Could the Matrix be real? Realistically speaking

File: 739.png (53KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 625x626px

>>46102101

>>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.

>>46102192
I've been thinking about these things lately and your post made me feel good about it, thanks anon

>>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.

>>46102530
I think it wouldn't matter even with shorcuts.
If we have "fps" drops we wouldn't be able to notice them anyway.

>>46102101
Yes. In fact it is likely.

Since there is only one true universe and within it run many simulated universes, it is therefore more likely that we are in one of the simulations.

>>46102530
This is what I meant with "based on how they are simulating us", there's a whole lot of uncertainty on what tech they could be using.

But yes, I too find more interesting the " where" we are. Other fun fact: we will never know unless they decide so...

Pro-tip we're already in the sim.

Ro bot

Hu man

>>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

>>46102653
>Since there is only one true universe and within it run many simulated universes

citation needed.

>>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)

More importantly, can we escape?

>>46102907
Bear in mind, they don't need to simulate in real time, since we'd experience it the same no matter the simulation speed (assuming we're fully integrated and not brains in vats).

>>46102101
>Could the Matrix be real? Realistically speaking
>Could god be real?
Why not

>>46102921
>[tips fedora]

Only atheists are arrogant enough to claim to have all the answers.

>>46102935
isnt this somewhat hipocritical. theists are at least as arogant as atheists. Claiming there is something like a god, when they dont know for sure...

>>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

yes, there is a small possibility that we live in a computer simulation

>>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.

>>46102935
>using basic reasoning is arrogant

>>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.

>>46102101

the human battery and the (Dying in Matrix=die in real life) parts, probably not, but the rest of it could

This simulation has decent graphics, what gpu are they running?

>>46103011
thats why it isnt possible, you cant build a computer in a simulation that is as strong as the simulating one. thats even the host and guest principle in todays vms

>>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.

>>46103068
thats completely missing my point. i was talking about that you couldnt simulate a universe in itself. how could it be the same if it hadnt the same laws of physics or wasnt the same size?

>>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

>>46102393
Best post on /g/ in a while, thanks for providing interesting facts instead of shitposts

>>46103130
>simulationable
simulatable

>>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

Plug me out, I'm good, stop this pls

>>46103164
>every life has an influence on the other, every atom of matter.
perhaps, but who's to say the simulation is or must be 100% accurate?

even in the matrix it was shown to be imperfect, yet (supposedly) realistic enough for the purpose

>>46103068
This is also another important thing: we don't know if our physics is the same as the simulators' physics. Most probably not, see the following observation

>>46102666
Sure, I'll sort through my HDDs and post a link.
Btw your thesis is one of Gödel's theorems for a generic mathematical system, it can't describe itself.
>tfw Gödel Escher Bach

WATCH THE MOVIE ITS BASED ON

GHOST IN THE SHELL

>>46103216
if there's someone on /g/ who hasn't seen ghost in the shell, they need to be shown the door

>>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

>>46103219
i have seen it, it's shit.

>>46103219
No we /k/all someone to shoot them /out/ back

>>46103220
That is in fact how all this would probably work...
Each layer would a bit simpler, as per the Gödel's theorem >>46103213 quoted.

Be fucking grateful that our universe can support us, the one we'll simulate probably couldn't handle us.

File: interste.jpg (20KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 620x349px

>tfw you will never be a being of five dimensions

>>46103256
>tfw we will never break out our shell
>tfw there really is a stop for humanity
im afraid of that day

>>46103164
It would still be a finite amount of memory, how would it be a problem? It's just a matter of resources available...

>>46103039
Some type of onboard memory sli'd to a black hole

>>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.

>>46102982
loosen up that fedora buddy

>>46103231
I've seen you have shit taste

File: uhgiugiugiugu.png (26KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x480px

>>46103331

>>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

>>46103331
> given a logical argument
> hurr durr fedora meme

Typical christfag.

I'll just leave this here:
What if the Universe is a Computer Simulation? - Computerphile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOxDb_BbXzU

>>46103216
i have tried to see this (and even downloaded the three movies), but every time i just fell asleep. no joking. maybe some day.

>>46103346
you've been waiting almost 30 minutes for someone to respond to you just to post this dumb image

just shows how mad you really are

>>46103377
>implying only one person here disagrees with your retarded opinions
pls get out

>>46103365
*tips fedora gracefully* very true m'lady

>>46103377
I didn't post that image, buddy...

>>46103356
/thread
/board
/internet
/world

>>46103392
>implying i'm even the same person
*tips fedora*

>>46103348
Infinity is an abstract concept.
Does it exist?
Well, in our physical world: no; as a concept: yes. Doesn't matter if you're simulated or not...

>>46103410
/solar system
/local group
/galaxy
/another local group
/universe
/simulation generator
/42

File: morpheus2.gif (608KB, 650x263px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 650x263px

>>46102101
Everything that has a beginning , has an end Neo.
Wait , what? just give me my burger bitch!

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.

>>46102910
If we are just a bunch of data being processed in some computer, no, we can't.

>>46102907
>"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)

I always think about this, and quantum mechanics make me think this is what is happening, unobserved objects= not simulated, observed object= simulated (takes a state)

>>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.

>>46102935
>tips fedora
>doesn't even have a fedora

Typical christian behaviour.

What's the most complex simulation we have today?

>>46104791
World of Warcraft

when people ask this are they asking whether our reality is a simulation of another actual, real reality, or if just the nature of how reality works resembles a computer simulation?

>>46103371
I have a 85 gig torrent of all the movies, shows, And manga in 8 Languages. Flac, Vlc Mp4 all in 720p

I am the only seeder of 58 leechers

>>46104791
Saints Row 4

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

>>46102101
go read a fucking book on simulations

>>46102173
you too

>>46102393
>cult thinking detected

>>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.

>>46105330
>Vlc Mp4
wat

>>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

>>46102101
Oh no goyim, I can't be sure that would be possible. We can't possibly make every event related and/or derived from what's happening to you.

>>46102899
I think he means the universe we live in as a whole has multiple galaxies(simulations) and we're just part of it. And the "true" part just (probably) means what is real for us.... I think.