/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15028618
Perhaps, im surprised how no one brings up how fucky quantum mechanics are and how it might just be software glitching at very small scales

>>15028618
If there’s a real possibility that we live in a simulation then there’s also a real possibility of a heaven and a hell in the afterlife. Better bloody well get your act together lads

>>15028671
You dont know what actions could lead to a good afterlife. "Good morality" is roughly actions that benefit the human species with some exceptions to cute animals. In return, society treats them well back, its a mutually beneficial trade.
But what if god hates people who dont think and act for themselves? Slaves who get by with the herd might be failing the test. Its also dishonest to our nature to pretend that we are "good", we have terrible impulses, to deny them would make us liars. God might also hate liars

>>15028618
No, the likelyhood of that being true is so small that you can dismiss the idea entirely
>>15028671
There was no heaven, hell or afterlife when you were dead before you were born

The hints are all around you, especially with the new AI generated stuff

Your dreams are just AI generated BS with no anchor

all we are missing are the drugs to slow down the perception of time

>>15028618
Ffs stop flooding /sci/ with this retarded posts, if we were to live in a simulation your life would be the same

>>15028671
There's a possibility of anything because we don't know what happens. I think the possibility of religion being correct is like 0.000000001% just because there are so many possibilities, it could really be anything including things people have never thought of

>>15028618
The implications are that the purpose of life is to entertain Mr. God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvNnYFP8xpc
https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/Lifeinsim.html

> If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you.
> In sum, if your descendants might make simulations of lives like yours, then you might be living in a simulation. And while you probably cannot learn much detail about the specific reasons for and the nature of the simulation you live in, you can draw general conclusions by making analogies to the types and reasons of simulations today. If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal it seems that you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look likely to become eventually rich, expect to and try to participate in pivotal events, be entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happy and interested in you.

>>15028618
Most retarded theory, that literally appeared around the time Matrix was released. Once again, scientists were doing "I imagine shit and I search for it" instead of the "I got the tools and I try to understand how it is" these people should be beheaded.

>>15028618
>Do we really exist in a simulation
I would put less than 1% probability on it and I'm a resident AGI schizo

if you are sinning, then you are living in a simulation because everyone is predicting that you will die, so it's a very simple simulation
>I predict you will die of sin in the future

>>15028675
So we would need to embody the Chad archetype to the fullest degree possible, or if we are to refrain from refrencing internet memes, become self actualized and/or our own versions of the übermensch.

I think that would be a fair deal, and life does seem to reward those who are brave enough with vitality and rewards beyond more shallow achievements such as validation or recognition.

Lying might also mean being dishonest with our selves, failing to live up to our standards and settling for a more pathetic existence.

>>15028618
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM5CLzcgu5k

>>15028618
>Do we really exist in a simulation?
The fact of the matter is, you cannot prove you do not.

>>15028618
Nobody knows.
>>15028671
If God exists then he likely understands absolutely why humans do what we do. In a fucked up way, the most just God is one that offers salvation to all free of charge regardless of their sins.

>>15028618
It is quite literally impossible to know either way so there's no point in asking.

>>15028618
>Do we really exist in a simulation?
I doubt it. I would assume that whatever is hosting the simulation has a finite amout of resources it can allocate to a simulation, similar to a computer allocating resources for VMs. Assuming that we are in a simulation that, it wouldn't rule out if there is a simulation above us. Which leads to the question of if we are in a simulation, then how high up in the stack are we? How many simulations can the stack handle? What will happen when the host runs out of resources to allocate? The answer to all of this is noone will ever truly know.

>>15028871
>care less about others
Mind-blowing. Sounds like a cult.
I'm a stranger on the internet.
Call your mom.
Now!

>>15028618
>Do we really exist in a simulation?
no, this is just theism for atheists who hate god and metaphysics

>>15028689
>No, the likelyhood of that being true is so small that you can dismiss the idea entirely
So is the likelihood that you exist at all, better dismiss it entirely.

How does it feel to surf the internet?
How does it feel to ride her?

Would you call what humans created for caged chickens a simulation?
Their artificial world is very different from their natural one. They never see the natural world.

https://youtu.be/wxQztszi4mA

>>15028618
Literally who cares. The only Universe that exists is your own individual consciousness. Everything else is non-relevant.

>>15030188
I can verify I exist in some form, but I can't verify there is any civilization or machine capable of simulating anything with a level of complexity like our universe

>>15028618
yes. i don't care. i still need to pay rent. shut up you pessimistic small minded fools.

bump

>>15028618
>Do we really exist in a simulation
Maybe, if we ever manage to make a similar simulation that will mean that we almost certainly do exist in a simulation
>What are the implications
None,it doesn't matter at all

>>15028618
Who cares? We still have to make moral decisions. And we still need to work to survive.

given the speed of light thing and plank unit, time limit, it looks like a tick limit you need due to limited processor power for a graphics engine.

There are a lot of hacks that are becoming more apparent as we have insturment to look at the basic "reality"

>>15028618
Never got the point of this, it really wouldn't answer any questions about the universe even if this was the case, you would just move all of the existential shit to the real reality that is simulating ours.

Sometimes I like to go to underground parking lots and press my body into a corner while turning side to side really quickly in hopes of clipping out of the simulation. One time I almost clipped out but the simulation pushed me back in. I think I could get all the way out if I turn quickly enough.

>>15028618
Would it matter?

We're already thrown into an existence that makes no sense. We can't figure out why anything should be, why there are laws and forces, and why those laws and forces seem to conspire to create things that need to figure stuff out.

That's bad enough, epistemologically speaking. So really, who cares what layer of the onion we're on? Even our possible simulators don't know whether or not they're on base reality.

>>15032721
What possible simulators?

>>15028618
simulation? maybe.
we do live in a hyperdimensional consciousness field though, the astral plane
https://www.reddit.com/r/TechnologyAndAliens/comments/ypzufg/the_space_war/

>>15028618
Optical illusions 100% prove you are just living in a simulation that your brain is generating based on stimulus and it doesn't always get it right.

>>15028689
That makes no sense at all, the likelihood is practically 100%, at most you could say humans are not the focus of the simulation, just a fluke. Your second sentence is also complete nonsense with any kind of reincarnation, therefore it has no merit at all.

the world is constantly changing and evolving through a process of dialectical development. This means that the world is made up of opposing forces and ideas that interact and struggle with each other, leading to the emergence of new, higher-level concepts and forms of reality.

In this view, the idea that we may be living in a simulation is itself a product of dialectical development. The concept of a simulation arises out of the opposition between the objective reality that we perceive and the subjective reality that we experience. As we come to understand more about the nature of reality and the ways in which it can be manipulated and simulated, the concept of a simulation becomes a higher-level concept that incorporates and transcends these opposing ideas.

the idea that we may be living in a simulation is itself a product of the ongoing process of dialectical development, and as such, it is not a definitive or absolute truth. Instead, it is a concept that emerges out of the interaction and opposition of different ideas and forces, and it will continue to evolve and change as our understanding of reality and its nature develops.

>>15028618
What if I told you it doesn’t matter,
And is actully the same end

>>15028618
Me? No. You and everyone else ITT are obvious NPCs, filling up my game tho

>>15030020
>ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW SO DONT ASK

Found the npc

>>15028618
Yes, this is essentially settled science in many respects, but not in the way most people think it is.

"You," to the extent you are a single, unified thing (there is plenty of evidence against this position, but we can go with it for now), simulate/hallucinate your surroundings.

You don't see your room "as it is itself," you see your room based on a rendering made via computation. Pic related is decent as an intro on this but misses two key things:

A. The amount of information in our enviornment absolutely dwarfs what comes into the nervous system. Deacon's Towards a Science of Biosemiotics explores the relationship between thermodynamic/Boltzmann Entropy and information/Shannon Entropy pretty well (shorter paper, not a book). Any organism can only bring in a fantastically small amount of information about their enviornment without succumbing to entropy.

The sensory organs and systems we have are shaped by evolution to show us fitness playoffs, not truth. Colors and smells don't exist sans life. These are encodings of information based on survival value. Example, there are three primary colors because we have three color sensing cells; if we evolved from birds we'd see all different colors from 4 primaries).

Of the small amount of information our organs do take on, the overwhelming amount is dropped. Experience is overwhelmingly the result of computation, not information taken from outside the body. We amplify patterns useful to survival and drop information that isn't. So reality very much is simulated.

This is why optical illusions work so well, why you don't experience the blind spot in your vision where your optic nerve enters the eye, and why some stimuli become unnoticeable after prolonged exposure. Also why sensory deprivation can result in realistic hallucinations; it's mostly computation anyhow.

3D linear space time is just another of these survival based models...

>>15028671

Its not afterlife its the real life. You finish the game and awake in the real life and you immediatly remember who you really are. Its a heaven compared to this one because its tech level is off the charts and if you get bored you can go to another simulation, there are millions to choose from, from realistic like this one to fantasy and all kinds of weird stuff. And you can design your own too.

>>15033273
...although we take space time more seriously because touch, sight, hearing, and balance all feed into one model. However, at the end of the day it is just a model.

B. Our inherited model of space and time, and of discrete objects, absolutely falls apart at very small and very large scales. This is why quantum mechanics and relatively seem so unintuitive. Our simulation wasn't "designed" around these scales.

Now, Hoffman's book is a very good critique of why naive realism about the external world is wrong, but in the last chapter he totally switches gears and looks for a solution.

He asks what Fichte asked if Kant's noumenal world (the world of objective things as they are themselves, as opposed to the phenomenal world of experience): "what posit this thing we can never know directly exists at all?" After all, if we can never truly know it, and our scientific models always exist within first person experience, within cognition, why introduce the philosophical and unknowable. His solution is less convincing than the complaint though.

Another thing to consider is that many physicists consider information to be on par with energy and matter as ontologically fundemental. Others consider information to be ontologically fundemental and matter and energy to just be things that emerge from information.

There are two ways to take this really because information can be seen as something objective that exists as a physical property, or something only coherent if you have a receiver of said information. The second view doesn't necessarily entail idealism, it just says that things only exist relationally, not "as they are themselves" in some sort of "view from nowhere."

Further developments in QM, non-locality and (less proven) contextuality (see recent modified Wigner's Friend experiments done with photons) make me think that the most common paradigm for the sciences, the idea of a coherent "objective view from nowhere/anywhere" will need to be replaced...

>>15033283
...with something where relationships are fundemental. Probably something more like formalism in mathematics. "An object is what it does."

Even though it is absolutely not what the author intended, I think this view goes great with this genius definition of information from group theory. The intro parts of this are very accessible and an excellent primer on information theory, which unifies cognitive science, biology, and physics.

----
TL;DR, you definitely live in experienced reality. If you look at some musings on the holographic principal, you'll see that this might be true on a level deeper than just the fact that the objects you perceive don't exist outside your perception of them (at least they don't exist as anything like what your perceive).

As to us being in a simulation controlled by God-like ETs, this seems less likely. It's possible, sure, but I haven't seen good arguments for it.

I find Hegelian/informational based theories to handle the problem of the noumenal/phenomenal cleft most intriguing.

>>15028618

>>15033279
This is all senseless faggotry but if this one is true I will be fucking destroyed at the thought of being separated from my love.

>>15033279
This. Our current sim is very popular because the memory wipe and heavy restrictions on cognitive power keep things "meaningful." Since actual suicide is impossible on the Outside, and consciousness continues forever, people love to go into sims that reduce their ability to think and remember.

But there are all sorts of weird ones too. For instance, I once went to one where there were humans, but we were stuck in a giant k-12 school type building. No windows. All that white brick they huge and endless orange lockers. It just went on in a procedurally generated labyrinth of hallways and rooms in every direction, forever.

Of course, while the rendering tried to keep the scale close to human size, because the sim was infinite, layouts extremely far from the mean did occur.

We once walked a hallway with lockers on both sides and small classrooms off to each side for over 3,000 straight miles. I met people who climbed a 600+ mile staircase, only to realize that the staircase got gradually, imperceptibly, smaller on each step. Eventually they had to crawl on their bellies up each flight to fit, and they reached a point where they couldn't go any further.

I also once found a gymnasium that was several miles wide, with everything gigantic sized. The basketball hoop was the size of the Empire State Building. The lights were up so high that they each looked like a Moon. The spaces between them were so far that you had to wander through hundreds of yards of darkness from one far off light cone to another.

There wasn't much to do there. Your body didn't need food or water so you roamed endlessly. You didn't have an anus or dick or bag, so you couldn't fuck. Suicide wasn't that uncommon for those who couldn't hack it.

The most horrible fate was likely of a guy who fell down the infinite staircase. It only gets wider as you go deeper, so you might never hit the bottom and terminate, and eventually it would be too far to each side to smack into a wall.

>>15033722
You would just free fall forever since that reality didn't require you to eat, sleep, or drink. That was thousands of subjective years ago and I bet he's still falling.

Another popular one for those who keep our memories (which is banned here, but some people use hacks) is the Library. The Library is an infinite series of rooms of all sorts with book shelves everywhere. It contains every book of every length possible. For example, if you keep to English, numbers, and logical symbols, you get about 200 symbols. So it has every 300 page book with 2,000 characters per symbol in there, 600,000^200 books, and that's just the books with those exact dimensions. More books than there are protons in this reality.

So there is everything you could ever read. There is, within the library, a phase space map of everything that has and ever will happened in this reality, along with the texts to let you read that phase space map. There are alternate endings to War and Peace. Winds of Winter is out there.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of books are incoherent since there are more ways to be incoherent than meaningful.

But, for every given book, there exists sets of other books that tell you how to read that seemingly incoherent stream as a meaningful message. They can all be codes, "ahduev&#7-a" can mean "mother" or "entropy." But of course there is more than one set of books that will tell you what each other book means, so every book actually has multiple meanings. In fact, some people who have spent millennia there say that each book actually contains all the information of all the other books. Most though say there is a minimum size for a set of books, a minimum Kolmogorov Complexity, that you need to say all possibly meaningful things. That's why they stay there, hunting for that number.

They think we might be allowed to die if we discover the number.

>>15028618
Simulation theory is a disguised religion. If you're an atheist then you don't live in a simulation

>>15033722
>>15033736
This was probably meant to be funny but it's actually incredibly horrifying if you start thinking about it. People make distributing video loops of this shit.

I think I may have just been scared into becoming a finitist.

>>15033740
Wrong, religion is just disguised simulation theory.

>>15033760
Here's your (You) now go respawn

>>15028618
Well, you would have to make a lot of assumptions that can't really be defended. If the simulation exists in a world with the same physics as ours, then our simulation (Universe) must not be infinite since the Universe has a ceiling regarding computational power. You could assume that the outside world has different physics, but that's speculation without both proof and a reason to be believed in the first place. At the end of the day, simulation theory is just as unfounded as spiritual claims, so I don't understand why people are so obsessed with the idea.

>>15032481
what's interesting is that given enough memory, a deterministic universe could in theory be simulated by a very slow processor. our experience of time is independent of how it's being simulated e.g. what we experience as 1 second may actually take several years to compute in "real" time, and we wouldn't know the difference.

>>15033850
Why only a deterministic universe though? Couldn't a stochastic one work fine if you just use something external to the simulation program as an input for (apparent) randomness? You could either have quantum measurements fed in as input or you have a pseudorandom number generator outside the sim act as an input for the sim.

If we're in a sim, couldn't quantum randomness just be the sim running off a pseudorandom generator each time it needs to produce an observation?

>>15033736
There is an interesting idea here. Let's say that it is possible to fully describe the universe over time symbolically. This doesn't seem like a stretch given the universe seems to be made of discrete things that could be symbolized, and we do have means for dealing with continuous variables as well.

If this is true, than you could indeed describe the universe completely in a very, very large "book."

Now let's just assume MWI is true. No problem. You just need an even larger book that has the results to every outcome.

How would you code such a thing? Well let's assume it requires some really strange math we don't have yet, making it easiest to lay out (conceptually for ourselves at least) using 10,000 different symbols/operators.

If this book could exist, if you say such a thing is possible, then a simple program that randomly picks each of the 10,000 symbols, then picks another, then another... etc., running on an infinite Turing Machine, would eventually produce that book.

It would also produce a LOT of gibberish. But the program would be incredibly, incredibly short, that is despite producing every possible proofs, a model of our universe and all possible outcomes in it, etc.

The problem here is that, we generally think of information as additive. When I have a program that stimulates chess and another for checkers, the two together have more information (algorithmic). But the simple infinite symbol program produces all programs despite having very little information.

>>15033946
>>15033946
But of course, all 10,000 symbols could be described in binary, so really you only need a program spewing random 1s and 0s.

So if you look at a description of information like Wheeler's, it is clearly wrong. The information content of something isn't all the true / false questions you need to fully describe it. It's all the true/false questions needed to specify what a thing is not. You can't talk about the information content of protons because they have no information content unless you have a void where there aren't protons to the measurement to.

The algorithmic information content can't be the shortest possible description of a string, since a random generator will eventually produce all programs. It is the shortest possible description that rules out all other possible programs.

>>15033273
>>15033283
>>15033291
thanks anon, i found your posts interesting. would you recommend all the picrelated books?

>>15034025
Yes, but especially the first two. Although to get the formalism of the second one you'll need fairly advanced mathematics covered, plenty of it is accessible without that.

>>15034587
Or rather the first and the third.

Unfortunately, academic books are hideously expensive, but that's what LibGen is for.

>>15030680
I think that if you buy caged chicken eggs or eat caged chickens and know about the poor conditions in which the caged chickens live you are bound to have big problems with God, if there is one. This is a major test of your morality.

>>15028618
> do we?
Why not?
> implications
It must serve some end, but at the end of the day, simulation or not. You must be you, completely (to your knowledge and ability) alone with your own genuine thoughts and actions from those. We are limited to a certain capacity, that capacity grows through the generations. Do your part anon.

>>15028618
if we do

IT DOESN'T MATTER YOU GOSH DARNED RETARDS!

>"omg what if I am not real!"
YOU KNUCKLE-DRAGGING MORON IF YOU PERCEIVE ANYTHING YOU ARE REAL BY VIRTUE OF YOUR PERCEPTION!
>omg but what if I don't have a body!?
WHY WOULD YOU?
>omg but what if everything I perceive is lies!?
HOW COULD YOU TELL IF IT WAS? YOU CAN'T!
>wahhhhh I'm entitled to know more about reality
EVEN IF YOU WERE YOU COULDN'T, YOU COULD BE A LITERAL GOD AND YOU WOULDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE IN A SIMULATION OR NOT.

ITS NOT A FUN QUESTION IT IS LITERALLY BABY IS TOO LAZY TO ACCEPT OR REJECT STIMULI.
>but the chemicals in my brain tell me what to do! I don't even know I exist!
IF THAT WAS THE CASE YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO PERCEIVE ANYTHING! YOU COULD QUIT CARING BECAUSE IT ISN'T YOUR PROBLEM THEN.
>but i care about it because my chemicals torture me into caring about it
SO YOU EXIST THEN? WHICH IS IT? GROW UP!

>>15032481
fucken moon...
]
see you tomorrow

>>15033650

Why would you be separated from her/him? Just look her up in the player list bruh.

>>15028618
That questions is boring
The more interesting part is if we can create mini simulations of our universe for science & research, then recreate the simulation into real world for better technology.
I could care less if we're simulated right now, changes nothing

>>15028618
Some are steering their character while other are npcs.

>>15036031
what decides if whether you spawn as an npc or a pc?

>>15036040
The decision is up to you. The capacity to do so even after spawn is in everyone, but not everyone is aware of it.

>>15028618
Its pure coincidence that you exist when data gathering on industrial scale is taking place.

>>15036325
fug

>>15028689
>No, the likelyhood of that being true is so small that you can dismiss the idea entirely

statistically, it is much, much, much more likely that we live in a simulation. do a little research before commenting on a topic

>>15036738
why do people say something that's never been observed is statistically probable

>>15036826
They're dissatisfied with their failure of a life and want their scifi fantasies to be real contrary to the relative mundanity of reality

>>15028618
Yes we do, and NDEs are literally proof of this. See these quotes from actual NDErs, taken from pic related:

>"Even though this world is amazing, NDErs when they experience this amount of peace and love in spirit, they come back and they realize, 'Why are we not like that here? Why are we still not evolved more?' I mean really this is basically the Matrix, that's exactly what we're living in."
>"And all of a sudden I found myself in a long hallway of doors. There one was this beautiful, Gothic looking wood door, and as I would peer through the door, I would literally see an existence that I was participating in."

Here is an extremely persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It makes a huge deal about the fact that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Statistics collected show that the "deeper" the NDE the greater the percentage of those who come away certain of the existence of the afterlife. Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. And so would you, me, or anyone, including the most dogmatic atheists and skeptics, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this brief little experience of life on Earth we have now. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep, deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

>>15030015
>Nobody knows.
False, because NDErs justifiably know they have woken up from the simulation. Indeed, they are more justified than Neo ever was, as per the argument being developed in this video >>15037637.
>>15028689
>There was no heaven, hell or afterlife when you were dead before you were born
Yes there was, but we memorywipe with amnesia in order to play this game with immersion as if it was real. See this NDE quote from the pic here >>15037637:

>"And what was so strange about looking at the Earth like that was that at that moment you could have asked me any given moment in my life because I just relived it, but you could have asked me any given moment in any person's life on that planet, and I could have told you. All that information was right there, it was available. Not just any person living there now, any person that had ever lived there or ever would live there. All that information is all available, it's right there. And what kept going through my mind at this point was, 'Of course!' I was, if you will, remembering what I had forgotten very intentionally in order to be on this planet, which is what we all do. The truth of the matter is that we know things when we’re not here that we choose to forget while we are here. You know everything about what your life's going to be like here, from beginning to end. You knew it before you got here, and you'll know it again when you leave here, but while you're here you’re focused on it, and you're focused on each given moment in it. And when you leave here, it all comes rushing back and you say, 'Of course, yes!' And if you made the analogy that your life was like a movie that you made, where you picked all of the characters and the actors to play in your movie and you wrote the script out and said this is what I want to have happen and how I want it to be, it would be a very good analogy."

>>15028618
shills keep pushing "nothing is real"

>>15037673
Shills for what? How would they benefit?

>>15028689
that likelihood that we're NOT in a simulation is so small that you can dismiss that idea entirely

>>15036847
Fucking this. Simulation hypothesis is usually loved by losers.

>>15028618
a simulation is by definition not the real thing, you're real though aren't you, you're reading this post right now

ultimate simulation theory breaks down at the point where the verification of reality itself breaks down and we can't make any real statements on way or the other let alone conclude from within the system we call reality that that system is fake, it's ridiculous viral nonsense

>>15039464
>"You're real now though"
>Because of realness factor alone simulation can't be true
>May the magnosphere rest your helpless soul

>>15039469
>Because of realness factor alone simulation can't be true
yes logically by definition, simulations are not real

>>15039476
Like you'd tell it any different you humongous faggot

I'd say take em but you probably won't.

>>15039484
my own consciousness is literally the realest thing i could ever hope to identify as being real
>take the meds and believe everything is fake!
you are astronomically retarded

>>15039493
How dare you post here you freak

>>15039495
go away namefag

>>15039496
What's wrong with names?

>>15028689
That's not how statistics work

>>15037637
>>15037640
is this schizo shit or is there merit? can any other anons weigh in. thanks

>>15033291
>As to us being in a simulation controlled by God-like ETs, this seems less likely. It's possible, sure, but I haven't seen good arguments for it.
What about the Bostrom Trilemma? Given the astronomically huge amount of simulated universes we create, doesn’t it seem likely to the point of vanishing uncertainty that our universe would be similarly simulated, instead of the progenitor?

>>15036826
It has been, though. People run accurate simulations all the time.

>>15041673
Not simulations of universes

>>15043184
You think not? Are you saying that we don’t exist within a universe, or that our predictions somehow make that assumption?

>>15028618
It is not currently known whether we exist in a simulation or not. The idea that we might be living in a simulated reality has been explored in science fiction and philosophy, but it remains purely speculative and there is no evidence one way or the other. If it were true that we exist in a simulation, it is difficult to say what the implications would be. Some have suggested that it could have profound effects on our understanding of reality and our place in the universe, while others have argued that it would not change anything about the way we live our lives. Ultimately, this is a question that may never be answered definitively.

>>15028618
The implications are that I literally dont care fag

>>15037640
>>15037637
ndes are delusions of your brain trying to rationalize your imminent demise. they are not proof, negative or positive, of an afterlife/simulation/out of the box experience whatever you would like to call it

>>15029245
No it didnt moron, Philip K Dick was talking about in the 70's

>>15029245
fucktard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6lgSbPj8Q

>>15040863
a friend of mine gone unconscious in a car accident and "died" of his injuries multiple times. He was brought back to life everytime by paramedics. he told me this story and i didnt even ask about afterlife but at one point he just said "oh and that afterlife stuff ? its fake. theres nothing. just like if you were asleep"

and that made it pretty clear to me.

>>15028736
i like how you think =). but seeing as AI is created from the human brain model... then you cant link AI to human brain that way
and if humans didnt create the drawings and paintings, the AI would have nothing to base itself on.

>>15030859
BASED POST

>>15032716
train me, senpai

>>15041673
assuming a flawed simulation, one based on purely on assumptions, is a proper substitute for reality is as dumb as the thing I'm calling out.

>>15044160
Assuming it’s flawed is just as dumb. Newsflash, your entire method of engaging with the universe is based purely on assumptions. The only thing you have is observation, and observation tells us our simulations are incredibly consistent internally, and often accurate to our own reality.

This is sort of like the robot paradox, where once upon a time a roomba or mechanical arm would have been labelled as such without hesitation. But now the average Joe has become used to them, the term has shifted to mean more humanoid ‘bots.
And the same with intelligence. “Nooo, AI chatbots aren’t REALLY intelligent” you say, despite them blowing the Turing test out of the water. Humans are obsessed with their own sovereignty, so much that you’ll “other” even exact replicas of yourself.

>>15028736
Can't express how much I hate your post.
Listen, it's the other way around. AI generated shit looks similar to dreams not because the latter stem from them, but because they reduce to a common explanation. And yes, biological dreaming has the greater seniority of these two.

>>15033273
Honestly your post depresses me, because it reminds me shit like
>"You," to the extent you are a single, unified thing (there is plenty of evidence against this position, but we can go with it for now), simulate/hallucinate your surroundings.
Isn't common knowledge. Literal (and I truly mean literal) NPCs being unaware how our reality is a generated -- essentially -- GUI. The fact that we do not perceive reality as is should be obvious alone from the fact that atoms are mostly empty vacuum. If we saw reality 1:1, any reservations about "resolution" would be a non-issue.

Other depressing things: NPCs conflating "sound/color" and "air vibration/light frequency". They do not even have the excuse of low intelligence here, as they at least dream.

>>15043443
well, then, he didnt die, did he dummy? he went unconscious, which is not dying

>>15028675
No, it's pretty damn intuitive.
The shit that makes you an asshole in a movie / anime is pretty much the shit that makes you objectively an asshole. Moral relativity is a plebbit meme.

>>15028675
Retardation, the post.

>>15043432
This is mental gymnastics. Are you the same retard who wrote:
>There was no heaven, hell or afterlife when you were dead before you were born
If so lol, lmao even.
This isn't plebbit.

>>15039493
Based

>>15039495
Cringe

>>15028618
>Do we really exist in a simulation?
We , the consciousness, don't exist 'in' a simulation technically, we are immersed 'in' one. The consciousness can never be 'in' a simulation because the virtual space is not fundamental, it's emergent from underlying info processing and to reduce computational complexity, is only exists/is rendered/has defined values upon measurement/observation. It would be more accurate to say the simulation of a physical world is' located' 'within' our minds. Consciousness is not a physical object, hence why it is not objectively observable like physical objects (hence why consciousness resists super position and hence why cats can not be dead and alive and hence why pic related was concluded by Schrödinger) and is by definition subjective. The data stream called the physical world is rendered 'in' minds and we interface with it through immersion. Our BODIES are physical/virtual and, as a function of immersion, our consciousness is constrained in some ways by physicality, such as after damage to the virtual brain though.

>>15028618
This
>>15045377
by the way, is where bostrom gets it wrong. He believes that brains create consciousness, and since brains are simulated, then consciousness must also be virtual and simulated as well. This is a physicalist type of simulated reality as opposed to a consciousness based simulated reality. Consciousness is not created by brains. Brains, like all matter, are only rendered upon measurement/observation, at which point they are rendered according to what would be probable to be there. So of the CONTENTS of our consciousness, namely physicality, ARE simulated. But the freewill awareness unit itself, the entity interfacing with physicality is NOT a virtual/emergent thing, it's the fundamental thing. So planck had it right, see picrel.

>>15028618
>What are the implications of that?
The implications of the fact that we are immersed in a reality where physicality is virtual and consciousness is fundamental are manifold. For one, after the consciousness is finished interfacing with the reality with any one particular avatar/body, ie after death, there's no reason to believe that you can't log on to another physical body in this reality/universe or another. Also, consciousness/freewill is an input and can modify the probability of possible future outcomes. This is seen in the placebo effect, where mind and focused intent can effect physicality, in this case physiology, to a degree that can out compete medicine in some cases. This will explain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21cbogJAgjY&t=82s

>>15029245
No, it was earlier than that. Zuse, inventor of the first programmable computer, was the first to elaborate it in detail. Plato and others were on to it much earlier but didn't know about computation yet.

>>15029245
more info on this in picrel. He had the idea of a deterministic cellular automata situation, which is the wrong model, but he was still one of the very first to figure out that the physical world is virtual and emergent from info processing. The idea has been around for a long time. The matrix people didn't think of it, they just popularized it.

>>15030020
Impossible to 'prove' ontological claims from within the reality, but you can look for evidence to inferentially and inductively and abductively draw conclusions. See pic
On Testing the Simulation Theory
http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~owhadi/index_htm_files/IJQF2017.pdf

>>15030037
You are putting physical limitations on the simulator. The whole idea is that physicality is simulated, in which case the physical laws/ruleset of the simulation are specific TO the simulation and are constraints only necessarily constraining physical things. The computation do of which this physical universe is an output of would by definition be outside of the virtual spacetime and non-physical from the point of view of those players immersed in/logged onto the reality. All computation done in the physical world worlds also be done by by this none physical computer. The computation seemingly done by devices constructed by players immersed in the reality, ie physical computers, would in fact not be doing any computation at all. To avoid reduce computational complexity, our reality only gets rendered upon measurement/observation. See picrel here
>>15045432
And so your desk top is the same. All that has to be rendered of your computer is that which your sensual specs are set at. Since our reality is rendered in a multi-fidelity way, if you open up your computer, this insides now have to be rendered to you. At no time though is the computation coming from inside physicality though. The system rendering physicality only simulates the situation AS IF the computation is coming from inside physicality, ie all physical causation is simulated causation. If the players immersed in the reality eventually advance to the point of figuring out how to induce from the system ultimately rendering physicality the apparent computation of computation such as done by our computers, then the renderer will duly render the physical EFFECTS of this computation. This will give you a little insight on the platonic, non-physical computer of all computation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4YIZkskSv4&list=PLQ0PXV3djGQuZJpC99bd6cZIOLnz1BV-w&index=28
I am not saying this is the correct model, but it gives insight into tackling the problem of knowledge of that which is outside physica

>>15032704
It would explain things like wave particle duality, see here
>>15045432
And, since it is looking like it is a consciousness based simulation, given that physicality from the womb to the tomb is only ever experienced as a data stream emergent in minds, then there are implications from that to. Some are explained here
>>15045412
>>15045377
>>15045385
Mainly consciousness becomes fundamental as opposed to physicality. All constraints on consciousness, including the death constrain, then become only functions of temporary immersion.

>>15032716
This, or something like it, tunneling, is addressed here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=1243s

>>15032816
not true, see here
>>15045412
>>15045377
>>15045385
>>15045473
If consciousness isn't 'in' spacetime, ie in the universe/physicality, but is only at times constrained by it and interfacing with it through immersion, and if physicality is actually 'in' minds, which is in fact the only way we ever experience it, then there are implications. For one, when we 'die', that is when our physiology dies, we just log off this particular physical (virtual) avatar/body. No reason that we just can't log on to another body. The reason we can't remember pre-physicality, ie pre-physical existence in terms of interfacing with this particular body, would just be that this is a function of a high level of immersion.

The way I think about it is this:

If we are living in a simulation, then there are truths and facts that cannot be explained, proven or understood. They are the fundamental building blocks of the simulation and they have no cause or explanation (other than "because that's what the developer decided"). Everything else derives from those "truths". Also, true randomness cannot exist in a simulation.

If we are not part of a simulation, then everything can be understood eventually. Everything has a cause, a why and everything can be proven. There are no fundamental truths or building blocks. Instead there's a network of interrelated events. Random events can exist but they do have an explanation.

If it's a simulation, everything is not what it seems. However, a compulsory factor of the simulated phenomenon must seemingly link to the fact it is a simulation. Take the idea of a magnosphere rather than a magnetic field, swooshing, swishing around the planet to generate the projection of a universe.

>>15045385
The backwards gymnastics people will perform to maintain the illusion that their existence is objective is hilarious. You can’t even prove any of this exists, and yet you’re insisting that human existence in particular is somehow fundamental.

>>15045485
>mfw the greeks figured all this out using just geometry and people today -who think they are so advanced because they have an iPhone - are still too stupid to understand it

p good video, always remember NPCs are bad kids and you should mistreat them every chance you get

>>15045509
>true randomness cannot exist in a simulation.
False. True randomness might not exist from the perspective of the *simulator*, but hiding cause from a sim is blindingly easy.

>>15045537
>psychologizing
This is not an argument. Maybe be more specific and point to something I said that is logically or inconsistent or that is contrary to empirical observation. Otherwise your post is just superfluous in terms of a debate and just subjective psychologizing.

>>15045546
You assume a
> freewill awareness unit itself, [an] entity interfacing with physicality
It’s the same arrogance as >>15045495, ignoring the most common simulations (where agents are more like NPCs) in favour of a crappy Sword Art Online-like.

>>15045543
>mfw the greeks figured all this out using just geometry and people today -who think they are so advanced because they have an iPhone - are still too stupid to understand it
It's crazy how advance their though was. Zeno, for instance, new the illogic of physical infinities way back then and that motion made no sense if space were infinitely divisible. He couldn't have know way back then that apparent motion was achieved by screen refresh. This is not to deny math infinities or other things though which are concepts grounded in mind and not in physicality.

>>15045545
I think we're saying the same thing. If it's not random from the simulator's perspective then it's not random whatever those inside the simulation might think. We have no way of knowing that of course so one might argue "what's the point of discussing it then" but it's fun to think about it.

>>15045554
Those are both me. I don't deny NPCs. There are also things like down syndrome people, who have very narrow decision spaces and who, because of the immersive physiologic constraint on consciousness of profound retardation, have less freedom of the will and are more impulsive. These people are freewill awareness units who are more like NPCs. My own will is also constrained by physicality such as in the form of physiologic constraints. The more hungry or thirsty I get, the harder it is to choose not to eat. I still always can choose not to though, right up to and including choosing to starve my self to death or thirst to death. A drug addiction or behavioral addiction also constrains freewill. During addiction the consciousness behaves in a more non-autonomous way. The decision space narrows or is heavily weighted towards continuing the addiction to such a degree that the addict will lie, cheat and steal to maintain it. Even heavily addicted people who have been using drugs for decades still have a decision space of multiple possible choices and still use free will to choose to quit though.

>>15045573
>>15045545
Not that anon but you both are getting right to the interesting questions.

>>15028618
If nothing else, your mental experience of the world is itself a simulation being fabricated by your eyes and ears: This is why things like blindspots and not being able to see as well in loud environments are a thing.

>>15045573
I disagree, I don’t think the subjective facts from one universe have to be present in an objective “lower” one. Saying “it’s not random” doesn’t make sense, you have to qualify it by stating which reality the fact is subject to.
> it’s not random to us
> it’s random to the sim

>>15045594
I see your point. But this brings the conversation to another topic. About whether Truth is subjective or objective. I haven't thought much about this but I think for me it's closer to being objective. There is a truth capable of being explained, even if you don't understand it and even if you have no way of understanding it yet. If for example the simulator decided on something that looks random and without a cause to us, even though we'll never know it, the real truth will be there. Not from our perceptive but from an objective perspective.

>>15045619
> the real truth will be there.
Where?

Just found out we’re deterministic, how do I move forward? I guess I just never thought about it like this before, but the only reason I did anything is because of prior stimuli that motivated me to act that way. And that prior stimuli was influenced by its prior and so on until the creation of the universe. nothings really changed in my life but it also feels really weird. My prior thinking was that you always had a choice but I realize now everyone operates to the best of what they know in the moment

>>15045750
I don’t even see an alternative to this unless anyone has something more convincing. Of course things have always been this way, why wouldn’t they have? Now I don’t know how you even define free will because it makes no sense when you consider how humans act

>>15045700
"There" as in "available to be discovered". As in "exists". In our hypothetical situation, discovering the truth might be impossible because we don't have the means to do so, but in my opinion that wouldn't make it any less true.

>>15045788
It sounds like it’s just a disagreement with the premise.
> some things would be impossible to explain.
> but in my opinion those things will be “there”, aka possible to be explained.
If you qualify those two lines respectively with “..by the sims” and “..by the simulators”, then it sounds much more coherent.

>>15028618
What if we are prisoners serving a virtual sentence like that one episode of Star Trek?

>>15045556
this is what changed my paradigm on everything. When I finally realized our ancient ancestors weren't just superstitious retards the way modern academia tries to teach you, but that they knew for more than modern humans about literally everything. When I started reading their works in their esoteric interpretations, rather than the exoteric it changed everything. Of course the keys to unlock the esoteric meanings were well hidden and it took time crack the codes.

We have been engineered into worker bees and most people are too stupid to figure this out even if you hand them a road map. The Greeks were also correct about hylics/shudra

>>15032716
Seek help

>>15045860
My point is that even if the sims can't explain something, it doesn't mean that it cannot be explained from an objective perspective. In this case, the simulators' perspective must be the "correct" or the objective one because our universe would have been created by them and therefore it would be part of their universe. It would be subject to their laws.

>>15028618
Onviously. Do you know; personally, what space or time are? Do you know what 'is' is? No. Kant addressed them as categories of understanding but the masses still delude themselves by assuming to know anything. The models we call reality are beneath the status of a fantasy, i.e. a make belief, a reproduction or simulation. For all pragmatic purposes nature itself is a seamless chronologically and spatial all encompassing data processing and storage unit; a natural computer. The first and in reality only one. We not only not incidentally make computers but we can
>only
make computers. Because we are both one and in one simultaneously. Nature is one single hardware and we're its software indistinguishable from all else. The sole problem is that the nomenclature is faulty since nature presents as hardware data itself, self organizing across the proverbial board. A software only infinite computer. We're its artifacts.

>>15045948
I disagree, I think the only thing that makes the simulators’ perspective objective is the fact that, collectively, they agree that they created the sim. It’s only subjectively objective, lol.

Giving superiority to a world simply because it believes itself to be better is... well, let me introduce you to some entitled solipsists, and we’ll see whether that turns you off the notion :P

>>15046138
But we're not discussing about something being better or worse. The question here is whether there is an objective truth or not. The simulators would know if they created the simulation or not. If they were real, they would know why certain things that seem random to the sims are they way they are because they were the ones that made them. And therefore, for them, for the simulators, they are not random. And since they are the "creators" they have more information and their truth is more objective and more well informed than the truth of the sims.

To be honest, I don't know how solipsism fits here. I feel like what I am trying to say contradicts the idea of solipsism. Solipsists argue that only one's mind can be known with certainty. That nothing might exists outside one's mind.

What I am trying to say is that even if we don't have all the information yet, there is a truth independent of our current understanding.

>>15028671
As another poster suggested, this is a derivation of Pascal's Wager. It may be possible that there is a heaven and hell, but there is no way of concretely telling which afterlife it is. Thus, arguing in favor of behaving a specific way for the purpose of entering it is a waste of time. It may be that acting in a virtuous way according to Christian theology would in fact harm your chances of making it into the afterlife. Perhaps working to have a better afterlife itself is anathema to heaven.

>>15028871
>> If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you.

This is the most transparent effort to convince popsci idiots to consume and behave.

>>15028675
Exactly. What if God is trying to engineer a perfect being?

>>15028689
How do you know? Have you checked?

>>15030859
Get off this site then and pay your rent faggot

>>15045948
I agree. There could be a situation such as procedural generation and to the players immersed in the reality in might seem random and in practice be unpredictable and certify as random using the players quantification but not truly be random.

>>15046245
> And since they are the "creators" they have more information
More information pertaining to what? To their own world, or the simulated one? Or just overall?

A solipsist is like a simulator, in that they believe everyone else is merely a creation of their own making. You’re correct in saying that your argument contradicts that (as you’re still assuming a shared paradigm for agents to operate within), but you’re also just shifting the solipsistic “belief” from a single person to a single world.
I agree that there’s a truth/reality independent of our current understanding - but I’m also saying there’s multiple truths/realities.

>>15046363
More information regarding the simulation. As in the simulators fully understand how the simulated world works but those living in it do not. For this particular discussion I didn't explore the simulators understanding of their own reality. I see now where our disagreement stemmed from. For this particular "thought experiment" I was just focusing on two realities. The simulated one, about which the simulators know everything, and their own reality about which they know as much as the sims know about theirs. Of course there can be multiple realities and truths but I was only talking about the truth of this particular "simulation"

It's fun to speculate about this kind of thing, but ultimately it's untestable. Although it does raise great points about how our understanding of the universe is probably more related to consciousness, information theory and computability than we'd otherwise thought.

>>15028675
wrong, love is the highest vibration. You are here to learn to love so you can vibrate faster to be less dense and move up to higher lokas

>>15044305
>Newsflash, your entire method of engaging with the universe is based purely on assumptions. The only thing you have is observation
thanks for spitting my point back at me. you're braindead, caught in a loop of subjectivity. "my subjective experience proves my subjective belief to be objective!"
these simulations are designed to function but not to identify truth. you'll never know whether your simulation is accurate or not. could it be? sure. should one claim they're accurate to reality? retard. you genuinely think your basic bitch human observations will lead you to the truth of the entire universe.
let me guess, you're also the type that thinks extraterrestrials from a life origin are guaranteed.

>>15044305
>Newsflash, your entire method of engaging with the universe is based purely on assumptions. The only thing you have is observation
thanks for spitting my point back at me. you're braindead, caught in a loop of subjectivity thinking you can discern objectivity from the only aspects of the world you can perceive.
these simulations are designed to function but not to identify truth. you'll never know whether your simulation is accurate or not. could it be? maybe. should one claim they're accurate to reality? retard. you genuinely think your basic bitch human observations will lead you to the truth of the entire universe.
let me guess, you're also the type that thinks a life origin other than our own is guaranteed.

>>15046433
This is mostly where I stand. The Greeks went through the thick of it because the select few had fuck-all to do but talk and think. We currently live in the dream age where things haven’t been quite solved but you have the chance to put ideas forth. Why should you bother focusing on large questions when their answers are so out of reach and there’s so much in this world to focus on? Maybe these aren’t mutually exclusive for most, but for me I’ve realized philosophy only gets you so far

>>15028618
Nothing..Sim Theory is Sci Fi Theism faggots who think too much

>>15028618
that god is playing the sims in his gaming pc

>this whole place is made-up
>still no gf
I’m going to be pretty mad when I meet this guy.

>>15049254
Why would you be mad about getting free chicken from colonel sanders?

Why is the thought that we do so scary?

This is what openai has to say:

It is indeed interesting to consider the possibility that our universe could be simulated by a slower processor. The concept of simulating a universe has been explored in both science and science fiction, and while it is purely theoretical at this point, it raises many interesting questions about the nature of time and reality.

In a deterministic universe, all events are determined by their causes, and if we had perfect knowledge of the state of the universe at a given time, we would be able to predict all future events with certainty. If such a universe were being simulated by a slow processor, the simulated experience of time for the inhabitants of the universe would be the same as if it were running at a faster speed. In other words, the inhabitants of the simulated universe would not be able to tell the difference between a fast and a slow simulation.

However, it is important to note that this is purely a theoretical concept and there is currently no evidence to suggest that our universe is being simulated in this way.

>>15050119

>>15050413

I just love that modern science doesn't even know what *this* is. Despite all the advances in cosmology, stemmies still can answer the most basic fundamental question. Ya'll are useless and retarded.

>>15050688
What is "this" in that statement?

>>15028671
>get your act together
Rational enough. Can you still continue with the same rationality when answering: in accordance with what?

>>15028618
time dilation is just a way to keep processing power needed to run the sim low.

>>15028618
We do not exist in a simulation. You exist in a simulation, and they exist in a simulation.
>>15050688
this is language

>>15045879
>When I started reading their works in their esoteric interpretations, rather than the exoteric it changed everything
Redpill me, also quick reading list?

>>15028618
I'll just leave this here.

>What are the implications
Our universe is just very sophisticated trolling. Don't take it too seriously. Some people like Terry Pratchett probably realized it. In fact most people can feel it but only a few choose to admit it. I personally choose to not become a nihilist because where's the fun ? Might as well play the game until the end.

>>15052698
>pic

Why does that happen?

>>15054096
Nobody knows.
>Don't take it too seriously

Simulation theory is interesting to think about but in the end it doesn’t really matter. It’s just another way to attempt to explain the unexplainable. We’re stuck in some reality and have limits based on what we can truly know.

Imagine if we did live in a simulation made by higher beings, and we at some point learned to make simulations for our benefit. You could of course trace this process back forever. So it again leaves us with more questions than answers. Fun to think about but I’m already starting to feel the mindfuck.

>>15054166
It's a black box. Descartes demonstrated sensorial input was entirely unreliable as a means to apprehend what we refer vaguely enough as "reality". His Meditations are all that's required to refute the ridiculously labeled "simulation theory" or - if one so chooses - to decisively confirm it.

>>15052563
https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>15054585
>indemonstrable
>science

>>15054585
>he stopped namefagging
Good for you.

>>15028671
Thank goodness I washed my penis and cleaned my room

>>15028618
your existence is irrelevant in both cases so why sweat about it?

>>15049745

Sister, why would you be scared? It means its a videogame. Once dead, you'll return to your real life. And then you'll choose another life in this same or another dimension. Just for fun.

>>15054765
Why would I have chosen this life for fun

Be afraid when we manage to simulate a cell.

>>15055702
We're born and die in one. It's a black box.

>>15030172
I dont hate le god, I hate theists.

>>15054899

It's like a roguelike game. You don't know what you're getting when you log in. Tbh 90% of people have a normal life so the chances are that.

>>15055702
>>15055863
Why? What will happen when we simulate a cell?

>>15054619
>most people are too stupid to figure this out even if you hand them a road map

>>15028618
For now... I'm working on breaking us out. I just need 20 years and I can start fucking with the world monitors.

>>15056550
what would we do when we get out of the simulation?

>>15056711
It's impossible. It's a black box. You will
>never
leave it and you
>never
entered it.
As PKD delve into, memories are ultimately indistinguishable from an outright fabrication (i.e "reality" is as unverifiable as a "simulation"); thus turning any ultimate assessing of an ontological instance impossible. Naturally, as I already stated, Descartes himself demonstrated this beyond reproach. His sole error was to give the status of that very reality to the "I" (the thinker) instead of realising (as did phenomenologists) that only what computer scientists (tomorrow's real physicists) would call software, and that there cannot (ever, beyond another simulation called representation, as in a scientific experiment) be any (ultimately provable) "hardware". Reality is, as Einstein reminded us (he knew he was merely quoting) but a persistent dream.

bump

>>15056897
?

The metaphysical route ends like this: there is existence. Any description of existence is loaded with assumptions that can not be falsified.

However, within the paradigm of how we function in society, we assume for example, despite the NPC meme, that all humans are conscious like ''I'' think I am, because others act like the conscious ''I''.

Likewise, if the existence that ''I'' perceive is like a simulation, it seems reasonable to assume that I am in a simulation. Donkey Kong does not know about pixels, bits or computers, but he can reasonably suspect and assume he's a character in a story.

>>15057880
Assumption is diametrical to assessment.

>>15028618
>What are the implications of that?
Basically this entire board is wrong in everything they claim.

>>15028618
The "simulation" argument is made by lazy faggots that pretend to be smart. There is no proof that we are in a simulation, so pretending that we are in a simulation just because we can't prove it to be totally false is gay.

Saying random shit because it technically can't be outright proven false yet can't be proven true is a waste of time and energy and you should stop doing that.

>>15054585
Sir, this is the Science board.

>>15028618
The simulation hypothesis assumes materialism, which is a dumb metaphysics, since it can not acvount for consciousness.

Moreover, it doesn't solve anything. Who created the ones who simulated us?

>>15038633
Demoralization

>>15055979
My run is average. How many more do I need to get a top 1% run?
>>15052698
interesting
probability that collapses when observed
very odd

life is boring but so is the alternative

>>15033291
>Hegelian/informational based theories to handle the problem of the noumenal/phenomenal
Please for the love of god don't read anything to do with Hegel.
>§87] But this mere Being, as it is mere abstraction, is therefore the absolutely negative; which, in a similarly immediate aspect, is just Nothing.
>(1) Hence was derived the second definition of the Absolute; the Absolute is Nought. In fact this definition is implied in saying that the thing-in-itself is the indeterminate, utterly without form and so without content, -- or in saying that God is only the supreme Being and nothing more; for this is really declaring Him to be the same negativity as above. The Nothing which the Buddhists make the universal principle, as well as the final aim and goal of everything, is the same abstraction. [ibid. p.161]

Here the argument is that, because the concept of Being is very abstract and so without much content (a privation), it is rather like the concept of Not Being, also without much content, which means that it implies Not Being, so that things of which Being is predicated, like the Absolute, must also be predicated with Not Being. This is like an argument that because fire engines are red, and red is rather like pink, therefore fire engines are pink.

How any sane, let alone sensible, person could take such an argument seriously is astonishing. "Nothing" is similar in content to "Being" just because it is the negation of Being, just as the Null Set (Λ) is the negation, the complement, of the Universal Set. This implies nothing. The idea that the negation of a concept applies equally to that of which the concept can be predicated would simply erase the Law of Non-Contradiction.

A simulation cannot be a viable explanation of the world, for the simple reason that you are working from a materialistic presuppositions, hence like the previous cosmological proofs of the past, you are trying to find a sufficient reason for the universe by means of identifying a first cause. A first cause is as inconceivable as a first point in space, cause only applies to matter, space and time are known prior(a priori) to experience. Causality is just alterations of matter, and only apply to how we view the world and aren't applicable to 'transcendental' knowledge, any thing that use discursive abstract reasoning by means of concepts already presupposes concepts formed from intuitive perception. We see the world held in space and time as our representation, it is our way of cognizing the world, this is why events like the big bang which are 'acausal' stupefy us, it's simply because we cannot find transcendental truths.
Since the way we cognize the world has a plurality of objects, we know that the world independent of us cognizing it must singular; hence it must be the fundamental force that manifests things such as gravity, and we can name this 'will' or brahma as the Indians call it.
Just read The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer, he was read by Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrodinger and Einstein, in fact he predicted Darwinism and mass-energy equivalence And read Schrodinger's 'The world as I see it', and Bernado Kastrup Science Ideated and Decoding Schopenhauer's metaphysics .

>>15056550

>>15059334
I read Jurassic Park and Ian Malcolm says philosophy is dead.

>>15028618
OP asks of we really
>exist
and mistakenly
>exits
the very question with subsequent elaboration.
Just as a "fictional" character may be fully realised in his "fictional" "world" we find our own predicament to be a matter of managing to
>exist
i.e. fully realise oneself, or not. Most fail to acknowledge it, let alone succeed at the ungrateful task. This century is the manifestation of hollow, weak, meaningless and mindless characters in "fiction" fundamentally because the writers and overall makers of these "fictions" are themselves equally poorly put together by themselves. This century aims at essence without existence; a mediocre past error which had more creative attempts also. In sum, OP, not only you're a faggot yourself; but all OPs are faggots.

>>15059708
Maybe life is just like No Exit

I think we live in something between nothing and simulation. The physics having solid rules and being precisely repeatable should be a hint.
If you really except alien computer then that's just silly

>>15059038
imagine being this stupid and calling other people retarded. no one makes claims without evidence. even if their evidence turns out to be false. claiming people just something up when you don't even know the first thing about what you are talking about is peak moron.
>i have looked into this enough to know what the arguments are so i will just say they made it all up
i can't even fathom how the mind of someone this stupid functions on a day to day basis

>>15060194
*haven't looked

fucking phone

>>15028618

>>15059043
>most people are too stupid to figure this out even if you hand them a road map

>>15028618
https://www.gwern.net/Simulation-inferences

>>15028618
It's possible that civilization will be deleted once it takes up too many computational resources.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/katechon/

>Abstract: A corollary of the Simulation Argument is that the universe’s computational capacity may be limited. Consequently, advanced alien civilizations may have incentives to avoid space colonization to avoid taking up too much “calculating space” and forcing a simulation shutdown. A possible solution to the Fermi Paradox is that analogous considerations may drive them to avoid broadcasting their presence to the cosmos, and to attempt to destroy or permanently cripple emerging civilizations on sight. This game-theoretical equilibrium could be interpreted as the “katechon” – that which withholds eschaton – doom, oblivion, the end of the world. The resulting state of mutually assured xenocide would result in a dark, seemingly empty universe intermittently populated by small, isolationist “hermit” civilizations.

>>15028618
I would rather ask what exactly a simulation of this magnitude really "is". I´m not surpised that reality fundamentally acts like a computer program... but this doesn`t mean god is watching us with his dick in his hand.

>>15030037
you doubt it anon yet you're wasting your own finite resources (money) on electricity to post here and watch tranny chinese cartoons

if consciousness here can emerge that is deranged like you anon, then who says that it can't emerge up there in less degenerate and yet similarly interested in not too pointful things aswell

>>15060928
That's interesting. Possible is the operative, if not operatic, word, though.

>>15028689
>>15036738
it's 50/50
either we live in a simulation or we don't
duh

>>15029245
solipsism is older than your nan, dumb newnonce

>>15033279
I must be a humongous faggot IRL (IRL) if this is the one I chose. What a gay fucking game.

>>15032761
So that means I can clip-walk through my own brain and enter... the back rooms of my brain.

Your own happiness might be beyond your potential as a human being.

>>15028618
>did the person who invented college go to college? hmm OK then...

>>15061495
Why do you think that?

>>15028618
No. We don't live in a simulation.

>>15028618
There's 0 implications from that, it is literally meaningless whether we do or don't exist in a simulation

>>15028618
Why does it matter? You exist one way or the other, if you are simulated, what changes?

>>15029245
>Descartes got his ideas from The Matrix

>>15062583
Descartes was a midwit dualist fag.

My response to a thread elsewhere about the stable diffusion debacle. It couldn't get posted due to janjans homosexuality. It fits here.

>>15064054
The second half.

>>15045874
Guess I’ll kms then.

>>15033650
You wouldn't, because for your consciousness you'd have that beautiful memory. And you could go back and relive all of it by getting back in the simulation again(reload the save)

>>15028618
Sort of. We aren't physically in some Matrix pods as batteries, but most of our reality is not what we believe it to be.

Quality and truth is rare in the human universe, and even on an anonymous board that idolizes things like IQ, we prefer our cognitive biases to truth.
In a dystopian perspective black pill, the human experience is in many ways one big 'rhetorical question'. It's like when your wife is in a bipolar shitty mood and says something ridiculous. You prove your IQ and competence NOT by answering her with a correct answer NOT by correcting her, but by agreeing with the wrong answer or distracting/gaslighting/triggering a different emotional bias from her, etc... Even if you make a worse sausage sandwich or take her directions into heavier traffic when she disagrees with the driving app... Human universe is a rhetorical question... She will make your sandwich or your drive a bit worse if you submit to her erroneous ways, but she will ruin your evening if you explain why she's wrong.
Human life is like surfing or something. Being cowabunga cool, while navigating NPC vibes to properly wield power, and respond agreeably to power and norms and biases. Life is mostly a rhetorical question.
Even in a culture of science, even in a university or career... Unless you are privately working at something extremely competitive, difficult and performance dependent as positive expectation gambler, or small time investor, where something depends on actual right/wrong answers, then you are playing in a rhetorical universe.
That rhetorical universe as well as humans cognitive weakness (although we are extremely intelligent on paper/ in terms of straight thinking, we are much dumber when cognitive biases are exploited). This weakness is why men figured out how to manipulate other men including 'Simulating' reality to the point it is today with a rhetorical reality.

I like to think It's simulations all the way down.

>>15065963
at the top is a giant white penis because god is white

>out of the tends of thousands of years of history you just happen to be born in the exact moment of the invention of the internet and the rise of AI
>add to that the billions of years of natural history that had to happen to get to this point
>this happened just out of chance ok

yeah sure thing bro

>>15028618
Imagine being simulated to be a fagot.

>>15068255
Just respawn as a new character

>>15068101
if you are in simulation how do you know any history is real and not just bullshit the sim made up when you were inserted or awakened or spawned or w/e you want to call it dipshit? jfc does anyone on this board besides me have a triple digit IQ?

>>15069546
Who comes up with the history if it's not real? Who writes it?

Can dreams become sentient? Cause I had a lucid one last night and the girl I was raping started fighting back and people were filming/trying to help her. I had to fly away before I could cum.

>>15062747
How would you know, Mr. Anderson?

>>15064207
Stream it!

>>15046433
>>15047412
What makes it untestable? Surely there's some way to tell

>>15028654
>Perhaps, im surprised how no one brings up how fucky quantum mechanics are and how it might just be software glitching at very small scales
Could also be a feature not a bug. i.e. things like mac "time machine" software do "copy on write". The backup at time X is just the same data - only when you write to it does it backup the old copy, hence copy on write. It's a performance optimization, only do it when necessary, leave a stub otherwise. That's analogous to "collapse wave on observation" would also make sense as an optimization.

I also like to think the gravity-time association is due to time being slowed down by an overload of particle interactions, as if only so many can occur per clock cycle.

>>15028618
i certainly don't, i only exist in your imagination

>>15072857
Why does /sci/ exist in our imaginations?

>>15070873
wdym?
the history is real, but the universe was made last thursday
ya smell me?

>>15037640
What happens if someone with an absolutely miserable dumpster fire of a life experiences NDE? Does this mean they purposefully designed their life to be that way?

>>15045495
If immersion is critical to upholding the simulation then why have we been given the ability to reason thar it all might be fake? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the simulation?

>>15028618
The implication is that you and the rest of the technocratic-myth-gobbling soience cult need to kill yourselves to escape the simulation. It's the only way. Elon approves.

Here's an interesting observation.
Our definition of God warps over time with technological progress, and we eventually model human civilization to fit this image. Early man saw God as a hunter and a warrior (pagan cultures), then as a kind of tribal chieftain (Abrahamic religion), then as a clockmaker (the enlightenment), and now he's a quantum computer (simulation theory)

> Do we really exist in a simulation?
No, this is really Antarctica

>>15028618
Nielson-Ninomiya theorem disproves the possibility
The universe can not be simulated on any universal Turing machine

>>15036738
It's literally mathematically impossible for us to live in a simulation you ignoramus

>>15028736
Acid can change your perception of time.

>>15051538
The experience we are experiencing.

"But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

>>15075810
Do they have unique IDs and created_at timestamps?

>>15028618
Joe, it's OK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cApwrgG_UA

bump

>>15043443
I "die" every night in my sleep and I can tell you there isn't "nothing." Your friend is probably an NPC

>>15032716
are you turning just your head or your entire body side to side?

How do we access the debug console of the simulation?

>>15075507
>mathematically impossible
nothing is mathematically impossible

>>15078699
Wrong

>>15045432
limits like pixels of numbers precision are only known to us and are our own problems, it's silly you want to use this as any proof for actual universe

>>15045464
>if you open up your computer, this insides now have to be rendered to you
Horseshit, yet somehow computer is doing all these heavy calculations and displaying things on your monitor even if you dont "open the case"

Same way radiation in different frequencies is hitting you from inside the case, causing you to "observe" inside of the case without actually seeing it with your own eyes, if you want to talk about simulation first stop implying quantum mechanics is real because it's bigger meme than the whole simulation theory itself

>>15028618
Simulation Hypothesis: assumes that your observations have an ontological overhead: supercomputer, civilization that built the sim and computer, etc
Base Reality Hypothesis: makes no such ontological overhead assumptions

By Occam's Razor, the simulation hypothesis is thrown out.

>>15075031
so the history had to be written/created by simulator anyway, same thing, ya smell.

>>15043432
>ndes are delusions of your brain trying to rationalize your imminent demise
This, the brain lies to itself, how many times you had dream you thought was real then you woke up and realized how retarded it was? The same thing happens, your brain becomes so retarded it believes more than it actually does.
You only know you don't know because your brain knows you don't know.

>>15078727
only pseuds think Occam's razor can be used to derive any meaningful conclusions. It assumes you are intimately familiar with the topic, which is rarely the case, and even then is just a guide, not a definitive elimination

>>15078727
>Occam's Razor

>>15078870
you can replace "occam's razor" with "this is my best guess based on what I know" and literally nothing would be lost in the translation.

This idiot assumes that the information he possess is any way significant or complete and that even if it was his best guess is means anything to people who actually know what they are talking about.

>>15072380
I assume it's something like string theory or artificial wormholes . Stuff that is theoretically possible like maxing out the ram in the universe causing a system reset or something or creating a black hole to another universe but We need another thousnd years of technology progress

>>15079009
What happens to us if there's a stack overflow in the simulation?

>>15079032
I assume if the universe is a giant computer then it's designed with safeguards. If it can handle stars 1000 times larger than our sun exploding then there's probably nothing we could easily to overflow the universe I don't know maybe release nano greygoo into the universe or something

Maybe there are aliens above aliens that keep track of the time lines and the universe and make sure that things More or less workout while the universe is in run mode

>>15078952
>>15078845
what information did I invoke, or fail to invoke, that you think changes the conclusion that you're not in a computer simulation?
I can give more arguments but they aren't as simple.
If you have an issue with Occam's Razor, then here's its updated formalization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZjmFEHTJM
>>15078870
Christ is King.

>>15079149
it is implied mouth breather

>>15079032
NPCs start getting deleted

>>15065963
It's physically impossible for that sort of data computation to exist.

>>15080178
>impossible
>in an universe where talking atoms are chatting on 4chan

>>15028618
the world is a mental construct, an illusionary collective dream

>>15075312
intradasting, in the future will God be a traveler, a Johnny Appleseed spreading life between the stars? Maybe over time our idea of "God" moves closer to the reality.

>>15080521
you mean a nightmare

>>15081660
you mean a nightmare

>>15033722
your feeble imagination can't even come up with something that is not related to our reality

>>15033736
nice fanfic

>>15040863
schizo shit

>>15039476
dreams are real
simulations are real
they are concepts and the latter can be physical so they are in fact real. it doesnt have to be tangible to be real

>>15040637
defeats the purpose of the site.

>>15081660
everything and anything is possible in dream worlds

>>15061353
The simulation theory has nothing to do with solipsism.

>>15062583
He was an idealist which is not the same thing as reality being a computer simulation, which is materialistic.

>>15032761
There are many other explanation for optical illusions other than this universe being simulated.

>>15037637
Anecdotes of NDE don't prove anything. You're assuming that people are experiencing reality vividly when they're dying and that they're accurately recalling what they experienced. Do people teleport to a different dimension when they dream or does their brain just make it up?

>>15052698
1) Particles don't act like particles when they're "seen", they act like particles when they're interacted with.
2) Even if particles behaved differently because they were seen, this is not evidence in favour of the simulation hypothesis.

>>15065963
Is it done by loops or recursion?

The fundamental building blocks of reality are information anyway, so does it really matter?

>>15043455
Collision detection is not continuous, it happens at discrete non-deterministic intervals. You're technically phasing through the simulation constantly but the simulation compensates for this by adjusting positions proportionally based on mass. At a high enough velocity/energy getting stuff to phase through is really trivial, academics naively call this "quantum tunneling" based off their misunderstanding of reality. The trick to phase with macroscopic low-velocity entities is to exploit the compensation of the collision detection. This is why I engage in non-axis aligned collision at the point where three right-angles come together (a corner). With enough attempts eventually the macroscopic object will be phased back and forth between two or three axis as the simulation tries to correct the position, but ends up kicking you out of the geometry entirely. It's theorized that there exist another spatial dimension outside the simulation geometry allowing for traversal between the "geometry voids".

>>15077824
Your entire body

>>15084043
>The fundamental building blocks of reality are information anyway
Explain pls

>>15081904
then why is there a field for it? using a name allows you to easily find previous threads/posts and on a site filled with glowniggers trying to brainwash people 24/7 it handy to be able to look up and re-post you dunking on them rather effort posting the same thing 500 times because they wont stop lying and they are always looking for a new person to lie too. You have to educate the collective, not just the person. When every single person can say "that's bullshit, you are liar and have been debinked x amount of times," then you have beat them

>>15084207
can you film it next time and post it here? I want to see your technique

>>15075279
As a devil's advocate, suffering builds perspective. If you were an enlightened being, wouldn't you want to see what suffering was about?

bump

>>15028618
no