a life that isn't utopian, or use semi-utopian settings to understand the flaws in their own society. Believing there's some level of existence above reality run by a computer nerd is just retarded.

>>16140094
>he hasn't reached the Akashic Console

>>16140994
your gimmick sucks and makes no sense, why bother maintaining it if it failed to get any traction

>>16140985
>As the fidelity of a model approaches the fidelity of the phenomenon it's trying to simulate, the energy required to model it approaches the energy of the system in which the phenomena happens.
Have you ever played a videogame? I stopped reading right there, you are literally retarded if you think that. There might be no help for you, I am sorry anon may angels watch over your soul. Why would you ever think that, I really cannot fathom. This is the kind of don't divide zero by zero on a calculator or it'll blow up type of shit.

Literally who the fuck cares
I still have to pay taxes and get diarrhea. Tell me when they figure out cheat codes for it, otherwise it's literally irrelevant.

>>16141011
>>16141185
>Imagine not knowing there is UI and cheat codes
I bet ya haven't even connected to the net

>>16141213
Drugs aren't cheat codes.

>>16141225
Confusing part of the interface and world's objects for cheats.

Here is the UI losers I am not giving giving you cheats because this thread is not lit enough. No one even brought up Bostrom yet. https://youtu.be/9Ay_P4ze9EU

>>16141176
>Pulling several hundred kWh per month to simulate a tank hitting a rock and flying into the stratosphere at mach 3 is an argument against real accurate physics being easy to simulate.
Lmao you realize physicists don't spend 10 years doing undergrad and graduate school to learn about fucking bullet drop, right anon?

>>16140094
Hilary Putnam's Brain in a Vat

If you're speculating about being in a simulation, it's impossible to refer to whatever it actually is even if by chance you construct a story that is logically similar to the reality. This is because all you're doing is shuffling around elements of your own experience. When you speak of being in a simulation, you're referring to your own experience with modern technology. There's no way you can actually refer to a simulation you're in, as it would be outside your experience.

Hilary Putnam's "Brain in a Vat" example is just that a brain in a vat could declare itself to be a brain in a vat, but it wouldn't actually be a successful reference to that reality.

>>16141324
>In his later work, Putnam became increasingly interested in American pragmatism, Jewish philosophy, and ethics
> His father, Samuel Putnam, was a scholar of Romance languages, columnist, and translator who wrote for the Daily Worker, a publication of the American Communist Party
>Putnam had a secular upbringing, although his mother, Riva, was Jewish.

>>16140094
Nothing changes if we do or don't, so it doesn't matter.

>>16140864
>It's circular and makes no sense.
like materialism?
>Imagine a prison so good it doesn't even feel like a prison... Well, that's no prison then
reality can be pretty shit dude

>>16141011
>that flouride rage

>>16141375
your life realistically won’t change because of half the shit /lit/ loves to bitch about but you bitch about it anyways

>>16141364
Man I can't wait for stupid cunts like you to be bred out of society

Imagine not being able to appreciate someone's work in epistemology because their mom was Jewish

>>16141321
If you are making an argument that our compute regarding physics simulations is very inefficient and doesn't scale then yeah I agree. If you are making an argument that energy used to produce one second of that explosion simulation is almost the same as one second energy release of that explosion with hyper efficient and well scaled compute, then you are a monstrous moron regardless of your academic history

>>16140094
I think, therefore I am.

>>16141477
Except when you find out that something in 'you' thinks and you have no evidence for the latter statement regardless of the change in the first statement

>>16141488
May be possible, but it's good enough to tip the scale for me.

>>16141381
I phrased it poorly. I meant a prison so good at being a prison, as in, a prison that does not look at all like a prison to the prisoner and therefore would be inexcapable.

>>16141523
I am possible, therefore I am probable

>>16141477

>>16141531
Fuck, this ? If it's possible for there to be something like you, a version of you per say in a some sort of world or phase of replayed space time. That increases the probability of you being in one of those space-times. Since datasets most rich in novel data are generally sought after and simulations most often consist of distilled interesting aspects and details of subject, it makes sense that simulated spaces-times would be rich in novel events and continuous escalation of information across a linear timeline from the confines of the space-time detector(you). You also wanna gather data from many points simultaneously and have the process be mostly automated with minimal interference.

>>16140094
It's an old argument, about whether you can trust your senses, coupled with staggering ignorance about computer science. More than anything else, it's just a boring thing to talk about.

>>16140094
There is nothing transcendental about "hurr we're a computer simulation inside of a computer simulation inside of a computer simulation et. infinitum." God is the OG, the all-encompassing beginning and end Who has created all things and Who has no origin nor the need for one.

>>16140094

The computer you seek will never be the thing you can perceive or relate to. May as well consider the idea of reality being a process of survival. Make the best of the perspective.

>>16140094
Even if we were we would never be able to prove it. The origin of the Universe will always remain indemonstrable.

>>16141225
Yeah but fortunately schizophrenia is

>>16140821
I don't get your last argument. How is this a proof that our universe is non-contingent? The simulation we live in could follow the same rules, yet be much smaller in scale than the 'real world'.
I don't believe we live in a simulated universe because there's no point and no evidence to it. I would just like to understand your reasoning.