[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 47 KB, 473x266, 093be0094c876451f3017063f5bf83a3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15255801 No.15255801 [Reply] [Original]

the "we live in a simulation" hypotheses is as likely as there being a God, yet one is mocked and the other respected by "sciencefags". Any books on the simulation hypotheses out there?

>> No.15255877

>>15255801
Simulation theory isn't remotely likely.

>> No.15255888

>>15255801
“We live in a simulation” hypothesis is also as likely as another reality living inside my ballsack.

>> No.15255896

>>15255801
>we live in a simulation
No.

>> No.15255906

>>15255801
Simulation theory is much less probable than god existing

>> No.15255934

It's just the first smatterings of a new religion. Same with transhumanism in pop culture e.g. Poppy, Grimes, SOPHIE.

>> No.15255953
File: 27 KB, 337x295, 5B3942E1-DC62-4862-89BE-2B219D287A45.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15255953

>>15255934
All three of those artists suck. Take the Joanna pill

>> No.15255970

>>15255906
It is still preached by sciencefags/ "I fucking love science"- bros

>> No.15256004

>>15255801
if we dont live in a simulation explain black holes

>> No.15256030

>>15256004
If there is no god explain black holes

>> No.15256035

>>15255801
>we live in a simulation
Probably not, but so what if we do? At least God actually matters for something besides some brain dead ontological "epiphany" every 16 year-old that has ever taken acid has already considered.

>> No.15256069

>>15255801
Descartes

>> No.15256087

>>15255970
Yeah they’re fuckin dumb

>> No.15256183

It's easy to convert redditors to Christianity through this reasoning

>> No.15256238

>>15255801
Leibniz and his "Monadology" prefigures this, among many other Enlightenment philosophers, particularly Berkeley.
But the Simulation Hypothesis, as proposed today, is hardly as strong (and many contemporaries of Leibniz and Berkeley would say something similar of them), depending on who's proposing it. Much of it is a product of tunnel vision, not of science, but of specific fields. A computer scientist (who proposes a weak simulation hypothesis) is so embroiled in his field that he sees any hint of things in reality that are analogous to computers, he suspects reality itself is a simulation. A simulation done by what? Well since he's a computer scientist, probably more computer analogies, and the hypothesis begins to break down there. At least with Leibniz he held that the monads were lone but harmonized by God of a more Catholic variety.

>> No.15256290

>>15255953
I didn't imply it was a good thing, I think it's a liberal distraction from actually confronting the issues facing the world

>> No.15256399

>>15255801
IF it is possible, in theory, to simulate a conscious being
AND in practice, the number of civilizations that reach a level of technological advancement sufficient to do so is not near zero
AND the number of those civilizations that choose to do large scale simulations of many minds is not near zero
THEN it is very likely we live in a simulation

There are a lot of assumptions needed to take this seriously, which is why it's mainly entertained by futurists who are already take for granted posthuman civilizations who can harvest significant fractions of their star's energy as the future.

It really is not much different then a religious belief in that sense, although the topic is personally much more interesting.

>> No.15256403

>>15255801
I don't believe in this stuff but it does make for some fun pop entertainment

https://youtu.be/D3qxWbQ8qek
It's a shame parallel universes is a sci-fi concept so rarely executed to its fullest extent