[ 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: 555 KB, 1242x1080, 1597079393945.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16194703 No.16194703 [Reply] [Original]

Is the phenomena of atheists saying they think the universe is a 'simulation' just a coping mechanism for them, a way of implicitly conceding that they subscribe to intelligent design whilst retaining their intellectual edginess?

>> No.16194723

>>16194703
Hey i just saw this meme on /tv/
maybe both of us should go back there.

>> No.16194731

Ah, yes. Another religious pseudo-intellect I see. Is the phenomena of religious fags saying that worshipping some egocentric sky daddy is ethical just a coping mechanism for them? Conceding that they can't explain as to how God came into existence? Keep coping nigger.

>> No.16194741

>>16194703
The simulation argument is that if simulations are possible then there are probably uncountable amounts of them, simulations within simulations even, meaning that the probability you are in the one real world, rather than one of the uncountable number of fake ones is very low.

Idk if this makes sense or not because Im a retard but that's the general form of the argument.

>> No.16194748

By it being a simulation, they believe, unquestionably and fanatically, that they are red-pilled in the Matrix. These spermbelching nerds need to get a grip and stop with this abhorrent tinfoil bullshit.

>> No.16194754

fantastic narrative for pussies who can't cope with their undignified empty lives
the stemlords worth talking to are well beyond this silly shit and only jokingly entertain it around hot mics and houseguests

>> No.16194761

>>16194741
thank you, that sounded ok

>> No.16194776

I can't pretend I don't wonder about it, but then I quickly realize that if it is true, nothing changes, there's nothing I can about it. In fact, I suspect that if I find out the truth, it will be game over and the sim will just restart as it might have already done thousands of times.

>> No.16194792

Reminder that consciousness may not be a computational function

>> No.16194801

>>16194741
Commits a couple of fallacies on the way but everyone blows over them completely because muh statistical evidence (based on the fallacies) and also muh Memelord Musk podcast.

Put it like this:
A. There are/will be civilizations capable of creating simulations
B. These civilizations are/will be capable of running a large quantity of simulations
C. These civilizations have an incentive to run large quantities of simulations
Therefore,
D. We're more likely to be one of the simulated worlds than the base reality that is hosting all the simulations

Let's see, this conclusion presupposes premises A, B, and C to be true.
Why? No one knows.
Are they true? No one knows.
Can they become true? No one knows.
So do we live in a simulation? No one knows.
Is everyone who "believes" in simulation theory a retard? Yes.

>> No.16194819

>>16194723
Can u hold my hand on the way

>> No.16194831

>>16194703
Consciousness begets reality, anon. All of this is a collective dream.

>> No.16194842

"One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything—from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT."
- Thomas Ligotti

>> No.16194843

>>16194731
How did anything come into existence? The fact that anything at all exists doesn't make any sense. Might as well believe the religion that most accurately explains the world we live in, and that religion is, of course, Christianity.

>> No.16194877

>>16194723
kek

>> No.16194932

>>16194831
>Consciousness begets reality
okay egoist/subjectivist

>> No.16195017

>>16194843
>we don’t know something
>therefore sky jew dun did it and we should start worshipping a kike on a pike who claimed to be his son
Truly flawless logic

>> No.16195022

>>16194703
Yes.

>> No.16195025

>>16195017
You seem to have daddy issues, anon. Maybe you should see a professional for that.

>> No.16195048

>>16194703

It is retarded. All materialist views conveniently ignore any question of consciousness.

>> No.16195049
File: 51 KB, 413x243, soy excite.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16195049

>>16194703
OMG Moby was right!!!

>> No.16195126

>>16194703
>Is the phenomena
Wanna guess how I know you're a brainlet?

>> No.16195249

>>16194731
miring the bait.

>> No.16195262

>>16194801
so much text, for so much nonsense. sad times

>> No.16195267

Hinduism has been saying this for thousands of years

>> No.16195294

>>16195262
If you want to see pages upon pages of blabber and nonsense then you should read the "simulation theory" paper yourself.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

>> No.16195326

>>16194703
>your bones are made of exploded stars
Well yeah, this has been known for thousands of years. It's literally one of the central themes of Plato's dialogues.
I agree though it is kind of retarded to subscribe to simulation theory and simultaneously be an atheist. This doesn't give validity to the Jewish/Christian conception of monotheism and the myths attached to it, but it does validate the belief in an architect.

>> No.16195368

>>16194843
It makes perfect sense without religion and with pure logic, because it has to. Everything makes sense because it exists.

>> No.16195377

>>16194843
>Might as well believe the religion that most accurately explains the world we live in, and that religion is, of course, Christianity.
Very little about Christianity is accurate or makes sense. That's why they had to plagiarize Greek pagans in order to make their religion less nonsensical.

>> No.16195400

>>16194741
>simulations are not real
Ehh?

>> No.16195432

>>16195400

About as real as your future wife's orgasms

>> No.16195517

>>16194703
>turtles all the way down
I wish that Hindustanis were not controlling international AI research.

>> No.16195528

>>16195025
Ok mr. armchair psychologist

>> No.16195530

>>16195017
The whole point of religion isn’t whether it’s true or not but whether you believe it. This argument you’re giving (in its lowest form) completely misses the point.

>> No.16195593

>>16194801
>Why? No one knows.
Because the inductive steps are already in place. We know we can read and interpret brain waves. We're not very good at it yet, but interacting with the inner mechanisms of the brain is proven to be possible. We can run very accurate simulations already of very complex things. We can't simulate an entire universe, but it is proven that it's possible to create a system which accurately models some facet of reality, which is the most strenuously exacting standard you can apply to any model or simulation. I could go on. So A through C have already been proven by induction. We have this smattering of primitive versions of the technologies required to run a simulation of the universe. It's entirely irrelevant whether or not we humans can or ever will develop them. Maybe we die off first or are just too dumb to peer through the veil, but the point is that these theoretical simulations are possible, and that given the possibility (given infinity, any one thing may happen at least once, as long as it follows the rules), that possibility approaches likelihood that we are living in a simulation.

>> No.16195692

>>16195593
I knew someone would say something like this.

If you look at the argument there's another premise that is implicit in the argument, and the same implicit premise is presupposed in your argument as well.
It's the premise that the fundamental level world that's running the simulations has anywhere near the same physics and workings as our world does.
It's a metaphysical world (from our perspective, which is the only one that matters) which supposedly works the same as way ours does because we can "calculate" this using our world's logic. Just because computer logic says that doesn't mean it's true in the "real" world.

Another thing, this theory is unfalsifiable, or at least the theorist or any of his pop-sci minions have no way to conduct experiments which allow us to falsify or validate his theory.
This is, by definition, pseudoscience.
Same thing as God: believe it if you want but it's not science nor "logical".

>> No.16195744

>>16195692
>It's the premise that the fundamental level world that's running the simulations has anywhere near the same physics and workings as our world does.
The physics of the enclosing universe in which we are nested is not relevant. If there exists a simulated universe, there exists a combination of factors which allow it to be simulated. Therefore, it is not possible for a universe in which a simulation is possible to be itself impossible to be simulated. A universe's ability to self-simulate (which I remind you has already been proven via induction to be possible) implies its ability to be simulated.

>> No.16195761

>>16195593
I don't see how from "some things can be simulated" you follow to "universe can be simulated".
I guess your arguement is the infinity of universe? But modern science rejects this thesis. Time is also not infinite.

>> No.16195773

>>16194703
No, it’s just another totally epic science-fiction idea they want to be real because they think it’s cool, they act like children in this way. Also, not literature, go back to /tv/ or read something you faggot.

>> No.16195779

>>16194703
Like OP, their brains are broken from too much soi

del this thread

>> No.16195976

>>16195761
We are already simulating the universe, just a very limited subset of it. What would be required for the universe to be impossible to simulate? An easy one would be the impossibility of any simulation, but we all know that isn't true. The device you're reading this message right now is running a simulation of the Earth's rotation. It's a really crude one and is really single-minded, but right now your computer is simulating the location of the sun wrt your position. Really, the only two things you need to run a simulation of anything are an understanding of what you're simulating and the necessary hardware to simulate it. In order for the universe to be nonsimulable, one of these two things would need to be impossible -- not impossible for humans, but impossible in a cosmic sense. Either it is impossible to create the necessary hardware to run the simulation or it is impossible to sufficiently understand the universe to simulate it.

With the first part, there is good evidence that quantum computing will very soon, relatively speaking, give us the power to run these simulations. The understanding of the machinations of the universe to simulate its entire, unified process might very well be impossible for us. For us. I guess the crux is whether or not you believe that there is anything within the universe which is impossible to know -- again, not for us, but for a theoretical ultraintelligence. We might never understand what goes on inside a black hole, for instance. On the other hand, it may be something as "simple" as a unifying theory of everything.

I believe that for every single thing in the universe occupying a point in space and time, there is a discrete and knowable reason why it progressed from the space it occupied an infinitesimally small unit of time prior to where/when it is now. If we had the ability to sufficiently understand the universe to trace these causal steps backwards, we would be able to trace every single particle in the universe back to the origination event.

>> No.16196025

>>16195744
>>16195976
>We can run physics equations on a computer
>Therefore perfect simulations are possible
What is the logic which leads you to the latter statement from the former?
First of all, we don't know how the universe works in its entirety. There are plenty of unexplained phenomena and at a subatomic level we still have no idea why some things are happening.
Second of all, the former does not satisfy the premise that such a civilisation (from our universe since that's what you want to argue about) can create a simulation of the entire universe, or the visible universe, or even just Earth since there's not enough resources to run enough simulations.
This defeats your argument "if it can be simulated it can be a simulation" since, we don't know, like I said.

There's also still the problem of unfalsifiablity. Until that's resolved it's all still pseudoscience

>> No.16196058

>>16194842
Well, fuck.

>> No.16196061

>>16196058
based

>> No.16196068

It honestly is Simulation meme and Roko's basilisk are just religion for pseuds

>> No.16196072

>>16194831
This is the anime profile picture of posts

>> No.16196077

>>16196025
It's like you distilled everything I said down to two or three sentences, disregarded the logic entirely, and then addressed them at if there was no logic in the first place. I'm struggling here, help me out.

>> No.16196103

>>16196025
>First of all, we don't know how the universe works in its entirety. There are plenty of unexplained phenomena and at a subatomic level we still have no idea why some things are happening.
Simulations don't have to be accurate.

>> No.16196125

>>16195976
>Either it is impossible to create the necessary hardware to run the simulation or it is impossible to sufficiently understand the universe to simulate it
You are just pushing burden of proof onto us
My question for you to answer - what makes you think that simulation of universe is possible in the first place? You just have a list of some things that CAN be simulated. If we are talking about science, then you need to state an argument that can be falsifiable.

I think you implicitly presuppose "linearity of progress". You say: "simulation of whole universe will be possible in future(?) because we can simulate certain things now". But simulating whole universe is million times harder than simulating a small part of it. What makes you certan that such a technology is possible? I repeat myself - the only way your argument makes sense is IF we pressupose an infinite universe (where all things can and will happen (because we have infinite coin tosses)). Universe is not infinite. Thefore, you are wrong.

Btw, don't push everything to quantum computers. That's just silly.

>> No.16196163

>>16196077
He just disagrees with your inductive logic.
You just BELIVE that whole universe can be simulated. It is philosophy. Nothing wrong with that.

>> No.16196277

>>16196077
>>16195976
Still me.
Do you belive that personal flying jet vehicles are possible? We have planes. Maybe we could make such a thing.
What about lightsabers? We know how electricity works.
How about living in another star systiem? We can build rockets. Maybe someday?

Guess what - not of this is science. Just like simulated universe.

>> No.16196308

>>16194741
This view overlooks the fact that the question of whether or not our universe “is the simulation” is completely arbitrary and there is no meaningful distinction to be made between what “came first” or “later” since any “simulated” universe has always just existed.

>> No.16196452

>>16196125
>I think you implicitly presuppose
No, I really don't. I've tried to mention just about as often as I can that it's irrelevant whether or not any of these things are practically possible. Is it possible that we're closer than we think we might be in one way or another? Sure, but I freely admit that it's wishful thinking. The main point was never if WE can do any one thing, but only if said thing is possible. I'm a little annoyed with the "here's the reason WE can't do this" replies because it's not a consideration. I'm not trying to discuss the engineering considerations of implementing a simulation of the entire universe. We couldn't even imagine the first few steps, and even if we could we couldn't imagine the problems we'd create in those first steps, much less solve them.

I'm asking you guys to try to take a step back from human-centric thought. My argument is not whether humans can or ever will implement such a simulation. It's the purely abstract idea that because we can do the things outlined above, these things in their abstract form are possible, and if they are possible, then there is the possibility that our own universe is simulated.

Look at it this way. I am sitting at an arbitrary point N in time at an arbitrary position in space. Someone points a death ray of 500 petajoules at me. I am completely vaporized at N+1. If you were able to collect information as to the precise locations and forces upon my body at point N, wouldn't you say it's theoretically possible to reintegrate me? You have objective proof that I existed, and the knowledge of every particle which composed me. My existence implies the ability for my being created. In other words, the arbitrary positions of my composites have been proven to be allowed to exist under the laws of the universe, so any ultraintelligent entity of sufficient power to be indistinguishable from the laws of the universe would be able to create another thing just like me. We as human beings sure as shit couldn't, but it's POSSIBLE. We've even got evidence that it's possible, since crazy things can be done on a molecular level these days.

So, pretend that instead of recomposing the body of some idiot nobody really wants around anyway, you're trying to compose instead a computerized facsimile of the universe. Say you had knowledge of every rule the universe follows and how those rules interact with every thing and non-thing within it. Given this knowledge, don't you think it's possible to simulate it all? We sure as shit can't, and probably will never be able to, but again, we have little glimpses that evidence the idea that given a thing, thing can be simulated accurately. I submit that it is objectively possible for our universe to self-simulate, which itself implies its ability be itself be simulated, and that said simulation approaches likelihood.

>> No.16196476

It's a massive cope, yes. Most "atheists" still believe in a creator who actively interferes in the world, they've just atrophied him to such a degree that he's basically a delusion.
>b-but they say...
If you actually talk to these people, yes, they will definitely reify a creator who actively interferes in their life. Anyone who says that "evolution stopped at the neck" or anything similar is actively stating that they believe in creationism, they're just doing it in a manner that makes them appear high-status and not low-status.

>> No.16196504

>>16196452
Ok. Simulation of universe is hypothetically possible. We might live inside a simulation.

I think in the future you should rethink your claim (whether you should defend it) - right now it is kind of boring. You don't bring anything new to the table. You don't categorize. Your claims are not strict. The use of quantor "some" (but not "all") is lame. No offense.

>> No.16196519

It's a sci-fi flavored deism.

>> No.16196558

>>16196452
lol at you basically describing God as the simulation runner. i agree w other anon, this theory is unfalsifiable and is not actually science. i'm embarrassed for you, hope you wake up soon

>> No.16196564

>>16196077
It's like you're saying random things which seems like they support simulation theory but actually they don't.
Why don't you put your argument in standard form for us so we can see where I'm "throwing logic out".

>>16196103
The argument I'm rebutting is that *IF* we can simulate even small parts of our universe perfectly then it's possible to run simulations of the whole thing therefore the whole thing could be a simulation.
So, yes. It does have to be perfect in order to support the argument.

>>16196277
>Do you belive that personal flying jet vehicles are possible? We have planes. Maybe we could make such a thing.
>What about lightsabers? We know how electricity works.
>How about living in another star systiem? We can build rockets. Maybe someday?
>Guess what - not of this is science. Just like simulated universe
I'm going to assume what you're trying to say here is "look at all these things people didn't think were possible but is possible".
Completely irrelevant argument, for one.
Second, all these ideas and theories are falsifiable. I'm not sure if you've noticed me saying this in every single post but unfalsifiability is the biggest flaw with simulation theory.
You can test plane designs, you can test electric circuits, you can test rocket designs, you can't test if we live in a simulation.
Falsifiability is the basis for any credible scientific theory.
Unfalsifiability is the basis for all pseudoscientific garbage.

>>16196452
>Say you had knowledge of every rule the universe follows and how those rules interact with every thing and non-thing within it. Given this knowledge, don't you think it's possible to simulate it all?
Yes, obviously. However, you're presupposing that the universe is governed by laws. We don't know yet.

I believe your argument against my discrediting of simulation theory was something along the lines of "if humans can simulate a small part of the universe perfectly then the universe can be a simulation". While I agree with this statement, this in no way supports simulation theory.
There is no way to calculate any probability from the fact that it's possible that the universe is a simulation.
An equivalent line of thought utilising the same logic is that the universe can be God's creation but we can't calculate any actual probability or statistics from that.
Again, it's all unfalsifiable as well.

I'm only trying to dispel the claim that simulation theory is in any way "scientific", I'm not arguing that it's impossible. I hope you understand my intent.

>> No.16196567

>>16194703
yee it´s weird, i think it´s just some gimmick to blow some midwits mind like alternate universes or time travel.

These concepts got scorched to oblivion and when i see now someone talking about them i expect someone who watched a gametheory video.

>> No.16196590

>>16196564
Im >>16196277
No. I was saying that we don't have any of those things. Believing in them is not science. I am the other guy who was on the same side of barricades as you.
Well, it doesn't matter

>> No.16196616

>>16196590
I see. But my point still stands.
These things are falsifiable, albeit it seems we are looking at these ideas on a different level of analysis.

>> No.16196618

>>16196564
Btw, he conceded that he is not talking about science, so I guess warfare is over now. If we are talking strictly about possibilities, then he is right

>> No.16196704

>>16196504
That's not even the exciting part, it's just the initial hurdle. The exciting part it's that if you can accept the likelihood that we are living in a simulation as a presupposition, it can become a lens through which we can unify all religions. As others have noticed, simulation theory does share a lot of logic with Kant's or Hume's ideas of god. Interestingly, the deeper you get into all of it, the more the major religions start to converge on a kind of transcendentalism which approaches simulation. You have the highly abstract ontology of Enlightenment era thinkers painting a thematic picture which ends up, completely independently, mirroring Vedic transcendentalist thought like the concept of Atman. It provides a fairly cohesive aggregator for religiously-based ontological thoughts but allows the ones which have philosophical merit to be separated out from the chaff. A literalist Biblical God breaks down incredibly quickly upon fairly rudimentary examination, while a Kantian God holds quite a bit more water. The idea of God as an abstraction from the reality of the simulation is one which holds much more merit. While a biblical God is purely faith based, a simulation is something we can see steps along the line towards, and is something we can determine to be allowed by the rules of the universe. >>16196618
>conceded
What I will concede is that there's a pretty tenuous relationship with the science. On one hand, simulation theory draws heavily on the state of modern science to justify its presuppositions, but on the other hand, it is all ultimately "just" induction. If I gave any impression to the contrary, I apologize. My argument rests upon scientific and technological evidence, but is not itself a scientific argument.

>> No.16196715

why the fuck is this thread even here? did /sci/ make fun of you again?
fuck off to /x/

>> No.16196776

>>16196704
Your idea is interesting but I don't want to pressupose simulation for some personal reasons:
1.We, humans, have something called "freedom". I mean, everything might be predetermined but WE SEE WORLD as if we are free and make choises ourself (even though that is not true)
2.I don't want to live inside simulation because it would imply someone is controling my actions and I am not real blah blah blah.
3.There are parallels with Cave of Socatees and even The Matrix movie. Someone would eventualy want to get out of simulation to see "the real" world.
4. Simulations can be inside simulations soooo we will never know what is real world.

Everyting I wrote here is super gay and this whole situation is gay, so I would like to find a different explanation for similarities of religions, for example, our brain structure.

>> No.16196842

>>16196776
>mommy mommy i'm a big boy now and god is gay

>> No.16196862

>>16196842
I hope you are not the same guy I was chating with for a couple of hours.
No. God is fine too. Better than simulation.

>> No.16196872

>>16194731
While this is undoubtably bait, you can always spot a "man" raised by a single mother because they use fatherhood as a pejorative.

>> No.16196886

What are the consequences of this theory? It seems to me that the advantage of the idea of an architect is the supposition that we can influence the architect through appeals and actions to make life better for us or send us to some afterlife. Most religions also say that their God is all good, reassuring us that the man in charge isn't morally bankrupt.

If the architect simulating us is just some schmuck we don't have the guarantee that he has our best interests at heart and will make the morally sounds calls. If you believe the universe is simulated you should really be wishing that whoever put the simulation together isn't manually managing it, otherwise they may make changes that weren't the morally right choice.

If the universe is simulated but (hopefully) nobody is actively managing it what about my daily life changes at all?

>> No.16196930

>>16196886
I made this point to a popsci faggot on here and he said something along the lines of us learning to hack it ourselves, ignoring that the overseer would have the ability to shut off or reset if necessary, etc.

Also, what is a simulation for? It is usually done to find out what would happen with X variable either taken out of the equation, added or magnified. We could well believing in a programmed abstraction alien to how life outside of the simulation works, and therefore our metacognition would be about as valuable as being aware you’re a rat in a cage.

>> No.16196982

>>16196930
>I made this point to a popsci faggot on here and he said something along the lines of us learning to hack it ourselves
>atheists are so far gone in the head they believe they can turn into Neo from the Matrix and fly around if they try hard enough
Tragic.

>> No.16197098

simulation "theory" is overdetermined.

>> No.16197101

A perfect quantum simulation of the universe is the universe.
It is not possible to simulate more material with less atoms, i.e. you can not have a perfect atomic simulation of a sock with less atoms than what the sock is made out of. You can't use 300 qubits to accurately simulate a sock that is composed of tens of millions of atoms, for example.
This is already known in the field and has been for decades.

>> No.16198359

>>16195017
>Sky Jew
>Sky daddy
>Implying God exists in the sky
Nice infantile conception of God you have there

>> No.16198800

>>16198359
>acksually I didn’t think God was a sky daddy after all! I believed that he really was the [insert pseudo philosophical obscurism here] all along! Boy did I show your foolishness! Checkmate!

>> No.16198898

>>16194731
>sky daddy
Behold, the mind of the atheist. So grievously literal- he is too proud for the child's explanation, yet too dim for the grown man's.

>> No.16198914

>>16198800
Yes, that's right. Religious people believe in God, not in a silly sky-man who watches the world (your babymind interpretation of scripture.) You are too smart for idol worship yet too stupid for metaphysics.

>> No.16199026

>>16198800
I will harp on you once again- "sky-daddy" reveals not only a profound dumbness, but also a lack of empathy (a practiced trait.) It is not only to be stupid, but to imagine that all others are equally stupid- "Your conception of God is the same as mine, a great bearded man up in the sky. No, I read no philosophy. No, I read no scripture. No, I find no beauty in nature, nor in art. Yes, I defy God, and I do so on terms only an idiot would choose."