[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 100 KB, 1024x768, Trinity-from-The-Matrix-the-matrix-2282236-1024-768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

4085228

op Wed Nov 30 11:42:48 2011 No.4085228 [Reply] [Original]

So as far as we know it is most likely that the Universe is full of life due to the insane amount of galaxies and stars. Agree?

The jury is still up for the level of intelligent life in the universe. But if we are not special in some some mysterious way intelligent life will form elsewhere also, not so often, but still. Agree?

Taking the size of the Universe there would be herpaderpa xxxxxxx number of intelligent civilizations. 'Many' of them would evolve to make computers. It would not take long in cosmological timescale to create virtual reality. Agree?

We most likely live in a virtual reality and hence we our universe was created by a CREATOR.

U MAD?

Why isn't this more generally accepted theory? am I missing something but this theory makes perfect sense. What is most likely (per centage wise). This, or an atheist wet dream of 'randomness of nothingness'

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 11:49:18 2011 No.4085248 Unfalsifiable balderdash. Hide behind your childish "U MAD"s, until you have a method of testing your hypothesis, it's not a fucking theory.

>>

Anonymous Wed Nov 30 11:49:18 2011 No.4085247

I'm the guy from the other thread.

>We most likely live in a virtual reality and hence we our universe was created by a CREATOR.
This is a total non sequitur. I mean, going along with your (already pretty debatable) premise, why would it be *more probable* for us to live within a simulation than to be one of those species that's currently in the process of advancing to the point of being able to *create* such simulations?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 11:53:50 2011 No.4085255 >>4085248 >it's not a fucking theory Thats incorrect. Theory is any kind of speculation and his writing is a speculation. Hence it is a "Fucking" Theory.

>>

Anonymous Wed Nov 30 11:56:14 2011 No.4085266

> So as far as we know it is most likely that the Universe is full of life due to the insane amount of galaxies and stars. Agree?

No thats not how it works.

> But if we are not special in some some mysterious way intelligent life will form elsewhere also, not so often, but still. Agree?

Thats not how it works

It would not take long in cosmological timescale to create virtual reality. Agree?

We have yet to create it so there is no way to say if it would even be possible

>Why isn't this more generally accepted theory? am I missing something but this theory makes perfect sense.

Because it cannot be proven or any evidence for it shown.

Unlike current theory's of how the universe came to be which do have evidence.

>>

op Wed Nov 30 12:00:37 2011 No.4085281

13.7 BILLION YEARS IN TIME
500 billion galaxies
400 billion stars in each
200 million planets with life
10 000 intelligent civilizations
5 create virtual realities with 10000gigatrillion simulations

That is the reason why it's more probable we are living in a computer simulation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:05:18 2011 No.4085297 File: 37 KB, 376x400, stalindiaryop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4085281 Based on equations and assumptions you basically just pulled out of your ass right now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:07:25 2011 No.4085301 >>4085255 >Theory is any kind of speculation Confirmed for non-scientist Learn the difference between theory and hypothesis, and stop butchering your own language

>>

op Wed Nov 30 12:07:25 2011 No.4085302

>>4085266
>No thats not how it works.

We are "10" years away confirming this. It will be a shocker if we don't find life on other planets in our OWN solarsystem. It's not a big leap

>Thats not how it works (about the mysteriousness of intelligent life)

We are matter and energy. Why would intelligent life not evolve in the rest of the universe? Everything is same here and there.

>We have yet to create it so there is no way to say if it would even be possible

No way to say it wouldn't be possible either. I give 50/50 odds.

In total. It's 99.9999999% certain we live in a computer simulation just by looking at the numbers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:08:34 2011 No.4085304 >>4085281 Ok feel free to prove that also why is it not just as likely we are one of the > 10 000 intelligent civilizations Your fucking retarded, dont get me wrong we could be in a virtual reality but still your retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:10:50 2011 No.4085308 >>4085301 I know the difference, you however do not. >stop butchering your own language Thats hilariously ironic, because that exactly what you are doing now.

>>

Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:12:06 2011 No.4085310

>>4085302

> We are "10" years away confirming this. It will be a shocker if we don't find life on other planets in our OWN solarsystem. It's not a big leap

Ok your retarded and have no working knowledge of life or the solar system

> We are matter and energy. Why would intelligent life not evolve in the rest of the universe? Everything is same here and there.

Because the same things that happened to create life might possibly be a complete fluke, and you have no evidence to show against this, unless you have met aliens?

> In total. It's 99.9999999% certain we live in a computer simulation just by looking at the numbers.

You just gave 50/50 odds on creating virtual reality and then pull out that number?

And what numbers? The numbers you pulled out your ass?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:12:06 2011 No.4085311 >>4085308 I know what you are, but what am I?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:13:06 2011 No.4085312 >>4085308 Shorthand: theories are tested, hypotheses are not. Please give me your definition of a theory and I will smack you with three dictionaries to shut you up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:13:13 2011 No.4085313 Ancient aliens.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:15:30 2011 No.4085319 Please tell me OP is trolling. >There is no logical connection between any of your assumptions and the leap to the conclusion we live in a virtual reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:17:37 2011 No.4085320 >>4085312 >theories are tested, hypotheses are not. Thats hilariously incorrect. >and I will smack you with three dictionaries to shut you up Do yourself a favor and smack yourself with a dictionary right now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:18:46 2011 No.4085323 >>4085312 The word theory can be used to apply to abstract reasoning and speculation.

>>

Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:18:46 2011 No.4085326

>>4085281
>13.7 BILLION YEARS IN TIME
about 6000 years
>500 billion galaxies
probably more
>400 billion stars in each
maybe more on average
>200 million planets with life
1 planet with life
>10 000 intelligent civilizations
nope
>5 create virtual realities with 10000gigatrillion simulations
nope
>That is the reason why it's more probable we are living in a computer simulation.
nope

zero times anything is still zero, right? so no matter how many planets there are, zero times that many is zero, right?

and zero is the probability of life coming into existence without a Creator

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:19:53 2011 No.4085328 >>4085312 hahaha shit your retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:21:01 2011 No.4085331 >>4085326 >about 6000 years herewegoagain.jpg

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:23:17 2011 No.4085338 >>4085228 >So as far as we know it is most likely that the Universe is full of life due to the insane amount of galaxies and stars Bible and God would like to have a word with you.

>>

op Wed Nov 30 12:29:06 2011 No.4085354

>>4085319

It doesn't really matter if there were X civilizations creating virtual realities in our Universe. The simulations created would be on a computer chip in our Universe.

An implyed simulation requires an another Universe to create this Universe?

Or could we actually be on a computer chip which is in our own simulation? LOL

MIND=BLOWN

I make these threads to explore ideas. The best way to know if any of my ideas are actually worth anything is to put it out there and defend it. Once I realise I fail to do so I drop it. Along the discussion I always learn something new I didn't know.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:30:13 2011 No.4085357 >>4085338 The bible can not talk, is book. God can't talk he does not real.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:35:46 2011 No.4085372 >>4085357 >The bible can not talk, is book. Nice work stating the obvious. >God can't talk he does not real. >he does not real. What?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:36:53 2011 No.4085378 >>4085354 >implyed confirmed for 12 year old

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:43:42 2011 No.4085404 >>4085354 here's my hypothesis: you suspended your disbelief way too much when you watched the Matrix

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 12:45:57 2011 No.4085417 >>4085331 we've got geneological records going back about 6000 years you have people watching and clocking chemicals break down, and making gigantic assumptions about the results which seems more inherently reliable to you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 30 13:10:53 2011 No.4085530 >>4085354 Yes but its not your idea, I think at some point everyone has had this idea. The point is your defending it in a retarded way and pulling false facts out your ass.