/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16007668
100%. It’s reddit creationism

>>16007668
No it's technical analogy for the inexplicable, Descartes did it with levers and gears because that was the high tech of their day, people just do the same now with computers and programs

"There's a god" or "there might be a god" is a little different to "there is a God and his name is YHWH and he commands that you cut off your foreskin. Actually he knocked up a young girl and the resultant holy offspring has said that he changed his mind on that. Also it's now ok to eat pork but you still have to beat your children and pay the pope". The latter is religion, the former is just an ontological belief.

"We might be living in a simulation" is only religion when it comes with a whole lore and contrived moral framework. Oh, and we can't leave out the institution peddling dogmatic nonsense, using people's shame and existential fears to manipulate them to effect its perpetuation.

Special retard prize to the first idiot who takes this as a defence of simulation theory

>>16007713
It's not a "technical analogy", unless you think God is also a "technical analogy". It posits that we are living in a computer program, and that there is a real world which we are not in, and that there is a programmer, who is totally not God but may as well be.

>>16007668
Factually incorrect.
To qualify as a religion you would have to worship something and believe said something's words as absolute moral laws. Which doesn't apply to simulation theory.
Schizos interestingly enough are actually onboard the simulation train too, they just believe the hypothetical supercomputer that's generating the physical reality is their godlike "higher-self".

>>16007668
Simulation theory is a theory. Religion is not a theory, it's a claim

>>16007668
yes and?

>>16007737
Wrong. Religion is re-ligation with the divine.

>>16007668
That is not a religion, that is a cult. A religion requires a re-ligation with the divine. Simulation theory doesn't even require the existence of a divine being, even less any kind of covenant with the divine.

>>16007810
>requires a re-ligation
What if you are...greater?

Unlike all of you mortal-humans I expressedly brought something new to heaven, not where I get "paid".

>>16007737
simulation theory is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. proponents just call it a theory to make it sound better, similar to string "theorists".

>>16007668
kinda but not exactly. It came first, religions were built from "simulation theory" (Platonism). Simulation theory is just a throwback to what has always been known by the wise

>>16007821
I'm religious.

>>16007668
What's scientific about it?

>>16007820
It is falsifiable.
If matter is simulated that means it does not have an independent (real) property but that its current property is entirely dependent on something else.
Find that something else and demonstrate acts that are considered "magical" such as conjuring anything from nothing or transmuting any matter to another..etc., just like in a video game, would be considered adequate proof.
So yes it is falsifiable, but proving it would be quite challenging.

>>16007820
>unfalsifiable
There's no reason to believe that's the case. Maybe we can't test it right now, but we still have millions of years ahead of us, if not billions. It doesn't rely on supernatural beings or magic or anything

>God made the universe using christian magic
>God coded the universe using kendashev scale VII computer science skills

>>16007668
As are anthropic arguments in cosmology.

>>16007668
Why are the people who say this sort of thing generally themselves religious? You are using "religion" as a slur. But you are religious! If you thought religion was a good thing, you would be praising this tendency. Instead you are criticizing it. That implies that you do know that religion is a vice. That speaks to your hypocrisy.

always has been

>>16007897
One requires magic, the other doesn't

>>16008006
your understanding of real life magic comes from anime and movies of tolkien.

>>16007668

>Believing you can simulate a universe worth of matter and energy with a smaller amount of matter and energy

Nobody actually believes this, right?

Has the understanding of basic physics really fallen this much?

>>16007952
>using "religion" as a slur
How so?

>>16008039
God's computer is not a von neyman machine.

>>16008039
Astronomical models doesn't need to account for the movement of space ants on invisible planets in other galaxies, or even the invisible planets.

>>16007668
but we do live in a simulation?

>>16008044

Oh, you poor retard. I suggest you take the rope

>>16008073
Literally nothing we can observe would be different if a space ant in another galaxy is crawling moving or not. You're fucking insane lmao.

>>16008075

>Postulating that only our solar system is being simulated therefore it is possible

And you call me insane. What's it like to ignore reality?

>>16008098
What's it like to be illiterate?

>>16007996
>was
*might have been.
Important distinction

>>16007820
If humans create an ancestor simulation it proves we are in a similar simulation. Then when you realize by asking the question "Do we live in a simulation" you start a chain of events that can end only one way, in us trying to make our own simulation as it's the only way to be sure.

Once the question is asked, it must be answered. So we will eventually make an ancestor simulation and prove we ourselves are simulated or we will spend many years trying and failing, thus proving we do not live in a simulation since it's impossible to make one. Pretty simple actually.

>I question if my reality is a simulation, thus my descendants will eventually attempt to prove/disprove this theory by creating a simulation.

The wheels were set in motion thousands of years ago and in the next 100 years we will have the tech to try.

>>16008039
Let me guess you think the Minecraft server generates an infinite amount of voxels the second your game boots up for the first time? Let me guess, you think that's air you're breathing?

We literally know nothing about "The Universe" or even our solar system except for minuscule amounts of low resolution data feed into computers. It would take more CPU power to simulate all the fish in the ocean than all the data we receive from "space". Not to mention that simulating the complexity of a single human mind likely takes more resources than simulating everything Hubble has ever "seen". All you got was a basic bitch data stream, no need for all those galaxies to be 1:1 simulations 100,000,000 light years away, only the Hubble data stream which literally fits on some bull shit hard drives in some basement at NASA.

Visual observation of deep space objects or say Jupiter wouldn't use any more resources rendering said planets into your visual stream than rendering a waterfall or a Taylor Swift concert. If we assume everyone else at the Tay concert is a real simulated brain or even an NPC brain the concert would be many fold more complex to simulate.

>>16007734
>To qualify as a religion you would have to worship something
The object of worship is the simulation and programmer.
>believe said something's words as absolute moral laws
Wrong.

Look at it like this, all the data, aka all known knowledge about space, fits on computers we now have. That's how little we know and how simple the data is. You can't fit a single human mind on all the computers on Earth combined, but there exist computer systems that allow you to see everything every telescope has ever seen all combined into a single sky image that can be browsed and zoomed in. The Universe is basically static with a few exceptions, it would be trivial for the simulation to do the physics math to plot these objects as they move.

I'm working on a paper about Simulation Theory and so far I am attacking it from two core directions. Empirical physics/science and philosophy/metaphysics. I'm developing experiments and means to test the simulation like over taxing the processor power and trying to observe the simulation attempt to correct itself. I predict that were you about to somehow break the simulation or basically DDOS the CPU some magic coincidence would happen to stop you. Like the paradox of time travel where you won't be allowed to change the future even if you can travel into the past. For instance were humans to become intergalactic as a species it would likely crash the simulation. launching self replicating strong AI drones into space would also start a chain of events that populate the Milky Way forcing the simulation to render 100's of millions of worlds in super high definition, this would likely be impossible and force the simulation to not allow the first probe to be sent.

>>16008648
Don’t, that’s a stupid paper unless you’re a literature major (if you are, then whatever, who cares). There’s a logical difference between arguing for a simulation vs arguing against an idiot like this guy >>16008039 >>16008098 who thinks a butterfly on a different planet affects the weather on ours

>>16008630
>Wrong.
Which organization that is considered a religion does not advocate a set of moral code of what their followers ought to do in life, based on divine authority.

Oh man... People actually don't understand simulations. Computers are not magic, you cannot simulate a molecule with less than a molecules worth of resources. If you believe in simulation theory your are literally retarded.

This is just religious copium for brainlets

>>16008856
I could simulate every molecule in the universe by ignoring the ones you’ll never see or be affected by

>>16008858
This, game rendering 101.
Also if this is a simulation, just experimenting in it are not going to somehow allow you to estimate what are the physical limits of the "real world".

>>16008871
This is a crazy one when you think that even your phenemonlogy might be defined by the simulation and that things like 3 space and time don't exist for our creators or are drastically different (oh shit it really is religion)

>>16008881
>oh shit it really is religion
Answer >>16008802, where are the commandments.

the map is not the territory
/thread

>>16008883
I was mostly joking it has some features of religion and serves some of the same purposes but op is too retarded to understand what a technical analogy is

>>16008888
Okay, but just to further point out how retarded OP's statement is.
The defining characteristics of religion is the surrendering one's will to a "higher" authority, that's it.
For example, subscribing to the current scientific view that the world is created through the 4 fundemental forces, is not a religion. But if a physicist comes running out of a lab telling you how you ought to live your life because of what he calculated from the 4 forces, on the bases that you are created from the 4 forces, then physics just became a religion.
Another example. A famous/powerful person decide to tell others how to live their life, and people who worship him do exactly as he says no questions asked. That also becomes a religion, no existential related matter needed.
With regard to the simulation theory. Believing in the possibility this is all a simulation and there is some creators "out there" is not in itself a religion. Believing you ought to submit your will to the authority of said creators on the bases they created you is.

>>16008883
>>16008802
What are the commandments for Gnosticism? Where are the commandments for Taoism? Where are the commandments for Shintoism?
Answer: there are none because religion is a belief system, not an ethical system.

>>16008039
>what are fractals

>>16009024
>not an ethical system.
Of course it is. Ontology (description of what is reality fundamentally) suggests a differentiation in values which informs decision-making. For example if our ontology = gnosticism = we live in Plato's Cave ruled by a demiurge then this suggests that the highest value is directing our desires, thoughts and actions towards exiting the Cave towards the beyond.

NTA.

>>16009024
>>16009052
And by the way don't be so foolish to say that descriptions of what is can be seperated from values. That's worshipping a religion called scientism and ignorant beyond belief. Descriptions of reality and values are entangled so no: simulation hypothesis is not ethically neutral.

>>16007668
>but for scientists
you mean pop soientists?

>>16009058
>don't be so foolish to say that descriptions of what is can be seperated from values
You are the one been foolish.
Values are always subjective. Prove there are objective values.

>>16009024
>Gnosticism
>Taoism
>Shintoism
Are you trying to say none of these sects have moral laws telling their followers what they should value and how they should live their lives.

>>16009067
>Values are always subjective. Prove there are objective values.
You're imposing a double standard because if you want to go this route then you first have to prove that descriptions of what is are more objective than a consensus between subjects. Next you will need to appeal to superior validity, reliability and accuracy of scientific narratives compared to other narratives like religion and ethics.

First of all that appeal is still a consensus between subjects because objectivity is obviously oxymoronic: knowledge of what is independent from the subject). Secondly values do have the rigor of being demonstrably valid, reliable and accurate by experiment and observation: all human bodies are fundamentally machines that maximize what they desire and minimize what they don't desire. This makes human decision-making and resulting behaviour predictable. Therefore values are not any more or less subjective/objective than descriptions of what is.

>>16009118
>you first have to prove
I don't have to prove anything, it's self evident everybody can value things different.
>all human bodies are fundamentally machines that maximize what they desire and minimize what they don't desire
Except there is nothing that is universally desired or isn't desired by everybody without exception. Therefore nothing is objectively valued.
Also >>16009072.
Any belief/theory that do not explicitly state moral guidelines is not religious, period. There is no implicit value in the description of things. Any value implications derived from descriptions is purely your own subjective valuation.

If you are going to argue that descriptions of what is cannot be seperated from values, then please, by all means derive a set of moral values for us here from the current physics models. Please tell me how does e=mc2 objectively translate into how I should live my life. Let's hear it.

>>16007714
>OP says nothing about Christ or Judaism
>brings up the Judeo-Christian God anyway
Why are you retards like this? If anything, that none of you jackasses can live your lives without obsessing about the Judeo-Christian God is the best evidence for him.

>>16009140
>none of you jackasses can live your lives without obsessing about the Judeo-Christian God
Same reason why I can't stop obsessing about noise from neighbours 3 in the morning.
Cause they can't shut up about it.

>>16009135
>it's self evident everybody can value things different.
You're switching between statements that are not interchangeable. Claiming that values are subjective is different from claiming that people can have different values. In both cases you're ignoring all the values that all people in all places at all times have in common.
>Except there is nothing that is universally desired or isn't desired without exception.
This is so retarded that I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of your post.

>>16009024
top tier levels of retarded, congratulations

>>16009146
>Claiming that values are subjective is different from claiming that people can have different values
Things do not have value if there is no one around to value them?
Please, I'm still waiting for you to demostrate assigning moral values through pure physics descriptions.
>>>Except there is nothing that is universally desired or isn't desired without exception.
Nothing retarded about this obvious truth. The fact you can't even provide a single counter example other than impotent seeth says all.

>>16008618
or we just don't make a simulation because doing so would be exceedingly difficult even for a type II civilisation. DEVS is an awesome show but it is fictional.

>>16008618
Not to mention it would be incredibly unethical. creating a simulation would mean you'd have to keep it running nonstop, or you'd be committing an act of omnicide.

>>16009231
>unethical
Nothing unethical about shutting off your video game.

>>16008908
>The defining characteristics of religion is the surrendering one's will to a "higher" authority, that's it.
That's the defining characteristic of ISLAM, you absolute retard, not of religion in general. Religion is origin myth.

>>16009261
>"Not my will, but yours be done"
Just Islam is it.

>>16008039
It doesn't need to, it doesn't even render states for quantum particles until theyre observed. 99.999% of the universe could be a clever LOD system and there's no way for us to know any different

Let’s create the artificial language, then.

>>16009341
>I don't know that Islam literally means submission, but my retarded non sequitur is so heckin valid that I can't help posting it!
Every discussion on the internet

>>16008075
yes it would just on small scale, which scientists mistake for cosmic background / uncertanity principle / quantum foam

>>16009370
>aRe yOu sayiNg IslAm is noT a reliGion tHat deMand submiSsion to goD's wiLl???
Do you even understand logic? Or can you just not read?

>>16009386
You really think any of this word vomit contains logic?
>aRe yOu sayiNg IslAm is noT a reliGion tHat deMand submiSsion to goD's wiLl???
>>"Not my will, but yours be done"
>Just Islam is it.

>>16009443
Do you have the IQ of a preschooler? Let me spell it out for you then.
>Me: the defining characteristics of religion is the surrendering one's will to a "higher" authority, that's it.
>You: that's just Islam
>Me: see this iconic Christian quote by Jesus? -"Not my will, but yours (God) be done", clearly not just Islam
>You: say what? you don't know think Islam is a religion about submission???
>Me: you are retarded

>>16009471
>Me: the defining characteristics of religion is the surrendering one's will to a "higher" authority, that's it.
>You: that's just Islam
Oh, so you literally can't read.

You gave a retarded definition of religion and I corrected you. The defining characteristic of religion is an origin myth. Your retarded "surrendering" definition is the actual definition of Islam. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

>>16009495
>The defining characteristic of religion is an origin myth
>Your retarded "surrendering" definition is the actual definition of Islam
Your room temperature IQ is literally based around memorizing textbook definitions and it's showing.
Aligning your will to the will of your metaphysical better is the de facto defining characteristic of religion.
You can have all the origin myth you want but if there is no push to worship and do the will of your god there is not going to be a religion, period.

>>16009514
>Aligning your will to the will of your metaphysical better is the de facto defining characteristic of religion
Asserting a nonsense definition over and over again doesn't make it any more valid.
Let me guess. You think there have only ever been three religions in world history?

>>16009140
If that's really the best then I think His non-existence is blatantly obvious.

>>16009525
Quote a world religion that only have your precious origin myth but does not involve a set of moral guide line validated by the will of an entity that "knows better" and pushed by its priesthood.
I'll wait.

>>16007668

Simulation theory is religion for retards.

You cannot simulate a universe with less than a universe worth of resources. Once you point this out simulation copetards immediately move the goalposts.

>Bbbbut only what we see is being simulated

They literally ignore reality. Their only hope is the rope

>>16009537
Pretty much every polytheistic religion. From Egypt to Greece to Rome to the local European religions that are now umbrellaed into paganism.

>>16009543
The last NPC reply like yours >>16008039 was utterly destroyed, fyi.

>>16009549

Cope more, retard

Go ahead and simulate a particle for me using less than a particle to do it. Oh, and before you move the goalposts to justify your religion, go touch grass and exist in reality for a few moments

>>16009559
You're the retard. I actually agree with this
>Simulation theory is religion for retards.
But your argument here is complete horse shit
>cannot simulate a universe with less than a universe

>>16009566

>Offers nothing to refute the statement

Demonstrate that you can simulate a particle with less than a particle or gtfo. Or I suppose you can ignore this statement again on your shit reply because you can't

>>16009570
>>16008044
>Astronomical models doesn't need to account for the movement of space ants on invisible planets in other galaxies, or even the invisible planets.

>>16009545
None of those religions have priests that exhalts moral virtues demanded by their gods?
None of those religions tell how their followers should act in life?
Why are you lying?

>>16009571

>Refuses to refute the statement again

You moved the goalposts hahaha, so predictable. Just simulate a particle with less than a particle. An astronomical model is not simulating using less particles than the thing it is interpreting. Make a coherent argument

>>16009578
Zeus raping a swan is a moral value that people surrender their will to? You can't really be this retarded.

>>16009581
We're arguing about
>>16009543
>simulate a universe with less than a universe
The only goalpost moving is your irrelevant stupidity about particles that doesn't matter to your argument.

>>16009366
You misunderstand the meaning of the word "observe." in the context of quantum mechanics, it means for the particle in question to interact with another particle. Basically you'd still need to simulate a LOT of particle interactions.

>>16009583
What do you think genius. If a Zeus worshipper believe Zeus told him he should rape a swan, he'd have his pants down within the minute.
Did you think people in those times had Christian value or something?
The will of their worshipped god is their will.

>>16009072
Gnosticism is the belief that God is evil and is responsible for all pain and suffering. There is no ethical component.
Taoism is the belief in a universal way. If anything if it is completely amoral in the same that there is no Confucian style "proper" morality and instead you should just follow the Tao, which is to say "follow your nature". Any Gods are preexisting pagan ones integrated into the philosophy.
Shintoism is a Japanese folk religion with no ethical component, just Gods and rituals.

Stop pretending Western Religion is the only religion.

>>16009584

Holy shit are you an actual 80 IQ subhuman? It is the crux of why simulation theory is nonsense. In order to simulate a universe you must simulate all matter and energy with that universe. Now prove that you can do this with less matter and energy than exists in said universe. No, you are not allowed to say that all interactions in the universe don't need to be calculated because as I stated that is moving the goalposts and ignoring what is actually required to simulate a 1 to 1 universe. So either your argument is that the entire universe is not being simulated, thus copium, or that you can create a 1 to 1 simulation with less resources than the thing you are simulating, thus hopeless midwit

>>16009591
>Zeus worshipper believe Zeus told him he should rape a swan
This doesn't exist. You're trying to retrofit your Abrahamic moralization into a religion where it never existed.

>>16009596
>to simulate a universe you must simulate all matter and energy with that universe
Nope.

>>16009603

>Doesn't understand reality

Well thanks for clearing that up. Your argument shifts to all aspects of the universe are not being simulated, which is moving the goalposts.

>>16009592
>Gnosticism is the belief that God is evil and is responsible for all pain and suffering.
>There is no ethical component.
So I guess Gnosticism says it's okay to stay in The Cave and be a Hylics for all eternity. Nothing is objectively wrong with that.
>Taoism
>no ethics
Ask a Daoshi whether Taoism have anything to say on murder.
>Shintoism
>no ethics
Ask a Miko whether Shintoism have anything to say about rape.
>>16009600
>This doesn't exist
You are retarded. Plenty of cases in Greek history where people did shit because they had a vision/dream a god from their pantheon came to them with a message.

>>16009600
Really morality didn't come from the Gods - who had an explicitly inhuman "fuck you I do what I want" moral system - but rather from civic virtue. You worshiped the Gods because they'd fuck you if you didn't, and you acted ethically because that's what honor and state required.

>>16009623
>So I guess Gnosticism says it's okay to stay in The Cave and be a Hylics for all eternity. Nothing is objectively wrong with that.
Some gnoticism says that escape is impossible, yeah. There's more than one branch, and the ethical components of the other branches comes from Platonic philosophy not divine morality.
>Ask a Daoshi whether Taoism have anything to say on murder.
Human philosophy.
>Ask a Miko whether Shintoism have anything to say about rape.
Yokai rape women all the time. Same issue as Greek Paganism.

>>16009615
All aspect of what universe? There are two universes in your argument.

>>16009623
Human psychosis has nothing to do with the Greek pantheon.

>>16009626
>Human philosophy
The fuck that supposed to mean? If you are a daoshi and you commit murder, see what happens to your ass when your order comes down on you. No ethics means they'll let it slide I'm sure.
>Yokai rape women all the time
Talking about real humans and ethics here not mythical demons you retard.

I'm fucking outta here. Way too many low IQs these days.

>>16009629

All aspects of the simulated universe.

>>16009637
Your argument may be even dumber than I thought. Why can't a smaller simulated universe exist within a larger universe?

>>16009633
>If you are a daoshi and you commit murder, see what happens to your ass when your order comes down on you. No ethics means they'll let it slide I'm sure.
Sounds like Confucianism to me, you dumb moron.

>>16009633
Also, you seem to be confusing "amoral" with "unethical". Amorality posits that no objective morality exists, not "go out and do bad things".

>>16009640

Your argument is now that our universe is a simulation ran inside an even larger universe, ignoring the sheer size of our universe and the absurdity of that claim, and you call my argument dumb...

Let's pretend humans decide to simulate a universe that is 1/100th the size of ours, please tell me how much matter and energy is required for us to simulate that universe?

>>16007911
>>16007668
>Platonism
>still undefeated
Cosmologists btfo'd
>we wuz intelligently designed
>WAIT NOT BY JEWBUS!!!!

>>16009672
>simulation ran inside an even larger universe
That's not my argument, it's yours. As I said before, simulation is technoreligious cope.
>simulate a universe that is 1/100th the size of ours
From whose perspective?

>>16009672
To ran our universe they would need XTX 9090 ti super:))

>>16009795
>I get my ideals that exist outside the cave from imitations within the cave
Sure you do.

>>16009813

From our perspective, how much matter and energy would be required?

And it literally was your argument, not mine. My argument is that is nonsense to be able to simulate a universe yet you are entertaining it as possible for the sake of argument and then backing out as if you never did when cornered.

>>16009883
The only things you keep cornering are your own bullshit arguments. I asked you to clarify what universe you were talking and that's the idiotic clarification you gave.

>>16007668
God is uncontingent/uncaused. Any techno-designer is contingent and therefore caused and therefore not God.

>>16009898

You actually are the biggest fucking retard with poor reading comprehension. You attempt to make the argument that it is possible to simulate a universe within a universe by giving vague no answers, then refuse to extrapolate when pressed because you don't believe in the premise to begin with. You are a nigger arguing for the sake of it and getting lost along the way because you are too stupid to maintain a coherent thought process.

My argument is simple, it is not possible to simulate a universe within a universe, which is the premise of simulation theory, therefore the theory is null and void.

Do not choose to argue against this premise if does not make sense to you. You have done nothing but throw out word salad and avoiding answering any questions put to you. I can only surmise you are actually retarded. May God have mercy on the soul of anyone who has the misfortune of interacting with your intellectually devoid presence.

>>16009967
>it is not possible to simulate a universe within a universe
Sure it is. Have you ever played Ms. Pac-Man? The fact that you keep failing to express your argument in a way that doesn't apply to 8 bit arcade games is your fault, not mine.

>>16009972

Pac Man is not a universe. A video game is not a universe. The fact you do not understand this is laughable.

>>16009975
What's a universe?

>>16009977

What we exist in

>>16009967
>Do not choose to argue against this premise
You're hiding a second premise that is disputable: that you are experiencing a thing that is fundamental and therefore can not be a symbol of another thing.

>>16009988

>Word salad

>>16007668
Came to this conclusion too, and not even scientists, because a scientist would see it as an unfalsifiable belief system rather than actual scientific theory.

It's pseudoscience that appeals to midwit atheist IFLS technophiles

>>16009984
>What we exist in
>>16009543
>You cannot simulate a universe with less than a universe worth of resources.
To be clear, your argument is that you can't simulate what we exist in with less than what we exist in.

>>16010188

Yes. You cannot simulate a particle with less than a particles worth of resources. Scale that up to the universe, you cannot simulate our entire universe with less resources than our entire universe. That's with 100% efficiency which would never happen, so you realistically can't even simulate a portion of our universe if you turned our entire universe into a simulation machine

>>16010198
>cannot simulate a particle with less than a particles worth of resources
You're the only person making this argument. No one disagrees.

Focus on what you mean by this.
>cannot simulate our entire universe [what we exist in] with less resources than our entire universe [what we exist in].
This is a tautology. No one disagrees with this either. Can you explain what you want to say in a way that isn't tautologically accepted by literally everyone?

>>16010219

>This is a tautology accepted by literally everyone

No it absolutely is not accepted by everyone. People that believe in simulation theory come from two camps.

One camp thinks that with a sufficiently advanced computer you could simulate a universe, which in if you existed you could not tell because it is identical to the universe simulating it. Therefore it is possible we are in a simulated universe within another universe. That camp is to whom my statement applies.

The second camp thinks the universe simulating ours has different properties than ours, therefore the resources needed to simulate the universe we exist in are different thus it is possible. This is literally just intelligent design and creationism with extra steps, so a religious belief.

>>16010274
That was refreshingly well articulated compared to everything else you’ve written. I agree with your description of your second group. I disagree with
>because it is identical to the universe simulating it
This doesn’t follow. A simulated universe doesn’t need to (and could never be) identical to the parent universe.

>>16010316
* never) be

>>16007668
Please don’t call it a “theory”

>>16010443
>an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events.
It's retarded and just religion described in other terms, but it's still a 'theory'.

>>16010456
>definition i pulled out of my ass
good to know

>>16010316

>because it is identical to the universe simulating it

You agree with me here as well, I don't believe this can happen. I am stating a chunk of simulation theorists believe this can happen and pointing out why it is flawed logic.

Stating that it does not need to have the same parameters/properties as our universe is nonsensical. A thing cannot exist within our universe that does not possess the properties of our universe. All attempts to assign logic to possible simulations of any universe within our own universe are irrelevant. Simulation theorists deny reality in a vain attempt to explain existence.

>>16009140
He misconstrued ontological premise with religion. I used Judeo-Chrisitian religion as an example of how the two are distinguished. Should I have chosen a more obscure example despite knowing my audience is of primarily western background? You're a fuckwit unable to separate an argument from your own projections