/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10942353
>occurs in metals
So only machines have free will.

>wanting some simulation admin dude to define the parameters of living
This is like Abrahamic religion but worse.

>>10942353
Reminder that the halting problem refuted the simulation hypothesis a long time ago and pop sci is cancer.

>>10942353
>Guys, we KNOW it now. It can no longer be disproven. Isn't THAT the basis of science?

>>10942353
you talk about the universe as if it's some different object. we are the universe thinking about itself you dumb piece of starshit

The truth is the odds of us not living in a simulation are 1/infinity. There is an infinite number of simulations but only one reality where we are real.

Math never lies....

>>10942390
An ancestor simulation only simulates everything up to the point the simulation was switched on. All the people who lived after that were already immortal and didn't need to be popped out by electronic resurrection.

it's all just hand sanitizer

>>10942353
>you can relax now
>implying I didn't want this to be a computer simulation with a reward of virtual heaven by the researchers conducting this experiment

The whole thing about simulation theory to me has always been a muddled mess, because the conversation always comes down to "well how do we prove/disprove" and then throwing about of "god-by-any-other-name" arguments.

Which isn't wrong, necessarily, but it's a lot easier to destroy the concept of simulation theory with the simple "whydunit".

You can't simulate a universe like ours to the degree of complexity which we can observe without running into one of two problems:
>Simulation theory is just for Earth/Lifeforms
Anthropocentric simulation theory is fucking ego and nothing more, literally just call it "god" at this point.
>Simulation theory is for the entire universe.
You need a more complex system than the universe in order to simulate the universe.
Thus what purpose does any such complex reality have for spending resources simulating our universe?

Essentially at any point, the universe being a simulation would mean that we have no context of interaction with anything outside the simulation (except probably to 'ruin' the simulation and cause it to be ended), and anything that would involve an interactable universe would defy the purposeful concept of it being a simulation in the first place.

>>10942390
Only if a simulation is possible in the first place.

>>10942353
>impossible not just practically, but in principle
In principle I can consider that it is possible so now it is possible.

>>10942422
thanks for the timestamp 4.

>>10942418
wrong wrong wrong wrong

>>10942378
But what if the simulated universe isn’t a Turing machine?

>it's impossible in principle
>Mfw

>>10942426
fantastic argument

>>10942418
why simulate the entire universe when u can just simulate all the radiation that is observable from our solarsystem.

>>10942447

You're arguing anthropocentric simulation. You might as well just be saying "The matrix is real! I'm going to break out of the system and become Neo!"

>>10942447
But muh anthropocentrism. Because we need to simulate several sentient species for a simulation to be useful or some shit.

>>10942461
And? Why does this universe have to be a playground for your space opera fantasies?

If you needed any further proof that computer scientists are the most powerful race on earth here it is

*dabs*

>>10942470
Cringe

They discovered that the simulation increased exponentially with just a few hundred electron being simulated. A simulation that only stored information about these few hundred electron would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.

>>10942501
They could just be feeding us false information

>>10942501
Easily optimized by forcefully making us think all these rules of physics make sense or inducing a collective hallucinations that self-correct in memory once people discuss them.

>>10942501
>but if the universe is a simulation then the real computer would exist in another universe you dumb fool

>>10942501
So no universe-level simulations without quantum computers. It's just not a digital task at all.

>>10942518
So the information in your computer exist in another universe?

Anyone that says 'we're definitely not able to X, Y, or Z' underestimates the ingenuity of mankind and overinflates our knowledge of the universe.

just like I could care about yours
funny how that works OP you fat wigger

>>10942519
Well, yeah, and electrons are this computer.

Why the fuck would it even matter if it is a simulation? If some creature is controlling our every action and thought then there's no point in even wasting the energy worrying about it

>>10942564
As a form of "tourism" to the past or as a form of research
>controlling our every action
Says who?

>>10942561
I seriously want to believe that if the universe really is based on math, then it's inherently possible to recreate the quantum signature of a patch of matter via some quantum assembler, and the universe will compute it as it would a real object just because it's all information on the quantum level.

>>10942353
Shouldn't this article be more along the lines of "We could not simulate a universe as complex as ours"? They're completely ignoring the possibility that the outside universe is infinitely more advanced than ours and would be able to do this shit.

>>10942599
That might actually be possible.

>>10942353
>the universe doesn't give a shit about your existence
I am a (prospective) bioengineer and a Christian.
I have a family, they love me, and I love them so much.

Is not all this a part of the universe too? Every face I see is a reason to keep existing. In this regaurd, I care for the universe and it cares for me.

I never needed an alien simulation for that.

>>10942707
Either that or more energy efficient, without "fuck you" distances in space and with 10000x faster light speed.

>>10942353
based

>>10942707
so if that were true, what processes are they trying to simulate? what's the point of a simulation that doesnt model basic physics like your own?

>>10942919
Reliving the lives of past humans?

>>10942414
>heaven has no quantum hall effect
nooooooooo!!!

Even if we are a simulation within a higher reality, we are still part of that reality as a simulation.

/thread

What if the universe is a mental? What if anything that contains self-reference (thinks about itself) is conscious? Be it a nervous system, or a sufficiently complex computing system.

>>10942934
sauce on that image?

>>10942946
Search for neurons vs galaxies.

>>10942934
is mental *

>>10942934
>What if the universe is a mental?
so what? does it even matter for our perception of reality? see >>10942932

>>10942960
It matters, because if there is something above us, it can change the outcome of events, or even make itself known.

>>10942971
But either we are able to perceive it or not. We are only able to perceive wihtin our spectrum

>>10942461
>>10942469
More importantly why does everyone want to break out of one prison story just to have to fight to break out of another one? When recursion and exponential has been proven to exist, and narratives are just abstractions of n-body interactions, it's obvious that the story you choose to continue 'recursing' through is an arbitrary choice from the observers perspective.

Which is all fine and dandy, but why does everyone need it to be a 'struggle' for freedom? Being born and accepting the sanity dance required to keep it going is, quite literally, the only one that matters. Unless you have an eternal hard-on for 'waking up, fighting the system, rinse, repeat'.

>>10942353
Ha BTFO CS faggots.

>>10942538
no, wrong, but maybe all computers exist in a simulation from another one
why would a simulated computer be as strong as a real one

>>10942501
Then the program/memory just needs to be staggered in order to accommodate a representation that is cohesive to a 'now' interpretation. You don't need to simulate 'all', just the fovea (point of focused resolution) and allow for geometric translation.

It's like humans can't let go of the magic button theory.

>>10942980
lol

>>10942974
We can perceive it at some point and not perceive it at some other. Some people can perceive it, others not.
All truth is subjective.

>>10943047
>All truth is subjective.
Then there is no truth at all.

>>10942386
>piece of starshit
Correction: we are the all-singing all-dancing starshit of the universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFyjeSGzhWw

>>10942353
I thought it was just a thought experiment and not a serious literal belief.

>>10942422
That's not how it works

>>10942447
Why simulate the solar system when they can just simulate my perception of reality? Maybe there are only a few simulated brains being fed data.

>>10942418
>>10942418
You can simulate the universe with a PR-box
>Strikingly, it was also discovered that if PR boxes did exist, any distributed computation could be performed with only one bit of communication.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality#Superquantum_nonlocality
The papers that rule out PR boxes were discredited some time ago and it is still an open question whether these devices can exist or not. Surely the universe simulators would have access to such a device

>>10942919
entertainment

>>10942390
>the odds of us not living in a simulation are 1/infinity
Source for that, faggot?

>>10943147
No such thing as nonlocal quantum effects.

>>10943048
Then as your subject I welcome your proclamation, King Object. Or are you asking your subjects to overthrow an established perspective?

>>10942371
my dick has free will
that's why I call him free willy

>>10943172
based schizoposter

>>10942371
We literally have iron in our blood. >:(

>>10943186
cringe

>>10943193
Nonlocality is schizoid

>>10943199
Displacement current in classical electromagnetism already implies existence of nonlocal fields - you're late to the party, schizo

>>10943209
quit being retarded, all QFT interactions are local

>>10943193
Not schizoid, there is no nonlocal quantum effects
>>10943209
No they don't, the displacement still adheres to c, therefor it's localized.
There is no effect found in any part of QM or any other field of physics that are nonlocal. There is no such thing as nonlocality in the universe, schizo retard.

>>10943196
Cringe responses is apparently alive and well so I guess there is some sort of truth after all. A youth mapping their younger self onto an older entity and concluding that they regret their instantiation point.

>der buttsex

>>10943199
What would quantum schizophrenia be, and could I please have some? All attention and energy aggregation can be translated into some relative value add with a sufficient, "Fuck you, everyone else!" attitude.

>Go FULL TRUMP! I cringe no more, I am the Donald J. Trump of pimping intellectual whores!

>>10943229
oh no now a real schizo shows up. pretty soon this thread will be 125 samefags by Solischizus and Gary

>>10942353
the universe does give a shit, and it enjoys fucking with physicists

>>10943229
So explain bell inequalities violations in experiments - all of them. All QM scientists understand that non-locality is established science now. You are the schizo for going against scientific consensus

>>10943244
>So explain bell inequalities violations in experiments
Bell inequalities does not violate locality fucking retard. It is not consensus and all QM scientists do not accept non locality, it is not "established science". Every formalism of all QM are local. QFT and string theory are both local.
Fuck you're retarded and you don't even know what you're talking about.

>>10943247
You are the one that dont know the terms: bell inequalities VIOLATIONS in experiments imply nonlocality. If they werent violated in an experiment QM would be local

You confuse local and localized, nonlocality and realism and it is pretty obvious from loophole-free bell experiments that QM is nonlocal. The whole scientific community agrees on that, only schizo marginalized useless physicists dont

>>10943244
Unsure of where I was going against any consensus. Alos, query, why are they considered inequalities and not simply regions of dispersion/cohesion?

>>10943231
*shrug* k? I'm unsure of what the observation appeals to or explains for anyone except for your IP address but I'm always happy to be educated. How could I know anything after all? I'm just a memory storage device that translates shit into story for others.

>>10943258
>You are the one that dont know the terms: bell inequalities VIOLATIONS in experiments imply nonlocality. If they werent violated in an experiment QM would be local
Have you even taken a class in QM? Bell's inequality only violates locality if you demand that the state position has definite value - which it doesn't.
>The whole scientific community agrees on that, only schizo marginalized useless physicists dont
Except the entire community does not agree on that and all the formalisms of QM, QFT and String theory are local theories. This is not "marginalized" - literally the opposite, the only people who believe in nonlocal effects are the pilot wave retards who are not mainstream and are the marginilized ones because they deny relativity.
There is no effect found in any QM experiment or any physics experiment anywhere that violates locality. There is no nonlocality in the universe. The only people who deny this are retards like you who don't know what he's talking about.

>>10943247
You are confusing "nonlocality" and "signalling". Locality in Bell inequalities has an operational meaning, it is nit the same definition of locality in qft, even though it is inspired by it. QM is non-signalling, but EITHER nonlocal (in the Bell operational sense) OR non-realist (Bell sense again). If you accept Bohr's complementarity, there is no need for Bell's contructions tho, but they are usefull in other instances like quantum teleportation protocols

>>10943266
explain quatum steering then. Bet you dont even know what im talking about, schizo

As others said, you confuse nonlocality and signalling, they are different stuff, schizo

>>10943265
Because they are not regions of dispersion/cohesion, by definition.

>>10943047
didnt know that your level of brainlets know how to type let alone operate a computer

>>10943289
It's a form of entanglement which is inherenlty local. Person A measuring their entangled particle doesn't magically and nonlocally change the other particle, the particles already had their positions when they were entangled.
Again, there is NO nonlocality is any experiment or any theory of QM. It doesn't exist, there is no nonlocality anywhere in the universe, and there are no theories that are accepted in the community that are nonlocal, schizo retard. QM, QFT, and String Theory are ALL local, you denying this doesn't change it.

>>10942919
Maybe our universe is a simulation experiment that went wrong

>Bell's inequality only violates locality if you demand that the state position has definite value - which it doesn't.
It has in a two-mode vaccum squeezed state, the so-called EPR state. This is the crux of EPR's paradox, which was falsified both by Bohr and by BIs violations. QM is contextual - the correct term - which in EPR's example implies nonlocality (a la Bell). The same EPR state appears in blackhole's vaccum in Rindler coordinates

>>10943266
>>10943306

this is bullshit

>popsci getting btfo

are we supposed to be mad?

>>10943297
Pretty sure you are mixing nonlocality definition in quantum information and signaling, common mistake. There are nonlocal (a la Bell) effects/tasks like teleportation, but there is no faster-than-light signaling in any physical theory

>>10942353
Both sides of this argument are retarded, why the fuck would the computer we run on work using the same physics as the universe it simulates? Its so fucking retarded.

>>10942353
OP is a faggot for not posting a link to it. Since no link can be provided OP probably made it all up.

>>10943373
lemme guess:
you're boycotting google cause they cut childrens dicks?

>>10942488
*dabs on you*

What we are missing is a new dimension. Quantum computers might show us that. We might need to investigate our dreams. Like how they almost create a real world and we tend to live in there for some time, most physical laws still applicable.

This simulation mumbo jumbo is nothing but your religious brain high on atheism.

>>10942385
This is incorrect. As long as we don't know how QM and GRT interact, their conclusion is necessarily wrong.

>>10943379
give me a citation faggot. Just google it isn't a citation.

>>10943416
i give you dick
suck it

>>10942390
>The truth is the odds of us not living in a simulation are 1/infinity.

>>10942353
Imagine being the authors of that paper and having your interesting work on condensed matter and quantum information be misrepresented by this garbled mess of pop sci pseudo-philosophy.

>>10943658
i would harass that journo on twitter calling him a retarded college dropout

>>10942919
I don't think we're a "simulation" it's more like a video game

What reason do we have to play minecraft or the sims?

>>10942353
the universe is chaotic and unpredictable, everything that has happened or will happen is entirely random, thinking otherwise is lying to yourself and others, humans may not have control of the universe, but they do have control of some things and we should start focusing on those things we do have control over. But in reality there is no point to life Xd and we're just waiting to die, once we are dead we are gone and everything we did was for nothing unless you are lucky enough to be merged into a cyborg or computer than you can live for a long time. But those that died are gone for good and will never come back.

What’s the point in abandoning religion if you just replace it with equally retarded shit. As far as we are aware, the universe started spontaneously and everything that followed has happened just because. Get over it.

>>10942353
So what the hell is it then?

>>10942353
the article (the original publication not the pop-sci piece in OP post) looks interesting as fuck, please post sauce

>>10943843
I need an answer to this question.

>>10943841
>As far as we are aware, the universe started spontaneously and everything that followed has happened just because.
How are we aware of that?

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0Eo1fWTg9Eo

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0Eo1fWTg9E0

Wouldn't the simulators only really need to simulate one person (yourself) and then just everything you see/interact with?

The only object that you can barely argue is a real thing with consciousness is yourself. You have no way to prove the consciousness of anyone other than yourself. For all you know, they are just programmed robots made of flesh -- they would be nothing more than a piece of code.

The program would only need to simulate me.

>>10943865
That’s the knowledge we have. The Big Bang was likely caused by random chance because of the quantum field and virtual particles. That is not an answer to what caused “something”, like the quantum field, to exist, but that is essentially unknowable since it would be something outside of any known laws of physics, and outside of any conception of reality we have. We can’t know, so it’s not relevant

>>10943841
>just because
JUST BECAUSE
JUST BECAUUUUUUUUUUUSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb3FJdRk-tI

>>10943886
>We can’t know, so it’s not relevant
It is relevant, since people will not stop thinking about it, ever

>>10943321
This
We already simulate universes ourselves. The universes we simulate are far less complex than our own.

The main flaw with simulation people is they are assuming we must be the center of the simulation, and therefore assume what we are doing is even of interest to what ever is running the simulation. I think, if the universe was a simulation, it would be far more likely that we are just accidental ai that sprung up. The simulators might not even realize we are here.

>>10943886
>That’s the knowledge we have.

>>10942353
daily reminder that we indeed probably do not live in a simulation

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

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

>>10943886
>LOL WHO CARES WHAT WE ARE OR WHY WE'RE HERE LOL
>I DON'T CARE, DO YOU?
>WHAT KIND OF STUPID PERSON WOULD CARE ABOUT SOMETHING SO STUPID LIKE THAT CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE? LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLOK,LML;',JKLFHPJURU893

>>10942353
This does not exclude being simulated in an universe with different physical laws.

>>10942378
Do you really want to halt the Universe!?

>>10943939
the problem with all these 'its not a simulation' people is they are making the simulating universe far too similar to our own. We know from our own universe simulations that we aproximate things, we dont use real physics we use stuff that works well enough for the targeted purpose of the simulation because if we had to try and accurately simulate every detail of physics it would be impossible because we dont even know every detail of it, we can only look at the observed large scale results and try to make a simulation that kind of matches those results with the variables we put into it.

The computer that would be simulating us would exist in a reality with more complex physics, and this would have produced more complex computers than we can ever possibly create in our universe.

Likewise we are not considered alive by the standards of the far more complex life in the simulated universe, we are seen as approximations of life if they are paying attention at all. If they set out to simulate a universe then we could just be an accident. They put in aproximations of their physics, which made life possible in their universe, and it happened to cause an approximation of life to spring up in their universe. We could be in a simulation simply designed to simulate the early universe to them. They might not even care that any kind of things similar to life is existing in it.

>>10943987
But if you go there, it's no longer compatible with Bostrom's simulation argument. Which is fine, it's just worth pointing out.

>>10943843
I need an answer to this question.

>>10943841
>What’s the point in abandoning religion if you just replace it with equally retarded shit.
communism

>>10943987
Every time I see one of these descriptions of how "the simulation" might work, it just reads like a technical description of what a real life "god" would actually be like. It's a bit unsettling.

>>10943843
This is the only answer you're ever going to get
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

>>10943266
> pilot wave retards
> deny relativity
They don't

>>10943841
This only makes sense if you believe in multiverse/eternal inflation/the infinite fractal flow of the universe(s). And lots of brainlets who come to this board for god knows what reason refuse to believe it. You can't have it both ways. You can't reject "the religion" of the universe is part of something bigger and started teleologically (let's call this the Einstein/Kaku camp) AND "the religion" of the universe is part of something infinite and started randomly (let's call this the Susskind camp). You CANNOT have your cake and eat it too, you just CANNOT. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA SCIENTIFIC RELIGION GO AWAY SCIENTIFIC RELIGION GO AWAY" is not an argument. You can ignore the debate, but you can't ignore the debate and attempt to call this a position or an argument. It is not an argument. You're just being stupid and not realizing it.

>>10944029
There is no definitive (stress on the word definitive) answer to this question and there never will be. If you want something approximating an answer you must choose a "religion" >>10944223
Take your pick. But don't say "this isn't sciency enough". That's the closest you will ever get to an "answer".

>>10942353
>The finding -- an unexpectedly definite one
>definite
can we please ban science reporting

>>10943987
>>10944223
>The FAR (First Ancestral Race) from Evangelion created the universe in a sim
If it's "part of something bigger", like Einstein thought, then why must the FAR be the FIRST ancestral race. Why MUST there be a BASE reality, and why can't WE just be the ones who are in it? Nick Bostrom himself would say because that is cosmically unlikely, I know. But isn't it cosmically MORE likely that there just ISN'T a BASE? Given this, I think that between the two religions (God of Spinoza/simulation versus Multiverse theory) the first one, the simulation one, just makes infinity inevitable anyway. So really they are the same religion. The Infinity religion. As one follows from the other. Something must be infinite for either of them to be workable. So just settle on that and call it a day.

>>10944321
Also also, Tolstoy claimed that every action of a human being is really just a struggle to join with the infinite. But being part of an infinite universe, we already are infinite. By not realizing this, and thrashing around upon the Earth the way that we do, we are just weighing ourselves down needlessly. We don't really die when we die. So we should stop fighting death. Death will never come. Don't worry.

>>10944321
Also also, Tolstoy claimed that every action of a human being is really just a struggle to join with the infinite. But being part of an infinite universe, we already are infinite. By not realizing this, and futilely thrashing around upon the Earth the way that we do, we are just weighing ourselves down needlessly. We don't really die when we die. So we should stop fighting death. Death will never come. Don't worry.

Also also, Tolstoy claimed that every action of a human being is really just a struggle to join with the infinite. But being part of an infinite universe, we already are infinite. By not realizing this, and futilely thrashing around upon the Earth the way that we do, we are just weighing ourselves down needlessly. We don't really die when we die. So we should stop fighting death. Death will never come. Don't worry. In an infinite world, Nietzsche's "eternal return" is not just an idea among many ideas about the nature of death, it's a guarantee.

>>10944134
They do via nonlocality.

>>10943290
By definition of predicate or by conclusion of the observation? There's no such thing as an infinite point of focus.

You either attract until repulsion, or you repel until attraction.

>Technically an A.I. would just be a keystroke minimizer for humanity.

>>10944442
K, expansion here. When does the UNIVERSE decide that THAT specific human is allowed to be the indivisible genius of <insert previously unknown-to-recorded-history subject here>

>t.invented sapiosexual doctrine

>>10944442
>>10944469
fuck off solischizus

>>10944474
Does that expression work for you offline OR online? I'm curious because the amount of exposure I've had to dismissal ends up inccoluating or decohering interpretations at times. I mean from an expression perspective I can ignore it, but the originator of the message must have believed it had SOME power otherwise why use it? Unless it is more something they say as a masturbatory fantasy because they don't posess the power to tell others to fuck off?

>Being 6'4"/195cm is essentially all I ever call on. Fellow tallies stick together. Back problems suuuuck.

I'm not really in support of the simulation theory, but any counterargument that relies on "well, it would be impossible to do it in our universe with our universe laws" is retarded.

It's trivial to write a computer simulation in our world which is more limited and capable of less than actual reality. In fact, it's the standard. Obviously there are things that will be in principle impossible from within a simulation, but that does absolutely nothing to prove what is or is not possible in the parent universe.

>>10944498
Well, you have to leave the basement in order to find data to plug into the machine in the basement.

>>10944504
I haven't left the basement in years and that doesn't stop me from inputting shitposts to /sci/

>>10942353
it does a little bit

>>10944534
Sure, but /sci/ at that point would be your refraction matrix. Just trying to streamline the shitpost to shitshine, M'lud.

>>10942419
but there is 0.5 chance of that: it is either possible or not. 0.5 over infinity is still zero.

>>10942510
>inducing a collective hallucinations that self-correct in memory once people discuss them.

Damn it.

>>10942501
The universe is expanding. Obviously the rate of expansion is sin(x)/x which is >1 for very large values of x. You can work it out from there that the Moore's law has a higher rate of expansion.

>>10944548
Quantum message-path sharer

>>10943321
FINALLY
>Oh wow this one characteristic of the universe (popular example is muh plank length, compared to fucking pixels) is very similar (it's not) to this one characteristic of a computer simulation (in that same universe).
t.dudes who think the universe is a simulation
>WTF we can't simulate this unpredictable behavior of the universe using a computer made within that universe.
t.dudes who think it's impossible.

>>10944597
The universe is a BRIDGING simulation between disparate points of inference. All universes are.

>>10944601
Fuck off tripfag.

>Physicists: Science is bullshit

>>10944604
Guess I have to be the bridge here. Now I'm a tripfag.

I’m just watching you idiots gobble this up like the onions guzzling pop sci retards you pretend to hate.

If I posted a thread about the USS Nimitz UFO incident, I’d be told I’m a retard. If I posted a thread dedicated to the topic of consciousness, you would try to discredit the hard problem of consciousness

>>10944709
Tie to Trump and you're golden. Think of him like the conflagration point of all weird shit.

>FOLLOW DA TIMELINE LEADER!

>>10942501
>A simulation that only stored information about these few hundred electron would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.
I thought they said principially impossible, not “simulated within this same universe” impossible.

What's the difference between a "simulated" universe and one that is artificially constructed from real matter?

architecture vs simulated? what's the difference. If you can even simulate a block of metal then how does the universe do it?

One day an elf made a video game called human fortress. After many versions of the game over several generations, the humans became sapient, then one day a human decided to make a game called dwarf fortress.

>>10945573
OH and P.s. I guess that's what the DMT mechine elves are.

>>10942353
isnt this just how a powerful force for """JUDY""" would memeticly bomb us back to the stone age? i mean considering how fast memes travel these days its how id control the youth loloolol

>>10943170
Basic statistical probability you mongrel. If we made a simulation do you think we'd only make 1? No. If a simulation is possible we would be running countless simulations, because we wouldn't/couldn't wait around 14 billion years to see if we where right on our first one. So the logic goes, if it's possible to simulate than statistically speaking the odds of us living in one of the countless simulations are higher than us living in the 1 real world.

>>10942353
K but I do lol

>>10943234
I believe the universe is designed explicitly to fuck with physicists. Mathematics is only truth.

The universe is infinite it space, time, and particles so unless the machine running it is an infinite oracle machine it doesn't make sense to assert we're in a simulation.

>>10943170
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10947330
faggot

>>10943879
t. npc

>>10947325
>The universe is infinite it space, time, and particles

>>10942353
Yes mr science man I will blindly believe what this popsci article with no sources what I should think. I also won’t forget to vaccinate my kids and eat bugs to stop global warning as well in the name of science.

>>10948454
>global warming
Fuck

>>10942390
Nice negative argumemt