/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8395440
Those lucky bastard scientists, why can't I have some dumbass billionaire off to give me money for literally making up shit

>>8395440
Some goofy comments made while drunk in a hot tub, coupled with a deliberate misunderstanding of what "Holographic Universe" theory is actually about, leading people to believe billionaires are even crazier than they already are - all because it makes good click bait.

>independant
case dismissed

>>8395440
It's funny because, even in The Matrix series, they are not in one simulation, but in a simulation within a simulation. The AI realized that letting some humans feel that they "escaped" the simulation would distract them from the fact that they were still in one.

Suppose this is a simulation, and furthermore suppose we can actually "break out" of it. It seems far more likely to me that we would only end up in an outer simulation, which doesn't fix the "problem."

>>8395440
>50% chance
So we are, or we aren't, wow really makes you think. Also, how would you "escape" a simulation if this was one. Makes no sense.
Pointless article all in all.

>>8395440
I want to punch the author in the face

A fool and his money are soon parted

>>8395440
well can these scientists nerf cancer while they're at it?

>break us out
Why? Without the simulation we wouldn't exist. Couldn't this just provoke the admin of our universe to shut it down before we so something dangerous?

>tfw some advanced alien race is testing their hyperquantum CPU technology by simulating over 10 million evolution algorithms aka universe instances on their CPU farms, and you are in one of them

>>8395514
That's kind of like beating the game in a way. Say the admin or whoever is waiting for us to do that, to do a major upgrade of sorts. I doubt it would be cause for a total shutdown, if anything it is a milestone that once reached would have implications beyond our understanding that could lead to major advancements or changes in the simulation. Not that any of that would necessarily be good for us.

>>8395535
You really think they would let us out? Would you be fine if something crawled out of your petri dish? Or would you incinerate it?

>>8395543
...no?
>not containing it to study it
Wait, I'm the idiot scientist in scifi movies that gets everyone killed aren't I ; ;

In any case, I meant they might do something devastating to us, sure, but I think ending the simulation entirely would be less likely than some sort of soft reset or new scale of constraints like someone said earlier. It's not like tiny people are going to pour out of a computer, they probably have a secondary simulation ours exists with in and then we would be free to explore that. Like I said, if it were a game, we'd be advancing to the next level, or possibly the next game. Unless you're implying we are an unmonitored factor in a large scale similation and our breakthrough would be unexpected/irrelevant to the operators so then yeah I guess they'd just want to get rid of us.

>>8395543
>Would you be fine if something crawled out of your petri dish?

A petri dish is not a fucking simulation you retard.

This goes to you and the author of this article: what the fuck?

If we are in a computer simulation then how can we fucking get out of it? You do realize that we would just be a data structure within a program right? There is NOTHING for us outside of this program.

This shit is like writing a program that simply declares a variable that contains the number 5 and then expecting to see a number 5 crawling out of your fucking computer to haunt you. THAT NUMBER 5 DOES NOT EXIST OUTSIDE YOUR PROGRAM.

Well, technically we don't exist outside the computer because if aliens have shitty operating systems then another alien could make a program that can request pointers that other programs hold and then that other program could see us and change us.

BUT NOT OUTSIDE THE COMPUTER MOTHERFUCKER.

Ain't no fucking 1s and 0s escaping their computer.

>>8395666

Hypothetically, if we're the artificial intelligence created by an alien race, they created us with the ability to experience the reality of a simulated universe through a virtual vessel. If we're an artificial construct capable of experience in this universe, that which created us could feasibly allow us to experience his reality by giving us a vessel that can receive sensory input from his reality.

Your example would be more akin to this: write a program which declares a variable and sets it equal to 5. Flash this program onto a robot with the capacity to receive sensory input (e.g. video, audio, pressure sensors) from and interact with (e.g., a robotic arm or wheels for movement) out environment. This robot does nothing because, the number 5 is not sentient.

If we were to develop a system which were able to, given sensory input from an environment, simulate consciousness, we could place instances of that consciousness into a virtual environment. If we really wanted to, we could add a procedure to that environment which, upon some event in the environment, flashes an instance of that conscious mind onto the robot from the previous example. In this case, we would have a tangible example of a sentient being escaping from a virtual reality and coming into our own reality.

>>8395701
But why would aliens do this?

If we are data structures inside a program then to escape we would need our creators to do this. How are the scientists going to accomplish this?

They would have to find a way to communicate with the creators and then beg them to make us a robot that we can get in their world. You don't even need scientists for this, just make a really huge sign on the ocean that reads 'let us out nigga' and then let the aliens choose.

A program cannot make a robot outside of its realm.

First world conspiracies...

>>8395440
Why they not kill themself allready pls?

>>8395706
>How are the scientists going to accomplish this?

By exploiting bugs. Now as to how are they gonna look for those, that's another matter...

>>8395812
We already found a bug: the results of the double slit experiment.

This shows their collision detection algorithms are fucked.

>>8395454
>noTail
How does it feel to be cucked by OG?

>>8395706
How much processing power would you need to simulate over 10 billion years of random events just to get some ants on a tiny insignificant planet in a corner of vast universe?

Not to say the processing power the tiny ants consciousness would require... but then we multiply just like ants and the simulation doesn't seem to slow down - or never any glitches were observed.

I don't think we're in a simulation - a baby universe inside a bigger universe maybe... I think we're just part of the real deal - we just happened to be born in this "limited" reality so we envision the outside chaos in "limited" ways and mostly with our culture googles.

>>8395857
Here is what I think could be an explanation:

Aliens live in a universe exactly like ours but in their futuristic times, one of the open questions in mathephysilosophy is: How common is life? so their computer scientists, who are all math PhDs, decided to create an algorithm that will randomly generate universes with the exact rules of the actual universe.

Here I am assuming that their physics is solved and they actually know exactly how everything was formed and they understand how probabilistic it all was at the beginning.

Then, as CSfags do in all universes, they bruteforced the problem using their mega computers by creating a billion universes and then checking how many of them developed life.

This would explain why our universe is so shit and only has 1 good planet. It was a randomly generated universe.

I wish I lived in the tit universe, though. Alien overlords, can we manage a transfer here?

>>8395865
>check out this delusional chatbot thinking he has the mental capacity to become a functional member in our society
- one overlord just said to another, probably

>>8395876
I don't care about their society.

I want to go to the tit universe.

>>8395865
It wouldn't be wrong to assume - that in some chaotic plane of existence completely beyond our comprehension the beings that populate it managed to tame the chaos and actualized every single possible universe configuration...

Or again that every configuration was possible but the chaos suddenly actualized for no reason - simply because given eternity it could happen so a big bang happened and we live in this unique mathematical construct, but all of them are real at this point.

There's a high chance we're indeed inside some sort of simulation - but I honestly believe we're just the product of chaos that has nothing to do with any intelligence or organized anything.


But your point is also solid like: be in a universe beyond our comprehension that allows such processing power with machines, then it's likely that they just made a program to simulate random mathematical patterns, hell even imagine a timeless universe where eternity is given to everyone - if you could build a limited machine but with enormous processing power there, you could just queue every single simulation within the processing power limits for eternity - and why wouldn't an eternal being eventually do it anyway.

>>8395880
>It wouldn't be wrong to assume -
Yes it is. It is wrong to assume things without evidence.

>>8395880
We could simply be an exotic work of art.Music is different from other art forms because it is unfettered and 3 dimensional, we could be the next step up from this. looking at our existence from this viewpoint explains an awful lot of anomalies in our physical laws.

>>8396004
Right, something akin to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEEat65JMc

>>8395470

This is a stupid premise as far as simulation theory goes. The only thing needed to prevent simulated entities from "breaking out" is some code, not running a simulation within another simulation. You can't simulate a more complex universe than reality, so you won't waste processing power that could be used to make your simulation better. If anything, simulated entities gaining consciousness would be an interesting byproduct, not a problem.

>>8395440
>Break us out
Are you kidding me? Just figure out how to activate admin abilities so we can make things more interesting

>Someone figures out the commands for the physics engine to life
>Changes the speed of light by one digit for shits and giggles

>believing in God is retarded but somehow it's completely rational and different to believe that someone has trapped us in a simulation

>>8396181
No one in this thread has said that.

>>8395528
>advanced alien race uses ayypoos to do all the grunt work

>>8396297
>implying

>>8395440
He shrugged his shoulders. "I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

>the purpose of life is to be some ayy lmaos skynet

mite b coo

>>8395454
>independant
gb2middleschool

'
idgf nerds

lol

too busy drowning in pussy tbqhwyfamiliarity

There time is coming and they see it.
It's not a matrix it's God.

>>8396504
>God
Demiurge*

Thanks.

>>8396513
Are you afraid of using the word God? What makes you so scared?
Your word is made up. Why not use his real name?

>>8396515
Allright now wich religion was right...

>>8396518
Christianity.
Now? Only God.

>>8396520
When your own rich invest does that not mean something is 'happening'?
Listen to me not them.
Start praying to God.

And what if we are living inside a simulation? we are not "less real" because of that

Ill don't believe it until we find the end of pi. Let's see how precise this simulation is

>>8396591
>>8396589
I'm there.
Too late :)

>>8396031
>You can't simulate a more complex universe than reality

define complexity, but in the general case I disagree.

>The only thing needed to prevent simulated entities from "breaking out" is some code

how would you imagine a simulated entity could "jump out" of a server rack assuming that "the couple lines of code to prevent that" are not there?

>>8396596
Maybe you can simulate it but more slowly, time is relative, and you dont need to process every single atom in the universe all the time, just when a consciousness is "watching"

>>8396601
But God is always watching.

>>8396609
God may not exist even if we are inside a simulation, is a cognitive bias assuming that if we are inside a simulation then God exist..

No wonder it's being shilled.

I don't know about you creatures but the clues are loud and bright. It's my name in all the credit card commercials. I've had movies and TV shoes with my name. Even a town in Texas. Plus many other things show that this is not real. I can think of something and it happens. I'm not God. So it must be something else. I can predict the news. I shouldn't be right all the time. But I am. It all boils down to this is a simulation and I am somehow important to it. If I die the simulation might end. But I've had 7 strokes. Who the fuck has 7 strokes? I don't even need a poop sack. I've done things I knew would get me killed. And here I am still.

money and power make individuals literally insane.

>>8396698
Maybe you have schizophrenia, make sure is not the case, maybe the docs can help you if it is the case..

>>8395475
I have a 50% chance of winning the lottery. I will or I won't.

>I have a billion dollars and can do anything I want, whenever I want.
>Better try to escape my reality.

wot

>>8396705
I totally agree, some "smart" people convince them in order to fund their "science" (the real intention is getting their money)

>>8396712
And making the life of other people better is not in your agenda? we need more philanthropists in this world :P

>>8395666
>If we are in a computer simulation then how can we fucking get out of it?
Find out who's running the simulation, become capable of simulating a billion copies of him, and convince him he's one of those simulations which we'll torture for a billion perceived years if he doesn't provide us with access to the outside world. Obviously.

This is fascinatingly terrifying.

>>8396723
We can´t escape, if this simulation is an experiment they will never compromise their results by letting us get out of course, is common sense

>>8396706
No voices. Got a loud ringing in my ears. 14,000 hertz. Loudest thing in any environment. Well it was until I got hearing aids. Now it's omnipresent. But it can be drowned out now. And music. Different songs through the week but only I verse and chorus. Not the whole song. Another tell about this being a simulation: anything I like goes away. All my life. If I liked a soda it vanished. Or a menu item at a restaurant. If not the entire restaurant. Know what happened to Quiznos? I did. I Loved Their food. Now find a Quiznos. Just try. Was a great little Japanese place I loved on my old town. It went away years ago. I could co on and on.

Somehow I run this world. Can't for the life of me figure why or how. Being a simulation explains it all so well.

>>8396777
everything you say probably makes a ton of sense to you, but im still thinking you should check your mental health (no offense intended, i´m just worried) the brain can trick us in to believing things that are not real or even create fake memories, is a much more plausible explanation than having supernatural mental habilities

>>8396777
You dont run shit my boy

>>8396814
>>8396793
Of course you wouldn't understand, nobody does.

>>8396874
Yes, probably nobody does because is a very unplausible explanation (the mind world controlling thing) is probably not like people don´t care to listen or are closed minded, is just so hard to believe, all i´m saying is you should make sure is nothing wrong in your mind before assuming you have this mindblowing capabilities (make a rational approach before making conclusions)

>>8395440
The strongest argument for us being in a simulation, probably being in a simulation is the following: 40 years ago, we had pong, two rectangles and a dot,” Musk added. "That is what games were. Now 40 years later we have photorealistic 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, augmented reality, if you assume any rate of improvement at all, the games will become indistinguishable from reality."
This IMO is the error at the heart of this simulation idea. It's true that we can simulate characters in video games. But nobody thinks that those avatars are self-aware.
No matter how impressive the achievements of weak AI, such as winning at chess and go, we are not remotely close to producing a general AI or a self-aware AI. Progress in weak AI has been magnificent. Progress in strong AI going back 60 years, has been nil despite the constant hype machine. See for example What Computers Can't Do by Hubert Dreyfus, published in 1972. He was puncturing the AI hype over 40 years ago; and every one of his criticisms is valid today.
The argument is that "We will soon know how to create a strong AI, hence other civilizations do, hence we're probably one of their creations"
However the premise is wrong We have impressive feats of weak AI (self-driving cars, etc) but no progress at all in strong AI.
And besides: If we're a simulation, then our physics is artificial, a game programmed by an alien grad student. We have no knowledge at all about the true nature of reality. So all our clever theories of physics and computer science are illusions too; rendering the simulation argument meaningless.
And what would it mean to "break out?" Do you expect your word processor to break out? And do what, exactly?
The simulation hypothesis is just a trendy meme. There's no evidence for it, there's no logical argument, and it's self-contradictory. The closer you look the sillier it seems.

>>8396500
nice

>Make simulation of highly advanced apes. Literally just apes that evolves to have conciousness due to natural selection
>Make said apes, who were digging around in dirt only a few thousand years ago, smart enough to realize said simulation

Why is it so hard to accept that life is a one shot deal and stuff just panned out this way? What would be the point of making beings smart enough to realize theyre in a simulation? Same goes for God, why make us smart enough to realize the predicament of the choas that brought us forth and still expect us to play along? Why not just accept the chaos and live life?

>>8397187
>Make simulation of highly advanced apes. Literally just apes that evolves to have conciousness due to natural selection
>Make said apes, who were digging around in dirt only a few thousand years ago, smart enough to realize said simulation
Aliens are dicks.

Is this billionaire trying to CHIM out?

Why do people believe we're in a simulation? Under what series of thought does this idea even pop up in? Is there any evidence at all to suggest this, or is it some fermi paradox shit where we assume grandiose things about life in the universe despite having little to no knowledge on the topic

>>8397213
Literally new age metaphysics bullshit. May as well be science fiction, like the Matrix, since its just people running away from the truth and seekig a "better" explanation for why everything is so infinitely shitty.

>>8395440
>believing "scientific" articles from a jew controlled news organization.

>>8395440
>"scientific" articles from non-science journals
>reality and sensibility
pick one

>>8397187
why are you assuming that you are intelligent enough to understand the plan of an entity capable of creating that kind of shit?

>>8396031
>you can't simulate a more complex universe than reality

how do you know that our universe has all of the breadth and depth of whatever the "true" reality is? maybe we just have a few dimensions for the ayylmaos to see how different sorts of universes might behave?

obviously that's another leap in this already insane leap (some stuff in reality is fishy, maybe it's a simulation!) but i don't think that particular criticism is valid since, whatever our understanding of reality, if we were in a simulation we would necessarily have no way to describe the exterior reality which governs both our simulated universe and the non-simulated real universe containing our simulation.

>>8397226
>JEEEEEEWSSS!!!
The article doesn't imply anything, it's only pointing out what musk said.
>>>/pol/

>>8395440
>grant chasing horseshit wasting brain resources

This is why humanity is totally fucked.

>>8395498
Is that why havent got any?

>>8395445
THIS, literally.
80% of the scientific research in a nutshell.

>>8395440
This whole thing is dependent on computation power doubling every 4 years or something like that right?

But that has only been true because transistors are becoming smaller.

That doubling isn't sustainable. Which makes this whole thing stupid right?

I am more concerned why we haven't found another advanced life form yet.


Are we pond scum or maybe there just aren't any?

If the Creator is observing this: I volunteer to come out of the simulation if possible. Think of it as an experiment.

>>8395440
What might one say about this person who put us in this simulations?

>>8395440
I like how in this hypothesis (barely even that, more like philosophical posturing), that we live in a simulated universe, we still are focused on the idea of us at its centre.
If the entire universe is simulated then there are, theoretically, millions of other sentient species throughout the simulation, some who may have already figured out that the universe is simulated, some who might only have just started posturing, like us, some who aren't quite there yet.
With millions of sentient species, why should we be the focus of the simulation?

>>8397620
Given that 99.99999 (followed by a lot more 9's) of the universe is completely hostile to life, if the universe is a simulation, clearly sentient life is not the goal of the simulation, but a side effect.

We're a glitch in the code - don't alert the programming pool.

>>8395857
>Not to say the processing power the tiny ants consciousness would require..

If you're simulating particles, no more than a non concious collection of particles. If no optimalisation is used, that is.

>>8395440
This is why I don't believe in philosophy

A posteriori knowledge only please

Simulation, Reality, whatever. Those are just equivalence classes of the same thing, which in and of itself is impossible to define completely

You won't be able to prove that we're in a simulation by experimenting with physics or computers, etc. If we can think of a way to prove that we're in a simulation then you can be certain that whoever built the simulation also thought of it and planned accordingly.

Physics break down in the dream world. Truly breaking out of the simulation will be done with the mind, through a combination of DMT and lucid dreaming. Trippers report experiences of a breakthrough, where they seem to wake up in a different world surrounded by various entities. This is a shared phenomenon. And people who have tried DMT once have reported that, while in a dream, they can enter the DMT trip again. I believe that a properly trained psychonaut will be able to find evidence of our simulated world and bring that evidence back with them, or teach others how to find that evidence for themselves.

People trying hallucinogenics have reported "self-replicating machine elves", and this is a phenomenon that spans all time and borders. People tripping in modern day Europe will experience the same thing that shamans in the Amazon were experiencing thousands of years ago. These machine elves are said to be kind, and excited to see you. They will show you things, and be delighted at your astonishment. I believe that these machine elves are just a distraction, and that they're keeping the psychonaut from discovering a great truth.

I've been studying these things for some time now, and I feel extremely close to finding the truth. I would love to reach out to these tech billionaires and explain all this to them, but I feel like my words would fall on deaf ears.

And if you think this is all pseudoscientific bullshit, remember that this is a thread about simulated realities. Also remember that your opinion only matters to you.

>Now 40 years later we have photorealistic 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year.

no we don't
video games are not photorealistic
they don't have millions of people playing simulataneously, it's more like millions of people split into smaller groups
video games are not "simulations" in the way he's talking about

>>8400033
>>>/x/
also drugs are bad

>>8400579

hey look everyone, a simpleton shitposter

>>8395440
Fucking tired of Elon's bullshit.

>>8400033
>Maybe
Nope. All nonsense.

Also, weed fucks up your attention span. Just saying.

none of these hypotheses can explain consciousness. think about it

>>8400613
>>8400613

t. someone whose hardest drug ever taken was advil

also, note that weed was never discussed until you brought it up

>>8395440
kek!

but what if. Elon is simulator?
What if pol was right?

I think it's highly unlikely. The misunderstanding comes from conceptualizing the geometric picture of the total universe - it sort of helps to think of the universe as a circular disk or a tessellation in the shape of a ball or some kind of sphere. In the case that the universe is a flat like disk then the 2D likeness to the object makes it difficult to imagine that we can become more 3D and "stand up" but in the case of the sphere or ball, the momentum of activity feels like we have more influence over our environment. Ideas of being stuck in the Matrix trouble us because we're trying to picture our surroundings as indistinct from us, as if we're not growing at the same rate as them. But we are. There's a rich historical literature that makes this the common sense notion - that everything is about us. When it feels like it isn't, as in a massive boom in technological devices that are more advanced than what we can easily figure out in a brief amount of time, it'll all feel unreal and not quite leavable.

Let's say we are in a simulation, how the fuck would you hope to break out of it? Wouldn't breaking the simulation and effectively killing everyone be a major risk? Or am I just being autistic here.

>>8401301

google "dmt breakthrough"

you momentarily wake up from this simulation and see otherworldly beings monitoring you. you can converse with them. they are real.

>>8401332
>experiences under drugs are real because i percieve them to be real

that time you were the smartest guy in the world on cocaine? totally real

>>8401334

we're in a thread about the universe as a simulation. practical experiments are worthless here.

>>8395453
Do you think Maldacena knew he was making the biggest meme in physics when he published the AdS/CFT paper?

>>8395440
Why won't these dumb idiots throw money at something useful instead

>>8395440

Gosh, I hear this crap-question over and over again: "How can we escape our simulation in case we're currently in one?"

Being a software architect with 20 yrs exp in software dev let me deposit my few cents:

1. in case we're in a simulation, the simulation will work on very, very low level, like quarks and shit, there will hardly any "faggot Andy"- or "faggot Michael"-entities in a fucking "simulation directory", thus:
2. effects in a simulation aren't clearly separatable: in order to extract "faggot Andy" you also need to extract other shit "faggot Andy" needs, like air, sunshine, nutrition, porn and so on, because "faggot Andy" soon stops working without
3. a simulation requires an executing environment which you cannot leave, a "faggot Andy on a USB-stick" successfully left the simulation and stopped being "faggot Andy", not real in any more way but stopped working, congrats
4. there are always entity-aspects you simply cannot transfer from simulation to reality: a bit representing an infection in a simulation cannot be turned into a real infectiuos entity like a virus without creating something completely different, not counting as "hey, the bit just infected some real shithead"
5. in order to "break out" of a simulation, or even to defeat someone out of it, you already need a physical, non-simulated representation, and that's where you run around in circles: no physical representation=no influence, no influence=no physical representation
6. even if your consciousness can escape into reality somehow: cannot wrap your head around "any probable reality" and be like "mom, look, no hands in five space- and two time-dimensions reality, still work like expected!"

Better spend money in order to make our +reality+ better.

>>8401449
This, are these billionaires fucking retards? What a pathetic waste of money.

>>8395491
Now Im thinking for sure

two words: Tom Campbell

>>8396596
>i disagree
then you dont understand simulations or state holders or anything to do with the topic what so ever which begs the question: why are you posting as if your uneducated opinion fucking mattered?

>>8395440
It is turtles all the way down buddy.

>>8401449
I am going to play devil's advocate here,

So say this is a simulation. Assume it is specifically a simulation of earth. If you were coding that, you would probably try to keep the memory use to a minimum. So why not cut corners and only behave 'properly' in the sense of quacks if under observation specifically for that. assume the presence of an observer causes more rules to be obeyed, so that you can handwave other matters.

It is not without reason to argue that we could find bugs or exploits within it assuming that is the case.

Although I do think it is clickbait garbage for an article and clearly a waste of money.

>>8401334
Then I don't get those dead dudes jumping off roofs on acid believing they can fly...

Also, your argument would also make dreams, hypnosis, psychosis and/and/and "to be real", because they are states perceived "to be real"...

>>8401537
>>8401537

I don't exactly know that you're aiming at (or try even to express, sorry, English is not my first language), but I hope I got you right. A simulation is actually defined being a "simplified model of a complexer situation to be examined".

> Assume it is specifically a simulation of earth

Yes, excellent, I run this "Earth Simulator 2016". And now? The atoms and electrons +of my reality+ don't give a shit whether they're part of my PC's RAM being part of a memory cell representing a small part of the atlantic ocean. Let's just assume they're part of some bad ass guy being part of my simulation who just now decides to escape. Okay, and me, the bad ass scientist in front of my computer thinks "gosh, that villain needs to be real". And now? I open my PC case, scratch all those bad ass villain atoms together, and using a bit of which fairy dust I inject the machine code plus data state into some neighbours brain? Copying the PC state to a human won't be enough, right, because then I would'nt helped him to "escape" but just created a copy.

>cont'd

>>8401537
>It is not without reason to argue that we could find bugs or exploits within it assuming that is the case.
I cannot recall any instance of AI exploiting its own software. Why would humans be any different?

>>8401568

> part 2:
Many do not seem to understand, that simulations +always+ requires an interpreter, ME, for example, if I watch my galaxy-simulations, because even the executing hardware is not enough to make my machine code and state information more but just some state transitions in an electrical machine. It requires me as interpreter to actually see the electrical charges as stars and clouds, and thus, make the PC and simulation more but just a heat dispenser. Don't get me wrong, but as long as you are "simulated state" based on "interpreted information", you simply cannot "enforce" to transfer your "interpreted information" into something real, because you will always lack the interpreter.

Let me ask you (all) a question: if I find a physical flaw in our reality, being a very, very strong evidence for our reality "only being a simulation", what would change that? Would you love your parents, kids, wife, friends whatever, less, because you know they're "just simulations"? Would your pain be less painful, because you now know it's simulated? Would your birth or death be suddenly avoidable, only because of such knowledge? Would you stop living because of it?

IMHO, ppl's idea (and obvious) desire to escape from "a possible simulation" is dissatisfaction with the thought of "not being real", and they're either too stupid or too arrogant to understand, that they're nothing more but what they are in exactly that moment, and they cannot be any more "real". Your intrinsic value is defined by what you are, not by what you're made of. IDC if my wife is flesh or some kind of electric charge - she's my wife and I love her, and that's all that's relevant for me.

>>8400033
Look into the work of Metod Saniga

>>8395528
>tfw you are just a benchmark running on ayyTEX quanta (tm) chips

>>8395440
Why would it even matter if we live in a simulation or not?

>>8395666
well you could hack the machine you are running on.
You know when autists use total contral bug exploits on old games?
Let's say a character has you as an ai. You could then use exploits (if there are any) to write whatever you want in the memory and by that hack a webcam and feed the data back to your health bar or whatever.
Obviously things wouldn't work that way but it is conceptually possible for a simulated being to get knowledge of the reality where it is simulated in. If the simulation is done in a shitty way...

>>8401577
> Why would it even matter if we live in a simulation or not?

Because it would ppl force to stop fapping and being dicks, because there'd be "others" which are "watching them" ^^

>>8401485
lots of bizarre subjects get researched, if the potential payoff is big enough
eg ESP, telekinesis, telepathy (British Telecom for example spent millions on telepathy research)

and yes they could well be (and i strongly suspect that they are) complete bullshit, but if one of these companies or groups DID achieve success, imagine what that would be worth

>>8401582
this reminds me of the stories of people being misdiagnosed with cancer and then purportedly developing cancer via the subsequent constant fear of having cancer

>>8401591
funny story but I'm too stupid to see the relation

>>8401582
> well you could hack the machine you are running on.

that wouldn't allow you to escape.

> You could then use exploits (if there are any) to write whatever you want in the memory

Sounds like a great idea, make the fucking think crash surely helps to escape the PC.

> feed the data back to your health bar

Awww, c'mon... be visionary... why not just 3D-print a physical body and run aways? Ah, right, you would still leave a copy of yourself in the PC, but if you order your printed copy to delete yourself, you'd be probably, err, dead, right?

>>8401595
getting data from outisde your simulation is already a breakout for me.
>details
idc about the details. I just wanted to say that breaking out is definetly not impssible. At least in some setup of the simulation it is possible in some way to get out. It might be the case that it's impossible but it's not fundamentally impossible.

>>8401586
> nd yes they could well be (and i strongly suspect that they are) complete bullshit, but if one of these companies or groups DID achieve success, imagine what that would be worth

Hmmm, any help to answer that? Even the theists/atheists-debate wouldn't be any clearer, because nobody can tell whether they're simulating their new 5D-cup-cake -oven or even recognizing us in the scale between quantum foam and astro-filaments...

>>8401592
well it's like the doctor wrote the information into his health feedback matrix, resulting in a truth appearing out of nowhere

>>8401603

>At least in some setup of the simulation it is possible in some way to get out

No, it's not.

> idc about the details

Me neither, but hey, I'm right anyways.

Because it requires you to extend your perception beyond your reality, and you cannot "enforce" this. If you don't know you're simulated you cannot escape, and even if you know, your perception does not automagically extend to recognize the laws of the "outer" reality, nor does your knowledge automagically understand how to manipulate a non-understood reality without a physical manifestation other than "interpreted state in some state machine".

Maybe in some future time, when we will be able to really create artificial conciousness, which runs some physical machine, but then we wouldn't call them "a simulation" anyways, because it would already be real. We already were able to create artificial viruses, someday we'll be able to create artificial conciousness and we will give it a body for interacting with reality, and only idiots would call this some "escaped simulation entities".

>>8401603

> getting data from outisde your simulation is already a breakout for me.

You don't have an perception being able for "getting data outside of your simulation"

> and by that hack a webcam and feed the data back to your health bar or whatever

Yeah, right, you have no eyes, no visual cortex and no understanding of what we live in here "outside", but you as a bunch of zeroes and ones will c-e-r-t-a-i-n-l-y "hack that cam", realize it's image data somewhere in memory, immediately understand the idea of 3D-space dumped as a 2D-image in a 1D-memory and immediately understand the picture of the dude's backhead and the LCD showing your "health bar" you never heard or saw before... clever you!

>>8395865
So you're saying there are alien versions of sean murray?

>>8395440
What if we manage to break out of the simulation, and it turns out we were just simulated consciousnesses? It would make for some creepy-pasta shit, but not so much for us as for the people running the simulation.

> Programmers spend what could be millions of terabytes to simulate conscious minds and an entire universe
> Watch as those simulated, conscious people crash the entire system that probably took a ton of power and time to make and maintain

Why would the programmers/gods that made this simulation even allow us to think about breaking the simulation, let alone try? It would be as if we built a supercomputer only to allow it to blow itself up

>>8395653
when AI becomes a reality we should absolutely simulate a 2d life, breaking into a 3d simulation to see how it deals with it.

>>8397099
Fuck you are stuipd in another 40 years he is saying we could have the holo deck. And then what ever comes after that. He is trying to say creating a simulation like ours is possible.

>>8402044
hey, were a programmer in the gaming industry for years, am I godlike now?

>>8395440
I always thought we were in matrix.

Like, how in the fuck could things go so wrong for me otherwise? It's not bad luck. The whole fucking universe is against me and it is true.
Everything in this world points to the fact that we are in a simulated world.

>>8396500
>simulated pussy
enjoy that delusion of fun

>>8396712
>can do whatever I want
can't escape the simulation

literally what they are trying to do

>>8401568
You are assuming the life outside the simulation is even similar to the life inside it

a donkey cannot understand quantum physics and similarly we might not be able to understand the outside of this simulation.
Begs the question if we can understand the reality outside the simulation even after leaving the simulation.

>>8402044
built a supercomputer to see IF it can blow itself up

>>8402044
It's probably a bit harder to control something as intricate as our thought patterns than it is to create a basic ruleset and let some supercomputer run it. Think of why some people call deep learning algorithms a black box - we don't actually get to know how exactly a conclusion is reached, we just decide on the input and observe the output... to grossly simplify the situation.

Assuming the simulation exists, the creatures managing it probably have some safeguards for foreseeable situations, but I think it's safe to assume that they are not perfect either.

>>8395470
>even in The Matrix series, they are not in one simulation, but in a simulation within a simulation
Wait what, when did that happen?

>>8402578
>neo still has superpowers "outside" the matrix

>>8395666
>simulate thing in computer
>this thing gains awareness
>this thing starts hacking nearby computers
>this thing uploads its consciousness into a robot
>1s and 0s are haunting you

why are you so uncreative

>>8402592
Wasn't that just a plot hole/don't give a fuck thing? Shit man.

>>8400033
>If we can think of a way to prove that we're in a simulation then you can be certain that whoever built the simulation also thought of it and planned accordingly.

some bitch has never played dwarf fortress in his life

>>8395440
Fucking elon musk again. As soon as I saw this post I knew he would be behind this shit. Only he could be this stupid. He seriously needs to stop reading sci fi short stories on reddit

Pretty fuckin simple.

I'm a war ape.

I HAVE NO GOD. I HAVE NO MASTER. I WAS CREATED THIS WAY. FUCK OFF

>>8402114

sure, if you managed to give them consciousness and an awareness of you

>>8402329

why would a programmer even want to do that? what knowledge is gained from it? why take the risk of wasting so much

>>8402561

i mean, you are right, but if their simulation has the power to create a consciousness, then it should be able to control our thought patterns, as it knows what makes up those patterns. a safeguard would be to make sure we dont even think of breaking out in the first place. if they cannot control our thought processes, then they have some sort of uncertainty on how their simulation works, and that the simulation can get out of their control, in which case theyd go all out and just end the simulation and improve on it to ensure we dont even think about breaking out of a simulation.

just by thinking about it, we already pose a risk to them. whatever reason a simulation would be created for would be pointless if those inside it can purposely crash it

>>8400033

> Programmers patched up holes that would otherwise be detected by physics and computers
> Ignore party drugs that are common among college kids and New Agers

what did he mean by this

>>8403144
>why would a programmer even want to do that? what knowledge is gained from it? why take the risk of wasting so much
if humanity could build such a machine and it blew up then couldn't that be considered proof that they can escape their matrix or at least destroy it, so we could too? Consider the simulation inside the computer could move at super-speed and would be done in minutes

>>8403157

who would be the ones to test for the universe being a simulation?
>"""""scientists"""""

what is the one subject that science knows the least about?
>the human mind

what do """""scientists""""" scoff at and think nothing of?
>consciousness expanding drugs and plants


yeah, forget that microdosing lsd is a common thing in silicon valley.
yeah, forget that lucid dreaming helped some of the biggest names in science attain their biggest breakthroughs.
yeah, forget that the entire world and reality that you know of happens in your mind.
yeah, discredit mind altering and consciousness expanding drugs.

that's why you'll always be insignificant. Columbus didn't reach America by doing laps in the Spanish harbor.

>>8395440
>break us out of it
>not hack it to make anime real
For a billionaire he sure lacks vision.

>>8405077
FUCKING KEK

>>8395878
Why would you want to live in a universe where small birds are sentient beings?

>>8395829
Hahaha, dank comment

>>8404041
How about you explaining:

HOW does microdosing LSD in silicon valley matter?
HOW exactly has lucid dreaming been important for science?
HOW exactly have anyone dismissed mind-altering substances and in what context?

Colombus did not sit in his room high on psychedelics daydreaming

>>8395440
I've always felt electrons represented our universes binary code

>>8404041

> its another "LSD is the third eye"' episode

>>8395440
What would you fund if you were a billionare /sci/

>>8405906
proving anthropogenic Darwinian string theory wrong

>>8404041
>making this argument
>favoring drugs instead of meditation

What do you think they're trying to do to break out then?
Is it drugs? Or meditation? Or something else? How can I break out of this matrix of torment?