/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6084984
>burden of proof

>>6084984
Actually simulating a real environment is very difficult! There's maximum limits on computational capacity set by the laws of physics, and they're low enough that to make a computer that could convincingly simulate reality and produce all the signals needed to keep your brain running would be - not impossible - but terribly expensive and very large.

You are so boring that nobody would possibly put in all that effort.

Ergo, you are not a brain in a vat, because nobody cares enough about your life to bother building the vat.

Are you a brain in a vat?

If yes : Doesn't matter

If no : Doesn't matter

Only after you prove that you exist.

Fucking philosophy faggots

>>6084992

But it could be an evil demon, generating this reality?

>>6084992
"Amet, Ergo Sum?"

>>6084992

I find your argument convincing.
Now prove I am not a very sassy computer program.

>>6084994
Sure, but if you're going to bring magic into this, why bother? The generated reality would be a legitimate reality, maintained by magic. If you're willing to start throwing magic around and claiming that demons and angels can wish worlds into existence, you might as well ask if this world is real because God created it.

>>6084992

Not OP, but building on this for a different concept-

Well, that's using our knowledge of computers and technology.

What if an advanced species of humans devised a way to make a reality simulation? What if we're just a part of that simulation?

In addition, our universe shows some evidence of this.

>>6084998
>>6084992

ufo-blogger com/2013/09/universe-computer-simulation html

huffingtonpost co uk/2012/12/12/physicists-universe-simulation-test-university-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745 html

huffingtonpost co uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777 html

>>6084998
Well then, so what? Does it make a difference? 90% of humans believe that some omnipotent force outside reality created our universe and hold absolute power over it. All this means was that their general hypothesis was right, which with that much enduring popular support really shouldn't have been too surprising.

>>6085005

It doesn't bother you that you might not actually exist?

>>6085008

If I don't actually exist, how can I be bothered?

This is what they want to make you believe. Be a good boy and listen to their teachings.

>>6085008
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
(Nietschze)

We don't care of reality (if only we can access to it, and if the world has actually some actual "meaning").

The only important thing is what I believe. I believe I'm not in a simulation. That's enough for me. Maybe it's false, it doesn't change anything.

>>6084984
Daily reminder ; Ingsoc is the one and only true god

>>6085019
That quote is retarded as fuck. Every empirical observation is a fact. Please learn the scientific method or fuck off, philosotard. >>>/x/ >>>/lit/

>>6085027

>Every empirical observation is a fact

>>6085027
>Every empirical observation is a fact.
woa...
learn2think dude.

>>6085038
>>6085046
Are you fucking retarded? Do you not know what empiricism is? Do you not know what scientific measurement means?

>>6085058
His point is to reveal the assumption at the base of many philosophies : that ///objective facts exist///.

Positivism holds that the phenomena we observe through our senses are physical in nature and that they ///actually happen in a material world///.

Thus positivists take these phenomena as objective fact and use it for their world-explanation, ///for example by making physical laws///.

Nietzsche's statement is that fundamentally, positivists are interpreting observed phenomena as physical and real, when in fact they have no definite justification to do so.

Thus, facts are really the subjective result of information : there is nothing necessarily "true" about them, other than how they ///fit into a particular interpretation///.

Ultimately what this means is that it is much less important whether we ///"understand" how the world "works"/// (if that is even a meaningful thing to say), and much more important that we develop an interpretation that ///works for us///.

>>6085058

Evidence suggests you don't know the exact meaning of many worlds at all.

>>6085151
Take your anti-scientific "u cannot know nuthin" bullshit to /x/ or /pol/. Science works and scientific truth is objective. Deal with it.

>>6085174

>hurr durr how you dare not agreeing with me

>>6085413
>>6085174
samefag

>>6084984
Computers have limited precision

For instance, you can't model a continuous flow of time in a computer, instead you have "steps" or intervals of time that just happen

You can detect that from within the simulation

>>6085497
Nature isn't continuous either. Atoms are discrete.

>>6084984

When you "die", the simulations doesn't end.

It just black until the simulation ends.

>>6085505
Well I'm a compsci (yes, lel, shit tier, I know). But I always thought that at least time and space was continuous.

for instance, assuming a 3 dimensional world, in a small room / small box, there is an infinite amount of positions where an atom could be located at.
In a computer model space does not have infinite precision, there is a limited number of positions an atom could be located at (the position would be rounded / the atom 'snaps' to a position)

Same thing goes for time

Correct me if I'm wrong, I only read popsci physics books

>>6085174
What the link with /x/ or /pol/ ???

Ok, this is more /lit/, but then ask to janitors to delete the whole thread.
I really believe you don't really understand the meaning of the quote (>>6085168), staying too down-to-earth.

>Science works and scientific truth is objective.
What do you mean by "objective" ?
Whatever your answer is, no way you can "Prove to [OP] that [he's] not simply a brain in a vat."

Deal with it too :)

>>6085539


>>6085497
Just proposed an objective way for people inside a simulation to detect simulations

>>6085539
>I really believe you don't really understand the meaning of the quote
The quote was an anti-intellectual "cannot know nuthin" attack against science.

>Whatever your answer is, no way you can "Prove to [OP] that [he's] not simply a brain in a vat."
OP is physically observable, therefore he isn't a brain in a vat. QED <---- that means it's proven

>>6084984
overload reality by making a fucking powerful gamma ray laser.

>>6085547
>The quote was an anti-intellectual "cannot know nuthin" attack against science.
No, it's really deeper than that but you seem too mentally impaired to get it. In no way it's an attack against "science" in particular.

>OP is physically observable
How ?

I know it leads nowhere so usually I don't come into these kind of arguments.

If I'm "into a simulation", you all and all what I believe to know (science, facts, sensitive stimuli, ...) can be faked.

There is no way to "prove" me the contrary (deep nihilism and shit...). So yes, it leads nowhere.
From then, either your answer is "God", either it is "Ok, I deal with it, and I trust some basic facts". But that's only a claim I do that these facts fit "reality". Otherwise I'm screwed.

>>6085661
>No, it's really deeper than that
It is not deep at all. It is shallow empty talk.

>In no way it's an attack against "science" in particular.
Even worse. It is an attack against rationality and empiricism in general.

>How ?
By using scientific tools of measurement.

>There is no way to "prove" me the contrary
"Prove me wrong" is not an argument. Burden of proof is on you.

>So yes, it leads nowhere.
So you admit it is useless anti-intellectual nonsense and a waste of time?

>From then, either your answer is "God", either it is "Ok, I deal with it, and I trust some basic facts". But that's only a claim I do that these facts fit "reality". Otherwise I'm screwed.
Meaningless metaphysical drivel belongs on /x/.

>>6085672
but are you playing stupid on purpose ?

I'm of course playing the advocate of the devil here, my major is math and I don't particularly love /lit/ shit.

[
But little anon like you who don't understand a shit to the work of philosophers and prefer to hide themselves behind "hurr durr anti-intellectualism" bother me. I trully think you're more stupid and less educated than the great men of philo. Nietzsche was onr of them.
But end of /lit/ part, that's wasn't my point
]

>By using scientific tools of measurement.
What you don't understand is if I simulated your world and you're just a part of it, I also designed the way your measurement method work. I MADE the rules...

You can't change anything.
You're acting like a Sims character saying "haha, no, I'm having a real life, see, I'm hungry so I eat and then feel better, it's logical. And now my neighbor come to talk to me. All of this is real dumbass ! See you later, I have to go to work now. For real, look at the bus waiting on the street"

I don't believe this is the case. But I do believe this question is a dead-end one, without a satisfying answer, except for the fact that either true or false, it doesn't change anything in our daily-life.

More clear ?
Are you just want to send me to /x/ ?

Case 1:
>I'm not a brain in a VAT and what I perceive to be reality is in fact reality
I get on with my life as usual
Case 2:
>I'm a brain in a VAT and what I perceive to be reality isn't reality
Nothing I can affect, prove or disprove so I get on with my life as usual

Completely pointless to even consider.

>>6085686
lel, >>6085685 is more explicit than me :)
That's my way to think too

>>6085686
>but are you playing stupid on purpose ?
Where did I ever do this?

>my major is math
You took a calculus class? Impressive.

>and I don't particularly love /lit/ shit.
1. Then why are you defending it?
2. This isn't even "/lit/ shit". /lit/ is about literature, not about the shallow musings a preschooler posts on his facebook wall.

>What you don't understand is if I simulated your world and you're just a part of it, I also designed the way your measurement method work. I MADE the rules...
What you don't understand is that it is irrelevant. Untestable metaphysical nonsense is of no importance to science. You can engage in masturbatory dreams as much as you want, it still doesn't have any consequences in the real world. If something cannot be logically proved/disproved or scientifically tested, it is not worth discussing. You should have grown out of that retard level upon entering primary school. The fact that you as an adult are still having though processes on the level of a 4 year old is alarming. You should visit a doctor. You might suffer from a neurological disorder.

Most here seem to be unable to grasp the intrinsic thing at question here (which you can have reason to be on any side of it):

Does science reflect reality or measurements?

If it refers to reality, this is totally on-topic and science can explain, but it has several failures (for example, contradictory theories that are any as valid as the other)

If it refers to measurements, then the question is totally off-topic, but science cannot properly explain anything and a lot of people have been lied to about what science is about.

Choose your side

your skull is a vat. you are your brain. you're a brain in a vat.

I have to say, that even as the subject seems to not be relevant at all, it is relevant to daily life. It is relevant to how we think of ourselves (and then, everything that comes with that). Relevancy doesn't only have to deal with the production of papers or goods, even more, what we may aspire to get to is to a betterment of the life of everyone, in which case, this question seems to have some relevance about.

I have very trustworthy subjective (of course) evidence that we are not what 'we' (mostly) are taught that we are. It may seem very stupid to you (it would be to me if the roles were reversed), but think about it in psychedelic stance.

Whether we can prove it to other people or not may not be relevant. If you ask "How can we decide ourselves if we are or not different from what is taught that we are" ... the challenge was set by Terrence McKenna's himself. Take 5g of dried mushrooms containing psilocybin and check for yourself. It seems to be safe health-wise (at least). For example: you have a way higher chance to die from crossing the street than from that. So, given that many of us crosses streets, it'd be weird to say that one shouldn't try that.

Well, if you do intake that and come out saying we are not brains in vats, then there you have it. If you come out thinking otherwise, then you have it too (at least, in McKenna's pointview, which many people share).

It's a win-win situation, and it settles the question. Plus, it puts to death all the 'burden of proof' sentences.

>>6085685

Not true. As soon as you accept you are a brain in a vat you can be using your computational power to take control of the brain-vat system and then delete the designers porn files.

god wouldnt allow it
gee, read some descartes

>>6084992
> nobody would possibly put in all that effort.
how do you know?, maybe part of the simulation is making you believe that

>>6085751
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
and the dozen of "see also" links...

As far as I'm concerned, I absolutely don't care. I prefer to trust, even if I'm wrong, that's so less hard to bear. I think that's why there are so many people into religion. That's a way to escape from a reality which seem to rough and harsh.

>>6085783
no reason for the quote, sorry

>>6084992
>You are so boring that nobody would possibly put in all that effort.

But what if I'm the only one alive, everyone else could be a simulation.

That would make me pretty damn interesting if I was in some aliens science lab as the living brain of the last human

Try and prove anything scientifically. You can't , your general faggotry, however, supports the fact that you are a typical 4 Chan user and not a brain in a jar.

>>6085814

>>6084992
Computational capacity set by the laws of physics...laws set by the people who made our simulation. You think if we are in a matrix that the 'outside' world would be this way? It could be far more complex out there and our puny human brains aren't adapted for understanding it.

>>6084987
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO PROPOSED SOMETHING IF WE ARE JUST DISCUISING IT

>>6084992
Even our own brain is powerful enough to simulate a belivable world.
We dont know that we are dreaming during dreams.