/sci/ - Science & Math

aside from the fact that it's not /sci/, don't you think it's a bit fucking boring?

Agent 1: "It's him..."
Agent 2: "the anomaly..."
Agent 3: "shall we proceed..."

Agent 1: "Yes."
Agent 2: "He is still..."
Agent 3: "only human."

>>6717496
You have no proof so it's just speculation.

>>6717502
Well I dont know. Ive just noticed that people seem to be really divided on the subject. And this idea seems to be getting more and more popular.

>>6717496
Yes and it goes like this:

GOD-The Source, Logos or Godhead, an eternal, blissful, nirvana like state free from causation and full of infinite creative potential, where all of existence ebbs and flows from, eventually returning to, the Highest Heaven or Greatest Geometry
>then God decided to make the lower dimensional spaces or planes, which are all nested within the bigger ones like a russian doll. This is where the illusion of manyness plays out, God playing hide and go seek with Himself (peekaboo!) In the highest dimensional planes the Highest lesser gods play, but they in turn create lower planes to jump down into to further the exploration of the Creation. Basically gods from every plane are playing Sims.
>we are on the 3rd lowest plane, the 3rd spatial dimension, below us is flatland which we may someday figure out how to jump down into, and below that the Line, then the Dot
>The Dot is at the center of Creation, and is most likely a trapdoor to the GOD plane.

Read it, reread it if you must, I've had this idea peered reviewed and this is what we came up with using logic, gnostic principles, and some Bulk space related science.

>>6717520
ok

>>6717520
this is irony, right?

>>6717531
Sort of, if you don't understand what I'm talking about.

>>6717520

indaresting...

>>6717520
I've got a similar ideology, but I see the one/many idea as simply two sides of the same coin. I also see the display of manyness as necessary so that the Source can have some reference point for knowing itself. I know this isn't /x/, but I saw this and thought I'd share.

>>6717597
Yes, I also don't believe in duality, or that God is the All both in our Manyness and as we are All One Together.

>I also see the display of manyness as necessary so that the Source can have some reference point for knowing itself.

I see it as this too, also as an exploration of the possibilities of consciousness/Creation.

>I know this isn't /x/, but I saw this and thought I'd share.

I see this as philosophy axually.

thank mr skeltal

>>6717611
I also see the creations (us) as holographic projections of the Source, all pieces that contain the whole at the same time, also known as the All in all. What do you see as the ultimate destination for the creations?

>>6717634
>I also see the creations (us) as holographic projections of the Source, all pieces that contain the whole at the same time, also known as the All in all.

Yep, same here.

>What do you see as the ultimate destination for the creations?

To merge again with God, ascend to the Highest Heaven as Him, then do it all over again for eternity, exploring creation and spreading Love and Creativity. Possibly to break the chain of regular reincarnation, I've heard of beings who remember ALL of their lives throughout their lives! Who knows! The remarkable fathomings of the next highest dimension, and then the next, should definitely keep us enetertained for all eternity. The goal may be to just realize this stuff and realize God's Grace so you can let other's know they have the ability to do great things!

>>6717644
Very interesting! I see the end goal as slightly different, with us becoming "gods" of our own, perpetuating creation further to keep the whole thing going, forever expanding through the infinite potential.

>>6717654
Nice, yeah I see this as a main goal as well. So if you had a planet or a multitude of planets under your subtle influence, how would you act? Would you ber more interested in planets with purely animal life or would you be more interested in civilizations? Would you show your presence, either to individuals or to whole masses?

>>6717664
Good questions! The first one's tough, because I can see the immense potential for progession that civilizations provide, but it's easy to see how they can exploit all other life forms for such progress. As far as the second question, I'd probably stay mostly behind the scenes, but I'd try to leave artifacts to show the organisms how to make their own path of progression.

>>6717496
Not falsifiable, so no, it's in flying-spaghetti-monster territory

Also,
>>>/x/

>>6717713
>Not falsifiable
how do you know if it's not falsifiable?
Imagine a scientist were born in a simulated harry potter universe. Then all kinds of physical inconsistencies (magic) would lead him to believe that there was more to it than what he was seeing.
Maybe (just maybe), things like that could happen in this universe too. Maybe the granularity of our universe hints at a deeper dynamics, that could well be akin to a simulation
who knows

>all these peeps responding to a deleted post I can't read anymore

:(

>>6717964
The differences beween the macro universe and the quantum universe is just such an physical inconsistency.

Also why you be deletin mah posts?

>>6717496
>is the theory of a simulated reality a likely possibility?
In my opinion it is not.

>what do you guys think?
If I were in charge of simulating a universe, I would delete any mention of simulated universes, as to prevent anyone becoming aware of the truth.
Since we find that we can discuss such topics, I would assume our universe is not simulated.

>>6717496
I read some time ago about a professor who had writen a proper article about this.
According to him there were three possibilities:
>A society destroys itself before its capable of making a simulated reality
>A society loses interest in doing so
>We are living in a virtual reality
He claimed that the likelihood of the latter one outweighed the possibility that we dont live in a simulation, because of the sheer number of simulations a society would be able to create.

>>6718013
Fourth possibility: it's impossible to create a proper simulation approximate in size to the real universe.

But if it's possible, each simulation creates multitudes of new simulations so natural universes become extremely rare. And there are enough civilizations to assume at least one won't eventually nuke itself.

So, /sci/, here is your homework - find the most efficient achievable method of computing and test if it's possible to make simulations the size of our universe in real-time or faster. But using relativistic models to solve the problem are still there, just in case.

>>6718019
> implying the stars are real
> implying the vacuum between atoms isn't computationally compressible
> implying the universe-simulation is running on a 3+1D server
> implying gravity can't be made weaker and the universe filled with more stuff in the superverse
> implying the superverse is Turing-computable.
> implying all humans are real

All the information I actually use can easily be simulated by a quantum computer the size of my brain. So around 10^30 human beings can have their own private universes only using the mass of the solar system.

>>6717664
>>6717540
>>6717987
>>6717988
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>6718045
God, you are my hero, anon. If only that moron from /lit/ I argued about this yesterday could see it.

There is no spoon

It's similar to the question about the existence of deities.
Even if we knew the answer, it won't matter. We could not change the situation and knowing the answer won't change our way of life.
Both questions should not be discussed. It's unnecessesary.

>>6717525
Thanks Mr skeltal

>>6719963
What if we, very theoretically, could program a virus that would fetch data from the computer running the simulation, reverse engineer the code and send our copies to atomic printer connected to that computer?

No.
You retard.

Life could be made out the things dreams are made of, some kind of natural force that has become so abstract it has created a real-zone. The very fabric of our universe could be a complex, sometimes super intelligent, other times odd, dreamstate. We do not perceive it this way because we are a part of it that is as abstract as our universe; it is rational to pay close attention to our based abstraction over this, what would be, ultimate knowledge of everything. If you look closely in front of you, you can see noise as you would see on a TV screen. This is because of the eyes and the environment, it's the very dream fabric that I'm referring to.

>>6719963
Well, simulators WOULD be deities, though...

why else would the speed of light be so fucking slow

space computer wizards if you're reading this please upgrade your cpu

>>6717964
if youre inside of a computer you can't interact with outside world and can't do shit about it

>>6720152
>inside of a computer you can't interact with outside world
outside world interacts with video games very well

many things in science are more a statistical probability than 100% provable fact.

Statistically, it is much more likely we are inside a simulation than not.

>>6720653
>implying our whole universe isn't simulated in fraction of a second

if there are any interactions, it's more likely they are done by changing initial parameters, it's much more practical for anything that doesn't ran in a real-time.

>>6717496
Descartes disproved it. This has nothing to do with /sci/ though.

>>6720913
see >>6718013
>>6718019
>>6718045
>>6720659

>The person who made our simulator is kinda shitty developer
>didn't add any magics to our gameplay
>Our life is just like those boring truck simulator on steam

>>6720930
That has to be the most disgusting picture I've ever seen. And now you know that I said that.

>>6720930
>doesn't know about magick
>or astral projection
>or how DMT allows you into the simulator realm

>>6720930
nat select

>>6719991
That won't work. Imagine a computer simulation in our universe. We program a simulated reality with human-like creatures. Would these simulations be able to access the outside world? No. And thus we couldn't access the universe beyond ours.

>>6721045
>Would these simulations be able to access the outside world?
Yes, if they were smart enough. They could engineer a human body and instill themselves in a digital brain controlling it.
This makes me think that maybe the artificial explosion that kurzweil talks about is just about that. Escaping this universe. Go higher and higher in the hierarchy of universes/simulations.

>>6721049
>artificial explosion
intelligence explosion*

>>6721045
We are in the outside world, in form of whatever they used to store the simulation. By changing what happens in this universe we change what happens on their computing machine, memory and processor-wise. there is a possibility we could bug out the system and leak outside of our dedicated space, effectively getting control of the computing machine we are running on. If the simulation runs with the same speed as our modern simulations, they won't even have the time to react.

>>6721064
but... but.. but it's probabily not a classical von neumann machine anon.
It's got to be at least some weird kind of quantum computer

>>6721049
the mother universe must be very overpopulated then. and it's possible we eventually get to the universe simulated by civilization with no cyber-ethics which actively prevented planewalking from happening.

>>6717511
Just like religion then.

Fuck off.

A false reality is as good as a simulated one?

eg. Unethical Human Experimentation ended in 1966

>>6721078
>ancient jews hypothesized that there is an immaterial mammalian-like person who controls weather, help them murder other tribes and order them to stone to death their fellow goys for arbitrary reasons

>moder philosophers hypothesize there is a civilization, possibly living in a universe more vast and complex than ours, that made a simulation of the universe featuring all the phenomenas we observe and we eventually will make even more downgraded and simplified version of our universe.

Yep, it's religion. But it's also a reasonable religion so I'm cool with that.

>>6721100
#nonsense

Stay classy.

>>6721098
Two words...

Missing Persons

>>6721103
#argumentspleaseyouasshole