What are some arguments against the simulation argument? If simulating a universe was possible, isn't it very likely that we are living in a simulation?

File: 119 KB, 593x600, Brain_in_a_vat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:38:24 2017 No.9350571 [Reply] [Original]

What are some arguments against the simulation argument? If simulating a universe was possible, isn't it very likely that we are living in a simulation?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:39:21 2017 No.9350574 >>9350571 there is no way to take about how "likely" something like that is. it's a completely useless thing to talk about.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:42:20 2017 No.9350582

>>9350574
How come? If a perfect simulation of a universe can be made, such a simulation could also create a simulation within it, so you have this infinite chain of simulations, so it is very unlikely that you are at the very start of it. Am I missing something? I really hope I am.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:46:56 2017 No.9350589 >>9350574 Outsider detected

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:47:59 2017 No.9350592 >>9350582 Turtles all the way down

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:49:18 2017 No.9350595 >>9350592 What did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:49:54 2017 No.9350596 >>9350582 the problem is you have no idea what probability is, and what is necessary in order to say that something is "unlikely". your argument is nonsense

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:53:44 2017 No.9350601 >>9350571 Why can't I be simulated happy.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:54:40 2017 No.9350603

>>9350571
What are arguments against you lying in a coma at this instant, hallucinating your world and 4chan? If everything is consistent, there's no way to prove either proposition.

It's akin to Solipsism. No one else exists and the world is a show being staged for your benefit. Put that way, it sounds silly, doesn't it?

Also, look up Boltzmann Brain. Also comes to the same thing but without postulating insanely advanced computers.

In any of these scenarios, unless some inconsistency is noticed, you might as well believe the world is real. It's safer. If the world _is_ fake and you jump off a cliff, worst that can happen is someone hits "reset" and you don't even remember jumping. But if the world is real then there will be real consequences.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:55:16 2017 No.9350604

>>9350596
This is your second post in this thread and you have yet to provide any meanungful information other than "no it's wrong". And yes, if any simulation could make a simulation and be unaware that they are a simulation the same goes for us. Given that this chain can be infinitely large, we could be anywhere in it, so it's more likely we're within a simulated universe than not. Please argue against this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:57:29 2017 No.9350607 >>9350603 Simulated universe doesn't equate solipsism, we could all be simulated together. Besides we are plenty "real", and things still have consequences, it's just that from outside of our perspective it's all a simulation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:58:54 2017 No.9350609 >>9350571 >If simulating a universe was possible, isn't it very likely that we are living in a simulation? How would that make it likely?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 19:59:44 2017 No.9350610 >>9350604 why don't I instead tell you to shut the fuck up and stop shitposting about nonsense in a science and math board? >>>/reddit/

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:00:33 2017 No.9350612 >>9350610 Fuck off

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:01:45 2017 No.9350615 >>9350610 >you don't understand probabily >a-actually just fuck off

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:02:13 2017 No.9350616 >>9350604 >>9350610 actually I'll say ONE thing. countable sets in [0,1] have lebesgue measure zero (which is a probability) and are infinitely bigger than singletons.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:06:35 2017 No.9350624 >>9350571 69% because your a faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:11:03 2017 No.9350634 >please show me the error of the argument >fuck off, why don't you know it? Well this was a fun thread.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:16:20 2017 No.9350645

>>9350571
look at your mouse OP, you see your hand? you have a hand yeah? ok well now you have a hand, and you having a hand makes it very unlikely that you don't have a hand. since its unlikely you don't have a hand, you probably also have the space around you and the air within it and your body and brain generating your consciousness. There done, if you'd like to know more Mooreanism is for you brianlet

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:16:42 2017 No.9350646 Not only is this stupid premise unfalsifiable, there's no point to it. So what if it's a "simulation". You're still in it and it's your life. So what.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:17:57 2017 No.9350652 >>9350645 >>9350646 It being a simulatuon does not advocate that it is not real.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:19:08 2017 No.9350653 >>9350652 giga brainlet >>9350646 you're almost as dumb as OP, STEMlords shouldn't be allowed to talk about philosophy ever except when asked to speak. keep fucking quiet and go back to your fucking petri dish nerd

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:22:00 2017 No.9350659

>>9350653
Explain how something being a simulation conflicts with reality within the simulation. What's 'real' is determined within a universe. If a simulation is a perfect simulation of a universe, what's within it is as real for people within the simulation as is reality to us.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:32:31 2017 No.9350680

>>9350645
And a simulated consciousness within a simulation does the exact same thing and concludes that their simulation is reality. Because of this, it is irrelevant whether we are in a simulatuon or not, but it is still unsettling and I want to know if it really is more likely that we are in a simulation than not. Work with the argument above and point where it goes wrong please.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:35:34 2017 No.9350689 >>9350680 >"my argument is fish + fish = good" >it doesn't make sense >"Work with the argument above and point where it goes wrong please." your terms aren't well defined

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:39:06 2017 No.9350691

I mean, maybe you aren't doing it on purpose.
>If a perfect simulation of a universe can be made, such a simulation could also create a simulation within it
ok
>so you have this infinite chain of simulations,
ok
>so it is very unlikely that you are at the very start of it
no. what does unlikely even mean?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:42:05 2017 No.9350695 >>9350603 >worst that can happen is someone hits "reset" and you don't even remember jumping That's the best thing that can happen. The worst is if no-one ever hits reset.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:43:44 2017 No.9350698 The real truth is realizing that it doesn't matter

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:43:47 2017 No.9350699 >>9350695 That's the best thing that can happen. The worst is if you idiots keep flooding the board with ridiculous nonsense.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:47:13 2017 No.9350704

>>9350691
You could be anywhere within the chain. There is nothing you could possibly ever find out that would prove that your reality isn't a simulation. Whether you are in a simulation or not is just a random guess. If you're choosing a random number between 1 and 100, isn't it more likely that a number is between 1-99, then it being a 100?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:48:52 2017 No.9350707 >>9350603 >Also, look up Boltzmann Brain Wow this is some heavy shit. I like things like chaos theory and cellular automata so this is up my street to an extent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:52:28 2017 No.9350727 galactic accretion is the product of supermassive black holes This would explain, among other things, why we can find a supermassive black hole in every observable galaxy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:54:37 2017 No.9350730 There's not any information to be able to say either way desu

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:57:29 2017 No.9350735 >>9350704 you are choosing a very specific (finite) set, with a very specific (uniform) probability measure, and trying to extrapolate that to how probability works in general. it quickly becomes nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 20:59:40 2017 No.9350740 >>9350735 Would you be able to expand on this?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:04:08 2017 No.9350746 >>9350740 what do you want me to tell you? what a probability measure is? that not all probability measures are uniform? that there's no way to assign a canonical probability measure to something as ethereal and nonsensical as "all possible universes"?

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:08:59 2017 No.9350753

>>9350746
Who's talking about all possible universes? Out of a set of 99 simulations and 1 non simulated universe, it is more likely that we are within the 99, since we can only make a random guess. Explain how this is wrong. Again, please underatand that I am not choosing to not understand your explanation. It's simly all buzzwords for me, and you seem as nonsensical to me as I do to you. As someone who probably knows more than my, try to drop to my level and explain in a way that I can understand you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:12:08 2017 No.9350760 >>9350680 It might be the case that a simulation of our reality is impossible. There's no way of knowing whether it is possible or not, so there's no way of knowing how likely it is to occur.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:15:12 2017 No.9350765 >>9350760 This seems like it could be fruitful. Why is it impossible to know whether it is possible or not, tho?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:16:14 2017 No.9350766 >>9350571 My thought is that it doesn't matter, it's just an extra step added to the clockwork universe idea and even then you might aswell not care (not that you could choose) because it'll all happen anyway, just enjoy the ride

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:18:17 2017 No.9350826

>>9350753
mate, I can't. your standards for what constitutes an argument are too low. you just say stuff, without thinking if it means anything or how the implications go.

>Out of a set of 99 simulations and 1 non simulated universe, it is more likely that we are within the 99, since we can only make a random guess.

you have picked a finite number of events, then assumed it is uniformly distributed "because we can only make a random guess" ???????? and then somehow that implies the full distribution gives more likelyhood for simulated universes?

take N with the measure given by p(n) = 1/2^n. for any k you give, I can always grab 1 event and k-1 events such that the probability of that 1 event is higher than the others. in fact, p(1) = 1/2 is already higher than any other finite set of events, and p({1 u 2}) is higher than any other infinite set.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:20:14 2017 No.9350831

How can an entire universe be simulated at the subatomic universe in such a universe?

In terms of computational density, you'd basically need something that can compute the behaviour of a particle, but itself takes up less space than that particle.

If you have an array of particle-computing "modules" that are each half the size of that particle then the computer will take up half of the space in the universe.

Or you could look at the universe as a giant computer already, albeit one that takes 1 second to compute its state 1 second in the future.

I don't see how you're gonna get performance equal or greater than that with a machine taking up much less space that the environment it's simulating.

This is all assuming massively parallel processing (could a 'real' universe even exist as long as to allow for the simulation of even a year's worth of activity inside a machine that processes every atom serially?)

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:20:18 2017 No.9350832

>>9350571
>If simulating a universe was possible, isn't it very likely that we are living in a simulation?

Of course. There's always that chance. All laws of physics would be a sham specifically for the simulation so who knows what it would really take to make the simulation and run it. The entire idea completely upends everything if true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:21:41 2017 No.9350836 >>9350831 >argument that applies to "all possible universes" (?????) based on how computers work fuck you OP this kind of idiotic thread attracts the worst retards on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:22:06 2017 No.9350837 >>9350653 >Philosophee This isn't philosophy. It is /x/ you fucking retard. Your piss poor watered down philosophy degree failed to bless you with basic critical thinking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:22:42 2017 No.9350839 >>9350826 >then assumed it is uniformly distributed What does this mean? >and then somehow that implies the full distribution gives more likelyhood for simulated universes? What does this mean?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:24:18 2017 No.9350842 >>9350766 look at my dubs guys

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:25:48 2017 No.9350847 >>9350839 you can't even be bothered to google, for fuck's sake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_uniform_distribution the second thing means that if the restriction of P to some finite sets is uniform, that says nothing about P

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:30:24 2017 No.9350854 >>9350847 So your response is "we cannot be sure what the chance of being in a simulated universe depends on, so we cannot say how likely it is that any of this is the case". Am I understanding you correctly?

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:30:54 2017 No.9350856

>>9350836
>all possible universes
Well, virtual ones anyway.

However a computer works, it still has to compute. That is, to manipulate symbols in a way that yields a meaningful, coherent output.

If we're talking about possibly being sims in some ET's experiment then we must be basing that on some basic axioms? Like the existence of some kind of computing device for a start. And physical laws that allow computation.

We've already assumed the existence of some supercomputer behind all this, so why not also assume it works finitely (like we understand any computational mechanism to do)?

But you could be right - if we are a simulation, then the laws of physics in the 'host' universe could be identical to ours (because the operators chose to replicate what laws are known to them), or so completely different that we couldn't comprehend it.

Even in that case, the laws still have to allow for principles of computation of some kind to exist - or there would be no simulation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:32:09 2017 No.9350857 >>9350854 it's not even that. you don't even know if there's a meaningful way to talk about what the "chace" is for a universe to be a simulation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:39:25 2017 No.9350863 >>9350857 I see. So since we cannot determine what the chance is that a universe is a simulation, we cannot determine how likely this is to be the case, regardless of how long the chain is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:40:41 2017 No.9350866 >>9350765 It's Platos cave. Our experiences are subjective and we can never know for sure whether they are valid or not. We can agree on consistency but that's it. We could define and agree that we are in one, but that's not what you want to hear.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:41:28 2017 No.9350868

>>9350863
you don't know if you can talk about chance at all. you might as well replace "chance" with "potato" and it's the same.

you have no idea if it means anything to say something like "our universe is likely to be a simulation". just because you put words together doesn't make it something. it's nonsense.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:43:46 2017 No.9350870

>>9350765
>>9350765
>Why is it impossible to know whether it is possible or not, tho?
Same reason for FTL and the singularity. If it hasn't already happened and we can't use our current understanding of the universe to prove it possible then it might as well be impossible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:45:02 2017 No.9350872 >>9350868 Thanks for the explanation. Is there any way to save the argument from your argument against it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:46:31 2017 No.9350875 >>9350872 there was no argument. the only thing I said is "that doesn't make any sense". only in a long winded way so you'd believe it.

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:49:36 2017 No.9350879

>>9350875
Was your argument not "we have no way of determining what the possibility of it being a simulation is, so we have no way of determining how likely this is"? My question could be rephrased as this: can we make the simulation argument have a clear definition of its terms?

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 21:55:10 2017 No.9350888

>>9350879
>My question could be rephrased as this: can we make the simulation argument have a clear definition of its terms?
No. It's like asking the likelihood of a black marble being pulled out of a bag when the only thing you know about the bag are it's dimensions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 22:03:55 2017 No.9350908 >>9350888 Thanks for this conversation anon, I've learned a lot about probability.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 22:43:08 2017 No.9350966 >>9350908 Oh sorry, that but the bag is on your head and you are asking dumb questions about what is outside the bag.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 22:53:33 2017 No.9350984 >>9350908 these >>9350888 >>9350966 weren't me, but no problem I guess

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 00:08:08 2017 No.9351109

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758
In short it is mathematically impossible to simulate a quantum phenomenon found in certain metals. Since we clearly see this phenomenon we are either not in a simulation or the "real" universe can contain a computer with infinite processing power.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 00:12:32 2017 No.9351118 >>9351109 shut up

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 00:13:07 2017 No.9351119

>>9350604
There are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0. Therefore the probability of a real number number that I pick being between these two points must be infinite.
This is the same argument as yours, but applied to numbers. If you don't see the absurdity here, then you're retarded.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 00:29:48 2017 No.9351141
File: 116 KB, 1365x2048, 1489340302171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9350571
>If simulating a universe was possible, isn't it very likely that we are living in a simulation?
Yes and?
A perfect simulation would be just as real as real.
So the only thing that actually matters is how you play the game.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 05:00:24 2017 No.9351459 Guys does god exist?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 05:22:52 2017 No.9351488 >>9350571 Explanation missing 404

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 06:47:31 2017 No.9351537

>>9350582
the concept of "likelihood" is only useful if you have some idea of the respective numbers of non-simulated and simulated universes. So if you already know that there are 10 universes in existence, 9 of which are simulations taking place inside a non-simulated universe, then you could say that the likelihood of us living in a simulated universe is 10%.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 06:51:39 2017 No.9351541 >>9351141 But games get boring once you figure out the rules. What to do about existential boredom?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 06:53:43 2017 No.9351543 >>9351459 well according to simulation argument, our universe might be the fantasy of some god who invented us

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 06:55:35 2017 No.9351546 >>9350571 The question is not of how and is it possible but the real question is to why?. Why would their even be a reason to do so of which their really is none, don't waste your time on stupid questions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 07:04:57 2017 No.9351550 >>9350582 >Am I missing something? Ockham's razor You could put away your infinite regress of universes and simply deal with the one you're in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 07:29:05 2017 No.9351571 File: 37 KB, 522x294, Aliens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9351543 According to some, it could also be the work of ancient aliens.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 08:49:35 2017 No.9351653 >>9350571 Irrational numbers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 08:50:44 2017 No.9351655 >>9350574 This. There is no point in talking about theories that are improvable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 09:12:42 2017 No.9351698 The simulation idea is just intelligent design with more steps.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 09:21:09 2017 No.9351713 >>9351571 actually i think the aliens in pic related simply shaped the course of human history. but the aliens themselves are just as much a part of the simulation as the humans

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 09:21:40 2017 No.9351716 >>9350766 >look at my dubs guys Simulated

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 09:23:50 2017 No.9351720 >>9351698 yes! i love how when you strip away the surface appearances of ideas, you see parallels between things that appear very different from each other.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 09:25:51 2017 No.9351723 >>9351698 Yes and no. It's true for every subsequent universes, but not for the base universe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 09:26:21 2017 No.9351725 >>9350596 This is the only answer to people who make this argument. Anyone with a basic introduction to real Probability theory will understand that you can't make such simple intuitively based arguments.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 09:27:26 2017 No.9351726 >>9351725 Doesn't this apply to the alien argument too then? This argument is so mindnumbing and boring.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 10:35:00 2017 No.9351852
File: 16 KB, 345x348, 1433495199560.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9350582
sounds similar to that whole universe inside a black hole and black hole within that universe with a universe within it "theory" that people go on about

if that's the reality then there's no real way of knowing how many levels of simulation we're in so why don't you just download dota 2 and then you'll soon realise that it aint true becausE WHO THE FUCK WOULD SIMULATE SUCH A STUPID FKIN TEAM STOP PICKING TECHIES AND I SWEAR TO CHRIST IF THERES SOMEONE OUT THERE SIMULATING THESE FUCKING PATCHES THEN TURN OFF THE MACHINE HOLY FUCK I HATE U ICEFROG

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 10:50:55 2017 No.9351876 >>9350595 the earth is on the back of a turtle

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 10:53:54 2017 No.9351881 >>9351550 >Ockham's razor fuck off with this gay leddit meme

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 10:57:11 2017 No.9351889

>>9350760
Yeah of course this is what it comes down to but the idea behind it is that we assume that making a simulation of our universe that can replicate the complexity of our universe is possible. If we take this axiom as true then it would follow in a universe where it's possible to create a simulation of that universe just as complex as itself, that any simulation created that fits that description would be able to also have a simulation of a universe just as complex as it inside of it. Each simulated universe is eventually would host another, or multiple. That doesn't mean reality is fake or something stupid, the rules of nature we contend with every day don't go away unless we can somehow effect the simulation by currently unknown means. I find it likely that such a simulation can't be made.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 10:57:18 2017 No.9351890 >>9350571 motls blogspot co uk/2017/03/aaronsons-delusions-about-universe-as.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 10:58:54 2017 No.9351896 >>9350826 You're retarded

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 11:05:09 2017 No.9351910

>>9350837
It's not /x/ you Brainlet, no-one is claiming that the universe being a simulation makes everything fake/less real. No one is arguing that it's lizard Jews running the simulation. It's simple logic. If you accept this axiom as true then what does it imply? That axiom being that a universe as detailed as our own could be perfectly simulated in our universe. If that's true than What? We're not talking about if it's true but rather the implication of it being true under the assumption that it is true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 11:12:35 2017 No.9351920 >>9351698 I dont think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw. At best it only puts it one step away. People would simply claim that the universe that created the first simulation was created by god.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 11:57:43 2017 No.9352022 [DELETED]

>>9351920
I don't follow your logic! Anytime you bring God in as First Cause, it's intelligent design.
Either He did the job directly or He created beings which would do it. Sort like building tools. If you want a computer from scratch you mine ore, hammer metals into shape, makes lathes and drills, manufacture a chip fabber.
It's Intelligent Design -- just with more steps.
ID is nonsense from the get-go. It claims a complex system could not arise naturally and "solves" the problem by postulating an even _more_ complex system.
How would God know _he's_ not a simulation?
Robert Heinlein had fun with this in "Job". Jehovah is just one level up from up and he had a creator and that creator had a creator and the hierarchy runs upwards forever.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:00:07 2017 No.9352029

>>9351920
I don't follow your logic! Anytime you bring God in as First Cause, it's intelligent design.
Either He did the job directly or He created beings which would do it. Sort like building tools. If you want a computer from scratch you mine ore, hammer metals into shape, makes lathes and drills, manufacture a chip fabber.
It's Intelligent Design -- just with more steps.
ID is nonsense from the get-go. It claims a complex system could not arise naturally and "solves" the problem by postulating an even _more_ complex system.
How would God know _he's_ not a simulation?
Robert Heinlein had fun with this in "Job". Jehovah is just one level up from us and he had a creator and that creator had a creator and the hierarchy runs upwards forever.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:00:37 2017 No.9352030 >>9350595 It's a problem of recursion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:03:35 2017 No.9352035 >>9350653 Imagine being such a loser that you were bullied by STEM nerds of all people into developing this much of a complex about it

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:06:52 2017 No.9352045 the continuum refutes every simulation argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:07:33 2017 No.9352048 File: 19 KB, 333x499, 41o0zrvabKL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9350582 > perfect simulation The simulation already is, Anon.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:10:00 2017 No.9352054

>>9351910
if its true then creationism is correct, there is almost certainly a deity and there is almost certainly a reason to be god-fearing. its not tho at all. we live in a dead universe with no god and no love and no hope. there is no reason not to nuke this planet and exterminate all sentient life other than cowardice

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:10:02 2017 No.9352055

The simulation theory doesn't work, for it implies that there's a base reality, from which all simulations emerge from infinitely. The problem is that infinity cannot have a beginning, nor can it have an end. A base reality would imply the beginning and the end, which is logically incompatible with the simulation theory.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:15:20 2017 No.9352064

>>9352035
STEMlords are the definition of power hungry psychopaths with no imagination who retreat into advanced psychological architecture for security and safety. the smartest STEMfaggots ive met are the most pathetic human beings ive ever come across and some of the most immoral ones too! If the average person knew what the higher level STEMlords wanted for this world there would be an overnight blood bath

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:25:25 2017 No.9352089 >>9352045 >>9352054 >>9352055 >>9352064 shut the fuck up and stop bumping a retarded thread with idiotic nonsense

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:26:22 2017 No.9352094 >>9352029 I dont think it's logical, just an argument one might present. I'm a huge fan of Robert a Heinlein. Stranger in a strange land, starship troopers, and I will fear no evil particularly I feel are extremely intresting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:33:27 2017 No.9352117 >>9352054 Yeah you sound like a retard. That's doesn't follow logically at all unless you want to be more descriptive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:34:40 2017 No.9352120 >>9352055 That's not an at all reasonable conclusion to draw. How did you get to this conclusion even?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:35:42 2017 No.9352124 >>9352117 watch more youtube you’ll figure it out big guy you spent too much time sniffing Bertrand Russell’s asshole and congratulating yourself for being an enlightened nihilist

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:37:37 2017 No.9352129 >>9352124 >watch more youtube fuck off honestly, why do you even post here? sperg out somewhere more appropiate like plebbit

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:39:13 2017 No.9352134 >>9352120 Does infinity have a beginning and an end?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:40:26 2017 No.9352139 File: 9 KB, 170x230, 170px-Roman_dodecahedron.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352064 If you knew what I planned you would vomit. I almost did drafting it. I'm a physicist...formerly theoretical. It works and it scares me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:42:08 2017 No.9352145 File: 173 KB, 1200x1200, 1200px-5-cube_t0.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352134 Neither.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:47:14 2017 No.9352155

>>9352145

Therefore the infinite simulation theory is false, because a simulation requires something before it to simulate (a beginning). And when you have a beginning, you must also have an end, in the same way that when you have up, you must also have down. Just the intrinsic duality of nature at play here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:49:21 2017 No.9352163 >>9352155 >>9352134 please shut up

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 12:50:46 2017 No.9352167 >>9352163 no your mom

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:00:53 2017 No.9352185 >>9352124 >watch more youtube Go home. This isn't the place for you. We don't want you here and you don't want to be here. The internet is a big place. There is a correct place for you. You'll be happy their. This isn't where you belong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:02:09 2017 No.9352188 >>9352134 N does. Starts at 1 and contains every natural number. What's your point? I think that you're retarded

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:16:10 2017 No.9352230 >>9352188 Saying something has a beginning but no end is as illogical as you can get. Mathematicians are missing the duality of things. Numbers aren't a beginning with no end like: 0,1,2,3∞ They are ∞-3, -2, -1 0 +1, +2, +3∞

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:18:02 2017 No.9352232 >>9352230 you don't realize that N and Z are 2 different things? N has a first element, Z doesn't. neither has infinity as an element either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:22:35 2017 No.9352245 >>9352230 You're failing to understand the axiomatic nature of math whole putting forth an illogical assertion. No one is going to pay me to teach you so I'm not going to spend a great deal of time explaining this to you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:28:36 2017 No.9352263 File: 36 KB, 623x450, 1512353158292.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352230

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:30:58 2017 No.9352270 >>9352232 They're not really different things, two sides of the same coin as it were, both require each other exist. >>9352245 Or maybe most mathematicians are failing to understand the axiomatic nature of math?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:40:01 2017 No.9352295 >>9352270 Also, zero (consciousness) is the starting point from which all physical things (or lack thereof) can be observed. Zero both separates and joins numbers, and it is also infinite.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:40:58 2017 No.9352298 File: 8 KB, 250x211, 1512088366840.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352270 >Or maybe most mathematicians are failing to understand the axiomatic nature of math?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:41:02 2017 No.9352299 >>9352295 please shut up

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:47:51 2017 No.9352312

>>9352230
>Mathematicians are missing the duality of things
lmao mathematicians are so obsessed with duality you wouldn't believe. you have no FUCKING clue what is math about and what are "mathematicians missing or not". stop posting and pick up a book for once.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:54:27 2017 No.9352336 >>9352298 yas im brianlett >>9352299 Since you asked so nicely... >>9352312 >mathematicians are so obsessed with duality You're gonna have to back that up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 13:56:31 2017 No.9352343 >>9352336 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_(mathematics)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:00:57 2017 No.9352348 >>9351881 Not an argument

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:05:44 2017 No.9352353

>>9352343

That's like the ramblings of a schizophrenic. Duality is very simple and it applies to everything (not just numbers) at all times.

You can see duality as logical opposites, but the thing that is separating these opposites is consciousness (zero).

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:07:23 2017 No.9352356 >>9352336 >You're gonna have to back that up. read chapter 2 of Categories for the Working Mathematician (or any other introduction to category theory)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:10:55 2017 No.9352366 >>9352353 surprise! you actually have to study things in order to understand them! who knew???

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:11:18 2017 No.9352368 >>9352356 >>9352336 or do the following: >pick the nearest algebra or algebraic topology book >pick a random word in index >look for the same word but starting with "co-" >??? >PROFIT

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:12:59 2017 No.9352374 >>9352139 Do tell us please

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:15:26 2017 No.9352384

>>9350571
kys faget

If you were in some simulation then the simulation would have rules (physics) and administrators (gods) and would otherwise have exactly no reason for you to take it any less seriously, especially if your brain itself is simulated and you're a command away from being deleted.

The entire simulation argument is used by amoral elites to justify the evil pedophilic and canabilistic acts they partake in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:16:47 2017 No.9352388 >>9352356 No thanks, I don't read books written by government mathematicians. >>9352366 Study, study, study... never use your own brain. >>9352368 Most books will make you dumber.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:17:04 2017 No.9352390 >>9350582 THAT ISN'T HOW PROBABILITY WORKS. The childish supposition of unimited simulations doesn't change the probability that THIS universe is a simulation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:19:10 2017 No.9352400 File: 103 KB, 600x315, enlightened.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352388 >I use my own brain so I never study or learn anything

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:20:14 2017 No.9352403 >>9352388 This post made me dumb I feel like I may have gotten cancer too

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:22:46 2017 No.9352411

>>9351109
>it is impossible to simulate certain quantum phenomena
>yet they exist
seems like a contradiction to me.
to simulate doesn't mean turing machine necessarily.
Also this argument is fucking stupid anyways because if this is a """"simulation"""" then you cant make claims about how the outside works anyways

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:22:54 2017 No.9352413 >>9352384 This is why we shouldn't have these threads. Sub-humans like you come along.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:24:00 2017 No.9352418 >>9352400 If you want to "study" something then do it yourself. If what you're studying never really makes any profound sense then it's probably bullshit. >>9352403 Any why's that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:26:20 2017 No.9352427 >>9352418 What's wrong with you? How did you end up on a science and math board?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:28:58 2017 No.9352433 >>9352418 >Any why's that? How do you learn without study? Hands on learning is still studying Semantica

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:31:30 2017 No.9352438

>>9352418
what are you talking about? I study math, and you can see it ties to our knowledge in a profound sense by how useful it is in physics and other sciences.

you're confused about how math works. books aren't a list of shit you have to memorize and believe. they describe how you can prove things and some cool results you can get, and you're supposed to follow along and get them.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:35:25 2017 No.9352451

>>9352427

We're all in search of truth aren't we?

>>9352433

Studying isn't learning, it's memorising what you're told to. If you fail to "understand" it or if you don't agree with it then you won't pass the exam. It takes hours and hours of focus and attention because it's not truth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:39:14 2017 No.9352458 File: 19 KB, 500x590, wow.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352451 >studying isn't learning

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:40:28 2017 No.9352462

>>9352089
lol no faggot you all should have to deal with this on a daily basis, the simulation question should be engraved in stone above every STEM department building at every university. You should have to make proofs regarding it every night before you lay your ugly head to sleep. You're not safe from reality it will always pour into your gay little comfy zone

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:42:02 2017 No.9352464 >>9352462 everyone thought about this problem and reached a satisfactory conclusion when they were 15. you can shut the fuck up about it now and stop flooding this board, imbecile

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:42:13 2017 No.9352465

>>9352438
>what are you talking about? I study math, and you can see it ties to our knowledge in a profound sense by how useful it is in physics and other sciences.

You mean theoretical science, AKA unproven? Theoretical science doesn't follow the scientific method any more.

>books aren't a list of shit you have to memorize and believe. they describe how you can prove things

Prove what? Other people's theories? You can use mathematics to "prove" all kinds of nonsense.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:43:23 2017 No.9352467

>>9352451
>It takes hours and hours of focus and attention because it's not truth.

Or becuase it's difficult for you to conceptualize. Are you really just trolling at this point? It seems like that's the only reasonable explanation. You should try /x/ if this is the type of conversation you are looking to have.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:43:56 2017 No.9352469 >>9352464 >go away REEEEEEEE no faggot, i'll come back and make another one of these threads in a week

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:44:28 2017 No.9352471 >>9352465 I mean how planes fly, you know? honestly, you shouldn't be here, in a math and science board, if your idea on it is that it's all nonsense pushed by government or some dumb shit like that

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:45:14 2017 No.9352474 >>9352465 >Prove what? Other people's theories? You can use mathematics to "prove" all kinds of nonsense. This isn't the place for you, find a more appropriate place for what you are looking for.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:46:11 2017 No.9352476

>>9352465
if you git gud you can eventually prove some interesting theorems of yours and get a PhD. until then you can prove things that everyone else already proved. things like "a connected simple curve splits the real plane in two connected components" and "the integral of the derivative is the initial function" etc

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 14:58:01 2017 No.9352504

>>9352458

Learning is about working shit out for yourself. Studying is the complete opposite of that.

>Or becuase it's difficult for you to conceptualize

Therefore anything too difficult to conceptualize means it's true? Dangerous way of thinking. Truth is simple.

>>9352471

You don't need scientific theories to make planes fly - we already see things fly in nature, we can use that as a blueprint, but at least the science involved in planes is somewhat useful, but limits us to thinking of other ways of flying because it may contradict theoretical science.

>>9352474

I'll try reddit...

>>9352476

That requires memorising and regurgitating bullshit for years. Plus I don't want to be some authority on these things, I'd prefer if people worked it out themselves.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:01:21 2017 No.9352508 >>9352504 Bait

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:02:22 2017 No.9352512 >>9352504 Are you a god fearing individual?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:05:10 2017 No.9352517 >>9352504 You've checked the waters too heavily, if you want an an honest conversation and you're not just trolling you'll have better luck on /x/. No-one here is going to out up with you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:20:07 2017 No.9352544 File: 768 KB, 1280x1172, 1504298793547.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352504 >Truth is simple

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:22:27 2017 No.9352547 >>9352508 No. >>9352512 No, religion is another way to stop thinking for yourself. >>9352517 /x/ deletes threads it doesn't like despite not breaking any rules, it's happened before.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:27:40 2017 No.9352555 >>9350571 >implying I go outside in the sun Big hole in your argument right there anon

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:46:28 2017 No.9352580 >>9352504 >I'll try reddit... yes please. you REALLY don't belong here

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:46:31 2017 No.9352581 >>9352336 >>9352388 >asks for a reference >gets a reference >refuses to read the reference this guy

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:55:08 2017 No.9352596
File: 579 KB, 720x1280, Screenshot_20171201-170016.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9352155

It's not a simulation.

It's reality.

Also, I know the shape of the universe, because I know the shape the volume is quantifiable.

Map...to the center of the universe. 5th dimensional space/time is the solution.

Solve for X.

Haha, I like the other comment got back. Wasn't me but enjoyed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 15:55:36 2017 No.9352598 Too much of what is called ’education’ is little more than an expensive isolation from reality.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:01:13 2017 No.9352606

>>9352580

Okay master.

>>9352581

I could say Jesus exists and provide you the bible as a reference. The author of that book you reference has worked with the government for decades during some very strange times. He's been awarded the "National Medal of Science" for his service to government science (it's why the President awards it).

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:01:43 2017 No.9352608
File: 1.22 MB, 3500x2333, farcguerillawithcomputer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9352596

PS: quad directions infinity is space/time. Not space and not time, it's both together but one individually. I'm....struggle to equate it...but I'm looking for a less "boat rocking" way to release it, hopefully anonymously.

Fuck fame...I want thrills.

>>9352598

THIS. I dropped out in 9th grade and never went back to school.

School is stupid people.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:06:20 2017 No.9352615 >>9352606 >The author of that book you reference has worked with the government for decades during some very strange times. He's been awarded the "National Medal of Science" for his service to government science (it's why the President awards it). so ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:09:00 2017 No.9352620 File: 251 KB, 431x591, 1416430628060.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9350601

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:09:19 2017 No.9352622 >>9350582 So, basically rick and morty?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:10:24 2017 No.9352625

>>9352615

Look at the damn medal for a start, it has man holding a physical object in one hand, while writing an equation in another in a subservient like pose. They don't even hide what they do very much because they don't need to. They've actually got a pretty good sense of humour, albeit a little twisted.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:18:13 2017 No.9352646
File: 26 KB, 480x360, hqdefault (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9352625

> thinking governments control technology

Anon....look back in time THEN forward.

What do you see? If you can tell me how this is moved, you're back on track.

God speed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:22:22 2017 No.9352655 >>9352622 Not at all. You're retarded. I'm sick of you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:23:57 2017 No.9352658 >>9350616 NO NO NO TAKE IT BACK I HATE THIS

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:24:35 2017 No.9352661 >>9352625 So you're just a conspiracy theorist? How do you think the world works? Who runs Things? Are governments real?

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:24:56 2017 No.9352662

>>9352625

Also notice how he's looking at the equation rather than the physical object which is what science has become, pretty genius.

>>9352646

This implies that time moves in a direction.

Governments can control things like technology by controlling the qualifications required to create it. You also need a lot of money as well as go through so much bureaucracy before you can actually produce new technology that can be accessed easily by the public.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:31:22 2017 No.9352681
File: 26 KB, 325x156, mpl_2conc1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9352661

Conspiracies exist.

How fucking retarded are you?! Science my ass, you're not hypothesizing.

>>9352662

Hawking suggested, I now know what I saw. I read his book first edition. Google "imaginary time". It's not imaginary, it's very real.

"Directions", yeah, faggot, FOUR.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:37:24 2017 No.9352694 I don't understand the academic purpose of theories like these at all. There's no sensory feedback that would suggest any nature of a 'false reality'.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:39:21 2017 No.9352698

>>9352661

I hate that word, it has been muddied far too much. I'm not looking for conspiracies, it's just how things are. There exist people who wish to control things, why they want to is another question, but society is creating them. Society is designed in such a way that the more control you want, the more ruthless you are without appearing so publicly, the higher you will rise in the ladder (corporate ladder being one way to filter people).

As for who these people are, I doubt they're public personalities, or they may hide in plain site, the point is we're not supposed to know, but they'll leave a few breadcrumbs from time to time because they probably get a kick out of it.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:46:26 2017 No.9352718

>>9352694

Clearly you don't understand enough, then.

Simulation? No, more like everything is everywhere just at different frequencies.

The quad-directional time is the 5th dimension. Imagine what the 5th dimension looks like...it doesn't, I don't have 5d eyes...but I see with my "mind's eye". Hence why that term even exists.

I'm trying to help....but you're it's corrections like this that remind I don't need to go to a university for assistance...I'll get nothing but "Yeah....but....what about...."

No. It is. I am. Are you?

On a side note, unrelated or not not sure...I see triple polarity and I can't fucking fathom what even is.

Map the universe? Easy. Triple polarity? Wut?...all of this is nonsense but so is radiation. Please keep up.

https://youtu.be/eN24Sv0qS1w

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:46:58 2017 No.9352719

>>9352681

>Conspiracies exist.

Call it what you want, they're just doing what they're doing.

>Hawking suggested, I now know what I saw. I read his book first edition. Google "imaginary time". It's not imaginary, it's very real.

Hawking probably saw the truth, but had too much integrity to forget about it. So they paralysed him and stuck an electronic voice on him so they can speak for him instead. He doesn't have ALS, no one lives that long with it. They parade him around the media and come up with stupid shit about aliens. That's just a fucked up theory, but I wouldn't put it past them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:48:50 2017 No.9352728 File: 23 KB, 246x371, 1512506065254.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352719 Jesus Christ you dumb. You don't belong here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 16:51:41 2017 No.9352733 File: 155 KB, 1024x683, explain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352728 Thanks Baron, how's mom?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:02:17 2017 No.9352751 File: 243 KB, 737x1085, 7752bb70f5808bf5ddd0a7bad897216c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9352733 Warm and firm, like all europeen milfs.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:56:04 2017 No.9352850

>>9352517
you all are incapable of having an honest conversation about anything you don't control. philosophy is not allowed in scientific discussions and STEM majors are discouraged from thinking philosophically. you all get your ideology from your professors and from the television and youtube and reddit. you don't have any beliefs at all and if you did they wouldn't be yours. The biggest followers in human history are STEM lifestylist middling nerds with no souls, no personality, no accomplishments. Just a degree and some mnemonics skills.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:39:46 2017 No.9352951 >>9350571 >What are some arguments against the simulation argument? it has no practical relevance.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:40:21 2017 No.9352955 >>9350582 The thing you're missing is that a perfect simulation of a car CAN'T be made.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math