>>46102101 Maybe not the whole "human battery" part. But from a philosophical standpoint, yeah... We could all be living in a massive virtual simulation. It is possible, and would explain a few of the patterns and coincidences we see in the known universe.
Not in the form the movie shows it. That's clearly ridiculous. But the basic concept that we're in some sort of simulation? Yeah sure why not. Doesn't make life any less real. All life is to humans is what they receive through their senses and interpret with their brains, real is as anything is real.
>>46102226 Not him but I did my highschool thesis (>inb4 u wot?) on the subject, a few years back. Look up the simulation hypthesis by Nick Bostrom, there's whole group of transhumanists who studied the idea and put it in mathematical terms. I did some math analysis too, and I'd share it, but it's in Italian so...
Long story short, if we actually manage to simulate a fully functional universe like the one we live in (i.e. Our universe turns out to be fully discrete, and we manage to replicate its functioning) then we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Problem is: once we do it, based on how "they" are simulating us, we could spike the computing needed to keep the simulation going. Should it be too much, they could shut us down...
If you are interested, I'll be lurking the thread, so just ask...
>>46102393 I think I read that somewhere too. It implies that we could possibly be the whatever-th simulation within simulations, and we are reaching the point where we could create another simulation That shit's scarier than any copypasta I've ever come across
>>46102393 I don't agree that making a computer inside a simulated universe would increase processing requirements. Well.. It depends on the amount of shortcuts used to simulate. If, like I think, there aren't any shortcuts used and everything is calculated to the same degree of accuracy whether it's floating about doing nothing or kicking about doing weird shit in a photosynthesising protein, then computation wouldn't increase demand. That said, in principle a computer can only be as powerful as the resources available, so whatever computer that's being run inside the simulation would be weaker than the one running the simulation. I keep thinking about making basic clocks and calculators inside minecraft using redstone, but you see what I mean. Eventually the simulation will get so simple it won't be able to support intelligent life- I think an interesting argument for simulated life is that we are on the bottom. And if we're on the bottom, it means we're either 'just one above' the level of simulation to simulate like a universe or life or whatever, or we're not in a simulation at all. The reasoning is that since we don't have computers simulating intelligent life right now, it means we're on the bottom of the simulation chain (Since a simulated intelligent life would make another simulated life and it'd be turtles, right?) Or not on a chain at all.
>>46102393 pls give me your thesis, i have thought about this since i was 12, i even made a thesis myself that said its not possible for a system to reach itself. and besides my gf is italian, so i could even read this
>>46102393 i don't believe us creating a universe simulator in our universe would affect the computational requirements to simulate our universe, as we'd simply be manipuating existing elements of our universe, not creating new work for our simulator
this more suggests we can't simulate our universe in our universe than anything else
>>46102882 oh, in saying that, this is of course assuming our simulator is simulating everything at once, and not "cheating" (perhaps it simplifies things that are not observed in any way, like how a video game engine tries to make it look like it's doing more than it really is)
>>46102919 i'm aware, i'm mostly just thinking of memory requirements than processing
processing doesn't matter so long as "real-time" isn't a requirement (really, the concept of "real-time" itself is a bit blurry when talking about this)
memory-wise, my thinking is how much matter is required to store the state of the smallest element of the simulated universe if the matter required is even the same size as the simulated matter, then it would take the size of the universe to simulate a same-size universe in memory matter
>>46102935 The thing with you religious retards is that you can't into Burden of Proof.
>claim to have all the answers
So you CLAIM that atheists CLAIM to have all the answers. Where is the PROOF for your CLAIM? The guy said could god be real? He never claimed he had any answers. If you don't have PROOF for your CLAIM, your CLAIM is dogshit just like all the CLAIMS religion made without providing PROOF. Burden of PROOF is on the one who is making the CLAIM. You literally believe in dogshit.
>>46102967 imagine it easily: your silicium chip could not be able to simulate itself. your memory would not be able to simulate the whole storage of itself. the amount of power you need to simulate the whole universe would be too much to cope with the universe itself
>>46102967 You'd probably get away with a planet sized computer if you were just simulating down to subatomic levels a thin layer from the Earth's crust to a few hundred km up and simplifying the rest.
>>46103050 You're assuming that the host universe is the same size as the guest universe and has the same laws of physics. Your computer doesn't have to be at least the size of the universe, it just has to contain at least as much matter.
>>46103016 which is where i bring up the "video game engine" comparison
if tricks are used to reduce the memory requirements, then it's worth considering the feasability of such a simulation
such tricks would require a shitload more processing though, ontop of the basic requirements needed to make the simulated matter work, and would also have to have intimate knowledge of everything happening
even the higher level process that keep track of such tricks would need memory of its own...
i think we can rule out simulating our universe in our universe using a simple "simulate everything at once" method though
>>46103011 Yes it could, just with a slower time rate. That is, only if physical reality were simulationable (correct English?)
>>46102882 That is assuming that each computation has a constant execution cost, such a complex system would require something different than a Von Neumann architecture, you'd need to factor in the cost of every step. Also, this >>46102907 and this >>46102666
>>46103130 >slower timerate hmm, i agree with that on the processor side. still, the memory side is bothering me. you cant just leave things out that are not neeeded, the universe is deterministic and every life has an influence on the other, every atom of matter. you just cant let anything out
>>46103209 >but who's to say the simulation is or must be 100% accurate? me the whole fucking time. if that wouldnt be the case a downward spiral would occur and a finally one simulation wouldnt even be able to simulate intelligent life
>>46103269 if you actually watched the fucking movie, they aren't actually "beings of five dimensions". the crew just thought they were, then it turns out it's probably humans from the future who figured out how to manipulate dimensions to do what they want to do. to manipulate the 4th dim they would need to be in the 5th dimension.
>>46103256 >>46103293 i also thought about the meaning of infinity as a child. so, is there even a meaning to it? is it even existing or is it just a mathematicans excuse for things they cant explain or understand? like 10/3, 0,1 is everytime left over, i think this is a prove for a mistake in this system
>>46103293 >tfw if you climbed the simulations "upwards" you'd reach the only non simulated beings of the whole meaningful reality. >tfw that is god >tfw god doesn't even know about the stratified layers of universes he created, he's probably a hyper-dimensional NEET running hyper-dimensional Gentoo and posting screenshot of his simulation on hyper-dimensional desktop threads
Simulating a universe within another would suggest that it can happen on the next level as well. This would be the equivalent to a memory leak for the main computer. As more simulations are created, certian mechanics will be left out. This would lead to a reduced "mainframe" of thought and physics. Of course, we see this everyday with our thought restrictions. Yes and no,.right and wrong. It is too simple and it seems as though.we have been restricted over time
>>46102530 >>46102570 the thing you guys don't realize is that they don't need to simulate us in real-time, a hundred years of ours could be simulated in a second of theirs or the opposite, we wouldn't know the difference. With this in mind, you can simulate just about anything, it may run slow for an outside observer but for those inside there wouldn't be any "fps drops" or anything, everything will seem normal.
>>46104486 we can't escape but it may be possible to affect the universe that simulates us, but that requries knowledge of the simulation and the hardware running it, sort of similar to the "virtual machine escape" attack, read up on it.
>>46104488 >unobserved objects= not simulated, observed object= simulated (takes a state) The belief that the universe abides by a dichotomy between "unobserved" and "observed", defined by an event being inducted into a being's consciousness via its body's senses, seems to support the metaphysical position that agency and dualism are real and materialism is false.
Yeah entirely possible (assuming we're completely dislocated from the movie).
I think people make the assumption that the outside world is like ours in any way shape or form.
Also you have to define simulation. My understanding of the word is that you construct a set of rules and let something occur in a container. A videogame is always a simulation to me. Regardless of realism or whatever standards the genre is held to. You may be simulating pong. A two color world with basic bouncing physics.
So similarly you may have some kind of outside to the multiverse (just presuming here) we're you effectively have a simulation because it's contained.
I don't think our world runs on a machine that deals with mathematics in the way we see it though.
>>46105652 If we are a simulation, we must replicate the situation to understand the relationship between the guest and host operating system. From here we must engeneer a virtual machine escape. But.it.can not be.in code, as the would be the equivalent of just creating a new file on the guest.drive . We must find an exploit in one of the few connections we have to the host, and we can then utalize it to creative a virus that replicates code or moves us to a place where we can explore more
>>46102393 Damn, and here I just did my senior paper (your high school thesis over there from what it sounds like) on comparing The Count of Monte Cristo to French Romanticism. Cool paper subject, Italianbro.
>>46102173 but are we the simulated ones, or is the universe the simulated one? because if we were then we shouldn't be able to recognize the 'patterns' or 'coincidences' seeing we shouldn't have a mark of reference to measure the inconsistencies...but if we actually were some kind of debugger or error checking function which is also fed data from 'expected values', then it would work that way
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.