/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11379983]

is there anything worse than simulationfags? this theory requires every bit as much of a leap of faith as the "backwards" beliefs they so fervently oppose in religion

[Anonymous No.11380040]

>>11379983
With religion falling out as not being the main central narrative in first world countries, those left faithless in a wasteland of consumerism needed an outlet for something to believe in for our origins that wasn't covered by religion. The simulation thing is mainly a meme, while it is a fun thing to think about and ponder the possibilities of, it's just used by simfags to Neolarp.

[Anonymous No.11380052]

>>11379983
nobody says the universe was designed with a computer. what people say is that a simulation could run on a computer. not the actual universe.

>is there anything worse than simulationfags?
yes you and your shitty thread. in the garbage you go *hides thread*

[Anonymous No.11380066]

>>11380052
that is not what they are saying sadly.

[xxxx !M2clACoxQA No.11380070]

>>11380052
Laws of nature and the inital state. Everything else follows

[Anonymous No.11380450]

>>11380052
>not the actual universe
And you know this how? What is "the universe" for an NPC in GTA?

[Anonymous No.11380463]

>>11380450
>an NPC in GTA?
am i creating a person that experiences something if I paint a picture with people in it? You literal retard.

[Anonymous No.11380484]

>>11380463
Am I creating a person if I throw a bunch of various atoms at each other? Atoms that are comprised of subatomic particles? Which are just fucking a form of energy? How is that different from a pixel?

[Anonymous No.11380499]

>>11380484
>how is reality different from a pixel?
herp derp ooga booga

[Anonymous No.11381095]

>>11379983
Not quite as much, we at lease have evidence that simulating stuff is at lease doable under at lease some conditions, unlike muh faith or literal magic.
Still unfalsifiable bullshit though.

[Anonymous No.11381125]

>>11379983
>still being a fedora in 2020
kek

[Anonymous No.11381505]

>>11379983
People don't blindly believe that we are in a simulation. They merely entertain the possibility, because there is no evidence to the contrary. This is very different from blindly believing in intelligent design, which is in direct contradiction with evolution which has loads of evidence.

[Anonymous No.11381509]

>>11379983
>is there anything worse than simulationfags?
Poltards are worse

[Anonymous No.11381521]

>>11379983
It is certainly pused intellectual wankery that is unprovable

[Anonymous No.11382095]

>>11379983
another simulation thread were some smug ignorant fucktard doesn't even deal with the arguments. the simulation hypothesis is not postulated to explain the same things theistic intelligent design tries to explain. it's something that is argued to follow if you accept certain premises about future and technology that by themselves sound reasonable to many. so the interesting part is that you get a somewhat crazy sounding and counter-intuitive conclusion that many who might have accepted the premises probably didn't think of. the premises however are far from universally accepted, you can question those or the form of the argument, or maybe dismiss as an idle non-falsifiable speculation that has no practical consequences, but if you shitpost about how it's totally like the God argument or the solipsistic argument you haven't even begun to address the idea.
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
https://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html

i for one assign a very low probability to the idea that we're in a simulation, and even if we were in one I don't particularly care, I just hate people like you who don't even bother to learn about what they criticize.

[Anonymous No.11382146]

>>11381509
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.11382185]

>>11381509
Kids bringing up /pol/ in every thread are even worse.

[Anonymous No.11382247]

>yes i believe that the universe is ruled by stochastic processes and disorder, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.11382328]

>>11379983
as much of a meme as it is, I find it more plausible than an invisible sky daddy caring about the mixed types of garments you wear.

[Anonymous No.11382331]

>>11382328
>it makes sense because of another schizo theory

[Anonymous No.11382344]

>>11382331
do tell what came before the big bang anon?

[Anonymous No.11382347]

>>11382185
Nah this entire site is ruined by /pol/ incels, this board being one of the more recent victims. Not mentioning it and passively pretending they’re allowed to be here is wrong. Call out these fucking incel retards until the admins start perma banning.

[Anonymous No.11382350]

A simulation hypothesis is infinitely more respectable than any religious belief

[Anonymous No.11382353]

>>11380052
A simulation of the universe is not possible because it breaks the halting problem, which states that there is logically impossible to compute every algorithm there is.

[Anonymous No.11382356]

>>11382350
It's the same as any religious belief because it is based on nothing but faith.

[Anonymous No.11382358]

>>11382344
No idea, I'm not a physics fag

[Anonymous No.11382359]

>>11382356
A hypothesis isn’t based on faith you halfwit incel. Go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.11382368]

I’ve never seen any proponent of simulation treating it like a religious belief. All I’ve seen are desperate pseudo-intellectual sweaty fat retards on the internet insisting that it is treated like a religious belief so they can have this “gotcha” moment where they’re exposing anti-religious intellectuals as hypocrites

[Anonymous No.11382370]

>>11382359
It is based on faith in pop science. The simulation hypothesis is really stupid because it's mathematically impossible.

[Anonymous No.11382373]

>>11382347
>until the admins start perma banning
This. Ban every retard that complains about /pol/.

[Anonymous No.11382374]

>>11382370
Given certain parameters humans could be creating simulated fake people that think they’re real within a few decades. You are an uneducated moron.

[Anonymous No.11382379]

>>11382373
Neo-nazis are low IQ abortions and do not belong on a science board. People that think neo-nazis don’t deserve to breathe, let alone ruin Internet forums, do belong on a science board.

[Anonymous No.11382387]

>>11382373
Yay then every board will be /pol/'s thoughts on that topic entirely, wonderful. No real discussion at all.

[Anonymous No.11382391]

>>11382387
>/pol/
>thoughts
I’m pretty sure 99% of them don’t even count as sentient

[Anonymous No.11382393]

>>11382373
not your hugbox buddy

[Anonymous No.11382571]

>>11382095
thanks, you saved me time writing this

[Anonymous No.11382630]

>>11382347
Your campaign to call everything you don’t like and actual scientific inquiries about controversial topics “/pol/“ is extremely annoying but ultimately innefective. You will never convert any board to the echo chamber you so desire, as it would be contradictory to the very nature of this website.
>inb4 “NO U R POL REEEEEEE”

[Anonymous No.11382634]

>>11382347
>on /sci/
>calling other incels
anon...

[Anonymous No.11382650]

>>11382347
>i'm going into engineering because fuck men; women hating bigot pigs!
>the future is FEMALE!
>have an issue? you're an incel.
>what the fuck is a probability curvature?
>why isn't mathematics PhDs at least 50% female what the fuck

[Anonymous No.11383120]

>>11382630
you /pol/tards spamming james watson etc threads under the pretense of “actual scientific inquiries” gets pretty annoying, but sometimes it’s also fun to dunk on some 90 IQ blue collar workers

[Anonymous No.11383128]

>>11379983
I think you guys are confused on what they mean by "simulation". Because you're kind of closed minded.

everything you interact with is through your senses and when your brain observes something you're looking at a reflection of a bunch of stimuli to create the images you are looking at. It's not "real" in the sense that you're interacting with a piece of wood or whatever in "real time" there's delays and your brain has to take in information before you get the experience.

[Anonymous No.11383130]

>>11383120
Are you projecting that 90 IQ estimation

[Anonymous No.11383132]

>>11382379
>everyone i disagree with is a neonazi /pol/ incel
rent free

[Anonymous No.11383140]

>>11383132
Just report for low-quality.

[Anonymous No.11383143]

>>11383120
>actual scientific inquiries are only limited to the overton window i set
this is equivalent to begging for stagnation.
>>11383130
that's high balling for them too.

[Anonymous No.11383200]

>>11383130
but /pol/tards aren’t in higher education which places them in the 90-100 range

>>11383143
the irony of watson and race threads is that the discrepancy between some black dude’s IQ and a 90-100 /pol/ poster is much smaller than the discrepancy between this poster and /sci/‘s true based intelligentsia actually in academia. you are literally more nigger to me than a nigger is a nigger to you

[Anonymous No.11383214]

>>11383200
>but /pol/tards aren’t in higher education which places them in the 90-100 range
That's not how statistics work... what the fuck

[Anonymous No.11383216]

>>11379983
nothing is real

[Anonymous No.11383224]

>>11379983
>this theory requires every bit as much of a leap of faith as the "backwards" beliefs they so fervently oppose in religion
I'm not one of those guys, but this is false. For starters, we know that computers are real, and that they can simulate things; we even know the lowest level details of how this works. You only need to assume that a computer with an insane amount of resources exists, and then you've got simulationism (assuming that it means what I think it does). On the other hand, religion requires you to assume that gods can exist, then that a god exists, then that it's exactly the god you believe in, then that the people who relay his word to you are capable of understanding him, then that those people are being 100% truthful... And so on. And this doesn't even account for the possibility of others god existing, or a god that existed in the past and died, and others. The point is that simulationism is much more probable than a magic man.

[Anonymous No.11383226]

>>11383200
i'm not a /pol/tard btw, i'm at the top of my class grad student. i just don't see the harm in anyone asking questions unlike you who want to put a stranglehold on free inquiry. i think what people like you are trying to do in the name of safety from ideas is much more dangerous than any racist, or whatnot. people like you are no different than the church of yesteryear who would crucify those who deviated from what is allowable speech.

[Anonymous No.11383251]

>>11383226
what’s this weird sensationalism about stranglehold on free inquiry, let’s draw a line between this and making fun of /pol/tards for their kind of ironic motivations when regurgitating stats on black people lol tf

>>11383214
like no that’s kind of the actual stats

[Anonymous No.11383263]

>>11383251
>what’s this weird sensationalism about stranglehold on free inquiry
it's not weird at all. just look what happened to damore for his memo. also since watson was brought up, that too. look i have nothing against black people but if you're gonna go on some crusade over some words being said that is where i have an issue.

[Anonymous No.11383264]

>>11383251
it's not weird sensationalism at all. just a lot of obfuscation from the ones trying to control inquiry in what they're doing. just look what happened to damore for his memo. also since watson was brought up, that too. look i have nothing against black people but if you're gonna go on some crusade over some words being said that is where i have an issue.

[Anonymous No.11383550]

>>11381505
>People don't blindly believe that we are in a simulation
yes they do
>They merely entertain the possibility
it's not a possibility
>This is very different from blindly believing in intelligent design, which is in direct contradiction with evolution
that depends on the theist. some believe a god created the universe, but allowed evolution to do its thing. in that case, they accept evolution, but not the big bang.

but they are both full of blind faith dipshits.

[Anonymous No.11383561]

>>11380052
low iq

[Anonymous No.11383564]

>>11380052
>>11380484
>>11380450

low iq

[Anonymous No.11383687]

>we can't be in a simulation because people are magic and you can't simulate magic!
Creationists and people too stupid to understand why we are likely in a simulation are pretty much the same, you are trying to attribute a magic force to explain existence.

[Anonymous No.11383767]

>>11379983
One thing is dogmatic, the other is not.

What about a simulated religion?
Or a religion about a simulation.
Or a simulated religion about a simulation.

Can you imagine a religion that is not like virus?

[Anonymous No.11383798]

If the simulation is real, who created the simulation?
Who created the entity who created the simulation?

[Anonymous No.11383847]

>>11380052
i agreed with you until you wrote down your activity like a total urbanite leach please kys

[Anonymous No.11383907]

>>11383767

all human beliefs/cultures/myths/laws etc are like a virus/parasite

[Anonymous No.11383960]

>>11383907
If you mention parasite, then why not mention symbiotic too?

[Anonymous No.11384992]

>>11383550
>yes they do
Who, exactly?
>it's not a possibility
How do you know this?
>that depends on the theist. some believe a god created the universe, but allowed evolution to do its thing. in that case, they accept evolution, but not the big bang.
I'm not talking about theists, I'm talking about people that do not believe in intelligent design, i.e. not evolution.