/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10658222
by that logic the simulators would have to conclude they are also in a simulation. this idea apparently lends no explanatory power to scientific thought, so it can be discarded

>>10658222
Ask Uncle Chris

>>10658244
What’s the source of reality?

>>10658222
You're a boltzmann brain my dude

>>10658222
.....It’s a real universe.

>>10658244
This
>>10658248
God dumbass, we have realized that forever. the question is whether you can deduce anything else about gods nature from this axiom (doubtful, but they try)

>>10658730
>Muh God

Prove it

>>10658222
It's a super massive simulation.

a normal SIM is different.

>>10658820
Super massive has mutant implications, I must live and die rather than exist. It's a low freq. Hell.

A super massive solar atomic event, where life is in containment of event, over energy direct sim.

>>10658839
What separates us from direct sim? Improbable logic.

>>10658799
Nothing comes from nothing. There is something therefor there was never nothing. This something cannot bring itself into existence because to do that it would have to exist before it existed. That’s impossible. So therefore something else had to bring this something into existence and that something is what all men call god.

>>10659161
Why is the Universe unable to bring itself into existence, but God can?

>>10658222
your daily reminder that we dont live in a simulation

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html

https://motls.blogspot.com/2013/03/we-dont-live-in-simulation.html

when these two fucks agree on something, it is probably true

>>10659167
Everything has a cause but God. He is the uncaused cause. If the universe brought itself into existence, then it had to exist before it existed. No one can deny that the universe popping into existence is not an act of magic

>>10659167
Everything has a cause but God. He is the uncaused cause. If the universe brought itself into existence, then it had to exist before it existed. No one can deny that the universe popping into existence is an act of magic

>>10658222
A caveman looks at his wall and muses "What if we are all a cave painting?"

Calling the whole of reality a simulation is a gross oversimplification just so you can feel like you've figured it all out.

>>10659183
If we can allow and accept an uncaused cause, I don't see why that can't just be the origin of the universe itself. In that respect, God is a completely unnecessary addition and doesn't offer any further explanatory power.

>>10659197
In the beginning, either nothing created something out of nothing OR someone (which exists outside of our physical world) created something from nothing. Which view is more reasonable?

> If we can allow and accept an uncaused cause, I don't see why that can't just be the origin of the universe itself
Well there is lots of arguments against that claim. The precision of our laws of physics, consciousness, the complexity of life, the uniqueness of humans.. It all comes down to a matter of opinion or "faith" since no one can prove either assertion

>>10659161
>Nothing comes from nothing.
Fine.
>There is something therefor there was never nothing.
Doesn't follow from your axiom as you haven't established that something doesn't come from nothing.

>>10658677
dubs speaketh the truth

>>10659215
>someone (which exists outside of our physical world) created something from nothing.
This is still nothing creating that someone out of nothing. Explaining that away by classifying God as unphysical is just a lazy excuse to avoid the original problem. I can just as easily say that the very moment of the origin of the Universe itself exists outside of physical reality, and all subsequent time follows causality.
>Well there is lots of arguments against that claim. The precision of our laws of physics, consciousness, the complexity of life, the uniqueness of humans..
These just happen to be some of the problems facing physics today. If the trend of science continues, these will one day have scientific explanations. For many centuries countless people have made the same mistake of classifying mysterious phenomena as evidence for God, such as the weather, the motions of the heavenly bodies, the processes of life, the origins of species, etc.

>>10659229
How can something come from nothing? If something comes from nothing, then that nothing wasn't really nothing. Was it?
>>10659252
> I can just as easily say that the very moment of the origin of the Universe itself exists outside of physical reality, and all subsequent time follows causality
Isn't that what you're claiming? That these artificial particles (don't know if that's the right term) which exists outside of the material world, exploded and from that chaotic explosion everything was created in such way that life was possible.

>>10658222
Assuming there is a computer simulating our universe.

1. How does the computer code of our simulation translate to our reality? Isn't code just information that is interpreted (many such ways) to have some meaning? At what point do 0s and 1s become a tangible reality?

2. Does this assume that consciousness or a illusion of free will is baseless from what we consider a physical universe? There is no physical matter which constructs these simulated realities, only information. Is information enough to create the phenomenon of consciousness?

3. If information is enough to construct these false realities then can humans be said to be hosts for many such simulations? We have our memories and imagination that could be considered simulated realities.

>>10658222
Couldn't the universe be completely organic yet folded and sped up relative to the observer using a white/black hole array so it just goes by in a blink of an eye and they collect all the data on a big computer?

It hurts my head to think about what the universe emerged from.

>>10659282
I think that the origin of existence is fundamentally untouchable by reason because reason is bound by the structure of causality, which is a property of existence. Introducing God doesn't provide a viable explanation for the origin of existence because God must first exist, introducing circular reasoning. I find it better to just accept that the origin of existence has no cause or reason, and to focus on using reason to push back to that origin as far as we can. If we find that some other physical process began this Universe, so be it, but that just shows us the origin of existence was earlier than we thought. If existence stretches back infinitely, so be it, but we will never be able to reason about why the infinite timeline exists at all.

>>10659282
>How can B come from A? If B comes from A, then A wasn't really A. Was it?
Also, I was not asserting anything. I was pointing out the formal flaw in the very beginning of your reasoning, which makes everything that follows suspect.

>>10659296
Shouldn't we strive to discover the origin?

>>10659284
the key is realizing that there doesn't need to be a computer simulating our universe at all. a simulation can be defined as a series of mathematical equations and starting conditions. a computer running the simulation only as relevant as looking though a window. if the simulation is stopped, the window is closed but the universe continues to exist.

>>10659305
Absolutely, that's what I mean by "push back to the origin as far as we can." But it's important to realize that, whatever that origin is, we will never be able to reason about it.

>>10659296
you've inserted the assumption that all things must have causes. this obviously causes an infinite regress. what if something can exist without cause?

>>10659296
Postulating an infinite timeline is weirddd af.
>>10659303
>how can 100% come from 0%? If 100% comes from 0%, then 0% wasn't really 0%.
There's a flaw in my reasoning because I cannot make sense of existence, and neither can I of infinity. I don't think anyone can. You can theorize an infinite number of universes and dimensions or whatever but then you're still left with a problem with the arrow of time and law of conservation of energy. I just call it magic and God is magic and I think it's truth

>>10659314
So simulated realities exist without their creation? Not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Even if our simulqted reality could be considered wholly through mathematical abstraction, what separates the simulated reality and a parallel universe? At what point does your abstraction become a tangible reality where conscious beings live?

>>10659323
That's the crux of my argument, that the origin of existence must be an uncaused cause. There's no reason to force the uncaused cause to be a god.

>>10659352
the idea is that a universe is a set of equations (along with initial conditions). I'll call these universes simulations. obviously there are many possible simulations and obviously many of the simulations are nonsense. however, many simulations are interesting.

people usually think that a simulation only exists if there is a computer running it. that's false. the simulation exists as an idea. the members of the simulation don't care if 1, 0 or 100 diffrent computers are running their simulation. their existence of their equations is completely separate from the computers.

>>10659365
great, we're on the same page. there is an uncaused cause that set the universe into motion. it would be interesting to find out what that uncaused cause is.

>>10659370
So youre saying there is no distinguishable factor between simulated realities and physical realities?

What does it mean for reality to be a set of equations? Are equations not just a description of reality, no the reality in itself?

>>10659372
Absolutely, yeah

>>10659352
>>10659370
I'll try to answer your specific questions:

>So simulated realities exist without their creation?
I feel like this misses the point. The simulated realities were "created" by whatever created mathematics itself. I personally believe that mathematics exists a-priori and doesn't need to be created in the traditional sense.
>what separates the simulated reality and a parallel universe?
They are the same. The multiverse is a mathematical object. Specifically, the multiverse is set that contains every possible simulation (a simulation is a set of equations and initial conditions).
>At what point does your abstraction become a tangible reality where conscious beings live?
Hard to answer without defining consciousness, but the argument is that every simulation (regardless if a computer is running it or not) is a reality just as tangible as ours.

>>10659414
Which goes back to my original question. What if a physical reality is needed to define consciousness? Then simulated realities, which by definition lack this, are not complete simulations of our reality.

>>10659436
>What if a physical reality is needed to define consciousness?
I'd accept any definition of consciousness but I don't think it impacts the argument.

>Then simulated realities, which by definition lack [a physical reality]
I'm not sure I follow. Simulated realities (by which I assume you mean a computer running a simulation) do not lack a physical reality. Their physical reality lives on the physical bumps on hard drives and memory sticks.

>>10659449
Those bumps or whatever you want to call it are encoded information which has a known way of interpreting. How do these interpretations relate to simulation? those same bumps could just be a word document with jibberish.

>>10658222
Morphic fields, but this time particles are a habit.

>>10659501
Now you're starting to understand why physical representation is irrelevant. Why do atoms in a specific configuration relate to what you consider to be reality?

>>10659197
Anthropic principle

>>10659582
I'm arguing the opposite though. I don't think you can create other realities with a computer.

>>10659808
Oh, great. I agree with you.

In my view, the reality you're "simulating" already existed, you're just peering into them, like though a window.

>>10658222
some questions are impossible to answer. just try to find some fulfillment and joy in life.

>>10659818
But in order to be able peer at a reality you must be able to properly simulate it, which I don't think is possible. I guess that is the point of contention. I dont see how a computer could wholly represent another reality given that our reality doesn't seem to be computed.

>>10659850
>I dont see how a computer could wholly represent another reality
a computer in our reality could only simulate realities less complex than ours. one example of a reality our computers can simulate is conway's game of life.
>our reality doesn't seem to be computed
curious what you mean by that, though its off the rails of what I'm talking about. I'd allow that a reality is uncomputable as long as it follows mathematical laws.

>>10658222
[1/2]
Since you got trips, I'm gonna waste 20 minutes of my time to write up my argument about why discussion of metaphysics is meaningless and doesn't make sense at all.
Since you're all math autists, I'm gonna talk in a mathematical language so everyone understands what the fuck I'm talking about.

I'm gonna start with a few assumptions, which I believe anyone in their right mind would agree with (if you don't, I'm interested in your reasoning so please reply and elaborate the reasons); then I'm going to use basic set theory (which I use as a fundamental tool of thought) to prove that discussion of metaphysics is in and of itself meaningless.

***

First of all, let's start with the assumptions:

A1) For something to "exist" in our reality, it must have some kind of interaction with it. Things that don't interact with our reality are non-existent.

A2) In order to be able to know about A from B, A has to either interact with B (like an Abrahamic god), or affect B without B being able to affect A (like a simulation giving information to the observers, while observers are unable to alter it at all). Therefore, if A can know B, then B affects A.

A3) In order for "Metaphysical World" to be meaningful, it has to be a superset of our "Physical World". A "Metaphysical World" that can't (at the very least) observe the "Physical World" is as useful as a fictional story in a book.

***

Now, the argument:

Let's assume that the MW (Metaphysical World) exists. Then, by the principle of exhaustion, there are 4 possibilities:
1) MW can interact with PW (Physical World), and vice versa.
2) MW can only affect PW, while PW can't affect MW at all.
3) PW can only affect MW, while MW can't affect PW at all.
4) MW and PW can't interact in any way.

>>10658222
That we're in top-level reality?

>>10658222
>>10659866
[2/2]

***

If 1) was true, then the MW would be tangible from PW, and would, by definition, be a part of PW which can be observed and measured. Therefore, it's not a Metaphysical World.

If 2) was true, then PW would be able to observe MW, while MW would have no effect on us at all; therefore, PW would be de facto "the Metaphysical World" to the MW, which renders it meaningless.

If 3) was true, then it would be impossible to know anything about MW from PW, therefore rendering any discussion about MW meaningless.

If 4) was true, then MW would, by definition, not exist.

***

From the above argument, we can conclude that making threads on /sci/ about metaphysics is, in and of itself, just an exercise in futility - a circlejerk with the sole purpose of stroking your own mental penises. So while we're at it, you can at least be true to yourself and accept that as a fact, and put "/cjg/ - circle jerk general" in the subject of every future thread concerning the metaphysical.

Thank you for reading. Have a nice existence.

>>10659197

The idea that consciousness requires a materialistic foundation, in our case biological tissue, to exist is nothing more than an assumption that is made based on the metaphysical architecture from which our own bodies and minds have manifested from. It is, however, precisely that.... an assumption.

Nothingness itself, at one moment, instantaneously manifesting unto itself, "I-s I"/"Is eye" is a possibility you cannot dismiss.

if our reality was a simulation we would constantly be hearing incest jokes or no incest jokes at all. lol.

>>10659875
lol.

Bump

>>10659296
Least brainlet post I've ever seen on /sci/. Still not smart but at least you're not absolutely BTFO by a basic reading of Kant.

>>10659296
>>10659316
>>10659407
In which time dimension is time travel possible?

I have not followed this thread, so I am posting this a response to your posts as they stand on their own.

>>10659866
>A3) In order for "Metaphysical World" to be meaningful, it has to be a superset of our "Physical World".
Metaphysics is usually seen as dependent on the physical world (i.e. metaphysics wouldn't exist without the physical world). I do not think any serious metaphysicist believes any of them is a subset of the other. It's not the right abstraction to understand what "meta" means in this context. I know you chose to use this language to relate to "math autists", so I am eager to hear how you would represent this relationship if you were to do it the most accurate way you could think of.
> A "Metaphysical World" that can't (at the very least) observe the "Physical World" is as useful as a fictional story in a book.
Very few believes this nowadays. Most believe the metaphysical is "built from" and emerges in the physical world.
> 1) MW can interact with PW (Physical World), and vice versa.
While the dynamics of the interaction is not well-understood, I believe this cleary is the case.

>>10659869
Since I chose 1), I need to look at the following statement.
> If 1) was true, then the MW would be tangible from PW, and would, by definition, be a part of PW which can be observed and measured.
> MW would be tangible from PW
Yes.
> by definition, be a part of PW
Yes, but it's "part of" in the loosest sense, not in the "M subset of P" sense. I think "tangible from" is more accurate.
> Therefore, it's not a Metaphysical World.
Not following this last and crucial step.

>>10659161
You fools
Nothing did come from something, or rather nothing predicated something
You see, a causality violation produced something from nothing, of which the causality event was originated in the something

Basically big bangs are the result of someone jackass inventing time travel

>>10658222
Infinite degrees of freedom minus one infinitesimally small fraction of a degree

>>10658222
It is as likely a simulation as it is any other explanation. It might even be a mixture of all the explanations. Man I wonder just what the fuck is happening with reality. What am I? Why am I here? What are these things around me? Where are we? How did I get here?

>>10660392
O Ok that makes sense. Wow you figured it out.

>>10658248
>what's the source of reality?
pic related

>>10659161
>Shitty logic from the medieval era

“Nothing comes from nothing.”

Unverifiable assertion

“There is something therefor there was never nothing.”

Unverifiable assertion. If by “never” you mean never in the entirety of time, which is just 13.8 billion years, then sure. Psst. God can’t “cause” things without Time, so he’s at best a reaction, not a first cause.

>This something cannot bring itself into existence because to do that it would have to exist before it existed. That’s impossible.

You just declared God to be impossible. Congrats.

>So therefore something else had to bring this something into existence and that something is what all men call god.

Nope, that’s just time. Retarded cavepeople might want to call the concept of time “God” but that’s your problem.

>>10659183
Everything has a cause but time. Time is the uncaused cause. It can not be God, since causality necessitates time to exist already. God disproven.

>>10658222
It could be one tiny spec on the aether of the cosmos

>>10661124
>>10661126
So what interpretation of quantum mechanics do you believe to be correct

Bumpo

>>10658222
We probably will never be able to proof that we life in an simulation.Our senses are limited, what we consider to be 'real' are only the things our senses can detect through electrical impulses.To proof an simulation would be like proofing that a god exists or understanding how nonexistence would be like.

>>10660406
The answer may not be intuitively understood by a human in the same way we can never fully comprehend a fourth dimensional object.

>>10658222
its a simulation of a simulation of an atom in a bacteria in a steaming pile of shit from your moms butthole

>What other alternative hypotheses are there to simulation theory?

We are ethereal beings controlling physical shells, both parts of us were created by a lonely, mysterious, but ultimately benevolent creator.
Our physical form was made by hand by said creator, as was all other living and non living entity.
Our world was given order in how it was created, so that we might discover it, we were given trials so that we might overcome them, we were given will to choose what the world around us means.
We're not in a simulation, we are under the watchful eye of a just creator.

That the world just exists and there isn't a conspiracy behind literally everything.
Fucking /x/tards Jesus

>>10662601
Most retarded response so far. Nowhere did I imply a conspiracy.

>>10662601

>>10662604
Yes, but what response would you accept and not deny? What fact or figure would you be able to hold and look at whilst saying, "This thing lets me know that what I know is true!"

>Looks at mobile phone
>dabs

>>10658677

>>10662614
An ECHS brain is a quartic quantum qubit, so takes up a lot less spawn time than a boltzmann brain with linear experience aggregation. Welcome brother!

>>10658222
It's turtles all the way down. Even god himself knows that.

Final bump

>>10658244
Hmm interesting argument
Noted

>>10658222
Wait, are you saying, I'm a computer program?

>>10659175
>http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html
"According to Nick Bostrom of the Future of Humanity Institute, it is likely that we live in a computer simulation. And one of our biggest existential risks is that the superintelligence running our simulation shuts it down. "

So maybe 'reality' is some superintelligence wank-porn?

>>10663685
How infantile. I expect these kinds of takes on reddit, not /sci/.
Something something sky faerie, am I right? Grow up.

>>10658222
>WOT IF NON AV DIS BE REEL N IT BE LOIKE ME VIDYA GAEMS.

Simulation theory pushers deserve hell.

>>10663685
Then I'm the Alpha-Prime Slut Du Jour!
>t.Singularity's Favorite!

Who do I sell story energy to? Hm...

>>10658222
Humans are animals.

>>10658799
Cogito -> The Immortal Soul -> God