Simulation Theory

[Anonymous No.14592644]

What should science do now that simulation theory has failed to be disproven?

Here is the data:

Simulation Theory Overview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMEIohyILZk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznWo8f020I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhy4Z_32kQo

Dead Internet Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMpsFfhaVk

The Gateway Process
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkmtiwyGvys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpGWtOV_mFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR8QAbRHMOs

Machine Elves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl38wIkeExs

Synthetic Telepathy and Artificial Intelligence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oNf0JhqtPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz2U6ndA4tc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPLvj-GcfSU

Synthetic Dimensions, Astral Projection,
Consciousness Beings, Holographic Beings,
and Simulation Operators
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NptU5lchDs

Kyle Odom's Encounter with 'Elohim'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgbXzOVSTU

Telepathic Reality-Bending Network Documentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgkm3mDCp7g

Factual Dramatization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WXwmQzvHWE

Has the ‘Dobby’ Mystery Been Solved?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CEzMp6uujw

Fairies BBC Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cVGzK6aYWo

[Anonymous No.14592647]

The Nimitz Encounters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRgoisHRmUE

[Anonymous No.14592655]

>>14592644
I can see you've done a lot of high quality 21st century research, anon

[Anonymous No.14592656]

[Anonymous No.14592703]

>>14592644
Simulation theory is the atheists version of god, which is pretty retarded, but posting a bunch of YouTube videos doesn't count as research.

[Anonymous No.14592755]

>>14592703
what do you want? a dissertation?

[Anonymous No.14592762]

>>14592755
There is no need to refute weak theories of everything. In fact, theories of everything are just a waste of time. Don't waste your time. You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.14592764]

>>14592703
the theory: earth is a simulation created by simulation operators, populated by machine elves, holographic elf people, internet bots, people, UFOs, and airplanes that spawn in the sky
the experiment: a magazine full of hollowtip bullets
hypothesis: the holographic elves will not die if shot
result: kyle odom failed to kill two holographic elf people
conclusion: we live in a simulation

[Anonymous No.14592771]

Failing to disprove a theory only means the current canon is incomplete, not necessarily unsound. Possibilities of everything being simulated of course do exist, but I wouldn't suggest jumping into conclusions.

[Anonymous No.14592792]

>>14592644
>What should science do now that simulation theory has failed to be disproven?
its non-falsifiable now shut up

[Anonymous No.14592794]

>>14592644

>YAAAAA bro God is totally so fake

>So yeah, we were basically created as a simulation by space elves so that the lizard people can stay happy.
>Yeah yeah bro, you should totally do weed, it doesn't harm your brain at all

Atheists have fried brains.

[Anonymous No.14592802]

>>14592794
space elves ARE the lizard people

[Anonymous No.14592807]

>>14592794
exosimulational scientists created space elves so the human AIs can stay happy

[Anonymous No.14592818]

>>14592794

[Anonymous No.14592956]

Links galore!

[Anonymous No.14593001]

>>14592644
>youtube
not science

[Anonymous No.14593004]

>>14592644
Try to entertain the Creator.

https://www.jetpress.org/volume7/simulation.pdf

>If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you.

>In sum, if your descendants might make simulations of lives like yours, then you might be living in a simulation. And while you probably cannot learn much detail about the specific reasons for and nature of the simulation you live in, you can draw general conclusions by making analogies to the types and reasons of simulations today. If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal it seems that you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look likely to become eventually rich, expect to and try to participate in pivotal events, be entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happy and interested in you.

[Anonymous No.14593005]

>>14592644
The goal of the simulation may be to create God via the Singularity and influence the far future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NXj1og0SYo

[Anonymous No.14593010]

>>14592644
What does /sci/ think of Magnus Vinding's attempt to debunk simulation theory? He thinks that advanced aliens would be utilitarians, and that reality would be a utopia if it were a simulation.

http://magnusvinding.blogspot.com/2015/01/why-simulation-hypothesis-is-almost.html

>As a general matter, speculations about a world beyond, or behind, our own are bound to be highly speculative. Because, first, we do not know whether such a world exists, and, second, even if it does, many things we know from the world we observe cannot necessarily be applied to say anything about other worlds. This is one reason to seriously doubt the simulation hypothesis: it rests on the assumption that the world in which the simulation is supposed to take place is much like our own, and given the vast space of possible simulations, this seems fantastically unlikely. So, strangely, if we accept the hypothesis that we are living in a simulation, the purported basis of the simulation hypothesis itself seems of questionable validity, and that is rarely a good sign for a hypothesis – when it seems to pull the rug under its own feet.

>There are better reasons to doubt that we should be living in a simulation, though. For the simulation hypothesis also rests upon the assumption that we will one day be running realistic simulations of our past. Yet just how likely is it that we, ourselves and our descendants, will run such functional, conscious copies of our own past? This is finally a question that does not borderline on the extremely esoteric, as it relates directly, and exclusively, to the world we know and can know, and we should therefore – unlike when it comes to answering the question about whether a world wherein our world is simulated would resemble our world the slightest – at least be able to provide some sort of hint as to what the answer to this question might be.