/sci/ - Science & Math

Anything untestable sounds plausible.

>>12145145
equally plausible:
you're all made up. this is a hallucination. i'm floating in space, just a brief dip in entropy, and the very next instant after this instant will be the last and i will cease to exist.

>>12145176
define instant

>>12145176
If I'm a figment of your imagination, then I'm gonna say you've got a hell of an imagination my man.

dogmatism

>>12145145
There is literally zero difference between that idiot YouTuber and the completely retarded stephen wolfram theory of everything

>>12145176
this
the argument:
>we will create simulated observers, therefore we are simulated
is equivalent to an infinite different arguments:
>we will create nature preserves with observers, therefore we are in a nature preserve
or
>we will create other sentient life species, therefore we are created
or...

>>12145145
Yes, when you do introspection and your brains internal image of universe it's simulation because it cannot contains universe in full, you've maybe just misunderstood DMT.

>>12145145
0

we are a fluke of the universe and believe it or not the universe is laughing behind our backs

>>12146303
Its much easier to create simulations than those.

>>12147517
Is it?

>>12146303
So what does that tell you?

>>12147534
Well yeah you can't just copy and paste a nature preserve; once we have beefy enough computers replicating sims with slightly different parameters would take just a click of a button and take as much time.

>>12147543
even easier: God just thinks and creates us

>>12145176
WHY DID YOU IMAGINE ME THIS WAY!? YOU MADE ME WRONG! THINK ME BETTER!

>>12145145
>0%

>>12147715
We can't prove there's a god, we're pretty sure one day we'll be able to run simulations of life.
Im not saying we're in a simulation or that we aren't, it's just a thought experiment for now.
But this muddying with "but nature preserves" and "but God dreams" is completely missing the point.

>>12147751
>we're pretty sure one day we'll run simulations of life
We'll also create life in the real world.

>>12147779
Yeah but real world things take real world time. Sims can be sped up,shortcuts taken, all around easier to manage.
Plus what's more likely we develop first, the tech/space/time to create and sustain infinite life in infinite permutations or the tech to run simulations on a computer.
Don't be willfully ignorant for the sake of pride, whether or not we live in a sim you understand the thought experiment right?

>>12145145
Not very. The most powerful computers in the world can barely simulate a handful of elementary particles. Consider that relative to how many make up the computer itself and the electricity powering it. Quantum processors don't improve the ratio much.

So you'd need galaxy-scale computers which are also exponentially more efficient (magic) to handle a single planet.

>>12145145
Just as plausible as this being a dream of the godhead and me being the star of the show. I have achieved CHIM

>>12147893
I feel like you could simulate a planet with a Dyson swarm's energy, saying you need a galaxy all for one planet is a bit extreme.

>>12147935
I don't think you realise just how many particles make up common amounts of matter and electricity

>>12147893
There are tons of shortcuts to limiting processing power and energy consumption, like only simulating as far as people search and 'unloading' anything not currently being observed like what happens with video games. Elemental processes can be per-computed and just repeated from memory. Another possibility is that the simulation doesn't happen in real time, and instead, we get a few ticks every thousand or so years of processing, but it appears seamless to us because we don't exist when time isn't moving.
It's entirely plausible, but so is creationism if you're willing to accept a theory without any evidence beyond 'we don't know yet.'

>>12145145
brainlet cope.

As a theoretical comp sci dude (working on some big research, I'll let you guys know when I get published), there are many questions that kinda destroy that line of reasoning.

1) What kind of computational model is it? Deterministic TM, Quantum TM, Super TM?? Super Duper TM? Continuous tape TM? It doesn't tell us anything about the nature of reality.

2) If we do live in a simulation, how do we empirically verify that? We can't.

3) If we could verify it, can we leave and go to the 'real world'? if not, then the simulation is the only thing we'll ever know. If so, can we go back? Can we know about the 'real world'?

4) It still doesn't answer deep fundamental questions, it just moves the problem to the creators of the simulation. Even if we know their motivation for creating our universe, what is the backbone of their reality? Simulations all the way down? Why does the 'real world' exist instead of nothing?

There are many other questions along the same lines as the ones stated above, but the bottom line is that it causes more questions than it answers.

>>12145145
Calling it a theory is highly misleading because it isn't falsifiable. There's no way to prove that we're NOT living in a simulation without making a lot of assumptions about what the "real world" is like.