[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.35 MB, 5000x3750, scratched-texture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3610700 [Reply] [Original]

Awhile ago I read a paper that argued it's likely we exist in a simulated universe. If this simulation happens to be run by an ethical species, do you think they'll transfer our saved consciousness after death to their universe? I think that would be just a little bit AWESOME.

>> No.3610702
File: 240 KB, 320x915, simulation argument.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3610700
pic kinda related

>> No.3610708

We could be a simulation universe ran in a "real" universe, but occham's razor says we are more likely to be the "real" universe

>> No.3610712

>>3610708
This.

>> No.3610734

> Awhile ago I read a paper...
How long ago?

> ... that argued it's likely we exist in a simulated universe
What paper? Where? Show me.

>> No.3610738

>>3610734

Brainwashed academia nut

>> No.3610742

>>3610734

Simulation Argument

>> No.3610749

>>3610734
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The logic seems sound.

>> No.3610753
File: 113 KB, 867x465, oh_that.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3610702
Oh, Nick Bostrom, a known and convicted drug dealer. Riiiiight. Good going, Hans.

>> No.3610758

>>3610753
What?

>> No.3610768

>>3610700
Most likely not. Unless they want farther research. Also, If we are in a simulation, the most likely scenario (from a human stand point) would be research. If this is the case, their are billions of lives (many more if you include animals) and possible multiple times that on multiple other planets.
I still get caught up on the idea as to why a creator would make an entire universe just for a simulation.
If a simulation is the case, you should realize that nothing exists until it is discovered. The stars in the sky really were just tiny dots until some life form saw more. The world was not made of atoms until they discovered atoms.
If we are in a simulation my guess (which is the best anyone can really give for this question) the chance of them bringing our consciousness in their "world" is very close to 0%.

A much better question is if we ever create simulations entirely in a computer program, would we ever take them into the real world? Would we use these computer programs as "training" for future robots? These are still almost pointless questions, unless you want to make a sci-fi.

>>3610708
Occham's razor is not applicable here. It is too many assumptions to say anything before the big bang. A simulation isn't really assuming more than any other theories I have heard.

>> No.3610778
File: 4 KB, 120x144, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

> 2003

>> No.3610781
File: 83 KB, 320x320, A108C1DC-C155-4906-9CA25781876742E3_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3610753
Let it all be known that a guy who theorized a simulated universe could be a fraud because he sold some drugs.

On a similar note, LSD

>> No.3610790

There are three possible outcomes: Christianity is true, Islam is true, or atheism is true.

Two of the three possibilities require god to exist

What is more likely, there is no god (1/3 chance) or god does exist (2/3 chance)

see why this logic doesn't work?

>> No.3610802

>>3610790
Because you're an idiot?

>> No.3610814

>>3610790
>Derailing thread

Actually all 3 need God to exist. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist/not willing to believe in one, therefore atheists must understand the notion of God being a spiritual/metaphysical entity.

>> No.3610827

>>3610790
>three possible outcomes
Well there is one of your problems.
>no god (1/3 chance_ or god does exist (2/3 chance)
There is your other problem.
>see why this logic doesn't work?
Yes I see why your logic doesn't work, but who where you talking to and what where you trying to prove?

>> No.3610832

>>3610814
As in the same way unicorns exist?

>> No.3610834

>>3610827
>>3610827

It's the same logic that guy is using to prove we're in a simulation. Lern2 analogy

>> No.3610835

>>3610790
it doesn't work because the first assumption isn't true. the assumption that we either are or are not in a simulated universe is a universal truth. go take a logic class.

>> No.3610836
File: 8 KB, 417x429, Hurr Durr.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.3610842

>>3610834
poor and inaccurate analogy is poor and inaccurate.

lrn2logic

>> No.3610852

>>3610832
If unicorns were beings that those 2/3 groups believe in the same way as God, then yes.

>> No.3610863

>>3610834
>that guy
WHAT GUY?

>> No.3610907

>>3610852
I kind of understand what your saying, but I don't see what difference it makes if the person actually believe it 'exists'. anything you can think of then exists. So are you saying we should say is real rather than exists, or explain what level it exists?

>> No.3611053

>>3610702
So lemme get this straight.

>Since it's possible that we are A.I. simulations, since we ourselves produce A.I. simulations..

>You conclude that the answer containing the least possible assumptions is that we are simulations ourselves.

Hmm.. I think the answer with the least possible assumptions is that simulations exist. I don't know how anyone could deduce anything else from the given information.

>> No.3611077
File: 43 KB, 598x327, 1299719627739.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3611053
And furthermore, if we were A.I. entities running inside a simulation, it wouldn't matter anyway. We have know way of observing the laws and dimensions of the universe outside the simulation. It could be based on something totally alien to us. How can we assume that our simulation mimics the reality outside of it. For that reason, no plausible application to this reality exists, so why ask the question, especially if there is no compelling reason to ask it in the first place?

>> No.3611089

>>3611077
Because you touch yourself at night.