But if we assume that we survive long enough, it makes sense to assume that we will be able to create our own universes.
Now, assuming the latter is real, then it's only logical to assume that it is possible that beings that live in the "real" universe lived long enough to create their own simulated universe, in which we live in. Hell, there can be an infinite loop of simulations, but the thing is, what's the point of it all?
If we do manage to create our own simulated worlds, what would we do with them? Contrary to the "real" universe, which *probably* exists by chance, our own simulations must have a purpose, since they were created by beings, us.
>>721884466 the hardest proof we have that we are not simulated is that there still isn't an end to the number Pi. A computer is physically not possible to store an infinite number so PI is one of the few ways we can determine if our universe is simulated
>>721888684 Hmm, are you assuming everyone on /b/ is a retard? Does that include yourself? Or me? I think you are generalizing and underestimating people in general. I believe people are able to grasp that concept, but often do they want to.
>>721889770 Not really. As Infinite didgital space needs infinite physical space there isn't really a way to store a number that is infinitly large. Except if you take something into account like extra dimensional stuff and scfi shit like that
>>721890882 >>721891284 Hey man, aliens can be gods too if you squint hard enough. Christians are worshiping some alien dude I guess. Like, if God is a computer programmer, then man, we gotta sit down with him and do some serious debugging of this code, man. Like, cancer and like herpes and shit? Why'd you program that shit into it, huh?
>>721890698 Well, I don't have any proof. BUT, logically, assuming everyone on this website is "mentally inferior" (couldn't come up with something better, sorry) is just as insane as believing the exact opposite.
Not everyone on this website is an american from the US, so basing their irrationality on decisions made in only the US doesn't make sense when you consider this website is international.
Furthermore, assuming people that frequent /b/ are "everyday" people, then, and now I'm speaking from my life experience (not necessarily truth), people have potential to grasp these "meta" concepts.
>>721891610 Ok, you have a point. Computers need to be created by something. That doesn't mean that there must be some entity, in this case, a "programmer". Just like our universe could possibly exist because of a big-bang, which in itself isn't a being, then computers can be created by something that isn't an entity.
>>721884466 I can think of a lot crazier ideas. In fact, given the rate of technological progress and the fact that we're already creating simulations, it would stand to reason that someday we'll be able to create a universe that's virtually indistinguishable from our own.
By this line of reasoning, if we're living in a simulation, then it's probably a simulation within many layers of simulations.
>>721885875 Essentially what my source said. He also argued we are most likely ancestor-simulations made by our far descendants so they could see exactly how the past was. Another hypothesis is that we're testing grounds to weed out bad ai.
Why the hell would a programmer enable artificially intelligent components of its program to code? One of these components would eventually come up with the idea of compromising the functionality of the entire program, especially if it had the capacity to make moral-based decisions. Computers and computer programs are ultimately tools, and shouldn't be treated any better. If we are tools, what purpose(s) do we serve? The more I hear this idea of the universe being a simulation, the more I believe it's a product of creationist propaganda.
>>721893741 Ah, yeah, I should have noted that I wasn't saying anything particularly original.
>what's the point? Aside from the fact that it's ingrained in our DNA to preserve the species, what's the point in procreating? What's the point in doing anything? Boredom... and because we can. Never underestimate progress for the sake of progress.
Perhaps some dipshits thought that preserving the species organically was going to be impossible, and so they'd continue the cycle of suffering in a simulation.
>>721893808 Also, the most important element holding this argument up -- as I see it -- is the existence of quantum computing. It exists, but its breadth is limited to machines. Unless a social, intelligent-enough species pools its efforts to create a constantly expanding and improving computer, making quantum computation the smoking gun to prove a simulated universe is presumptuous.
>>721894773 I got it from who I disagreed with genius >>721894717 we're only one of the universes as the number of simulated universes approaches infinity Saying the chance we're base reality is infinitismal is no hyperbole.
WAIT, WAIT WAIT. If a computer could simulate the universe it exists in, doesn't it mean that it would have to contain itself? Wouldn't that mean that it would have to be infinitely complex to repeatably contain itself?
depends on the advanced extent of the technology used by the ones using a simulator... on earth? how big are we talking here? If our technology stops advancing then that would be a sign we are in a simulator
>>721895662 Not necessarily. Another species residing in our universe might have created the simulation we live in. If that's true, us technologically advancing or not, we might still be living on a simulation.
>>721895278 >Saying the chance we're base reality is infinitesimal is not hyperbole. It is, because there are other factors to take into consideration, like ETE's that might have prevented human beings from creating the simulation in the first place. Also, we don't know enough about the limitations of future technology to assess anything with a %.
>>721895809 If that's true, no reason to keep alive, l don't see why any alien would have use for that unless trying to gain information or something, but that wouldn't be infinite anyway. We could create simulations on ourselves though in the future, which would be a stupid idea
>>721895919 If it's possible to simulate other universes, then we're most likely a simulation. This journal explains it is possible among other things.
http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.html This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
>>721896431 Yeah, I realize that. It wouldn't have to, but the anon was asking how it could.
If the universe is going to reach a state of deep freeze where all ordinary matter will cease to exist, then it would be impossible. However, there is the chance that humans found a way to get around that -- unless we live in an infinitely expanding and contracting universe, in which case it would be impossible.
>consciousness Please enlighten me as to what consciousness is before pretending it can't be simulated. >free will free will is an illusion, and a very dumb one at that. It's probably dumber than religion tbh. >Quantum mechanics It's not like it's magical, it's just really unpenetrable at our scale. Particularly terrible argument since, while it's really hard to work with, we can already simulate quantum mechanics in limited scope in our current universe.
>Babby's first existential question Anyone who has studied even a tiny bit of philosophy or rational thought knows it's a stupid question. It's fundamentally the same as, "HOW DO WE KNOW THERE'S NOT MAGICAL UNICORNS PRANCING AROUND US THAT WE CAN'T OBSERVE?" There's no reasoning, evidence, or proof that could lead to that conclusion, so it's dismissed.
>>721898689 >"FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION", spouted the idiot Free will is only as much of an illusion as reality is an illusion. Will is a product of conscious thought, which is an objective reality. We have a concept of reality only through conscious thought. To deny this is like trying to send an email declaring that the internet doesn't exist. If you think existence exists, you have to believe in free will. They are both products of reality.
A simulation doesn't require free-will as an illusion because it already is.
Your 'uniqueness' in regards to your favorite foods, women, hobbies, and decisions are all symptoms of social influence.
Your desires and passions are based on the trends that are coherent in the status quo, your subconscious mind works in tandem with your innate instincts to ensure that you are continually responding to subtle undertones of social influence.
A simulation is unable to provide the inhabitants with an illusory free-will because it never existed in the first place.
>>721899328 I don't need to provide you shit. If you truly believe that there is no proof then that just means you haven't looked it up in the first place, which means you are just speaking out of your ass to look intelligent.
You're talking about something else entirely which doesn't relate to the original point. Perhaps I'm giving too much credit to the original comment (yours or otherwise), but I understood "free will" to mean "non-determinism of the universe".
I believe that if the universe is not deterministic, it hasn't done a very good job at showing us that.
Let me rephrase then so that your jimmies will perhaps be left unrustled : the notion of freewill is *irrelevant*, with our understanding of spacetime. If I simulated a universe, I couldn't possibly make it non deterministic, I couldn't create or remove freewill from the agents living in it, which is why I said it's an illusion.
So then there is an equal likelihood that there is a simulated God, who sent his simulated son to die for our simulated sins, ruling over a simulated heaven that our simulated minds go to once we "die"?
>>721899264 You can't compare our perception of Free Will with our perception of reality, because reality can't be well-defined.
Freedom is an absolute. You can have varying degrees of difficulty of Will, but varying degrees of freedom doesn't make much sense. We're under to many constraints to truly be free, and on top of that, time is transient and we live in the rear view.
The concept of Freedom doesn't properly account for the fact that every event, every thought and choice, is predicated on a maelstrom of other causal events that we have no control over. We make choices, but the assertion that we're free to make those choices is illogical.
Gotta love the idiots using "infinite numbers" as proof we aren't in a simulation. Guess what, those numbers are only infinite if we are using decimals. If you use other bases, you can represent those numbers with a finite number of algorithms.
>>721901544 >A circle is an *abstract* geometric notion What about spheres? Gravity makes planets round. If you have an uniform material with enough mass and a center of mass right in the middle of it, theoretically, gravity can make it a perfect sphere. Then how did you calculate it's volume (4/3 Pi r^3)
Wow, I hope you're trolling but whatever here goes :
>If you have an uniform material with enough mass and a center of mass right in the middle of it, theoretically, gravity can make it a perfect sphere. Fuck, my head. Why uniform? Why enough mass? If the center of mass is in the middle of it already you've already done half the work, but anyway, no, no, you wouldn't have a perfect sphere. You can't make a perfect sphere out of legos, nor can you out of molecules, atoms or quarks. Also none of those elements (not molecules or atoms anyway) have "uniform mass", that doesn't exist.
But even then, why on earth do you have to calculate the volume? Do you think the universe keeps a nicely sorted catalogue of every planet and store their mass? That's insane.
But even with all that, even if I really wanted to make a perfect sphere in my universe, I wouldn't need pi. I'd say my sphere is located at position P, with a radius R, and maybe it's mass M or whatever the fuck else, and I can manipulate it as an atomic object however I want, calculating distance and collision to other perfect sphere by only comparing their distance.
The equation for a sphere is x2 + y2 = r2. Where do you see PI?
>>721884466 There's no way to tell. As soon as you could find a way to say this is real, you could just say the simulation is simulating that quality.
Since there'd be no discernible difference between this and a simulation just like this, one must ask, what would be the difference at all? To which you would answer, "there wouldn't be one", at which point, the ideas of realities and simulations merge into a broader definition of "existence".
What if the reason we haven't found alien life yet is because aliens realized how shitty real life is ... how we are limited to our physical bodies ... how all life is pain and degradation.
What if they harness the power of their star to power a super computer where they have uploaded all their consciousness into. Essentially allowing them to live forever (or for how ever long the star lives for) within the simulation , doing an infinite amount of things from a completely "normal" mundane life to literally exploring the cosmos as a immortal being ... within the simulation that feels like it's real anyway so what's the difference .
>Why enough mass? so gravity's effects can be explicit. i've already given an example with fucking planets dude. smaller corpses don't have a spherical shape because they don't have enough mass. > If the center of mass is in the middle of it already you've already done half the work well no shit, i pointed it out so faggots like yourself would understand all the requirements for the sphere to be perfect
also fuck you, i said theoretically, which means in a universe created by the rules i stated it would work
>>721903665 exactly, which is why nothing in it is infinite. Things that exist within a finite universe, are limited to being finite. Things that exist outside that finite universe, are still part of the universe, because that is the definition of universe. Things that exist, tend to exist. Things that tend to exist, are limited to finite lives that end with the end of the universe, which is the end of all things. ...or they do not exist in the first place.
This is a fucking bulshit thread. Let's suppose we are in a simulation. Who the hell is in within that simulation, because as long as I know there is nothing else that exists than my point of view, and asking if 'we' are in a simulation is firstly an absurd question, it has no sense at all, secondly the only appropriate question would be wether 'I' am in a simulation, and thats also absurd cause firstly it is needed to be resolved the fundamental question: are the others a conscious self or just a plain representation?
The sphere is the result of an effect (gravity, water errosion, surface tension), it isn't the effect itself.
Again, tell me where exactly in my little simulation I need to know pi. Quite a simple question. I can model every force known to this universe, gravity, electroweak interactions, strong interaction, and quite frankly any other force made up or sensible outside the standard model. I do not need to know the value of any irrational number, be it pi, square root of 2, euler's number or whatever else.
OP is operating on the assumption that we all are conscious as shown by the way he asked the question. Your reply is therefore retarded and not relevant to Op's thread and question. You are simply derailing the thread please fuck off get btfo
>>721904670 Let me see if I get this straight: something has a property of 0 if you remove that property of 0, what does it have'? well, by definition, zero, because you removed nothing, because there was nothing there to begin with
>>721904397 1- OP assumption is false, it is making the question itself absurd. It is like assuming that I have an 35 inch dick, and asking if my 35 inch dick is a divine blessing. My dick is not 35 inch! The question is fucking absurddd! You are an idiot too
>>721905185 OP here. Please provide evidence that the mentioned assumption is false. Not that I don't consider what you said to be truth, but one should be open-minded towards others' s arguments (hence why I want to know why you refused what I assumed).
No I can't, but I will make the point that I'm pretty confident with enough computational power I could make a universe simulation and I wouldn't need any.
So unless you got a counterargument to that, the pi argument is invalid, therefore we might or might not live in a simulation. I couldn't care less about that really, just the pi argument dozens of people have raised in this thread pisses me off.
>>721884466 >HOW DO WE KNOW WE'RE NOT LIVING IN A SIMULATION?
doesn't matter, if it's a sim, a sim this real is real. but that raises the question, it it only real because this is what we have grown to believe real feels like? regardless, real is what real to you. so.....
>>721905520 >pretty confident how can you be confident if you are aware that you don't know every equation required to replicate our universe? are you basing the non existance of equations relying on irrational numberon on a lucky guess
>>721905465 The existence of others consciousness and self point of view can't be proofed, you are trying to resolve an implication without knowing if the hypothesis itself is true. The question is absurd
>>721905999 well, planck length is only a limit on the physical world. but the universe contains our imagination. and our imagination contains planck length/2. therefore, to simulate our universe, you need more than planck length.
I'm saying that I could make a pretty damn convincing universe. One that could harbor planets, stars, life, "free will", and all that you'd expect in a universe without needing any of them. If you there is anything in our universe you think wouldn't emerge from our current understanding of physics (and more importantly would prevent life from existing, since this is the point), please point it out.
>>721885313 It is possible to simulate a universe because we already do it all the time. The real issue is the number of particles in the simulation. We started with 300 in 1970 and as processing power gets better we can increase the number of particles. The smallest particles in the universes we are simulating right now are on par with planets or entire solar systems, but when we can simulate a universe down to the individual atoms people will start to ask if the lifeforms that spontaneously develop in the simulation have rights on par with animals until some simulation lifeforms start building and worshiping stuff and building computers on which they run thier own simulations.
>>721894036 Im sure there is a way out or into another SIM. This happens more often than you would think. We call it. Demonic possession is the belief that individuals can be possessed by malevolent preternatural beings, commonly referred to as demons or devils. Obsessions and possessions of the devil are placed in the rank of apparitions of the evil spirit among men.
my imagination also contains two times my imagination! Therefore I must be infinitely imaginative or something!
Wait I'm picturing the universe being fucked by a huge suprauniversal megapenis. This is either rape or our universe must be gay, how could it possibly let itself be raped through my own imagination which it harbors!
>>721907488 Sorry I meant that it can't be proved (My English bad). The question does make sense grammatically but it is absurd making that question if we can't even know what is the actual nature of consciousness
>>721906255 Did the mathematical functions that describe how our universe works come about before the universe itself? Numerical logic is not natural, we've only used it to understand phenomena around us.
>>721908267 I don't like detachment, I don't like Buddhist monks, I don't want practice a delusional, vegetable, boring way of life in order to reach a false "enlightened" goal. I like anger and love and happiness and fear and doubts and sex and emotions and living
>>721907456 No its our job to make this universe great again. Recent reports are coming in that the universe is expanding. If this is true makes sense as we continue to upgrade our systems the machine that runs our sim would also continue to become more complex. The only true way to know is that day when we reach the peak of the technology that created this simulation.
>>721909232 I also had a time in which I used to think too much and end up in a kind of Alert/mindful/conscious/thepowerofmeow state of mind, but it is just that, a state of mind, nothing to be with enlightenment and that kind of bullshit
>>721909526 OP went to bed, but true, if it feels real, then maybe it's worth something, if it feels dead, then maybe its worth nothing, but nothing is everything, the message maybe being meaning out of thin air, or not I don't know, I'm just guessing, maybe if we can create our own realities, we'd find everything we've been looking for
>>721908227 everything has a number everything is a balanced equation cancer life death birth trees bees cars gas solid metal liquid its all got a number. Computer just crunches them that's all they do. Some numbers are RANDOM like most here today we are here because we love the RANDOM.
honestly, your reality is what you make of it. thats why mental patients create their own when they don't like whats happening in the one every else sees. all that matters is that you think it's real. even if it isn't, you obviously couldn't even tell the difference anyways.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
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 content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.