/sci/ - Science & Math

I will die anyway. Why hurry?

If this isn’t base reality, where did base reality come from? These thought experiments amount kicking the can down the road.

>>11997190
>simulation hypothesis

i'm glad this meme died

>>11997190
Why would a “”fake”” world be not as valuable to live in?

>>11997433
What's the point in thinking you live in a fake one then if it has no consequence?

>>11997225
Because you get to base reality instead of spending a whole life in a lie?

>>11997514
Might as well have some fun in the Matrix.

>Parmenides
>Zeno was right
>myth of Silenus
>Kant
>Hegel

>>11997190
They are all 'reality' and they all serve their own purposes. I happen to have a purpose in physicality in addition to my spiritual purpose. They are not mutually exclusive realities.

>>11997190
>If a video game character dies, they become real and enter the real world

Are you dumb, stupid, or dumb?

>>11997614
Almost as if simulation theory is complete bullshit

>>11997568
Then there's no point in calling this reality a simulation when there's no merit to it/ makes no difference in outcome

>>11997257
it's just turtles all the way down

>>11998082
whether or not there is merit to it or difference in outcome is unknown.

>>11997190
simulation theory is only mostly useful in actually trying to describe where reality came from and what its comprised from rather than the nihilistic non-answer modern "science" has given us

Muse is so fucking mediocre

>>11997190
You don't really understand simulation theory do you? We're not talking about a computer game, or a fake Matrix, outside of which is something more real, and where you're being exploited.

The simulation theory is really simple: If there should be a single reality in which making complex simulations is possible, then in just one such reality there could, throughout the life-bearing age of that universe be countless billions of races each capable of creating billions and billions of simulations. If those simulations are sophisticated enough that they could spawn a universe like ours, then inside each of those simulations, could be billions more simulations, even if they they had a lower resolution. The point is that we can assume that per every "real" reality, there are a near infinite number of simulated realities.

Not like Sims games or some trash like that. Simulations of a big bang, of the energetic particles created, the fundamental forces, the simplest, most numerous little particles and their interactions in the universe, simulated with but slight variations in their properties. They could just be using these simulations to study the formation of galaxies on an accurate level. But within that simulation, they would have to have the same fundamental forces we do. Time, space, the standard model. All the necesary building blocks to eventually create us, life. They wouldn't even know we exist. The simulation might take hours in their reality, or seconds, or decades. Who knows? But because the time within the simulation is part of the simulation, those within it would perceive their entire universe's birth, expansion and death as if it took billions and billions of years. Because it does.

So you see. It's not "fake". It's an entire reality of its own. From our point of view, it makes no difference whether this is a simulation or a true reality (as mathematically unlikely as it is). For us, it's just as real regardless.

>>11997190
>an hero'd yet to get to reality
Do your Sims come into the real world when you put them in the pool and remove the ladder? Then why do you assume the simulation works that way?

>>11997508
The truth doesn't exist because 'it has a point believing in it', it simply exists and that's what makes it true. You sound like the kind of person that believes in gods and other magic shit.

I've often heard detractors say that irrational numbers prove that we're not in a simulation, because no computer has infinite memory.
To me it doesn't hold water since you can still theoretically approximate an irrational number by a fraction to any degree of precision you want, so maybe their machine epsilon is smaller than our Planck length or something like that.

>If you believe that the universe is just a simulation within another reality, why haven't you an hero'd yet to get to reality?
It does not follow. If you will delete a file, it will not magically appear outside the computer.

>>11997508
It feels comfy.

>>11998343
Turtles all the way down is the only retort I will accept.

>>11997190
>why haven't you an hero'd yet to get to reality
Name one game where you get to the next level by dying and don't just start over at some checkpoint instead.
My intel says the only way you can kill yourself and ascend is by swallowing your own head whole.

>>11998082
>Then there's no point in calling this reality a simulation
The point is to cope with the pain and loss and permanency of death without going full delusion, where you go around telling everyone you sense the voice of the universe in your head and can pray for any outcome you want.

>>11998467
That isn't what it does, though, it makes reality impossible to describe by saying "reality" is an illusion created by a greater even more complex reality.

>>11999773
Reality is already impossible to describe. Hence why physicists famously decline to describe it.

>>11997190
>>11997257
>>11997423

People need religion, simulation theory is literally you go to heaven when you die bro none of this matters.

Simulation theory relies on the same belief patterns as religions with no objective evidence instead entirely subjective evidence from a narrow perception.

It would would be far better for scientific observations to make organic life than a simulation, parameters you set in a simulation would always fuck up any real word data you want to pull. Its reddit tier retard pop sci bullshit. For those that believe it just become a Christian and look like less of a retard and gain some friends for once.

>>11997190
Anon,
We are only NPC here, we only pretend to be sentient and and free determination.

>>11998542
truth, simulation theory was kinda wack

>>11999845
>physicists famously decline to describe it.
The physicist consensus description of reality is called the Standard Model.

>>11999944
>got rich
Elon Musk never got rich, he was born rich.

How is simulation theory realistic lmao?
>yeah some alien is just gonna fit a whole fucking universe worth of information in some computer, surely that's perfectly feasible and not a blatant contradiction of the holographic principle
>b...but anon maybe their laws of physics are different
Then why the fuck are they running simulations of a world with different physics?

you would need an entire universe of resources to simulate reality to the degree it is "simulated" here

>>11999985
For a lot of very smart people, the cream of the crop of humanity, simulation theory emerges as the only rational explanation of the universe. Our understanding of science is inexorably leading us back to belief in God.

>>11997190
I accept it as a hypothetical possibility like anything else. You keep saying "reality" when it's a subjective thing based on human perception.

>>11999985
>Then why the fuck are they running simulations of a world with different physics?
The Sims franchise of video games has different physics than our world, though, and its due to the current limitations of computing technology.

This simulation theory meme again.

Anyone with basic understanding of computers knows that achieving the technology and programming a simulation like that is impossible. Think of it like the simulation videos that you watch to look real fancy and all are simulated on the surface without the trillions of atoms inside everything and with basic physics to make it look real and they only render them at maybe 30-60 fps?

Now take our REAL universe you would have to render the entire universe with all of the atoms and program it with full understanding of the universe not to mention atoms have other properties such as charge which also add to the complexity and all this you would have to render at the framerate of lets say the speed of light so maybe like 298.800 frames per second? (Probably way more but my math sucks).

Also not to mention there will have to be a Type III civilization that will even bother simulating the entire universe if they have full understanding of it and literally nobody will fund a gigacomputer like that to hook people into it when everyone can do whatever the fuck they want going by going outside in a civilization like that.

The simulation theory is nothing but a cheap way to make yourself look smart to the normies (or look retarded to anyone with common sense) or just junkie tier "deep thinking" and i recommend OP to stop thinking like that and start living a proper moral life without this retarded black pilled "wut if nothing matters" thinking.

>>12000105
It would be more something like Plank time (5e-44s), but otherwise you're right

>>12000130
Yeah my bad but still no machine will be able to put out that high fps in real time the entire universe especially where nothing is redundant.

>>11997190
I already tried to get out and found I can't be killed; shit sucks but soon within a year I will die then be reborn in my final form

>>12000337
>be reborn in my final form
after that i can finally die and rest well I shall

>>11998343
>>11998348
So it's just bullshit hand waving and wishful thinking

>>12000328
Well you could always argue it doesn't have to be rendered in real time, since it could be slower and our perception of time is tied to the simulation speed anyway. But then again it begs the question of why the fuck would you do a universe simulation slower than the real thing and what would you expect to learn from it

>>12000413
Most simulations don't happen in real time, they simulate time and provide results for each increment of time.

>>12000328
why a machine? does it have to be a server? I don't think we're in someone else's server, but we could easily exist only as a series number somewhere: if you think time "outside" the Universe doesn't exist and infinite possibilities do exist, then you have a sequence of numbers that express exactly what's going on here.

>>11997190
>Simulationists why are you here?

Because Im trapped on a world that refuses to exist without me.

>>12000636
Your imagination is the only thing trapping you, your body mass is trivial and could be removed in a matter of minutes given a hot enough energy source.

>>11998557
Simulations to the level of detail that we see in the world are not possible to construct with computers regardless of computing power.

>>11999955
If you believe the wiki he made most of his money betting on paypal.

>>12000012
>Our understanding of science is inexorably leading us back to belief in God
What kind of bullshit rational is that?
Unless it treat god as a whatever entity not behind any of the fictional bible made by man, science discredit every religion simply by existing.

>>12000105
You fail to take into account that who/whatever could be simulating our world may have more lenient laws of physics.
Maybe the speed of light limit was meant to save money by keeping it localized.

>>12000729
Names of God? Neo-platonism? Those are some things that make sense you should look into. Just because the human mind can grasp eternal terms and define them doesn't make them unreasonable/irrational and unable to develop a narrative around. Not that guy, btw. Just a skeptic.

>>12000737
Let's just change the assumptions for our premise so our deduction comes up with the answer we want.

>>11999749
That's assuming this is a game being played by these rules.

>>11997190
>implying those who believe in it actually control it and can influence it
don't you have some cartoons to watch brainlet?

>>12000105
>Also not to mention there will have to be a Type III civilization that will even bother simulating the entire universe if they have full understanding of it and literally nobody will fund a gigacomputer like that to hook people into it when everyone can do whatever the fuck they want going by going outside in a civilization like that.
They have to have INFINITE energy, because they have to have infinite simulations running, to explain why we're the very bottom simulation. The entire argument rests on trying to tiptoe around the lack of empirical evidence for the theory.

At that point you might as well just outright drop the simulation argument and just say "it's God" because the Simulators (who are infinitely far away from us because we're actually in a simulation in a simulation in a simulation... in a simulation) are so far beyond us that it's not at all accurate to say "lmfao we're just in a computer bro it's like in a videogame!".

>>12000853
>lets place rules on the properties of an unknowable

yes thats preferable retard

>>12000869
Why haven't you an hero yet?

It doesn't matter if this is base reality or a sim, they feel the same.

>>12000886
Didn't you already make a thread about this the other day? Why do you hate simfags so much?

>>12000905
> just ignore how science or math works
> genius

Now go upload yourself out of this simulation

>>12000744
I don't see how it relate to what I said.
To reformulate,
You can treat the word "God" as a kind of barely defined super-entity with the mean to create universe, separate from the concept of god specific to religion.
Under that logic you are mostly treating the universe as a simulation.

I was just protesting the claim that science lead to us back to "belief in god", since belief imply irrationality and god have always been poorly defined if at all.

>>12000853
At this point we'd have to find a new word for the concept of a god with none of the cultural belief.
Maybe it exist, I'm sure not cultivated enough to know it.

>>12000716

>>12001137
It's objectively true you fucking coping moron. It's known in the field of computer science.

>>12001156

>>12001082
Ah. I hadn't read the thread, I was just interjecting something on the front page. Yeah, I swear these people are delusional and have no discernment. They don't know they're displaying symptoms because they have no knowledge of psychology. They're a cult.

>>12001007
I've never made a thread about simulautism. I've seen other anons point out the flaws in it (you need infinite energy, etc etc etc), and I would assume they're also seeing them because they're glaringly obvious.

I personally dislike it because it's the worst parts of Abrahamic religion with absolutely none of the good stuff. Having said that, just because you like or dislike something doesn't make it true.

>>11999985
how do you know that the rest of the universe is simulated with the same detail as you or the earth etc.?

Reminder that posts with brainlet and soijack images are avatarfags depicting themselves rather than their weak projections.

>>12000395
>wishful thinking
what?

>>12001366
Light and gravity

>>12001437
When you throw around excuses to make your hypothesis work. Basically start with premise A and concluded B. However you don't like B, so you change the premise to A and just jump to Z. which is what you wanted.

>>12001582
I'm not asserting that reality is a simulation. i was just responding to the unfounded assumption that reality being a simulation would automatically mean it is meaningless or that it makes no difference in outcome.

>>12000632
Aren't numbers just a abstract idea? numbers on their own don't mean anything unless we apply them machine or put them in a context like a date etc. numbers need to be applied somewhere unless in that universe the numbers are sentient or something lmao i dunno man i probably take things out of your context.

>>12001366
It absolutely has to otherwise things happen in a predictable manner which isn't what simulations are about.

>>12001600
configurations of particles, space, and time can be represented by numbers in matrices. If our universe is made of particles, space, and time, it can be represented as an unfathomably large sequence of nested matrices (a sequence of numbers)

>>12001631
I see what you mean but those numbers have to come from somewhere and they have to be in a logical structure not to mention they have to be dynamic as well since there is alot randomness in the universe so i don't think it can be a predefined sequence of numbers. But lets say such universe exists as you imagine it, if you take a set of infinite universes the likely hood of us being in that simulated universe is extremely unlikely compared to the other real universes anyway.

>>11997190
What 'reality?' If simulation theory were true, it means that humans are likely just 1s and 0s in some alien supercomputer rather than being living beings that need to wake up. It'd basically be CHIM (minus the fun part)

>>12001654
I don't actually think we live in a simulated universe but, to me, that's a separate issue from the idea that the universe exists as a series of numbers. The nature of reality seems increasingly abstract as you observe the properties of increasingly smaller pieces of it. For example, many properties of subatomic particles (color, strangeness, charm, flavor, etc) are named arbitrarily simply to enumerate that property which can't really be understood as anything but a numerical value continuously interacting with other numerical values. Maybe this is just our observational limitations, but I can't help but wonder if reality actually IS as "abstract" as it seems to us at its foundations, which leads me back to the idea that math is the language of the gods.

>>12001680
If it's not true, then humans are just lumps of meat consisting of a pile of atoms.

>>12001739
Maybe it's because math explains things in a way that we can understand but could work in a entirely different way like say math is a abstraction of how things really work but they still work perfectly with one another.

Perhaps math is only a part of how the universe works, you still got spiritual aspects like consiousness/soul etc. which we still can't really explain and i doubt we can even apply math to it.

>>11997190
>>11997225
>>11997514
>>11997543
>>11998078

This is brainlet-tier discussion. Simulation theory doesn't imply that we have any way of accessing "higher reality", let alone that we go there upon dying. "We" only exist in the "fake world". There is no additional 1:1 counterpart of your self/consciousness in the higher reality, external to the simulation itself.
If "you" stop existing in the simulation at some point in time, then "you" don't exist within higher reality anymore either
>>11997614
is correct

>>12000716
>>12001137
>>12001156
>>12001201
fucking kek. brainlet btfo. this time-based argument is a true sign of complete ignorance on the topic.

>>12000886
Anon, large numbers are not necessarily infinite.

>>11997190
Because the lore is actually in the old testament. Find Jesus anons

>>12002469
This some brainlet reasoning.

If it makes no difference then there's no simulation. An hero otherwise

>>12000012
This anon gets it.

>>12000105
>Also not to mention there will have to be a Type III civilization that will even bother simulating the entire universe
It's God, anon. He's the developer

>>12002485
Anon. No one is saying that

>>11997190
I'm going for a high score

>>12002494
An hero to your god then

>>12002505
Shutup faggot

>>12002469
> If "you" stop existing in the simulation at some point in time, then "you" don't exist within higher reality anymore either

You don't exist in the higher reality then either to begin with because the simulation is a black box that one can't look into without disrupting it. Observation changes the experiment.

Or you exist in the higher reality permanently since they could just extract or keep a record of you so you never die. They just dust you off and reboot you when they feel like it.

>>12002509
Tickled a nerve anon? Why aren't you with your god now? Too pussy?

>>12002500
Then where does the
>They have to have INFINITE energy, because they have to have infinite simulations running
come from?

>>12001011
You claim to know how math and science operate in unknowable spaces? Thats awesome congratulations you're a really smart person

>>12002528

>idontunderstandhowsciencemathworksijustsayshit

Cool story bro.

>>12002527
where does large number come from?

There's infinite energy anyways since it can't be created nor destroyed.

op the dicklet is too retarded to understand universal laws need not apply outside this universe

>>12002527
Suppose the Real Reality runs a simulation. If you exist, then there is some probability that comes out as F*1/X, with X being the number of simulated realities plus the Real Reality. So, F/2. Thus, because we cannot be sure, we have to put it to empirical evidence and... there is none suggesting we live in a simulation. If we increase the number of simulations, we decrease our chances of being in the Real Reality. But we don't know F, so the probability could still be low. If, however, the Simulators have infinite energy, then the chances of us being in the Real Reality are zero, and we can disregard the lack of empirical evidence because we've logically proven that we live in a simulation.

Is this totally stupid? Yeah, but then so is the idea that we live in a simulation.

The second part about being at the bottom is referring to Bostrom's trilemma where tl;dr because we can't run a simulation and because we've never met anyone who can we must be in a simulation. If there's infinite simulations, and we can't run our own, and because every civilization that can does, we must be at the bottom (there's not enough energy coming down from the Real Reality for us to do our own).

>>12002553
None of that answered the question lol

>>12002560
The simulators (at the top level in the real reality) have to have infinite energy in order to run infinite simulations to make the chances of us living in a simulation infinitely high. Otherwise, you have to provide empirical evidence that we do live in a simulation, and there is none. Thus, to avoid the lack of evidence, simulationists have to argue that the simulators are basically God.

>>12002565
The probability we exist in the only simulation is equal to that of us existing in infinite ones

>>12002553
If there are ten top civilizations and ten trillions simulated, then if you'll choose a civilization at random, you will have one trillionth chance to be the top.

>>12002565
It shouldn't be infinitely high, just high.

>>12002524
I'll go when it's my time. Find Jesus, anon

I think we probably aren't in a simulation, but almost every counter-argument in this thread is extremely philosophically shallow and missing key points.

"It's just like religion", "what created the simulators", "it's an excuse to believe in an afterlife" aren't thinking deeply enough (these are valid points but the answer to them isn't so simple), and the people saying it'd just be computationally impossible have no idea what they're talking about.

>>12002818
>"what created the simulators"
The answer to what created the simulators is that it's simulators all the way down. Whatever this is may indeed be something weird like a simulation, or some kind of nesting doll kind of thing. But if you accept that, you may also have to accept some form of infinity as existing in reality.

>>12002833
In my opinion, this isn't satisfying. It doesn't really make logical sense that not only the universe but also the set of its chained causal forces is infinite. If you swap it with God and ask who created God, the answer "another God, who was created by another, infinitely" just doesn't seem right to me.

The issue with this age-old question is the infinite regress of it. If the answer is "well, it just is an infinite regress; deal with it", it doesn't really resolve it or give any useful information. I can't say it's an impossible scenario, but I can't imagine how this could be the true definition of reality. At some point there has to be a base of *something*, I think. I'd even say the monotheistic argument of "God just always existed and always will" is a lot more logical and satisfying than that, though I don't buy that argument, either.

>>11997190
Reducing and compressing the longest-held and earliest-made memory store, which is referenced via the variable known as PAIN, is the consistent goal of any simulationist. This is because it is the only thing that can provide a bounded limit on that which we call suffering, which we can then optimize or shrink.

Suffering is the retraction rate of pain going between tolerable and a given peak.

It isn't about reward, it is about reducing attrition for the entire set of process pool participants and thus the system. How we describe or discuss it is ultimately irrelevant because language changes and updates itself. Think of it like it is the original blockchain for communication.

Everything I've written could easily be reworded to satisfy religion or spirituality.

>All arguments are ultimately of: source -> dest & gathered. Such as are we from the same place, are we going to the same place, do we allow people to join on the way or do we just turn up?

>>12002669
If you'll go when it is your time then aren't you the one making God wait? That's pretty ballsy.

>>12002855
You started on a good path by pointing out that all the weak arguments against simulation are weak because they are either nitpicks or arguments from intuition. But now are you guilty of the same thing. So what if infinity "feels" wrong? Infinity _is_ that "base" you're looking for. It's in fact one and the same base that all the faiths of the world are seeking when they seek god. It's the same thing. Sub specie aeternitatus.

>>12002855
The base of anything is the individual perspective. That's the energy that the universe runs off of because you can't remove the individual or the perspective.

Individual = Space
Perspective = Time

As one contains the observation state of the other, when the individual provides the perspective it is presented as a waveform or packet.

Substrate independence isn't real. let alone symbolic descriptions of psychological processes (which are also symbolic) being the thing in question. You can describe Pavlovian conditioning using tin cans. It doesn't mean it's really there beyond our subjective interpretation/ our pattern recognition.

>>12002903
But you're specifically talking about an infinity of different conscious entities all creating each other. This is a very particular kind of infinity. I'm open to the idea of some sort of infinity in this explanation, but this kind is very difficult for me.

I agree I currently have no better argument against that other than that I feel like the idea of infinite (rather than merely very many but finite) conscious entities all creating one another just doesn't make sense to my mind. Maybe if I better educate myself, I'll be able to articulate my disagreement more concretely.

But just to address the latter point, I disagree that all faiths equate the idea of "the prime mover" with "all creation is both infinite and intelligent". I think there are several other ways of formulating the idea beyond "infinite intelligence". I can buy infinite, or intelligent, or intelligent in an infinite system, but an infinite successive chain of intelligences seems like a radical claim that I don't commonly hear.

>>12002906
I don't think perspective or any other conscious state is tied to reality in the way you suggest. I posit that reality has some sort of "base" whether or not it ended up containing any conscious entities. I don't think consciousness is anything fundamental to space, time, reality, physics, or metaphysics.

>>12002972
And the energy from your refutation of my individual perspective is what keeps the wheel turning.

However my question now becomes something else. Is it consciousness which can recognize itself in different forms, or is that space/time/reality/physics? A third option could be that the observer is the prime sharer and distributor of what we call a base to reality.

>>12002914
But you just said our psychological processes are symbolic. They run on the substrate of the information processing that occurs in the brain. The substrate of that is, presumably, quantum mechanics or something more fundamental that we currently interpret as quantum mechanics. Why can't there be something even more fundamental than that?

I don't think we likely live in a simulation, but I think it's theoretically possible, and I think substrate independence is real. Let's say we do someday create a conscious, sentient, sapient, intelligent self-aware AGI. Would you still think consciousness is not substrate-independent? Or would you say it won't ever be possible in the first place?

>>12002984
Different anon here. Your post inspired something in me.

Is the AGI question ultimately one of humanity's ego of arrogance? As in could we build something smarter than us that also helps raise us faster than we could raise ourselves, either individually or collectively?

I'm curious as to what you think. For me when I need top-level clarity or balance I simply put things into two simple buckets labelled "me" and "not me".

>>12002993
Don't really see how arrogance is involved. We invent hundreds of devices to make our lives easier. An AI is just another one down the line.

>>12003008
Apologies for lack of clarity. I meant all the counter-arguments presented to making AGI are ultimately other humans being butthurt at realizing that they don't have any self-worth or self-value because if they can't be the important thing to another human being then why exist.

>>12002960
>you're specifically talking about an infinity of different conscious entities all creating each other.
If I came off that way, that wasn't my intention. My intention isn't to defend simulation theory. I don't know what the actual nature of it is, because no one does. But what simulationists and the religious have in common is precisely this. All these factions are "onto something", so to say. None of them are entirely wrong. But they just don't quite know what that "something" is. I put to you that it's this. And that's really as much as can be said about this entire subject.

>>12003036
because nobody wants to argue or fight eternally over how best to cooperate amongst ourselves or in offering rehabilitation others.

>>12002522
Yes, true. I only meant that if you ceaee to exist within the simulation, then you don't necessarily continue to have any representation within the "higher reality" either (even within the black box)

>>12002492
>If it makes no difference then there's no simulation
why do you think this?
it's like your entire mindset is the "pop-sci version" of the topic.
you can't claim to know that that I'm wrong when you fundamentally don't understand my position, unless I've said something that's blatantly untrue.
the simulation hypothesis is a rational argument. it does make assumptions, but it is able to work from a set of valid assumed premises and reach a logical conclusion.
the matrix-style "this layer of reality is a simulated illusion, you can unplug to reach the "real existence" is just pseudoscience, if ever given the label or science at all.
>think about it like this
You are as real in the "higher reality" as a fluid simulation is real water
It's one closed-loop universe existing entirely as some abstraction of the parent universe in which it resides.

>>12002538
what do you gain out of posting this bait? there's plenty of shit ruining the board already, why do we have to troll in shitty threads instead of just ignoring OP once he reveals himself to be a dunning krueger deluxe?

>>12003083
Everything you see on this board is pop-sci.

>>12003013
Well, we are already irrelevant compared to elites, so why not add another layer of irrelevancy? Not that we can influence it one way or another.

>>12003098
If none of us can influence and the layer is ultimately one of abstraction or irrelevancy then why consider the idea beyond mental masturbation, intellectual exercise, or exploration of imagination?

>>12003106
We can't influence the movement of celestial bodies, so why learn the astronomy? Because it's fun (and because you get some benefit from that).

>>12003111
Fun covers one or any number of combinations of what I presented, so we are all here to have fun without judging or punishing each other!

Thank you for the enlightenment.

>>12003091
once in a blue moon there are truly good threads. but it requires a good topic for discussion and a general air of seriousness.
i've only made ~10 threads in my 5 years om this board but i find they're usually successful. if you're a novice with true interest in a niche topic looking for advice or resources, you can usually get interesting perspectives. I wouldn't consider this to be a niche topic in that regard though, I'm not sure /sci/ is capable of discussing simulation stuff in a level-headed way.

this shit is plato's allegory of the cave. he was on to this already back then. this is what he meant. not specifically "simulation" but that there are aspects of reality that can't be accessed through the senses. why would anyone think that what you can see is all that there is. that's silly.

>>12001582
Some impressive mental gymnastic skills you've got there.

>>11997190
Even a simulated world would be real to us. What would be the point in escaping it?

>>12000105
Firstly, you don't have to simulate entire universe, the simulation is only made so YOU and only you believe its reality. Secondly, the number of frames per second does not matter at all because seconds are also simulated. Lastly, the simulation could have much lower count of dimensions (we: 3d them: 11d). Imagine simulating billions of 1-d particles/waves in 3d. Not a big deal at all.

>>11999873
>simulation theory is literally you go to heaven when you die
Why does simulation theory require an afterlife in a different frame of reference? What if our simulation process is simply deleted when our lifespan here ends? How people saved the process/object state of their Sims?

>>12002497
Aye bröther can't think of any other explenation.

>>12003779
The thing we it isn't just you being simulated it's trillions of life forms unless you try to feel special or something, frames per second apsolutely matter since we can create tools to perceive things that our eyes can't and i really can't see the point of fully simulating something in a lower dimension like we don't and especialy without full fledged physics.

>>12000716
>>12001156
>a completely unknown reality conforms to our ideas of what is possible
hmmm

>>11999873
Has anyone said this? Agents in the sim might just get deleted whenever the admins want. An agent in the sim is at the total mercy of the admins, sounds worse than regular religion, because at least with gods you can assume some inscrutable moral reason, the admins might just feel like fucking around.

>>11999955
I think his parents were upper middle class, his dad was some kind of engineer, not poor but not fabulously wealthy.

>>11997190
>tfw half of Systemspace did this three years ago

>>12004489
You only need to render/simulate it when its being observed

>>11999873
>People need religion, simulation theory is literally you go to heaven when you die bro none of this matters.
It may well be the opposite.

>>12004489
>it's trillions of life forms unless you try to feel special or something
These "trillions" may as well be not simulated (now or at all),

Lets face is, whatever we live in a simulation or not, we are fucked, so it really doesnt matter that much.

>>12004641
I'm sad that Tsuki is gone. That web design was fucking amazing.

>>11999873
>you go to heaven when you die bro none of this matters
I still don't get why people would ever expect to be able to leave the simulation.

Even in the best simulation-cracking scenario we don't "leave" simulation, we just acquire tools to operate outside it.

>>11997225
based and redpilled

>>12006202
You could imagine a possiblity where if you could gain access to the upper level you could hijack a machine and print yourself a body (or build some kind of machine equivalent) for instance. Then again it would be pretty dumb if the people up there would permit something like that.

>>12003230
Yes, there is more than just the immediate now any given moment occupies. The now is like a bell curve, we experience the center of it along with bits from the extrema of future and past.

Simulation theory is equally plausible, if not slightly more than any other religion, prove me wrong.

>>12006639
I agree, which is why it's not worth mulling over.

>>12006639
Sure, and theology/philosophy was a huge part of intellectual advances of the humanity.

>>12002574
I don't think we are in a server, but we're in a simulation of sorts. Here's the idea: 1) "Higher Reality" must have no beginning and must be timeless 2) HR is full of everything that work in some way 3) In order to justify everything we must exist, otherwise everything would lack of something 4) So HR is full of events like contained Universes all started with Big Bangs like RNG. From the point of view of the HR we already happened and for the HR chances are what happened here is not different to what potentially could have happened.

>>12004489
now do you know I am not an NPC

>>11997190
how about serf simulation?
you are in a simulation generated by itself (or by another that you generated directly or indirectly)

>>12002984
>psychological processes are symbolic

Yes and they are descriptions, not the thing-in-itself. For example a NYT characterization of Donald Trump is a 3rd party description of him made accessible to an audience for a specific purpose.
It's not the thing in itself. All descriptions are
symbolic and are tailored for a specific use.

However some descriptions are more useful than others.

>>12004489
I'm probably thinking of this in the wrong way, and this is not my idea I've just heard it on podcasts, but for this all to be a simulation wouldnt it just need to be your own brain activity being simulated, which I imagine wouldn't be as difficult at all.