Odds are we're living in a simulation, says Elon Musk

[Anonymous No.8114536]

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11837874/elon-musk-says-odds-living-in-simulation

>"If a civilization stops advancing then that may be due to some calamitous event that erases civilization," Musk said, presenting two options. "Either we're going to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist."

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.8114560]

This is why the LessWrong types will never be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.8114578]

Odds are we are all bananas and will one day be eaten with peanut butter.

[Anonymous No.8114604]

the universe is only going to exist for so long
what is the motive of this hypothetical civilisation to create this kind of simulation
why is it so certain it will be created when it is costly, ethically questionable, of dubious use, etc.

[Anonymous No.8114610]

>>8114560
Who are they and why, please explain?

[Anonymous No.8114618]

his claims don't hold any more dirt than any other person off the street

[Anonymous No.8114627]

>>8114560
>This is why the LessWrong types will never be taken seriously.
I don't necessarily disagree but what does lesswrong have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.8114628]

>>8114536
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
>>8114560
Save this post for a future yourself.

[Anonymous No.8115083]

>>8114628
My god, those sloppy Fermi estimates. How these autists can take this seriously?

[Anonymous No.8116714]

>>8114618
How does he get people to believe otherwise?

[Anonymous No.8116726]

>>8116714
He has a lot of money and so far goo business practice towards science fiction like ideas. But it's mostly money.

[Anonymous No.8116730]

>>8114536
then why am I still POOR. tell the game masters to send me some upgrades

[Anonymous No.8116737]

>>8114604
It's a numbers game. It would not be costly at all. We already model the world in simulations ourselves. The ethics are spooks long forgotten. We evolved in the simulation entirely.
Because there could theoretically be infinite simulations inside simulations and only one real world it's almost certain we would be in a simulation

I think it's bullshit, but your reasons are retarded and actually the strengths of their argument

[Anonymous No.8116757]

>>8114536
>yfw the ride never ends

[Anonymous No.8116758]

>>8114627
Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and good chums with Elizer Yudowsky and various assorted cranks and autists like Mencius Moldbug. Thiel is even trying to build his own floating seasted principality. Sillicon Valley is an abomination of the worst aspects of the 60s counterculture grafted in with Ayn Rand and industrial amounts of autism

[Anonymous No.8116768]

If life's a game I've failed. The only redeeming quality about me is that I'm tall, but otherwise I'm a gay skinny kissless virgin

[Anonymous No.8116795]

>>8116758
This is the best putdown of Silicon Valley I have ever read

[Anonymous No.8116799]

>>8116758
This

[Anonymous No.8116805]

Remember, Anons, that the Forms are the most real things. The physical, observable world is only shadows and reflections of the higher reality.

[Anonymous No.8116810]

>>8114536
Civilization will be destroyed because of people like Musk.

[Anonymous No.8116860]

>>8114560
>le rokos basilisk

[Anonymous No.8116949]

>>8116768
It's not a complete loss. You'll walk away with all kinds of diseases after repeatedly taking in the cab from strangers at truck stops after dressing like Minnie Pearl or whatever it is you fags do these days.

[Anonymous No.8116996]

>>8116737
But in your example what is the difference between a 'real world' and a 'simulation'? Is it just a matter of whatever came first is the 'real' world?

[Anonymous No.8117042]

>>8114627
lesswrong are where the (wannabe) high priests of this form of thinking likely to hang out

and people still like to claim that analytic philosophy is not poison
>kek

[Anonymous No.8117053]

Looks like someone just got finished playing star ocean 3...or hes got schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.8117160]

>>8116737

Your overflowing spooks yourself

[Anonymous No.8117873]

[Anonymous No.8117893]

i hate this elon musk cult worhsip, the guy is the trump of STEM autists

[Anonymous No.8117917]

>>8114578
Sounds like a shitty combo

[Anonymous No.8117919]

>>8116758
>>8116795
>>8116799
this is the same person

[Anonymous No.8117926]

>>8116737
Ultimately it only depends on whether there was a simulation in the first place. If there wasn't, we aren't in one, regardless of the huge likeliness.

[Anonymous No.8117931]

>>8116768
You still have potential. Some don't and never will. Or, like you, they don't realize it.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.8117937]

you can invent any unverifiable claims, this particular one is not new and was rather popularized by the matrix movie, but unless you can prove them they are just... a fodder for the occam razor

[Anonymous No.8117976]

>>8114578
my dad bought sugar-free peanut butter it suks ass

[Anonymous No.8117982]

>>8117976
It's best eaten salty, you woman

[Anonymous No.8118071]

>>8116737
>Because there could theoretically be infinite simulations inside simulations
That's some serious implied implications there

[Anonymous No.8118078]

>>8117976
>i am addicted to sugar
the post

[Anonymous No.8118081]

>>8117976
Enjoy sucking skippy out of a tube fag.

[Anonymous No.8118776]

>>8114536

I think the mistake of this view is that it assumes that a simulation would be anything more then data on a machine. Even if it was sophisticated enough to simulate every single molecule in the universe that doesn't mean that the simulation has any physical basis to it. The simulation of single-celled organisms evolving into intelligent life would still just be a mathematical system and just because some math formulas ended up making parts of the program act as though they had free will doesn't mean that they are conscious because its still just a bunch of numbers being calculated by a machine.

Since we experience consciousness ourselves it seems unlikely that we are in a program IMO because mathematical formulas can't be given consciousness. A program that allows a component of the simulation to act as though the component is conscious doesn't mean it actually is.

[Anonymous No.8118811]

>>8118776
What? Are you clinically retarded?

[Anonymous No.8118821]

>>8114536
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need to kidnap a few special forces operatives and observe them for anomalous behaviour.

[Anonymous No.8118862]

>>8118811
If you have an objection to my position then post it instead of attempting to insult me.

[Anonymous No.8119331]

>>8116768
>gay skinny kissless virgin
How skinny? Like Brevitas from dorkslapped? Would I have to be careful not to clothesline my throat on your protruding collar bone if I went in for a hug?

[Anonymous No.8119342]

>>8114536
What a retard

[Anonymous No.8119353]

Why don't people who don't understand jack fucking ass about philosophy and the humanities try to work together with people who have absolutely no grasp on science, math and engineering work together with each other? Why do both groups just have smug circle jerks over how much better they are than the other?

[Anonymous No.8119398]

What bugs me about Musk is that his idea of simulation is pisspoor. His argument that the evolution of pong to contemporary video games is going to lead to "well crafted" simulations is unnecessary. If we were all inside a simulation, if it was all we knew, there would be no need for it to be well crafted. It could be totally bonkers, and none of us would question it's realness.

Further, our ability to misperceive the world, our ability to create fiction and illusion, this is enough to hypothesize simulation. There is no need for a computer, when the brain and culture is enough.

tldr: Musk should go read some Plato and Baudrillard, and the hacks in the technology/science press do themselves a disservice by giving a shit about his weak-ass metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.8119412]

>>8116795
as a denizen of silicon valley this is the most accurate description of this tendency I have ever read

[Anonymous No.8119419]

>>8119398
>tldr: Musk should go read some Plato and Baudrillard, and the hacks in the technology/science press do themselves a disservice by giving a shit about his weak-ass metaphysics

It's just a question of technology making theoretically plausible what could only be proposed on metaphysical grounds earlier. Reading Plato and Baudrillard is unlikely to impact eg the mathematical simulation argument, which forms the basis of most "We're probably in a simulation" arguments. If only because, unlike Plato and Baudrillard (and Berkeley, if you squint a bit), the simulation hypothesis still posits an ultimate underlying reality about which no direct claims are made, though implicitly it's often assumed that its nature will have in some way informed the design of our 'reality'.

[Anonymous No.8119454]

>>8118776
>I think the mistake of this view is that it assumes that a simulation would be anything more then data on a machine. Even if it was sophisticated enough to simulate every single molecule in the universe that doesn't mean that the simulation has any physical basis to it.
>data on a machine
>no physical basis
Here's your problem. The physical basis of Babbage's mechanical computer is a lot easier to see and understand than a modern one, but they are all purely physical phenomena.

[Anonymous No.8119455]

I don't believe there is a god, but I do believe there is a monster in the sun of equal or greater power.

[Anonymous No.8119460]

Is this some kind of advertisement-by-meme-I-was-only-pretending-to-be-

[Anonymous No.8119468]

https://qntm.org/responsibility

[Anonymous No.8119471]

>>8119419
Baudrillard's simulation is more radical, which is why I prefer it. For Baudrillard, there is no real beneath the simulation, there was *maybe* a real before the simulation, but we have no way of knowing it at this point.

Musk's simulation (like that of the Matrix), relies on an external device to create the illusion. Something that creates our misperceptions, our reality. Baudrillard skips the need for an external, by positing that our 'misperception of reality and our recreation of it through culture, is the full illusion, no need for a projector.

[Anonymous No.8119484]

>>8119398
Maybe our creators reality is totally batshit and we're in experiment in something more sane.

[Anonymous No.8119494]

>>8114536
>ctrf-f
>no Nick Bostrom

Fuckin pls /lit/

[Anonymous No.8119505]

Musk could certainly be right, but he's bad at philosophy. Bull-shit "singularity" logic about super-tech. There are literally dozens of more interesting philosophers out there to ask about the nature of reality. This is just our culture's hardon for scientists, looking to them for answers beyond their ability to deal with.

Seriously, why would anyone listen to a scientist/technologist about metaphysics, something he'll likely deny?

[Anonymous No.8119513]

>>8119398
>If we were all inside a simulation, if it was all we knew, there would be no need for it to be well crafted. It could be totally bonkers, and none of us would question it's realness.
Maybe it is totally bonkers but we just don't realise. We don't have anything to compare it to. You're certainly being unquestioning about its realness.

[Anonymous No.8119524]

>>8119513
Yeah, that's my point. We could totally be inside a simulation. So Musk's reliance on materialist logic of "muh computerz", is stupid. Why would you need super-tech for everything to be an illusion? We teach children to believe in Santa Claus, just by taking them to the shopping mall to see a man with a fake beard. We're capable of misperception.

[Anonymous No.8119541]

>>8119524
Arguably if you don't believe in magic then technology is a more conceivable way through which simulations could be achieved. That said, maybe in real reality simulations can happen through magic. Or is that what you mean? I'm tired.

There's no reason to believe perfect simulations of reality are possible through technology in this universe, the computing power required would be immense to the point it would need quantum computing, which is probably impossible.

Maybe we're just all the creation of a man slowly walking up river and meditating on his imagination, sitting in circular ruins.

[Anonymous No.8119555]

>>8119541
There is no need for the simulation to be perfect, since you'd have nothing to compare it against.

Baudrillard's Simulacra requires neither magic or "technology", at least in the sense of super-computer artificial reality tech. All it requires is the human brain's capability to both misperceive and it's ability to recreate reality through simple fiction and illusion.

[Anonymous No.8119563]

>>8117893
>i hate this elon musk cult worhsip, the guy is the trump of STEM autists
elaborate

[Anonymous No.8119567]

>>8119563
He makes comments on subjects he never studied outside of the internet and spouts them out with confidence like any other moron on the internet. Except it's more annoying because people take him seriously because he has a lot of money and invests in unrealistic ideas.

[Anonymous No.8119568]

>>8119505
I don't really know why people keep calling this 'metaphysics' except in a very technical sense. I mean, the idea that we're just in a simulation innately presupposes the existence of a real physical universe within which the simulation is taking place (even if that universe is itself simulated, there has to be a ceiling).

[Anonymous No.8119571]

>>8119567
example?

[Anonymous No.8119572]

>>8119571
The thread topic.

[Anonymous No.8119574]

>>8119524
>Why would you need super-tech for everything to be an illusion?

I don't think he's arguing that you 'need' it so much as he's arguing that this specific instance is more likely. It's hard to say he's wrong.

[Anonymous No.8119575]

>>8119563
Not the poster you're replying to, but Musk is venturing into areas he knows nothing about: Metaphysics. His view of simulated reality isn't even as well developed as Plato's, who at least gets credit for essentially inventing the idea.

Its like asking Trump for political advice, or asking a priest for advice on treating schizophrenia. Scientists are experts, but we should be careful about over-blowing their expertise into other realms.

The western world looked to priests for all their answers for thousands of years, now we look to scientists to explain things like politics, ethics, philosophy. Why?

[Anonymous No.8119581]

>>8119574
No, this is why I find his opinions on simulation laughable. Technology is not needed. It is no more likely before or after advanced artificial reality.

[Anonymous No.8119586]

>>8119568
Metaphysics isn't anti-physics. It's physics "over 9000". If the world is a simulation, the materialist logic of science is cut off from it. Simulation requires assumptions about the nature of reality, beyond what is provable with physics. Scientific Materialism (which is what I'd call Musk's viewpoint) is already a metaphysical philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8119595]

Interesting that nobody has referenced the Chinese Room argument. Musk's theory, which is a blatant copy of Bostrom's 2003 paper, takes it as given that entities withing computer simulations posess consciousness, when the evidence that computers have experience is dubious at best. It relies strongly on the idea that brains are reducible to computers, ignoring the possibility that biological systems exhibit emergent properties irreducible to computation.

[Anonymous No.8119668]

>>8114536

When did Gnosticism have a comeback?

[Anonymous No.8119681]

>>8119581
>Technology is not needed.

Again, no-one is saying it's needed.

>It is no more likely before or after advanced artificial reality.

It clearly becomes more 'likely', whatever we mean by that, once a given means of attaining it is provably instantiable. We're not there yet but we have a plausible path to it.

>>8119586
I know what metaphysics is, dude. My point is that it's quite dubious to call this a metaphysical claim. It's conceivably accessible empirically, for one thing.

[Anonymous No.8119697]

>>8116768
>tall gay skinny kissless virgin
B O S T O N ?
O
S
T
O
N
?

[Anonymous No.8119702]

>>8119697
I don't get this meme

[Anonymous No.8119714]

>>8119702
its a joke on how if you find someone youre interested in online, chances are they live nowhere near you irl. its a joke by and for desperate neets.

[Anonymous No.8119716]

>>8119714
ohhh

[Anonymous No.8119740]

>>8119697
Chicago

[Anonymous No.8119814]

>>8119681
But Plato's Cave is proof in concept enough that reality could be a simulation. The widespread belief in deities is also proof. Misperception+Fiction is enough to hypothesize simulation. Relying on the materialism of technology is silly, considering it's part of the simulation too.

"accessible empirically". Simulation is not empirically accessible, since to trust any observation means that there must be something fundamentally true about what we call reality, that the laws of physics aren't arbitrary inventions or clever ruses of a superior intelligence, or our own inferior misperception of reality. Why theorize simulation within the rules of materialism, science, technology, when the hypothesis itself throws all of that into question? Simulation is a metaphysical question, not a physical one. Even if you do manage to pierce the illusion, get beyond it's deception and prove reality is a simulation, you'd then have to ask yourself the exact same set of questions about that external position from which you did disproved reality.

[Anonymous No.8119857]

>>8119814
>But Plato's Cave is proof in concept enough that reality could be a simulation.

I will not repeat again that nothing anybody has said ITT contradicts this. I don't know what part of that you're not understanding.

>Simulation is not empirically accessible

There are possible instantiations which are not. There are possible instantiations which are. Hence, conceivably accessible empirically.

>Simulation is a metaphysical question, not a physical one. Even if you do manage to pierce the illusion, get beyond it's deception and prove reality is a simulation, you'd then have to ask yourself the exact same set of questions about that external position from which you did disproved reality.

The entire point is that it has hitherto been metaphysical, but may no longer be, or may cease to be in the future. The latter part is simply an iteration, which isn't a problem, or is simply an epistemological issue.

[Anonymous No.8119880]

>>8114536
>le we could be in the MATRUXXX OMG

[Anonymous No.8119896]

>>8119668
A little too hard on the demiurge

[Anonymous No.8119921]

>>8119740
What a cutie t b h

[Anonymous No.8119923]

>>8119595
Read De Landa philosophy and simulation. Computer simulations can result in emergent properties.

[Anonymous No.8119933]

>>8114536
this is what happens when someone in the hard sciences thinks they can be an epik philosipher because of their superior STEM intellect

[Anonymous No.8119960]

>>8118862
>>8118776
>*dibs fegora*

protip: quit smoking weed

[Anonymous No.8119973]

Normal people call this "believing in God": something much greater than us made the universe we live in, and has control over it.

See also: solipsism. Doesn't it satisfy occam's razor much better if you suppose that the only thing that exists is your own mind? Yet clearly you are not consciously deciding things into and out of existence, therefore you have a subconscious which presents these things to you: a being which is of your mind but separate from your consciousness and has total power over the universe you observe. God again.

Speculations on the ultimate nature of the universe are a waste of time. There's no point in worrying about whether we're in a simulation until we see some actual evidence one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.8119990]

>>8119973
>>Speculations on the ultimate nature of the universe are a waste of time. There's no point in worrying about whether we're in a simulation until we see some actual evidence one way or the other.
>>"evidence"

materialist detected

[Anonymous No.8119997]

>>8119973
>Normal people call this "believing in God"

This is different, honestly, though I can see the family resemblance. It's entirely reasonable to suppose that the master universe contains beings that are on some level 'like' us - that's hardly true of God. It's even possible to believe that the universe in which our simulation is being run was itself created by a God.

[Anonymous No.8120026]

>>8119973
Also, this is a "turtles all the way up" argument.

If you accept this reasoning, that we're far more likely to be in a simulation than in the "real world", then the same reasoning applies to the world in which our simulation is being run: it's also far more likely to be simulated than a real world of its own, and so on, ad infinitum.

According to Musk's reasoning, the deeper the layers of the universe being a simulation in a simulation are, the more probable the theory is.

Yet the more layers to the simulation, the sillier the theory is, the more it goes against occam's razor, adding features to the universe unnecessary to explain our observations of it.

[Anonymous No.8120050]

>>8119997
>beings that are on some level 'like' us - that's hardly true of God.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
-- Genesis 1:26-27 (KJB)

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Come on, Fred, it'll be awesome. Our own little universe full of people to fuck with. I bet it would impress the hell out of Liz."
"Jehova, even if you buy the computer yourself with your lawn-cutting money, your parents will flip when they see the electricity bill. I could set it up, but you're going to need to get an after-school job flipping manna."

[Anonymous No.8120074]

>>8120050
>Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

That's the majestic plural, for one thing. "God" is posited as a necessary being, the entities that made our simulated universe are contingent (or, if they are not, then they are indeed simply God, the point is that they can be).

[Anonymous No.8120123]

Musk the personification of developing meaningless technologies that satisfy some bizarre science fiction fantasy.

These rational logicians have conflated human progress with ever more ridiculous sandbox style playing.

Did we really need an electric sports car?

Can these people just be confident enough in their masculinity that they don't feel the need to act out a Freudian wet dream of faux intellectualism and obsession with the phallus?

They are children.

[Anonymous No.8120138]

>>8119668

The more we depend on technology to construct our understanding of the world, and the less we understand that technology, the more likely technology is forming a quasi-Gnostic projection of reality we naively believe.

That's the basic gist of Silicon Valley gnosticism.

See elsewhere Musk has stated creating a true AI would be "summoning the demon."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzb_CSRO-0g

The possibility that our senses will inevitably be redirected by technology is, I think, essentially correct. The existence of eyeglasses has already led to a deterioration in vision (also see Socrates' arguments against text, because memory); technologies such as Google and VR simply extend this same trenchant dependence on technology to augment our senses further.

[Anonymous No.8120295]

>>8119595
why would a magic space-race who can simulate entire little sub-universes use 20th century style computers instead of tachyon cross-membrenal hypercomputers, or glabglorp xzzzts who have no similarity to our simulated physics whatsoever, which would be just as complex or more than our cellular neural network

[Anonymous No.8120301]

>>8120123
this

[Anonymous No.8120304]

>>8114536
What do you think he meant by this?

[Anonymous No.8120332]

what the fuck has elon musk even done

all of a sudden this overgrown teenager started popping up all over the place for trying to kill people on mars or something

[Anonymous No.8120336]

>>8114604
That's not even the main problem. The main problem is the ridiculous assumption that the sort of consciousness we possess could be generated by a simulation. We simply have no reason to think that.

[Anonymous No.8120339]

>>8120336
We have no reason to think anything.

[Anonymous No.8120340]

>>8114536
>Implying that a knowledgeable reality exists
So what if it's a simulation?

[Anonymous No.8120348]

Why is it not obvious that we are at layer zero reality and that God is the "caretaker" of our "simulation"????

[Anonymous No.8120349]

>>8120332
Uh. He did that Tesla thing. That has a lot of investors.

Actually Space-X IS kind of important in that it's the company NASA most often contracts for spacecraft stuff.

I don't know, the dude has some sort of Weyland-Yutani fantasy he's living out just let him.

[Anonymous No.8120368]

>>8120336
To be fair, we don't really have any reason to think otherwise. We have children, so we know we can create new minds (putting aside religious stuff). The assumption that biology is the only means by which we can do so is far from solid.

[Anonymous No.8120673]

>>8116758
Lived there a year ago and this is spot on

[Anonymous No.8120712]

>>8120332
paypal, spacex, tesla motors.

But note that he is not known as a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.8122125]

ITT: People who can't distinguish between a thought experiment and a world-view.

[Anonymous No.8122153]

I'm too dumb for this shit. I can only halfway get my head around the concept of metaphysics. Then all these arguments.. Then I realize I don't really care, it doesn't really matter, and stop trying to think about it. The same logic for my agnosticism.

Feels lazy and stupid.. but I don't care.

[Anonymous No.8122384]

>>8119494
Look here faggot >>8114628

>>8119505
>all these assumptions
Also philosophy is not supposed to be interesting you degenerate faggot.

>>8119541
>There's no reason to believe perfect simulations of reality are possible through technology in this universe, the computing power required would be immense to the point it would need quantum computing, which is probably impossible.
Ah right quantum computing and... stuff I guess, or some math too... or huh yeah, yeah you seem to know what are you talking about, you convinced me. I bet you hold degree in phil from some third league uni, judging how sloppy your thinking is comparing to how willing you are to discuss.

Ahh fuck, this thread.

[Anonymous No.8122399]

>nobody itt can prove him wrong
just because it sounds like science fiction doesn't mean it's not true.

[Anonymous No.8122409]

>>8122399
Yeah, pretty much this. They should argue with >>8114628 though, not with this pop-interview. It's easy to find a gap in an exposition contained in a short movie.

[Anonymous No.8122431]

>>8114560
There is a lot of good shit on LessWrong. Particularly, the criticisms of over-reliance on logic, the inherent silliness of P-zombies and stuff in that vein are great and are solid and accessible philosophy with really neat stuff to say.

On the other hand the site has become a self-referencing cannibalistic cult in other ways, with their trust in the importance of brain preservation in the hope of resurrection, rating the importance of A.I. singularity as a threat way too highly, calling theories that are gradually modified 'phlogiston' even if they lack any new paradigm solid enough to supplant them, and in general being a whole lot of weirdos who think way too much of a Harry Potter fanfic that shows just how out of touch its author is with the emotions of normal people.

[Anonymous No.8122438]

>>8120336
>>8120368

This is true. What I don't get is why the whole idea isn't criticized in the basis that any simulation would have the be more complex that what it's simulating, making it that much less feasible. It's such a simple argument that I don't know why more people haven't made it.

[Anonymous No.8122439]

>>8120123
>ever more ridiculous sandbox style playing.
They desperately want everything to be like an actual video game I guess

[Anonymous No.8122442]

>>8114536
I wish this was real so I can wake up from this bad dream

[Anonymous No.8122451]

>>8122442
chances are, if you woke up, it would be even worse.

[Anonymous No.8122461]

>>8122451
I can just kill myself again, r-right?

[Anonymous No.8122465]

Hindus must be pretty annoyed that the west keeps ripping off its ideas, starting with evolution

[Anonymous No.8122522]

it's elon musk's world, we're just living in it.

[Anonymous No.8122634]

>>8114536
I gotta write a short argumentative essay on something like this.
"If the world is a sophisticated computer simulation, then there is no way to discover this from inside the simulation."
Any suggestions for arguments I could use?

[Anonymous No.8122718]

>>8114536
>Odds are we're living in a simulation, says Elon Musk

Sounds reasonable, will he give me a million dollars then?

[Anonymous No.8122738]

>>8122718
The monies are points so he needs the high score.

Bill Gates should bug Musk's Windows or something so it asks him to input initials when he gets in the top 10 or 20 or something on Forbes.

[Anonymous No.8122776]

Odds are that's dumb as fuck because as a conscious mind I'm able to synthesize new ideas with no pre-existing input to those ideas.
>WOAH MAN LIKE WHAT IF WE ARE IN LIKE THE MATRIX XDDD