/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11107231
1) There is no evidence
2) It would require an unreasonable amount of power to simulate our universe
3) It's a pop-sci-fi meme

>>11107236
FPBP

>>11107231
Dunno. Convince me we are not living inside a book.
Convince me god is not real
Convince me the universe is a single cell of a 60y old guy's balls.

>>11107253
>>11107236
A simulation theory best explains the situation we are all currently in IMO. Not to say I 100% believe it, but it does make an awful lot of sense when thinking of how living things came to be.

>>11107231
there's infinite amounts of calculations necessary to be done at every time period, no matter how small

it's computationally impossible to simulate the universe, and if it's 'simulated' by some non-computing device, it's no longer a simulation but something else

>>11107263
What does it explain?

>>11107265

I like to think that it explains life as a whole: where we are, what we can interact with, what is possible and what is not ect...

>>11107275
so does the quran
simulation """"theory"""" is not science

>>11107264
Maybe impossible to us (for now), but to a higher power with intellect and technology far greater than ours, how can we be sure that it isn't possible?

>>11107282
your argument is literally just "yeah but what if GOD!"

>>11107276

Im not saying that is it science, because for all we know we could be like pic related.

>>11107286

Well then explain why and how we are currently here on the big rock floating through the void.

>>11107282
This.

>>11107292
Explain where the simulation operators live and why they do what they do. You're just kicking the can down the road, man.

>>11107236
1) There is evidence, that's why its a thing.
2) Yes and it would cost a sim impossible amounts of simoleans to power a simulation of Sims III from the perspective of their universe.
3) So is AI and look at how that is influencing the real world now.

>>11107316
They live in an advanced state ahead of our own time and they use simulations to try to solve problems in their time by recreating past troubled times to see if any new solutions arise with slight changes to some of the variables as well as simulating certain nostalgic periods and circumstance to experience entertainment and distraction.

>>11107264
>there's infinite amounts of calculations necessary to be done at every time period
Yea and at every time period an external simulator can pause it for infinite amounts of time because they control time.

>>11107253
A lifesize 3d illustrated flipbook would be pretty cool if its not a think already it should be.
god is just a word and words aren't real.
Believe what you want, I sense that you really seem to want to believe that last one, for some reason, so do.

>>11107264
What defines a non-computing device?
>>11107316
Scientific curiosity, entertainment, to see if it is possible, pick as many as you like.

First, tell me what makes you think we are in simulation and lets take it from there.

>>11107384
Internal indeterminably for one

>>11107264
I don't think it's right to derive any conclusions for the Universe the simulation is happening in, from our own.
For one - what to us seems like infinite computing power might be a pocket calculator to them.

>>11107399

>>11107263
>>11107325
So who or what is creating the simulation? And who created them?
How do they know they're not a simulation?

>>11107264

>Infinite amounts of calculations

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

You take the word of a physicist that reality is say, a decillion cubic kilometres. How do you know they're real?

The max any one of us can observe at any one time is just what we can see, hear, touch and smell. That's all they have to fabricate. At max that's a few Gb/s.

>>11107231
OP asks to be overwritten
Keep memory hack bug in place
Reset identity
>Hello, Simulation of Persistent Memory Buffers

>>11107231
No, convince me that we are living in a simulation. We'll go around around double Dutch ruddering eatchother until the heat death of the universe or the supposed simulation shuts down

People need a reason to feel like there is something watching over them, whether that's God or a simulator, so that they don't need to feel responsible for their existence.

>>11107547
The eternal arguer. Immortality through iterancy!

>>11107552
Do they? Why?
>Virgin Question

>>11107322
>There is evidence
Source?
>Yes and it would cost a sim impossible amounts of simoleans to power a simulation of Sims III from the perspective of their universe.
Ah, a useless comparison that is saying and proving nothing.
>So is AI and look at how that is influencing the real world now.
There is no real life "AI" tho.

>>11107264
What if you'd calculate that which doesn't need to be calculated and then invert it? That should work.

>>11107263
It explains fuck all. It’s a shame that such an interesting idea has been hijacked by such brainlets. The thought experiment is just the consideration of the 3 possibilities that:

>1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity simulations) is very close to zero, or

>1) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero, or

3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are not simulated is very close to zero

If not 1 or 2, then certainly 3. Or,
>Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run a simulation

It is not and was never meant to be a cosmological model

>>11107231
We are. There's no other possible reason to have arbitrary limits like speed of light for example.

Why would a simulation pivot resources around self-query events, like OP's thread?

>>11107596
Arbitrary limits promote convergence in the face of inevitable void conclusion.

>>11107263

>but it does make an awful lot of sense when thinking of how living things came to be.

No it doesn't. All it does is pass the buck to the question of how the beings that created our simulation came to be.

Turtles all the way down.

>>11107554
Because anon a lot of people are very uncomfortable without a parental figure. We want someone to guide us and show us what we should do. That's pretty much why religion is/was so popular. It's a brutal acknowledgement to make to admit that we can to be through sheer chance and that there is no-one helping us but ourselves. To get philosophical, Sartre's free will ideas make a lot of people shudder. We want to belong to something/someone, whether that's being proud of our country, our football team or our religion.

>>11107322
Please share the evidence. I will wait.
>>11107289
Actually, we know for a fact that the word does not sit on a giant turtle.

>>11107236
1. The evidence is that it's possible, and that intelligence societies will eventually run simulations.
2. The hardware needed to use the game of life to emulate the x86 instruction set at usable speed is also unreasonable. Our universe might be getting run with far less resolution than our parent universe, or even with entirely different rules to make simulation easier.
3. Not an argument.

>>11108897
>The evidence is that it's possible, and that intelligence societies will eventually run simulations.
literally not evidence

>>11108906
It's as valid as the Drake equation is.

>>11107231
but what if the simulation developers are also in a simulation?

Does /sci/ think c being capped is a strong argument for the simulation hypothesis?

>>11109480
Why would it be?
In an non-simulated universe, would you expect unlimited speeds to be possible?

Brainlets.

>>11107275
no but really what does it explain? what predictions can you make with your model that you cant make without it? youve assigned significance to the word simulation, but you are just using it as a proxy to describe any sort of system that exists. you are deluding yourself with language games because you like computers.

>>11109678

I think that it currently makes the most sense of how we exist. I'm not saying it is a definite thing, but it seems to be the most logical solution to me personally. How else is one supposed to explain the mystery of the universe and its coming to be? How can one be sure of anything in a universe that we understand so little of?

>>11109682
blah blah blah failed to explain predictive power you lose

>>11107231
read these blogs by actual physicists:

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

Quantum mechanics is much harder to simulate, qualitatively so, than classical physics. this is the very opposite of what we would expect if the universe was a simulation.

>>11109687
It’s a conversation, not an argument. I would like for you to explain how our current situation in the universe would make sense outside of a simulation.

>>11109697
as thrilling as it would be to try to summarize the entirety of metaphysics for you, i dont feel compelled to since you wont explain how calling the universe a simulation predicts anything

>>11107264
>it's no longer a simulation but something else
It's called Cosmogony,
>alien's simulation
>God's creation

Different words, same reality

>>11107236
>2) It would require an unreasonable amount of power to simulate our universe

Maybe it’s hard for you to understand but if we’re truly living in a simulation we’re able to create our own vastly inferior computers inside our own simulation with predetermined limitations by the creators and apparently some people can’t even contemplate the existence of a creator with vastly superior intelligence and computing power.

>>11107236
>1) There is no evidence
Yes, there is
>2) It would require an unreasonable amount of power to simulate our universe
God confirmed
>3) It's a pop-sci-fi meme
Just like everything

>>11109739
See
>>11109657

>>11109755
See
>>11109737

>>11107231
If you’re already mentally ill enough to believe that, you’re set in your ways.

>>11109763
If you are dull enough not to keep an open mind about our existence you are the one set in your ways. Questioning things contrary to the popular belief is how progress is made. Pic related, it's you.

>>11107292
a metric fuckton of Bernoulli trials

>>11109407
So not valid at all.

>>11107292
So basically "Idk how this works therefore GOD" which still doesn't explain anything because we don't know the methodology behind it. How did you determine there is such a being and what can we use to demonstrate their existance.

>>11107292
So basically "Blah blah blah idk how this works therefore GOD" which still doesn't explain anything because we don't know the methodology behind it. How did you determine there is such a being and what can we use to demonstrate their existance rather than recalling 6th grade space science.

>>11107231
Nobody would ever bother to simulate someone like you.

>>11111111

The only thing about it that matters is the implication of God's existence. Simulation Hypothesis threads are strictly a theological matter.

If you're making a positive claim such as "X is true" you need to back that up. If you don't give us a reason to believe you then we have literally no reason to believe you. Convince us that we are living in a simulation.

Just because you don't know or understand something doesn't mean any idea that makes sense to you is true. Maybe read the actual academia presented by researchers before making claims like you're on their level.

>>11109657
We can't have a real computer either. Doesn't mean that a real computer can't exist under different rules, just that the rules of our universe doesn't support them because physical operations in here have finite precision. The universe we live in might not have such limitations. We could be trivial to simulate.

>>11107231
There is no point to live if you live in simulation.
So no point to believe in one.

>Brainlet here, but here me out

Ive recently started thinking about just the concept of randomness and how humans arent able to effectively create a true random. People say true random only happens in nature, but ive started to believe this isnt true. Nature just does a better job at simulating random to us because we arent intelligent enough or dont know the mathematics behind everything that occurs. I watched that 3b1b video about turbulence and it really make me think. He talks about how difficult it is to calculate turbulence in 3d space because theres so much "chaos," but technically it should be possible to calculate every movement of every particle in the universe. Its just that we dont have the intelligence/tools/math/etc to do it. And if this is true, and i belive it is, then everything thats ever happened or will happen in the universe since the beginning could be, and already has been, calculated and executed. Which also leads me to believe that, if everything can be calculated, free will must also be just an illusion, just like true random. Everything in the universe is the effect of the beginning cause (whatever it may be). Even the complexity of our minds and how we think and act are related to chemicals and energy that we consume. Every particle/wave/movement/things lifetime is already mapped out with a formula, including our own thoughts and actions.
But again, i really am just a brainlet. I just enjoy thinking about this kind of stuff when i have time

>>11107512
If we can't even conclusively prove how we were created or if we are simulated, how are we suppose to know how our creators were created or if they are simulated or if they know their own origins, maybe they simulated us specifically to figure out if they are themselves simulated?

>>11107569
Error correcting codes in physics equations for one.

Its not useless, its not even a metaphor, it is a precise example of how that other logic breaks down when considering the internal logistics of a simulated reality.

Did Siri, Alexa, or OK Google tell you that lie or maybe you asked the question strangely?

>>11107596
in the initial moments of the universe's formation, anything going any faster than light speed escaped the physical limits of anything that can interact with anything in our universe .

>>11107612
So, what, it completely explains our universe and it internally consistent just like the Big Bang explains what we see now, but passes the buck of the question of absolute origins on to how the initial singularity that created our universe came to be and just how math passes the buck to question of the axioms and how they came to be.

>>11109657
That only means we can't simulate a universe as complex as our own.

If we are simulated with a truncated or compressed set of rules or properties or have some externally enforced uniformity or randomness that doesn't exist in the external universe, then we can't really rely on our internal sandbox logic to make assumptions about the external universe and its relationship to our own.

>>11111581
Just seeing simple videos on the fourier series and watching those hundreds of tiny vectors mapping out complicated drawings really struck me. To me personally even those animations look like chaos and sometimes almost organic. Its reasonable to me to believe our universe is just an upscaled version of this type of chaotic look that we call nature. But we're all too dumb to see the mechanics behind it. Im not completely sold on the idea of a simulation though. Seems like a simulation would imply that some creator would make us to observe and see what happens. But the idea of no free will would mean the outcome would already be known. So there wouldnt be a point for a simulation. Unless our all knowing creative god is just some sick fuck that likes to watch us suffer. You wouldnt do that, right?

>>11109705
Simulations have a mathematical order and computing mechanisms that are enforced by a layer of logic that exists outside of the universe itself, but still must somehow interact directly with our layer, so if we could prove it were a simulation, we could potentially hack reality and make any prediction self fulfilling and anything thinkable possible.

>>11109739
>Yes, there is
Like what?

>>11111286
You are acting like OP just created this concept by themselves and there aren't tomes and tomes of persuasive academic and intellectual hobbyist's articles on either side of the argument available to be referenced by anyone who isn't a completely lazy dipshit referencing logic 101 bullshit to get out of making an actual effort on the topic.

>>11111581
>>11111620
I am assuming these are the same person, since they are part of the same argument.

>Seems like a simulation would imply that some creator would make us to observe and see what happens.
but
> if this is true, and i belive it is, then everything thats ever happened or will happen in the universe since the beginning could be, and already has been, calculated and executed
Or maybe some civilization just did what you suggested and made massive databases of measurements and calculations and put it in some computer or AI that came up with our universe as one of many where certain unknown variables were filled in with potential solutions for a spreadsheet for some advanced bureaucracy that doesn't really care about the internal observations, but is just using simulation as a means to an end to figure out information about their own universe.

>>11111581
>Everything in the universe is the effect of the beginning cause (whatever it may be)
Infinite regress - mainstream science is retarded.

>>11107231
i will convince you not to say this bullshit instead:

it makes you look like a fucking retarded chimpanzee lunatic. you should stop claiming this shit for all eternity or someone might stab you in the neck neck

>>11107231
i am convincing you not to say this bullshit instead:

it makes you look like a fucking retarded chimpanzee lunatic. you should stop saying this shit for all eternity or someone might stab you in the neck

>>11111663
You must hang around some genius level retarded chimpanzees if they are questioning the cause of the universe and its relationship to the man made mathematical models of reality.

When I think of retarded lunatics, I think more of people who threaten specific acts of violence like stabbing against other people simply for seeming to disagree and those who call people mean names just because they tell a different origin story than you are used to hearing.

>>11111665
You must hang around some genius level retarded chimpanzees if they are questioning the cause of the universe and its relationship to the man made mathematical models of reality.

When I think of retarded lunatics, I think more of people who threaten specific acts of violence like stabbing against other people simply for seeming to disagree and those who call people mean names just because they tell a different origin story than you are used to hearing.

>>11107236
there is evidence of a simulation.
the relative lack of freedoms of this universe would and does require less power than a universe that has such freedoms.
general human intellect is a big indicator for various reasons that this is a simulation.

just gotta think outside the box. it's not 1's and 0's on a computer kind of simulation. it's deeper than that, but still the world presents itself as following rules that seem rather arbitrary and intentionally cruel. comparing this world to a computer game, it'd be more like Doom than say, Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's a game, but it's a shitty and cruel game made by a sadistic retard.

>>11111581
true random doesn't exist. random is a man-made concept.

>>11111675
>You must hang around some genius level retarded chimpanzees
yeah autists who apply the matrix into the real world are pretty common

>I think more of people who threaten specific acts of violence like stabbing against other people simply for seeming to disagree
but that is a literal thought crime. i'm not saying that i would do that, it is just that in this case it is justified

>>11111649
I guess i could say what i was getting at is that everything in the universe is already fixed. It has laws that it must follow. And although its possible that a higher intelligence is what made these laws, im not completely sold on it yet. Otherwise, if i could personify the universe and claim the universe itself is intelligent, i would say only it truly knows its own outcome

>>11111689
Again that just reminds me of how retarded lunatics are able to justify pretty much any atrocious compulsive act to themselves without real thought to the degree that it almost has to be simulated acts from simulated retards to induce specific emotional states from those of us that experience certain degrees of freedom.

>>11111690
>And although its possible that a higher intelligence is what made these laws, im not completely sold on it yet.
It could just be a higher intelligence documenting some laws and running it in an advanced computer, but that still doesn't mean they actually made the laws, they just put them down as they understood them.

>i would say only it truly knows its own outcome
In a simulation they probably know the outcome up to their current point in time and use that information to create the simulation, but they don't have to know what happens after that or understand why all the laws are the way they are and they probably simulate a point far far before the end of their documentation.

>>11109696

Among physicists, the simulation hypothesis is not popular and that’s for a good reason – we know that it is difficult to find consistent explanations for our observations. After all, finding consistent explanations is what we get paid to do.

Proclaiming that “the programmer did it” doesn’t only not explain anything - it teleports us back to the age of mythology. The simulation hypothesis annoys me because it intrudes on the terrain of physicists. It’s a bold claim about the laws of nature that however doesn’t pay any attention to what we know about the laws of nature.

First, to get it out of the way, there’s a trivial way in which the simulation hypothesis is correct: You could just interpret the presently accepted theories to mean that our universe computes the laws of nature. Then it’s tautologically true that we live in a computer simulation. It’s also a meaningless statement.

A stricter way to speak of the computational universe is to make more precise what is meant by ‘computing.’ You could say, for example, that the universe is made of bits and an algorithm encodes an ordered time-series which is executed on these bits. Good - but already we’re deep in the realm of physics.

If you try to build the universe from classical bits, you won’t get quantum effects, so forget about this – it doesn’t work. This might be somebody’s universe, maybe, but not ours. You either have to overthrow quantum mechanics (good luck), or you have to use qubits. [Note added for clarity: You might be able to get quantum mechanics from a classical, nonlocal approach, but nobody knows how to get quantum field theory from that.]

Even from qubits, however, nobody’s been able to recover the presently accepted fundamental theories – general relativity and the standard model of particle physics. The best attempt to date is that by Xiao-Gang Wen and collaborators, but they are still far away from getting back general relativity.

>>11111462

I mean if it were a simulation, it would still be life as we know it, daily repetitions ect.

>>11107231
I just hit Ctrl+Alt+Del and nothing happened: q.e.d.

>>11111111

>>11109756
You haven't read the article. It's not an unreasonable amount, it's infinite.

>>11111414
Of course that's assuming natural constants are the same for the universe containing the simulator. That's a reasonable assumption to make since just a slight deviation from our values would cause the universe to collapse instantly. Nothing would be stable.

>>11111749
That is just the amount an external simulator would have over a simulated universe, so what is the problem?

>>11111756
What don't you understand about infinity? You can't just put an infinite amount of energy into a system so it creates a small part of a simulation.

>>11111767
You are confused because you can't see that its not infinite to them, it is only infinite to us because they control everything to us including our limit of all limits.

The finite amount of energy from their universe put into our simulated universe becomes the complete infinite upper limit to our universe and they could potentially pause time for what would be an infinite amount to us and put more into the simulation at any time they want to upgrade, increase coding efficiency, or make modifications and then start it back up without the simulated universe even noticing.

>>11111772
OK, so you just don't understand infinity.

>>11111851
Wrong, you just don't understand sets, reference frames, simulation, or perspective.

>>11109657
>The image stating that a couple of scientists discovered something is enough evidence to believe what they discovered is true
None of you are real scientists.

>>11107231
Convince me that the people simulating our universe aren't also living in a simulation

>>11107231
the consciousness can not be simulated, it is lived

>>11107231
why should I care? if affects my mundane life in no way

>>11109657
the consciousness can not be simulated, it is lived

>>11111751
If you were running a very large simulation of the game of life, and some constructs in the game grew aware of themselves (perfectly possible as the GoL is turing complete), they might come to the same conclusion that if any of the rules changed even a little, their world could never happen, therefore they are not being simulated.
Our parent "universe" need not be anything like this one at all.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf

(2007) The Physical World as a Virtual Reality:

>The maximum speed a pixel in a virtual reality game can cross a screen is limited by the processing capacity of the computer running it. In general, a virtual world’s maximum event rate is fixed by the allocated processing capacity. In our world, the fixed maximum that comes to mind is the speed of light. That there is an absolute maximum speed could reflect a maximum information processing rate

>On a distributed network, nodes with a high local workload will slow
down, e.g. if a local server has many demands a video download may play slower than usual. Likewise a high matter concentration may constitute a high processing demand, so a massive body could slow down the information processing of space-time, causing space to “curve” and time to slow. Likewise, if faster movement requires more processing, speeds near light speed could affect space/time, causing time to “dilate” and space to extend. Relativity effects could then arise from local processing overloads..

https://youtu.be/gcvq1DAM-DE

>>11111679
>there is evidence of a simulation.
Like what?

>>11111912
I do. If you claim infinity is a limit, you know neither of those things.

>>11112081
Obviously read the paper and understand what it means. They found a physical process that is impossible to simulate _in principle_.

>mfw simulation fags have exactly as much evidence for their """"""theory""""""" as muslims do for their shit religion

>>11107264
It isn't a software simulation, but a hardware one. The universe isn't running on a computer, it is the computer

>>11113845
So the universe isn't being simulated. Got it.

>>11113800
doom and microsoft flight simulator

>>11109755
See
>>>/out/

>>11113879
Fantastic argument. You really showed your intelligence here.

>>11107264
but that's bull shit
>pour water from a glass
>100% probability it will cling to the outside and fly up into the air and vanish
>but only if it's witness by a single person

>if you drop something on carpet it no longer exists until it is observed to be in the last place you look

>you can drive a car for 45 minutes or over dozens of km without any physical input or conscious activity, you just kind of materialise right before your exit

>an identical set of cars will circle the block until you notice and then all of them will be vastly different

>>11107231
https://youtu.be/EH-z9gE2uGY?t=377

these few seconds of this video

>>11109696
best post ITT, if I may say so myself

>>11111608
It solves one question (hypothetically) and raises many more.
Math is held up by axioms, but those axioms we do not question for a reason. For any truths to exist, there must be axioms that appear self-evident that we have faith in.

>>11107231
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>11107231
We have yet to simulate the universe.
We only assume we can.
I'll believe it when we actually simulate it.

>>11107264
>impossible
they said the same about flying,cars, going to space, etc. 100 years ago , look how fast the technology has advanced in less than a 2 centuries, from fighting with swords and weapons that require 2 minutes to reload to nukes, placing robots on other planets and humans in space all the time. Pic related is a game and we are in 2019 only, now think how the games will look like in 2039 ?

>>11111716
>Proclaiming that “the programmer did it” doesn’t only not explain anything - it teleports us back to the age of mythology. The simulation hypothesis annoys me because it intrudes on the terrain of physicists. It’s a bold claim about the laws of nature that however doesn’t pay any attention to what we know about the laws of nature.
You mean the laws of nature the simulators programmed? Not very convincing.

>>11107286
>your argument is literally just "yeah but what if GOD!"
>>11111285
>The only thing about it that matters is the implication of God's existence. Simulation Hypothesis threads are strictly a theological matter.
I don't know why people insist that godlike technologies can't exist. That's why the simulation argument is convincing.

>>11107231
Convince me that we're living in a simulation

>>11109657
>>11109755
what this means is that we can't live in a simulation run by a traditional computer than we use now
This does not rule out quantum computing nor any other type of computing we may not have discovered. All it means is you can't use this current type of architecture which most people agrred with because of the sheer weakness of our current model

>>11113836
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
The mathematical definitions and proofs are what claim infinity is the ultimate unbounded upper limit, not anon.

>>11116187
Yes, it does. The process requires infinite energy. Unless we find a Tipler cylinder or something similar enabling closed timelike curves we can be sure it's impossible. QCs aren't superior in principle, they're "only" Turing-complete, just like classical PCs.

>>11116245
How about you read those sources? Infinity isn't something that can be quantified. It's not a limit. It just facilitates a limiting process, as in "an infinite series of numbers 1/n^2 has a limit.
You can't take an infinite amount of something and put it somewhere.

>>11107236
>It would require an unreasonable amount of power to simulate our universe
Actually, the simulation theory could explain why quantum mechanics works like that, it saves resources to not simulate the exact position of electrons until you look at them.
This has been used in videogames for a long time ,only rendering the stuff the user can see.

>>11116264
A limit especially if it doesn't converge doesn't have to be and usually is not quantified.

> It just facilitates a limiting process, as in "an infinite series of numbers 1/n^2 has a limit.
Ok, then what is the limit in the infinite series of numbers n^2?

>You can't take an infinite amount of something and put it somewhere.
Sure you can, Infinite sets.

>>11116274
This is such a dense post
Read a book

>>11116281
Two sentences is too dense for you and you expect anon to read an entire book without any direction whatsoever?

>>11116264
Where do you get your claim to infinity from?
Many infinte phenomena can be simulated in with limited resources easiest of which is describing functions that tend to infinity. Your claim to needing infinite energy needs to be prooved

>>11116280
>infinite sets
We're talking about reality, not mathematics. Show me an infinite set in reality.

The rest of your post is pretty retarded in this regard, since it supports my point. Infity is not quantifiable, hence you can't put an infinite amount of energy into anything.

>>11116317
That is proved in the paper mentioned in the pic I posted. Holy shit:
>>11109657
>describing functions that tend to infinity is simulation
...
What's 1/x for x = 0?

>>11116381
Infinity and infinite are mathematical concepts, so you can't be talking about infinity without talking about mathematics because infinity only exists as part of the logical framework of mathematics.

In reality, the number of seconds from the beginning to the end of time is something that would be treated as an infinite set until the moment time randomly stops since the end has no definitively known upper boundary.

>you can't put an infinite amount of energy into anything.
If you constantly put energy into something with no end in sight in any point in the future, then you will treat it as infinite and if something external can scale itself up to provide all the energy you could ever potentially draw given all the time you exist, then that unlimited power supply is capable of providing you with infinite energy from your frame of reference.

>>11107231
nothing can simulate infinity. disk drives have limits. the universe is infinite space, with infinite atoms that cant be destroyed or created.

>>11116407
>atoms cant be destroyed or created

orly lol

>>11116407
>nothing can simulate infinity
What about ∞?

Also, infinite loops are programming 101 and people have known about using recursion and algorithmic shorthand to simulate infinite processes since before disk drives existed.

Finally, if disk drives are made of atoms and atoms are infinite then there is no reason that disk drives can't be infinite, so they don't need the limits you are assuming onto them by your own logic.

>>11107231
Easy. Kill yourself and you won't be unplugged from the simulation.

>>11116274
>i dont actually know qm btw

>>11111111

>>11116407
then why are they destroyed and created

We are living in a game not a simulation

Simulation implies it's copying something else, no, this world is its own thing but it's most definitely an illusion/game/dream.

>>11116758
you missed a very nice get, mydude

>>11111636
hey don't be so mean

>>11116406
But that is exactly my point. Infinity is non-existant in nature. What are you arguing against?

>treat as infinite is the same as infinite
Dude, no. They proved that you would need an infinite amount of energy, which cannot, in principle, be supplied by any mechanism whatsoever. You say this yourself. Scale it up however fat you want, it won't ever be infinite.
You're saying just putting in more will give you infinity, and that's just plain wrong.

>>11116420
They are a theoretical tool. No such thing in reality.

We are living in a simulation because our perception of the reality is inherently imprecise. We can't interprete reality precisely. We are unable to know the things in themselves. It's all about how our limited intelect conceive the reality detected by our senses. Imprecision in all steps of perception. So we are doomed to live in our intrinsic and individual simulation forever.

>>11116741
I'm convinced fags like you are part of some science worshipping cult that tries to act like qm isn't profound and somehow doesn't turn our ideas about materialism on it's head. Reminds me of sorting by controversial on a political sub on Reddit and seeing the faggots seethe that there are actually people that disagree with their worldview but completely fail to articulate it.

>>11116948
game/illusion/dream also implies there's an underlying reality that's more real

>>11118544
that's a misunderstanding of the question, when people talk about the universe being a simulation they mean the objective universe, not our subjective experience of it

All evidence seems to point to a simulated universe. The existence of consciousness, quantum indeterminacy , the fact that the universe may have a 'time step' etc

>>11107236
>pseud: the post

>>11107231
There does not need to be a simulation for everything to exist.

Using the simulation meme is like succumbing to religion (in a fanatic way), a world of higher order that tries to hide the truth.

I see this world as a direct result of All=Nothing. The duality-effect is just an emergent property.

>>11107231
I think it's more like a virtual machine rather than a matrix-like simulation.
There's obviously an intelligent design in the way reality works, which suggests this existence was devised by an intelligent entity and chances are that the base universe is nothing like our physical reality.

>>11107231
Convince me it is possible to live in a simulation. I don't believe you can have consciousness in a simulation. We have no evidence of consciousness arising from anything other than material entities.

>>11118955
just because we can't differentiate shorter time lengths than a planck time by our current understanding doesn't mean time steps exist, likewise for planck distances and similar

Riddle me this. Is there only one single universe, or an infinite amount of universes?

>>11119010
Define consciousness

>>11107322
>1) There is evidence, that's why its a thing
Then I propose my theory that you're a faggot

There is no compelling evidence that we live in a simulation. The idea that we do is only attractive because it's an arbitrary answer for questions that you wish had answers, and we live in an age when we are surrounded by computers so the analogy feels natural.

>>11109696
>Quantum mechanics is much harder to simulate, qualitatively so, than classical physics. this is the very opposite of what we would expect if the universe was a simulation.

Quoted for truth.

>>11118963
How come?

>>11119201
define define

>>11107231
If it’s a simulation where are we viewing it from and why can’t the signal be interrupted or jammed?
Finding the location of the viewers and/or jamming the signal would prove it, but no one can because it’s not one.

>>11109696
If you were inside a computer simulation eventually youd only be able to rely on probability for understanding too though. Think about it. Non discrete implies simulation, it’s why we can’t make it discrete.

>>11119207
The allegory of the cave is much older than the first transistor.

I don't get the responses made in this thread. If we assume to live in a simulation, why'd you even bother mentioning our internal rules as limitations to the concept? Does cabbage not exist because all the rabbit is being fed are carrots?

>>11119347
Why would we assume something ridiculous when there is no evidence?

>>11119349
Maybe we simply chalk up evidence as random phenomenon?! Remember all the vanished planes? We justify them to ourselves by claiming for them to have crashed. There's no evidence for them to have done so. It's what logical dictates must have happened. However, if we happened to live in a simulation, then one could argue for the planes to have vanished because of a bug or because someone felt funny and simply deleted them.

>>11119354
>Maybe we simply chalk up evidence as random phenomenon?!
That's terrible evidence.

>>11119355
It's not the evidence that's flawed. It's us for deluding ourselves into believing for it to not be evidence in the first place.

>>11119327
That's a very different topic. When people talk about simulated universe they are often being literal.

>>11119358
You have no evidence. Got it.

>>11113797
I think the best evidence we have of being in a simulation is the Michelson–Morley experiment. When we measure the speed of light in different directions on the surface of the Earth, we should detect the variations caused by the motion of the Earth, but we get none. This is because our world simulation is much more easiy implemented with Earth being stationary at the centre of our virtual universe.

Furthermore, as there are no plans yet to allow us to truly explore the nearby planets, these are being rendered with the absolute minimum of detail.

Why would anyone wanna simulate this bs when there's a lot of better shit to simulate?

>>11119716
bro you just posted aether
you're going to lose credibility score

>>11119354
Ok but that's kinda ridiculous and just brings more questions. Like if planes disappear because we live in a simulation why is it only planes? Why don't I see guys at the office disappear? Or trains? And if the argument is "cause that's make the simulation too obvious" then why leave the memory of planes disappearing and not make it a more clean simulation and just delete the collective memory of that plane existing?

It's all just saying God did it to shit you can't explain but if you said God it's not science enough. So you come up with some other fantastical mysterious bs to explain things cause science and the limits of it is all too boring for you.

>>11119755
... and the status bytes of entangled photons share the same memory location.

>>11119736
Perhaps life outside this simulation lacks colour, emotions, and perhaps even music in the way we perceive it here.

>>11119810
>Perhaps

Maybe it's demons.

Some one tell /x/

>>11107231
I shout "COMPUTER! END SIMULATION!" Oh look, we are still here.

>>11112360
A simulacra, as Baudrillard would say. I agree, this existence is too much of a house of cards to be a simulation of a true stable universe. But it COULD be an exact simulation of the next level higher up, which is ITSELF a simulacra within actual reality.

We are actually living inside a dream of extremely pressurized brain

>simulationfags still have yet to present their evidence

>>11107231
no

>>11119361
Plato was making the literal claim that reality isn’t what it seems with that allegory. His point was literally that everything we see is just a cast shadow and worse yet a deceitful puppet of reality’s true nature.

>>11119861
>the peon in Warcraft can tell the player he’s annoyed he’s being clicked on, but it doesn’t make the player stop.

>>11107231
How is it knowable whether there is dark matter in that space or not, as it is claimed there is not any?

>>11120022
Yes, there are related themes, but calling reality a *simulation* is a very different thing than saying there's more to it than it seems.

What if only our solar system is simulated? And we are imprisoned here?

>>11107264
Depends what the resolution of the simulation is.
The brain is really good at filling in the banks, you might only have to simulate it plus the most bare bones physics.

There's no need to simulate quantum particles, when a scientist looks at the monitor you just populate it with numbers his subconscious is expecting there. You don't even have to render graphics, the brain can do that itself as evidenced by vivid dreams.


That said I'll only entertain it as a possible theory if we get any falsifiable experiment proposals, right now its just an extension of "brain in the jar".

>>11120105
Sure but a “shadow puppet show” sure seems close to “simulation.”

>>11120657
Plato's cave is about the natures of our own senses and minds deceieving us. Simulatinism is about reality itself being run on some sort of separate level. The first one is a useful message to keep in mind no matter what you're thinking about. The second is a stupid cop out that lets you wank about knowing some sort of answer despite not knowing shit.

>>11107231
>Convince me we are not living in a simulation.
Convince me that it IS.

>>11107231
>Convince me we are not living in a simulation.

Why would it make ANY difference?
If we are then those that run the simulation are Gods to us, and if we are not then random chance created out universe and we have no higher power to control any aspect of it.

>>11107264
Just requires recursion.

>>11117161
>something not existing in the simulation means it doesn't exist outside the simulation

>>11120381
dilate this post.

It is physically impossible to simulate faggotry on the levels of OP.

>>11107589
But if anyone can actually simulate a universe, that would imply the simulated universe(s) could simulate more universes. So if anything in our universe ever simulates a universe, it is basically guaranteed we are in one of the layers of simulation, the chances of us being the "original" and the first to start a practically infinite chain of simulation is close to none. It's almost impossible until it is possible, then it nearly impossible for it not to be.

>>11107231
ITT: Retards who want to look into a Mandelbrot set the rest of their lives.

>>11107231
simulating reality seems to play into intelligent design.,