/sci/ - Science & Math

yes
proof: your sex life

>>11043952
If we are, who simulated our simulators? And even if by this chain of logic you should ever reach some "base reality", why should that reality be the base? Why is that reality allowed to "just be" and not have some other plane of existence be the substrate within which it too is being simulated. And if you allow for such a reality, why can't it just be this one? Long story short, simulation is the same as god in terms of being an explanation for existence.

>>11043958
the worst part is they haven’t proven that computers can simulate a world like this. I could only imagine that we’re all hooked in the matrix with real bodies, rather than computers being able to simulate consciousness

>>11043965

>>11043957
im confused

>>11043952
>So are we living in a simulation or not /sci/
What difference would it make?

>>11043958
>Long story short, simulation is the same as god in terms of being an explanation for existence.

That's not what the simulation argument is about. It's not supposed to answer the question "why does anything exist at all".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

My guess is that simulating an universe like ours is immensely difficult and expensive. And the more advanced our post-human descendants become, the less interested they become in simulating this part of history in such a detail.

>>11044323
MUSHROOM SNAKE FARM

its a thought experiment.

honestly who cares

>>11044323
The lead up to the birth of AGI (which is a prerequisite to any simulation) which is now, would in fact be one of the most logical and interesting points in time to be simulated.

>>11044323

It's really not that expensive or difficult for a Kardashev 2 civilization. A Matrioshka Brain operates around 4e48 FLOPS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_performance_by_orders_of_magnitude#beyond_(%3E1024)

The upper bound of simulating a human brain (without any form of abstraction, which can easily be done without impacting the accuracy of your simulation) is 10^17 FLOPS

https://aiimpacts.org/brain-performance-in-flops/

Even if we assume the entirety of the human race is being simulated without any form of abstraction we're still talking about a mere 10^27 FLOPS required out of 4e48 available. You could run one of these simulations from the dawn of time up until our current day at 1 billion times realtime speed and still only require 10^36 FLOPS, one trillionth of your available computational power.

Again, this is all assuming no optimizations or abstractions whatsoever. In all likelihood someone could run of these simulations as easily on their home computer as we run AAA games now.

If the universe we are living in now is a simulation, it is indistinguishable from the real deal. The notion that the universe is a simulation is a literal psy-op intended to make platonic idealism appear to correspond with reality, but it doesn't. Fuck you alphabet boys.

>>11043958
>And even if by this chain of logic you should ever reach some "base reality", why should that reality be the base?
It shouldn't. To any observer it might as well be an infinite regression and the location of the base reality will forever remain a known unknown
>And if you allow for such a reality, why can't it just be this one?
It's just a question of really simple probability
>simulation is the same as god in terms of being an explanation for existence
It doesn't pretend to be that outside of perhaps youtube popsci videos. It's just a thought experiment on what happens when you assume mediocrity as an observer. Perhaps we will discover something that changes our understanding of what an observer is and problems like it and similar ones like Boltzmann brains are, finally, eliminated

Like this anon points out >>11044468, it does feel like we are on the cusp of answering it relatively soon

You mean like a dream?

>>11044323
>simulating an universe like ours
they are obviously not simulating the whole universe. just generating what we're looking at when we're looking at it. Like reverse ray tracing.

Bump

>>11043952
No

>>11043952
I'm not, but you all are

>>11043952
NOYES
OYESN
YESNO
ESNOY
SNOYE

>>11045373
Could it be possible that the existance of anything is an implication of reality consisting of infinite amount of layers where "base reality" cannot ever be reached so an explanation for reality or begining does not need to exist for the rest of reality to exist.

>>11044323
Why things exist at all is already known. And it's because they can't not. That's not what that's saying at all. It is saying that explanations for why things are THE WAY THAT THEY ARE are equally explainable by ideas like simulation and the idea of god. I.e. they are kicking the can down the road. But in either case, the can comes right back to bite you on the ass.

Yes, but it's not the type of simulation you think it is.

>>11045373
>Infinite regress
Exactly. Infinite regress SEEMS ridiculous on its face, but if you think about it long enough, it becomes the only viable possibility.

>>11046201
Fuck him and fuck "sign value"

>>11046211
What makes you say that, anon?

>>11046175
>It is saying that explanations for why things are THE WAY THAT THEY ARE are equally explainable by ideas like simulation and the idea of god.

Well, sure, but even that is not what the simulation argument as argued by Nick Bostrom is. It doesn't even say that we live in a simulation, it says that IF we believe our (probably post-human) descendants are going to create ancestor simulations, we should believe that we are almost certainly in a simulation ourselves.

>>11043957
we’re not
proof: mine