What's the actual probability this life we live in

100%

>>58038633

in a machine generated way or through some type of God-like entity?

>>58038625
There was a formula stating this but i don't know what it was or how it was

Maybe /x/ knows, just ask kindly

occam's razor says no

File: 1477714780375.jpg (102KB, 1280x936px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1280x936px

>>58038625
If we are a simulation what are we a simulation of? When a simulation gets complex enough that it can potentially simulate itself is there a meaningful difference between the simulation and the "real world" that it was created in?

>>58038625
i simulate in ur mum

>>58038673
What's the difference?

>>58038709
inb4 retards reply with "nothing can simulate itself"

File: nosim.png (17KB, 707x338px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 707x338px

>>58038625

File: TS4_Logo_Plumbob.jpg.png (151KB, 443x848px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 443x848px

>when you play the sims and your sims are playing the sims while you're actually a sim
>wabba do borsh

>>58038625
100%. Our relationship with computers is analagous to our relationship with the creator. It's just another way for the universe to know itself.

File: 9625d4_0be5d477fcbb4cf7993ebcd3aa8ac9b5[1].jpg (48KB, 620x348px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 620x348px

Now you've seen The Matrix, it's time to see The Thirteenth Floor

>>58038625
It's not exactly a simulation, it's like an escape from reality. We cannot perceive reality as it is because of our own conditioning.
>>58038819
Top tier movie.

I believe this life is some form of Hell. Heaven is not like this. With all this pain and suffering. Separation from heaven is in some extent, Hell. A simulated alt-reality might actually save us.

>>58039162
>believe
>hell
>heaven
Being this bluepilled

If you consider the fact that simulating a universe is far easier than creating one physically, then I think it's fair to say that there would be many more simulated universes than real ones. Given that fact, by sheer probability, we are much more likely to be living in one of the many simulated ones.

>>58038736
This.
>>58038705
Occam's razor gives me nausea, if it was for occam's nazor earth would be flat and god would exist.

>>58039162
You are retarded
Inb4 u hurt my feelers, ergo this is hell, ergo im right.

>>58038625
The scales are mind boggling. We can keep going smaller (Planck) or bigger (Observable Universe) till our brains and technology collapse. Regardless, we can never truly observe out the basic building blocks of matter and the abnormal behavior of time at quantum level all suggests that we have reached the edge of this simulation.

>>58038783
thanks for shedding some humor in this grimdark thread

>>58038625
0%

>>58041842
That's only if you presuppose a uniform distribution.

Perhaps it's not possible for simulated beings to actually be conscious (like i know i am). Perhaps it is. Who knows?

>>58038705
occam's razor says your mom's fake and gay

100%
>WAKE UP ANON, WAKE UP!

>>58041842
You're assuming it's easy to simulate a universe. We can't even simulate weather patterns reliably.

File: 1480129325464.jpg (18KB, 450x510px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 450x510px

>>58042775

>>58041880
Don't be retarded. How does Occam's razor suggest the existence of God?

>>58038709
>is there a meaningful difference
Somebody could disable/interfere with the simulation so yes

52%

>>58038625
100%, although the term 'simulation' is misleading imo. It implies that reality is less 'real' and some 'actual' reality exists/can exist, when in actuality who gives a fuck we're here, we're queer get used to it ie we still must adhere to the laws of this reality, simulated or not.

>>58038625
0.00000000001%

>>58043686
First explain how Occam's razor is even relevant as an atgument to anything.

>>58043686
Occam's razor is about the minimum set of rules possible to describe something. Invoking a god just introduces more and more questions.

File: elon musk.jpg (146KB, 1581x1080px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1581x1080px

https://youtu.be/J0KHiiTtt4w

>>58048474
>Vox
>nasally faggot narrator
closed within 2 seconds

>>58045948
It solves them you dipshit, that's why mysticism was prior to philosophy, and then science was born, you can think that occam's razor is applicable now that you already have our culture and knowledge, but applying Occam's razor won't lead you to any of our past discoveries, the universe is complex, not simple, aplying a simplistic logic was never the solution to anything and in the absence of science people belived in god because it solved most of the mysteries of our existence, it is naive to think that now is applicable.

It is just you being unaware of how counterintuitive and complex most of our knowledge is.

It wasn't until very late in out history that people realized that god wasn't solving any question, but was it cause no one notice until that point? No, it was because all the other questions that justified his existence had been answered over thousands of years, and at some point people noticed that it wasn't necessary it was actually more of a problem than a solution.

Now take out all of the existing knowledge, look at the universe and apply Occam's razor again, all you got is god.

>>58045846
>First explain how Occam's razor is even relevant as an atgument to anything.

I can't speak about "atgument"s, but Occam's Razor is a scientific principle, so it is only relevant to science. And this is /g/ not /sci/.

>>58043686
Anon you mentioned the textbook taught Occam's razor example.

Not even a single proof on the god side so Occam's razor more than ever is applicable here.

Life is just a social construct. You're nothing more a miserable pile of pathetic cells chucked together so you might have the chance of creating another pile of miserable cells until the sun inevitably explodes dooming us all. Even if by some miracle we do survive the sun the universe will ultimately end making everything pointless.

>>58038674

There's the paper from a few years ago that claims that we're almost certainly living inside a simulation.

If I recall correctly, the fundamental premise is something like this:

1) Civilization probably destroys itself through wars or cataclysmic events.

2) Future people would probably want to simulate the past in order to understand historical events, or for fun.

3) Thus, we're almost certainly living inside a simulation.

Personally, I think the premise is idiotic. It completely leaves out ethics. What kind of madman would build such a detailed simulation with so much fucking suffering? Due to the "virgin AIDS myth", there are *literally* babies in the world who get fucked to death. What sort of society would have the technology to execute such a vast simulation, yet such horrendous ethics as to allow it?

No, fuck that. We aren't in a simulation. We're just a rock in space where sentient life forms came to be, and we spend all our time thinking about ourselves. We're never going to meet any other civilization, because the universe is just too fucking big and too spaced out.

Our species is inconsequential. We rose from the muck and we'll die off eventually. At best, we'll leave a shitty mark on our solar system that some alien race will stumble across hundreds of billions of years from now. And they won't be able to report it to anyone, because it will be further billions of years before their information makes it back to any other civilization.

Ain't nobody gonna simulate this bullshit.

It's 50/50, either it is, or it isn't.

>>58038625
>What's the actual probability this life we live in is a simulation?
Depending on your definition of simulation, anything from 0% to 100%

>>58050114
>What kind of madman would build such a detailed simulation with so much fucking suffering?

>Ain't nobody gonna simulate this bullshit.

What if that's the point? What if we are a simulation on some GodChan anon's PC and he is showing this fucked up simulation on GodChan's version of /g/ in their /dpg/.

And it's full of shitposting between edgefags who approve such a horrid simulation and moralfags who don't.

>>58050001
No you fucking normie.

Life is just the right combinations of atoms that allow us to be what we are on this shitty planet.

Nothing more, nothing less.

But the big questions are:
- why is the universe so structured
- what existed before the big bang

Which leads me to think that it could be a simulation after all.

>>58050265

>imblying some chan-fag could ever put this shit together

That sort of behavior will be eliminated from the organism long before we're capable of any significant amount of simulation.

By the way, I find it funny that Musk cites the progress in video game graphics as if that's relevant. Video game graphics are all about estimation and tricks. Walk close to a wall and you're suddenly presented with the blocky texture. It's like a dream. The amount of processing power that would be necessary to simulate the level of detail we see day to day is incomprehensible.

Unless, of course, you want to get into the "are you even real" bullshit which is why I hated philosophy class.

>>58051696
>- why is the universe so structured

It isn't.

>- what existed before the big bang

Nothing. The Big Bang was the creation of the universe. Nothing existed before. It was the beginning, period.

>>58038625
Somewhere between >= 0% and <= 100%.

File: westworld bernard.jpg (31KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 700x525px

>>58042505
It doesn't look like anything to me.

>>58051874

Heh.

Goddamn that was a good reveal.

>>58050114
>It completely leaves out ethics.
You are implying this species evolved with similar ethics to us.

What if they are of the opinion that life is not sacred, just the actions said life performed.
That would mean simulating a species would be highly prized for them, to experience the lives of trillions of complex lifeforms over its lifetime.

We kill fucking rats all the time.
A species capable enough to build planets and/or planetary systems is almost certainly more intelligent than we are. By fucking miles.
Our human brain is actually really shitty compared to what it could be.
Our brain evolved with low energy limits in mind, which is why it has so much redundancy and why we suck at doing sequential operations quickly.
Similarly to any standard computer with a multicore processor is shit at doing sequential tasks, the more simple your cores get, the worse per-core performance becomes.
Very few humans can do the sorts of calculations that computers can do and in the speeds that they do them in. And we still don't know shit about how that happens.
Whoever finds out will probably discover a whole new method of maths for sure, something that will make multicore processors good.
So why would they care about some measly little planet dwellers? With all their petty resource wars, politics and rationing of resources, greed and general shit.
Some (them) might say they deserve it.

>>58043778

>mfw somebody interferes with muh simulation
That would mean that your medium of execution would be the "higher level" with the idiot who spilled fruit punch in the servers, as the only way to predict with ABSOLUTE certainty is to use the "higher" reality.

>"disable" the simulation
As for disabling it, if you paused a simulation, made a copy of it, deleted the original copy and then restored it from the backup and ran it, would simulated and consious beings in this "copy" percieve anything different from continuing to run the "original copy"? And if there were some error in the bits that were copied, see above.

Also, if you stopped running and deleted a simulation this instant in defiance of the morons in this thread (self included), what would the beings in said simulation "feel"? Seeing above response to notion of messing with muh simulation, wouldn't any form of entropy (even quantum) lead to an infinity of possible outcomes where we simply stop being?

>>58045041

First part agreed, but don't tell me how to live my life.

Just because we can be simulated doesn't nessecarily mean that we are. A better and simpler, if arguably lamer solution would be simply to say that "All algorithms are universally valid, regardless wether they are executed" and call it at that.

Which opens up the ideas of afterlives, but that ISN"T VALID TO THIS DISCUSSION, >>58039162

>>58049137

The main argument he's trying to make is basically that god would be an infinitely complex being so it's nonsense to suggest that introducing something of such complexity would make anything simpler. Once you include a god in the universe you have to include it in the analysis of that universe. The view you're making stops short of that last inclusion.

>>58039162
>A simulated alt-right reality might actually save us.

FTFY

:^)

File: 1481595366077.jpg (33KB, 223x317px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 223x317px

What kind of dumbfuck civilization would simulate a gigantic universe filled with 99% empty space for billions of years?

File: 678686868676.jpg (27KB, 626x626px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 626x626px

>>58039162

Happiness and joy can only exist with pain and suffering to compare it to.

>>58051791
>Nothing existed before. It was the beginning, period.
Wrong. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang didn't just occur out of pure nothingness. That would violate the laws of physics. There is no start or end. The universe is just an infinite cycle of birth and death.

>>58038625
High probability. However, what would be the point?

>>58051969
You'd be implying the whole universe is simulated and not just a massive dynamic spherical skybox a lightyear across.

We can already simulate decent physics on supercomputers just now.
Imagine some sort of hyper ultra mega supercomputer capable of running the solar system. That is already more complex than simulating the physics needed to display a simulated universe on a skybox.

If we were in a simulation, for all we know, the voyager probe will just be simulated at a point.
And in however many centuries time we get to the edge of our simulation, the world simulator has probably already bought a new computer to simulate more.
This single ship only needs to have a separate dynamic skybox around it when it leaves the confines of the solar system skybox.
Any stars, planets and whatever else it comes to can be contained in another instance only.
As we reach more and more planetary systems, more resources added to it.

Or they could just turn off the simulation. That's a thing.

>>>/sci/8519894

>>58052068

>The Big Bang didn't just occur out of pure nothingness.

How the fuck do you know? You are merely a mammalian brain that exists only to reproduce its genes in a Newtonian world. Really, we have absolutely no idea

>>58052068
>Wrong. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang didn't just occur out of pure nothingness. That would violate the laws of physics. There is no start or end. The universe is just an infinite cycle of birth and death.
The laws we know to be fairly accurate likely did not exist before the big bang.

>>58038625
String theory does sway me more to the belief that the universe is a simulation rather than pure randomness.

String theory (in my opinion) says that fundamentally our universe is purely information.

I find it it sad that our brains are still so primitive and naive that we will never know the answer

>>58052149
Because it's fucking paradoxical.
You cannot create 'something' out of nothing, because there's fucking nothing there.

>tfw you are the link between low- reality and the upper-reality and with your death low-reality dies with it and you awake.

Relevent to this thread/Big Bang - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AATA0TzZf0A

Quantum physics and the sheer amount of computing power needed to simulate a universe disprove that theory completely, so 0%

>>58052307

The problem is that you're thinking that there's necessarily anything _before_ the universe. You need to disregard notions of before when you're thinking about the beginning of the universe, since that's (as far as we know) the beginning of time as well. It's not that the universe comes from nothing but rather that the universe always was and simply became larger.

>>58038625
Jewish trickery meant to spread nihilism.

>>58052320
>thinking you as an individual are special
>7billion shits on the planet and rising
>but somehow your death results in this move to 'upper-reality' or whatever the fuck that means

sorry, but youre just the result of a series of complex chemical reactions. once you die you will never exist again or be aware of existing.

>>58052068
>The Big Bang didn't just occur out of pure nothingness

No one ever said that, in the "begining" the universe was a singularity

>>58038625
Far greater than the probability we are not.

>>58038633
Close to be honest.

>>58038705
Stupid.

>>58050114
>Future people should care about the suffering of virtual """people""" living inside a simulated reality.
lol

>>58051696
>what existed before the big bang
time is a physical property, so there was no "before" to speak of in the first place, since time only exists relative to matter

>>58052307
That's just how your brain works. I agree that what i am saying is paradoxical. My brain functions similarly to yours. What I'm saying is that these questions go beyond our capable abstract thought.

Explain to me why is there something (your existence) rather than nothing?

As complex and powerful as our brains are, they are simply not capable of answering questions like this as definitively as you seem to think you know

>>58051768
>Video game graphics are all about estimation and tricks. Walk close to a wall and you're suddenly presented with the blocky texture. It's like a dream. The amount of processing power that would be necessary to simulate the level of detail we see day to day is incomprehensible.
You're getting closer, anon. It's not the universe that's the simulation. [spoiler]It's you.[/spoiler]

>>58052358
only the visible portions are emulated
actual clock rate of emulation is not discernible
quantum mechanics fits -- entanglement (shared memory location), decoherence (when visible only), double-slit experiment (no interference if viewed)

>>58045041
>Just because we can be simulated doesn't nessecarily mean that we are

Good point. I guess what I mean to say is that simulation or not we're still bound by the laws and rules of this reality/simulation--physics, math, and all that jazz--that make this reality/simulation work in the way that it does.

Also, I've got a running theory that I've posted around 4chan before, and I'm sure others have thought about it. Reality is an airtight simulation of the 'real' reality to preserve the record of the universe. I'll try to explain this further below with a scenario.

Imagine you were the 'true' reality and your universe (and, I guess, your reality) is in its death throes after an undefined amount of time. The universe/reality will be dying soon (assuming those two are entwined as we believe them to be). To preserve the universe, a perfect, "airtight" simulation of the universe is created in which 'true' reality and the newly created simulated reality are indistinguishable at any instant in time. Between the time this simulation is created and the end of the universe, the entire universe and all time within the universe is simulated perfectly (or replicated, rather).

And in every simulation, the universe approaches death, but is re-simulated just in time to spawn a new simulation and, therefore, a new universe. An infinite series of universes are created and, because of the proper timing of the creation of the first simulation, can continue without convergence to the point in time in which the 'true' reality/universe dies.

tl;dr true reality simulates reality exactly to preserve the universe and the simulations simulate their reality exactly to preserve their universe

File: 8451_013.jpg (42KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 320x240px

>>58052432

File: avatars-000008890509-hntl8p-t500x500.jpg (30KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x500px

>>58052420
True wisdom is knowing what you don't know

>>58052437
its impossible to simulate the behaviour of a single particle
the so-called visible portion entails millions of galaxies and increasing as techonology allows human to see beyond
besides, physical reality is too perfect and consistent to be a result of simulation

So everything including time and space gets sucked up into a tiny area as all those black holes get bigger and turn into one singularity which eventually becomes another big bang? And this process repeats forever?

>>58038625
its 1 to 4,294,967,295
not a single one more.
Pleasy. Dont try.
The Simulation crashed the last time someone said a higher number.

File: wearelivinginasimulation.jpg (34KB, 640x439px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x439px

>>58038625

>>58052508
the more accepted estimate for the heat death of the universe is that entropy causes everything to degenerate into fundamental particles like protons and eventually 'sizzle out' through radiation

>>58038625
Would your life being virtually shit make it any more bearable than being actually shit?

>>58038625
Well, for ordinary people like you and... like you then perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYdpOjletnc

>>58052101

>Or they could just turn off the simulation. That's a thing.

and they havent done it for a billion years
who the fuck would do this

>>58052508
Since i was young I've thought that the entrail of a black hole could be another universe.

The collapse of a star that creates a black hole is awfully similar to how our universe formed (the collapse of a star gets so dense that rips a hole in space/time and all matter that enters is 'lost')
This matter could really be forming a new universe possibly with different physical laws than ours.

>>58052652
Another thing to add. A black hole is a singularity.

The big bang was also supposedly a singularity (infinite density and mass compared to space/time)

>>58038994
not conditioning, its physics you dip. There is literally no way to directly perceive reality. At best we can have a highly accurate model which is a 1:1 replication

As for OP, the universe likely is a simulation, but it also likely doesn't matter. With all the possible worlds, what can you even really call 'base reality'? Even a simulation exists in its own right as a representation. And can so-called base really really be perceived as anything but a representation of itself? Literally logically impossible so no. So essentially, unless we live in a simulation where those running it fuck with us somehow, our universe will continue indefinitely without ever any evidence to it being a simulation. It is most likely that we are such a universe.

>>58052640
>a billion years
to them, it's only been 5 minutes

>>58052593
bb-ut dark matter? dark energy?

>>58052420
>Explain to me why is there something (your existence) rather than nothing.
Ok.
Because it is possible. Out of an uncountable infinity of infinities of all algorithmic possibilities, there is a possibility that an algorithm's data set would allow some of its data to act and interact with data outside itself in a vaugely algorithmic way.
Basically, it is possible for self-aware beings to emerge because the rules and data allow for it to be one possibility out of infinity.
As for why you were born HERE, in this place at this time, consider that you're statistically more likely to be born on an overpopulated planet than a very underpopulated one.

>>58052756
Why is it possible? Why is there the mechanism to allow possibility in the first place?

>>58052593
This, coincidentally, would be a great end-condition for a simulation. If there are no more particles left in the simulation, then stop.

>>58038633
t. God

>>58038625
It's either one or zero, don't fret about meaningless values in between

>>58052756
I agree with everything you've said. None of it explains why something can't come from nothing.

I know there a scientific papers stating that something CAN come from nothing, not that i agree with them, i haven't read them. I was simply stating that we can not know.

File: fec.jpg (7KB, 200x202px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x202px

>>58052829

>>58052779
>Why is it possible?
Because it is a pattern?
Let's say that 2 + 3 = 5.
To zealously generalize it, an addition algorithm used on something that means "two" and something that means "three" will always yield something that means "five".
If we were to run this in, say, a computer, it would be in binary, 010 and 011, but it would still result in something that means five, or 0101.
Could we not say then that what we call addition is a "true" algorithm, one that is universally constant?

>Why is there the mechanism to allow possibility in the first place?
Why is there something, and not nothing?
Because if there was nothing, we could not percieve. If we could not percieve, why would a sapient entity exist there in the first place?
We cannot exist in a absence of space.
We could be emergent algorithms, or simply sub-algorithms in a simulation designed to extract something from one or all of us, but we cannot simply "run in a void".

So, to answer your questions, because we are observers of our parent algorithm in some capacity.

>>58052053
FUCKING THIS
thank you my daoist brother
Everything is just part of the dao

Inb4 hippie shit

>>58052869
Yeah, that is kinda the point. We don't know, because all that we can see is what I call our parent algorithm, which is whatever singular algorithm that we, as a species, have been generalizing and approximating with greater and greater accuracy every year (more-or-less, progress was slow at first).
But the notion of everything that can possibly existing actually existing without any medium of execution is more the realm of metaphysics, rather than science (let alone statistics like OP implied it could be).

>>58052829 you da man

>>58053009
>daoist

I don't even know that this means. To me, its just common sense.

It's does go deeper than this, due to the fact that human joy/happiness is based on the chemical structure of our brain. Even so, my argument still stands.

File: simulation.jpg (143KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x720px

>>58038625

File: WHAT.gif (14KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x200px

>>58053172
>>58053172

>>58053101
Are you saying that us, as a species, are simply an algorithm?

File: 1482027553754.jpg (77KB, 639x640px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 639x640px

>>58038625

>>58053138
Daoism is where the yin and the yang come from. A lot of it is really common sense when you think about it. Laozi was one of the more prolific Chinese authors on the concept, definitely worth reading. Everything fits into the yin and the yang (overall the dao). It is all natural and we should not fight that nature. Good and evil are only defined as constructs by us, and one being desired over the other is just a limited perspective.

Like I said, pretty much all common sense but it was codified really well by the philosophies of Daoism.

>>58038625
Low to fair.

The real question is what the fuck difference does it make?

The only possible upside of the universe being a simulation, would be the potential for altering the simulation in a way that is favorable to us, for example, bending the laws of physics to achieve "impossible" feats like breaking the speed of light, teleporting objects, creating something out of nothing, etc.

Whether it's a simulation or not, if we can't modify the simulation, it doesn't matter and the universe will just go on as it always has. Of course, if we ever reach a point where we CAN modify the simulation, would the civilization that created the simulation actually allow us to do so?

Who knows senpai. People who argue that it is impossible to simulate the world on a quantum level are failing to understand that there may be another language apart from mathematics that allow it to be possible. Mathematics is merely just a language we created to test our observations. Theories derived from our understanding of mathematics might just be our biggest limiting factor. Who is to say that a much more advanced civilisation don't have another language that is far better than our mathematics to explain the observable universe on all levels. It's hard to imagine since what we know is all we know.

>>58053629
this

>>58050114
>What kind of madman would build such a detailed simulation with so much fucking suffering?

Define "suffering" in the context of a vastly complex physics simulation.

>>58051768
>Video game graphics are all about estimation and tricks.

The universe you live in allows particles to behave as probabilities until observed (e.g. wave function, quantum tunneling, etc), how is this not akin to a level-of-detail trick in video games?

>>58053268
On what level are you saying I said humans are an algorithm? Because we basically are on many levels.

As a species, we could be represented as a particular outcome to darwinian evolution or something similar. As far as social behavior of our species (the parts that could be generally expressed as belonging to every individual), we could be expressed as some sort of hill-climbing algorithm that works via reproduction and age-related death, towards reproduction.

As for individuals, aren't all of us basically happiness-maximizing, sadness-minimizing algorithms? You're probably browsing/commenting here because you have nothing that would feel better to do (or derivatives thereof, such as acquisition of knowledge, memes, etc). This is why people have kids, because it makes them feel good to have a living "legacy", something that will live on after them after they inevitably die. Also why porn exists, because jerki'n it feels good, but ya don't want to have kids and the work that such entails.

Regardless , all of the above would simply be emergent sub-algorithms to our "parent algorithm", or basically what we've been trying to get at with physics.

>>58053172
Who's to say what "base reality" is? Whatever it is, would it matter if it were nested within another reality, and if so, how?
First part of >>58051920

>>58053753
>The universe you live in allows particles to behave as probabilities until observed (e.g. wave function, quantum tunneling, etc), how is this not akin to a level-of-detail trick in video games?
/\
/ \
\__ This shit right here.

>>58038625
Depends on whether or not it is possible to simulate an entire universe.

If it is possible, then the probability approaches 1, as there are an infinite number of potentially recursive simulations and only a single "original"

If it isn't possible, then the probability is 0

File: 1482024233075.gif (152KB, 89x210px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 89x210px

>>58038625
I enjoy masturbating to the thought of someone or something is possibly watching me. So much in fact that when I do, I put on a show and really get into it like an internet camwhore.

File: 1456246974058.jpg (26KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x512px

>>58053948
>If it's possible to simulate the universe, then there's a chance we're in a simulation
>If it's not possible, there's no chance of us being in a simulation

Why did you even bother to post that

>>58053948
Important to note is that because the ability to simulate "an entire universe" is determined not by OUR physics, but by whatever physics the "host" universe are, we cannot really know that answer. Assuming that a host universe exists for our universe, then it would basically have to be physically capable of hosting our universe in order to be a host.

What a headache that was.

To alleviate it, consider the possibility of "higher realities" with four dimensions of space as opposed to our three. It would allow for matter to exist more closely/connected in two pairs of two dimensions as nessecary, and I suspect that it would allow for much more powerful computers as the problems of verticallity and stacking connections would be easily solved. Think of how a computer motherboard is flat, but make that into two sheets of paper that can intersect at as many pointsas nessecary without comprimizing the space in-between.

>>58054015
Would some "higher beings" masturbate to you masturbating to them hypothetically watching you?

Would the only reason we are being simulated be for some serious meta-jerki'n?

Thank you for giving our existence purpose, anon.

>>58038625
>everything in life can be explained mathematically
if this isn't proof that we're inside a computer, what the fuck is?

>>58038625
this thread:
tl;dr
your brain is the simulator, and your consciousness is the simulation.

Does that mean that the memes of my waifu being on the other side of the noose are true?

>>58051897
>You are implying this species evolved with similar ethics to us.

The entire premise is that it's a future version of ourselves.

> What if they are of the opinion that life is not sacred, just the actions said life performed.

THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED LONG ENOUGH TO DEVELOP SUCH TECHNOLOGY.

>>58054190
Just because it can be doesn't mean that it is.

For all we know, we and the entirety of the cosmos could exist simply because it is possible.

Just because everything is maths doesn't mean somebody is doing the maths, or in other words, just because an algorithm is universal and valid dnosn't mean that it needs a medium of execution. A simple addition algorithm would probably exist wether our miserable asses (or brains) figured it out or not.

>>58054214
We're mostly discussing the possibilities of our "parent algorithm", or what we call reality, but this is probably more concrete than anything else discussed thus far.

>>58052400

You're projecting our current, ludicrously simplistic simulations onto the future.

You realize we have people currently arguing the ethics of even creating an AI capable of sentience, right? You think there wouldn't be huge ethical implications from creating literally billions of individual AI's?

We're not talking about the fucking Sims, which is a dumb example that dumb journalists use.

The only way we're in a simulation is if we're an accidental biproduct of whatever is actually being simulated or calculated. If we're just the accidental embodiment of what is effectively a rounding error, then fine. But nobody is intentionally creating this reality we're living.

>>58052432

Way to leave out the last line I wrote:

>Unless, of course, you want to get into the "are you even real" bullshit which is why I hated philosophy class.

Or do you not understand what philosophy classes examine? They do all the retarded, "what if you're in a false reality controlled by a mad scientist with a lever" bullshit.

>>58053753
>The universe you live in allows particles to behave as probabilities until observed (e.g. wave function, quantum tunneling, etc), how is this not akin to a level-of-detail trick in video games?

That's an incorrect, pop-sci understanding of how quantum mechanics works.

>>58054795
>implying future versions of our society will have the same notions of morality as us
>implying future "humans" simulating us will still think that life is sacred
>implying not drinking the "life is sacred" cool-aid will get your civ ded
>implying people simulating us will be doing so for entirely for good, honest intentions

Really?

>>58054919
> >implying future versions of our society will have the same notions of morality as us
> >implying future "humans" simulating us will still think that life is sacred
> >implying not drinking the "life is sacred" cool-aid will get your civ ded
> >implying people simulating us will be doing so for entirely for good, honest intentions

It's like you haven't been paying attention *at all* to anything already posted in the thread.

Go read the paper and listen to Musk reference it. These are all underpinnings of the entire thing.

>>58038709
we're fractals, all the way down

>>58052307
>you cannot create something out of nothing
Sure you can. The universe is the proof of that. And that is further seen in physics subset of Virtual Particles, that hop into and out of existence from nothing.

>>58054908
that actually is how quantum mechanics work.
More llke probability fields.

File: 1450880778812.gif (27KB, 959x719px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 959x719px

>>58054908

i thought that was exactly how it worked, as evidenced by the double slit experiment

>>58054876
>people currently arguing the ethics of even creating an AI capable of sentience
These discussions are mostly not about the plight of teh robots, but rather what they might do to humans, the other 99.9% or so of sapient life on the planet.

>huge ethical implications from creating literally billions of individual AI's
What's to stop Microsoft or Apple from doing that, since they don't seem to be focused on morality?
What somebody/something "should" morally do has little relevance to what the most logical/profitable course of action would be.

>The only way we're in a simulation is if we're an accidental biproduct of whatever is actually being simulated or calculated.
>>58052756 >>58052869 >>58053000
>>58052455
Not nessecarily.

>>58052053
I am pretty sure pain receptors don't have any kind of happiness in the way they work

>>58049137
it only solves them for retards who don't even realize questions are there. god is a simple answer perfect for people not looking for much.

>>58038709
it's impossible with all plausible understandings of physics to simulate the entire universe from within itself. same reason god can't be omnipotent without being outside the universe.

>>58055030
Interestingly enough, there used to be (i don't know how true it still is) physicists who taught quantum mechanics at universities, and they would still say, "but really, particles are just particles, not waves at all."

And I remember saying to my professor who said this, "B-but, you just finished a section teaching matter waves and probability of interaction?"

And he was apologetic, yet insistent, that even though he taught it, and even though all the experiments were there, it was just a mathematical model that worked, but didn't describe true reality. Particles were really just tiny perfect billiard balls to him. Weird.

>>58055280
>can't simulate the entire universe from within itself
Bro, do you even fractal?

File: 1468815338613.gif (551KB, 245x163px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 245x163px

>>58055283
i don't know how to process this information

>>58052053
I disagree, children can feel complex emotional happiness without encountering the crushing emotional pain that they will feel in adult life. there are many kinds of pain and happiness, enough that it would be pretty much impossible to objectively classify them much less say what their counterpart is. which kind of contradicts what I said earlier but I think most would agree scraping your knee is not equivalent to say, adult grief.

>>58038709
We think we can simulate our-self.
But that would be impossible. Entropy mvst increase n' all that jazz.

If we are a simulation then we wouldn't be able to comprehend our creators.

>>58045846

If I hear a plane flying outside and i dont see it i can only hear it from inside my house, it is not reasonable to think it's something else. It most likely is a plane. Not a missle, godzilla, a transformer, etc. You see a painting you know it had a creator. This doesn't prove a religion but it makes it clear we most likely were created with reason. Reason can only exist within a mind.

>>58051960

lel

>>58055303
well, I should have said replicate, because ideally your simulated universe should be 100% accurate or at least close to it. even in a fractal the only accurate repetition is of the pattern, not the detail of every point in the scale. even if the elements are all the same, the number and size are still important differences. besides you can't point to fractals or even patterns in general at every possible scale (though that is limited by what you can observe ill admit). so you would have to simplify the universe to have a smaller floor and ceiling than ours.
so you could make an "alternate reality" in our universe, it would just have to have restrictions.

>>58052053
I also disagree. Essentially we are just really a collection of particles, complex chemical and electrical reactions.

There is objectively, from a pure physics frame of mind, no such thing as joy or suffering. What you feel is only a biologically programmed response to stimuli.

I could alter your brain to never feel suffering again. It would alter how you operate as an organism, but you would nonetheless still be "happy."

>>58045041
>we still must adhere to the laws of this reality, simulated or not.
you could find some seam or error in the simulation that allowed you to get out, or to make contact with the "outside", even to the point that you could change the universe that way. not likely but possible. who knows maybe one day you'll wake up and an "NPC" will be walking into a wall or something. not that you could ever verify it wasn't all in your head, but hey that's everything, and it would be interesting.

>>58055357

So what? Yes there's physical and mental pain. Still goes both ways. Your gf jerking you off vs you stubbing your toe on your desk. Enjoying music vs grieving over loved ones. One can't exist without the other. Look at The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It has its positives and negatives, but since we are sinful human beings, we must deal with both Good and Evil.

>>58052694
that was part of fractal studies in chaos theory back in the 90's, everything is smaller representational model of the larger whole. infinite repeat, on a micro/macro-cosmic scale.

>>58054190

Not everything can be explained by math, and even if you could, that means nothing.

Math is a tool for approximation, even the basic physics equation for gravity are not precise. E.g you will never be able to simulate a universe perfectly trough mathematical approximation.

>>58055473

>we are just a collection of blah blah and so and so and all this stuff

Yeah? And? We exist. We have physical properties. We are flesh and bone. Humans.

>no such thing as joy or suffering

We know joy and suffering because we experience it. You're saying there's no joy or suffering for a rock on the ground. A rock isn't a human, we know. What's your point? You didn't give any valid reasons on why you disagree that both are reliant on each other. You just brought up some physical stuff that isn't important.

>>58038625
'bout free fitty

>>58055586
>We know joy and suffering because we experience it.

We experience chemical reactions in our heads. Suffice it to say, happiness can exist without sadness since happy chemical reactions can exist without sad ones.

>>58055513
only in the broadest way, and probably only because of the limitations of our language. existential "pain" is nothing like stubbing your toe at all. and if you want to really nitpick since all feelings are electro-chemical processes there is no reason at all that pain and pleasure have to co-exist. if you mean the appreciation of such, I agree but it's limited to the situation and time, it's not universal. pain and pleasure are just processes captured in time, and some are encased enough that they can totally exist without some counterpart that has to intervene in the moment. even appreciation of significantly past pain or pleasure is distorted by your memory and that fact that you're always changing. good and evil are social constructs, and pain and happiness are too to a large extent. personally I don't think there is a good or evil that exists outside the context of the time and outside influence on the individual. but I guess it depends on how much you believe something has to be "real enough". after all, the only thing you can verify is your own individuality.

>>58038625
if we can create computers to simulate fake worlds. How many simulations can we create in our universe? Like infinite.
Now each of those simulations create universes and so on.

It's naive to assume we're the top of the tree.

>>58055647
>happiness can exist without sadness since happy chemical reactions can exist without sad ones

I think it's more complicated than this. There is alot we don't know about the brain, and I believe moods are more than just neurotransmitters. They play a huge part though

>>58055647

No.

Happiness can only be defined in a world where sadness exist, and vice versa. It doesn't matter that there are chemicals in our brain that decides.

>>58055441
so, every simulation is less complex than its container, as each repetition of the fractal it's similar but smaller.

meaning, if we get to simulate our own universe, it'll always be less complex than this one and thereon until the last one couldn't be complex enough for it to have a simulation.

>Is the Universe a Dream?

>Is the Universe a Creation of God?

>Is the Universe a Simulation?

Societies think the universe is something they're familiar with. It never is. We've been wrong each time, chances are highly likely the universe is NOT a simulation.

>>58055763
also, this would be case unless we can actually achieve a simulation as complex as our own, without the hardware.

in order for that to be true, we need to make some sort of processor o computation type that doesn't rely on physics to work.

>>58055773
Then how did it come into creation...

>>58038625
0%

>>58055030
double slit is used to show the effects of quantum mechanics, that particles can act like waves and physical "balls" at the same time. it's not the only or first observation that shows this, and there are many ways to interpret the results, but none of the serious ones need humans to be a special observer that changes things in the way a player in a game would, rather, think of the observation as interfering with the particles in a way that changes how they behave enough that it makes the outcome different. but it has nothing to do with humans being more special than any other matter. it's more about the things we think of as "things" not actually being "physical" in the classical sense, but being made of probability waves that are so small and complex that you can really only observe the effects.

>>58055821

>probability waves

I'm kekking hard, I know you are right but still.

But as a physics graduate the amount of bullshit in theoretical physics is worrying to me. I'm at the point where half the stuff I read just seems like complex structures inside the mind of someone trying to make a living in academia.

>>58055647

>theres chemical reactions going on in our heads

That's just observing what's going on with us human beings. That doesn't lead us anywhere. Sure, "happy chemical reactions" exist without sad ones messing it up. Well, yeah, or else you wouldn't be happy. I still don't see your point. How do we know what happiness and sadness feels like?Go further than "because stuff goes on in our brain chemistry".

>>58055650

We all experience pain and happiness, though. You're downplaying it I think. There are reasons and consequences of our emotions. Sounds like to me you're taking an outside approach to this, but you are in fact a human being also who will feel joy and suffering. What other possibility is there for good and evil to exist outside the context of the time and influence on the individual? Only other thing I can think of is another individual (or more) experiencing sympathy. Even if 2 people feel opposite emotions about the same situation, you're still left with these heavy emotions the Bible clearly talks about.

>>58055854
>half the stuff I read seems like complex structures inside the mind of someone trying to make a living in academia

you realize that doesn't mean good or bad? what are you really saying, that its needlessly or pointlessly complex and convoluted to disguise its inherent bullshit-iness?

>>58055854
there was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, that would sit in Caribou Coffee on Franklin Street and go on these rants about frauds and bullshit artists making shit up like a giant game of pretend, and the real research gets shoveled off into tinfoil hat lunacy land, since mainstream scammers got themselves in power. you have to toe the line, or you dont get tenure.

File: mt0h6L8.jpg (52KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 512x512px

>>58038625
>day 43
>they know about the thing
Seriously though, I wouldn't even be mad. It's pretty damn cool that I'm a sentient AI which is capable of a wide range of emotions and critical thinking skills.

If the creators are reading this, I need a new laptop.

>>58055930
>It's pretty damn cool that I'm a sentient AI

you do realize that in a case like this the word "artificial" loses all meaning, right?

>>58055930
shit, i want some decent fucking loot drops.

I'm ready for a reroll.

>>58055906
>frauds and bullshit artists making shit up like a giant game of pretend

to what ends exactly?

>>58055795
>>58055763
yes to all. but I can't conceive of how you would be able to make a processor like that without it being outside. it's also impossible for us to tell which "level" we are on, like how "high" we are without information from outside. but we can be pretty sure we're not the bottom or the top. if we were the bottom we probably wouldn't exist, and if we were at the top, the universe would be more complex. though from our fixed view it's hard to tell. and even if you could, those "levels" could be part of an even larger, infinite process, so that even if you were some kind of god at level 1 you couldn't be totally sure. being sure of things is very difficult it turns out.

but to get back to practical things, it's very possible to create universes in a kind of bubble, where the restrictions make it possible to compute because there isn't as much stuff to account for, you could even make it close to "our" level of complex. there was a writer who theorized that one way to extend the perceived life of the universe was to capture it's "death energy", if possible, to fuel a simulation that to those inside would seem as long as the life of the universe even as it was dying around them.

File: bb10be2573811e2411a115c482c82ef29731af04de23f9faa007584344ea4c60.jpg (60KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x400px

>>58055947
I don't care. I'm high and a whole new world was just opened to me. I can feel the universe. Numbers flash before my face. What do they mean? Don't know, I want to drink coffee creamer.

>>58055963
I'm a computer that wants a computer. Fucking kek.

>>58053905
>we could be expressed as some sort of hill-climbing algorithm that works via reproduction and age-related death, towards reproduction.
Blatantly false.

>aren't all of us basically happiness-maximizing, sadness-minimizing algorithms?
The qualifier isn't enough to salvage that statement.

>fw saw the matrix for the first time last night
>finally saw what the true meaning behind being "red pilled" is

>>58055971
free money from alumni, book sales, and scamming young impresionable minds.

also deranged compulsive liars. most of them are baldfaced liars, that will tell you MY DAD WORKS AT NINTENDO tier bullshit, and act like they know everything, even if they dont. theyre almost to a man, the guy in the bar with a Bill Brasky story.

>>58055879

No, it's not bad. Obviously all ideas come from the mind, so this is a natural point for discovery. But the underlying structures of theoretical physics in academia allows for theoretical physics to be modeled to fit the physics of the world.

Obviously in some sense this is necessary as we should explore even the most esoteric theories as long as it's justified, but when it's done in a system where results are expected and the subject manner is so complex it becomes problematic to interpret as you say 'inherent bullshit'.

>>58055906

It's certainly possible. I wouldn't go so far as say there is a conspiracy, just normal human nature.

>>58056024
>tfw I was probably your age when it came out in theaters.

>>58056043
i wouldnt say conspiracy either, its more a bunch of liars and scammers all covering for each other for fear of being caught.

>>58056021
>The qualifier isn't enough to salvage that statement.

not that anon but what is the "qualifier" exactly?

also, the whole maximize happy, minimize sadness thing is somewhat crude considering that most people wouldn't choose to become obese or addicted to opiates despite these things being "pleasurable" in the short term. ultimately yes there is the desire for some form of "contentment/satisfaction/accomplishment" but each person approaches these on his/her own terms. there are some basic "human" needs like warmth, good health, lack of disease and so on that would be minimal qualifications for "happy"

This theory of life being a simulation is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Seriously, just think about it. There is no chance. At all. I know Elon and a bunch of hipsters like to throw out probabilities and loosely related "if this, then must be that" relations, but it makes no sense.

File: nannerphone_s325x244_297122_535.jpg (47KB, 325x244px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 325x244px

About this much.

>>58056084

Yeah it's weird to me.

Too much 'if we assume x' theoretical research. It just seems to go nowhere and it's only purpose seems to fund what is essentially the 'research industry'.

>>58055031
Wait, why was I (>>58052455) included? Are we not bound to obey the laws of this reality/simulation?

It's simulated reality. MY reality. I'm the main character after all. You all exist only because I exist.

>>58055977
That makes sense. A simulation sophisticated enough that it is indistinguishable from reality.
We have videogames getting closer and closer to photorealism for example. One day a simple desktop computer would be able to generate graphics that no being would be able to tell it's fake.

So, we could say that we, indeed, are in a simulation and, although we see it as very complex (From macro(newtonian physics) to micro(currently quantum physics)), in actuality, the container of our universe is in fact far more complex than this.

We believe what we perceive right now is the most "real" reality, that's because we don't know more than that, when in fact, realities can get even more complex.

Therefore, eventually we will come up with a simulation which is complex enough to fool us into thinking it is as real as ours, but it's fake, just like our current simulations/videogames. And if we add artificial beings in it, they would eventually evolve to be smart enough to make their own simulation, but less complex that theirs, in other words fake.

That's a scary thought, by the way. It means there's a first very, very complex simulation, and there would be a last one, when the chain ends, which is so "dumb", it'd barely contain lifeforms. And the scary part is that there's a limit, there's a bottom where there would be no more "simulations" (This is beside the fact that we're in a simulation, of course).

It makes sense, anyway. I personally don't like it. That's why I suggest the solution to this problem would be make a computation that doesn't rely on the reality we live, there must be some sort of "math magic" or "engineer magic", that would allow us to replicate our entire system within our system.

>>58056258

> It means there's a first very, very complex simulation, and there would be a last one, when the chain ends, which is so "dumb"

Why do you assume this?

There is no reason to assume this would be true.

>>58056287
Because the fractal comparison some anon made before. Fractal patterns have a start and an end, where there isn't enough "space" for another pattern to fit.

I agree with anon. Simulated reality is total nonsense. If this reality is simulated then how is the simulating reality existing? The fundamental idea of existence is beyond human comprehension.

>>58056319
>The fundamental idea of existence is beyond human comprehension.
You could say that, but, we don't know if we will ever know. And even if we don't, the only thing we can do is to speculate, which is fun, I guess.

>>58056309

I don't understand what that has to do with anything. The universe isn't even fractal, and there is nothing that prevents a simulated universe to be more complex than it's "parent" according to lattice-gauge theory.

>>58056352
Believing in an omnipotent God is more logical than hopping on the latest theory bandwagon in my personal opinion. This universe has a creator and we were created for a reason.

And this isn't about "how you should live your life", it's about what you choose to believe. A simulation theory, big bang theory (yes it's still a theory), or believe in a God.

Look up Astral projections. Our consciousness expands farther than this reality. I agree that we can only speculate, and the only way we'll know for sure is when we die and our consciousness moves on to other Astral planes or dimensions, whatever you want to call it.

>>58056309
implying as a simulation you can ever make a speculation on the full potential of the simulators capabilities or even reality.

>>58038625
I dunno but the programmer nailed the fuck out of suffering, depression, and shitty living.

>>58056461
My post was continuing these ideas:
>>58055303
>>58055441
>>58055441
>can't simulate the entire universe from within itself
>Bro, do you even fractal?
>well, I should have said replicate, because ideally your simulated universe should be 100% accurate or at least close to it. even in a fractal the only accurate repetition is of the pattern, not the detail of every point in the scale. even if the elements are all the same, the number and size are still important differences.

>and there is nothing that prevents a simulated universe to be more complex than it's "parent" according to lattice-gauge theory.
The problem is, you can't replicate our entire system within our system, because the computation required is bigger than the system itself. I'm no expert in this matter. I'm just the expressing the little bits I understand and adding to the whole discussion.

>>58056508
fucking A they did.

first you have to understand the laws of this universe
space,time and force
when you do, it opens more windows and you see why people who shill simulation meme are retarded
proptip: future exists

>>58056472
I'm by no means saying that you should bend your values of life. You believe what you believe, and no one can prove you otherwise, because values are not "probable". They are values, they're illogical. It's in our inner nature to have these, otherwise we would go crazy.

I personally don't find the creator and creation thing enough of an answer, so, I like to speculate a little bit whether there's a deeper meaning in anything, other than what we already believe. Finding more meaning than what we have is what got us make it here, as advanced as we are now. We weren't satisfied with that we have, so we looked for more.

>>58056545
The whole simulation thing isn't about what's inside(space,time and force) but what's outside, which is an impossible to answer question. Because we only exist inside of it. What is it from the "outside"? Can you even get "outside"? Is there an "outside"? That's the point. And a possible answer would be that we are in a simulation. "Outside" would be another simulation, and so on.

>>58056718
would have to be another dimension.
though that's interesting, because anything that exists must be apart of the universe, or else it would've exist.

>>58056613
That's a fair point. I'm Christian and I believe in God. Even in this religion, starting all the way back with Abraham, our understandings shifted quite a bit. And personally, when I was younger I was very skeptical about God, but after a few LSD trips, some meditation, and a lot thinking and reading, I come to the conclusion that God created everything.

Truth is, we're never going to know the answers. Why we're here or how we're here. And if speculation into the incomprehensible is what satisfies you, then I truly hope you find something worth your time.

Thanks for being so reasonable by the way. It's discussions like this that keep me coming back to this board.

File: tumblr_mu5rg9H8yE1qz8x31o1_1280.jpg (67KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x640px

>>58038625
it's not a simulation, it's just a reality t.v show for jewish aliens.

>>58056757
>Truth is, we're never going to know the answers. Why we're here or how we're here. And if speculation into the incomprehensible is what satisfies you, then I truly hope you find something worth your time.
To be honest, I admire the people that hold their values strong and don't let them go. My values usually break easily, which is bad, because it's like I'm another person suddenly.
I wish I could just let things go, and be happy. But my conscious-self doesn't allow me to do that. Perhaps I suffer from some psychological disorder.
>Thanks for being so reasonable by the way. It's discussions like this that keep me coming back to this board.
No problem, man. As I said, I admire those who have strong believes, even if I don't share or agree them.

>>58056754
>would have to be another dimension.
The "other dimensions" subject lies in quantum physics (string theory). Meaning other dimensions would be still "our universe". But still, that's pure assumptions based on pretty much nothing. I like your idea, anyway.

>>58056718
yes, obviously
the point is, time has boundaries but no beginning. It has always existed and is inseparable from space and force. I don't think you're in any position to create new universes until you fully comprehend this, which is why Elon 'Hot Tub' Musk is now a popsci meme.

File: 1410369059267.jpg (106KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 499x499px

GUYS

What if we DO live in a simulation, and this simulation can be INFLUENCED with a democratic vote system?

Imagine if this was true, and the simulation decided future outcomes by tallying "votes" (or thoughts) of people in the present, and choosing the plurality opinion?

Isn't it odd that things are changing so dramatically this year alone? That /pol/'s predictions are actually coming true with stunning accuracy? That all the memes are coalescing and making their way into reality? It's not a fucking coincidence. There are enough autists now, sitting at their computers, all thinking of the EXACT SAME jokes and cartoons that they see on the internet, such that the simulation's democratic vote system is being influenced by fucking MEMES. These guys sit in their mom's basements all day, daydream and wish about what they want, and the simulation takes these wishes into account, and is actually choosing to make them a reality.

Imageboard neckbeards are actually influencing the future of this world by bending the rules of the simulation.

What could this possibly mean for the future?

>>58056880
I like his meme because it's a plausible explanation for what's "outside" of the our universe.
Time would be a ticking, just like in a videogame with newtonian physics. Simulation starts, ticking starts. Simulation ends, ticking stops.

I get that Elon gets too much exposure like he was some sort superior intelligent being, he's pretty smart, but that doesn't make him a genius. Also this meme of his, isn't really his. Someone else made this claim and posted a whole paper about it. He just repeated it.

>>58055691
You're right; they're also chemicals that affect how neurotransmitters work, which is largely how moods affect thought processes once initiated.

>>58050114
Simulation theory VS Simulation argument
>Mah Future Civilization won't simulate beings that feel pain
>Fucking librels cucked trump 100% confirms we are in a simulation

>>58056903
All the normies seem to notice this and think, "Man this is getting fucking weird". Notice how the whole world is getting fucking weird.

>>58056863
as interesting as string theory is, it wasn't what i was referencing.
think about it, fundamentally what is the universe? it is everything we can quantify.
and if life is a simulation, i see no way to conceivably prove it exists inside our universe, therefore it is outside our universe, and we might as well just call it another dimension as there are clearly other planes of existence at that point.

>>58057049
Yeah, I got your point. That's why I like it. Multiple dimensions could be multiple simulations in this context. Outside would be another dimension, etc.

It's a good alternative theory for Elon's simulations. Also the simulation theory has a problem I cannot see to figure. If this is a simulation, and the container is another simulation, then there's a "First" universe that started this whole chain. So, we are back to square one when we reach that point.

>>58056136
Because it presented another reason for future humans to simulate their earlier selves: self-preservation

More importantly, though, it illustrates what I suspect will be an increasingly important theme in human technological and social advancement: if a "law" isn't set in stone, if you can seemingly get away with breaking it, then why not brek this phony law? If there isn't a rule to stop us, and it won't hurt us, why not go for it?

>>58055647
>>58055691
I think the whole concept of living must have both sides in order to have a balanced life.
If you were happy all the time, no matter what, there would be things you won't do anymore because you are already happy, why bother go further? Coming from that, we wouldn't have all this technology and complex society.

But is that a bad thing? That's the question.

>>58056287
>>58056258 assumes that within each lower figurative onion-layer of realities, each layer will be unable to muster enough computational power to simulate itself, and hence there will be less and less processing power available in each subsequent layer until it inevitably hits a dead end with a reality that is unable to compute anything.

>>58056472
Or, perhaps, "God" could be represented by an algorithm? And if so, could we not be simulated?

Or for that matter, "God" could be an entity presiding over a simulation, as a sort of administrator?

Who knows, but since this is all speculative, one could probably fit "God" into any of these silly ideas.

And as for astral projections, who's to say that such could not be simulated too, by a benevolent network admin, that we happen to call "God", while we're at it?

Simulation would be too interesting. The boring answer is we're just meat bags, thus the most likely answer.

It would be cool to hack into the stimulating computer, though. Then reality warping possibilities would be unlimited.

>>58056507
We can speculate, but being speculation, we'll never be "right" if we go straight to absolute certainties.

We can, however, speculate about probabilities. For instance, if we were being simulated, for what purpose would that be? What sort of beings would want a (probably) full-physics simulation that could give rise to cognizant entities that could potentially break their own simulation?

>>58057247
Fucking around at quantum level would be like "hacking" the simulation, I guess.

>>58057093
>"First" universe that started this whole chain
who says it's a container? what if it's just another universe in the infinite mix of diverging universes. orr..
go back to string theory, our simulation merely coincided that of the other universe.

think of it as anti-matter, it exists in tandum with matter, we could not have matter without it and vice versa. maybe there is no omega god who's using the galaxies as CDs and just pops one in whenever he wants to jerk off to our gay earth

that's the only way i could side step that theory.

question, why is everyone itt jerking off to some elon faggot? some billionaire claims we're surely in a simulation.. who gives a fuck?
bill gates, stephen hawking, and many more respectable people claim we should be pissing our pants over AI, but nobody here seems to care.

>>58057247
That would be coo, but another possibility would be that our parent algorithm simply "is", one way or another.

Put another way, whatever algorithm is behind all of our emulation attemts in quantum physics, general/special relativity, etc. could simbly "be", without any computer to host it, running in a void.

While it might be depressing initially due to the chronic inability to become neo and stick it to da man, it would open up other realms of possibility that might not otherwise be available in a simulated reality, such as >>58056258, which describes an infinitely recursive version of our own universe. (basically we simulate our entire universe ad infinatum so our species can never truly die).

>>58057288
>question, why is everyone itt jerking off to some elon faggot? some billionaire claims we're surely in a simulation.. who gives a fuck?
I think it has to do with Tesla's and SpacesX's accomplishments. People see him as the real life Ironman or some shit.

>>58038633
That's not a probability.

I like when people get all bent out of shape and say that it's not possible that we're in a simulation.

To me it seems like common sense and actually more plausible than the 2edgy atheist belief that nothing came from nothing.

All you really have to do is think about our consciousness. How it's really unexplained and how science can't really grasp or explain what consciousness is, where it comes from, or how it works.

Time is an illusion. Our existence is an illusion.

I'm really into this subject and the egocentric predicament is really interesting to learn about as well.

File: 1400977845303.jpg (45KB, 352x395px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 352x395px

>>58038625
If a painting depicts a forest with 100% accuracy, does it mean the painting is the forest?

>>58057194
What I was trying to get at is who created the "real" reality for them to be able to simulate ours. Something came into existence without any prior means to do so. The only thing I can personally attribute that to is God.

I'm really tired though. I need sleep. It's been real. Goodnight bro

>>58057127
Or perhaps our feelings balance out because of how our body regulates chemicals coursing through our brains, and does so so that we don't hurt ourselves from being too happy or too depressed. There are plenty of diseases involving hormone regulation after all.

But it doesn't mean that we aren't supposed to lead ballanced lives. Heck, it's pretty much how we came to live normally through darwinian evolution.

And just because it has been influenced by statistics and hormones and such doesn't make it less legitimate. But it does provide more factors to consider.

>>58057325 >>58057288
>question, why is everyone itt jerking off to some elon faggot? some billionaire claims we're surely in a simulation.. who gives a fuck?
He's pretty smart in getting people behind generally good shit financially, and orchestrating the buisness side of engineering/scientific endeavors. However, that doesn't equate to making wise-yet-speculative observations about the nature of "reality".

>>58057480
The guys is just repeating some else's theory anyway. It's not like he came up with the idea all of the sudden. He should mention that when he claimed that.

>>58051924
I am aware, but it is again a logical flaw, you are able to notice that god introduces more questions because you are aware of plenty of answers, in the abscence of such answers, god is more simple than the clusterfuck of scientifical laws, quantum mechanics etc. The god sum is simpler.

That btw is a very recent thought in philosophy, and I don't disagree, but I never meant that, god adds more complexity only when you are aware (even at a subconscious level) of all the inherent complexity in the universe.

The problem is you can't use a system as Occam's razor since if you think it carefully if you abstract yourself from our current paradigm and go back at any given time it wouldn't lead you to any of the past scientifical discoveries that added complexity.

Just found this randomly, probably better than I can explain:

https://plato.stanford . edu/entries/simplicity/

>>58056930
time ticks at the same rate within a computer program as the real world. Turning off the electricity shuts down the program. These are just 2 observations that lead to me to think simulation theory is wrong.

>>58057363
If it is a painting, how could it depict a forest with 100% accuracy? Moreover, it being a depiction inherently makes it not the real thing.

Unless some system administrator decided to ctrl+C, ctrl+V an entire forest in this little simulation into some storage medium conveniently called a "painting" but I'm getting silly with language again.

>>58057410

Also, as was mentioned somewhat earlier in the thread, the term "simulated" is not exactly the best, since it can be somwehat conflated with "algorithmic". The latter need not nessecarily be the former.

Moreover, "algorithmic" realities may not nessecarily need a medium of execution. Will hopefully post more about such tomorrow, but to generously summarize, just because 2+2=4 always, doesn't mean that anybody has to have actually ever done the math for it to be true. Apply liberally to this thing we call "physics".