Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
the simulation hypothesis 2017-05-07 09:21:37 Post No. 36836402
[Report] Image search: [Google]
the simulation hypothesis 2017-05-07 09:21:37 Post No. 36836402
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Globe_wireframe_3.jpg2561ACB4-7E80-499C-B3BFB54E1219A469.jpgLarger.jpg (86KB, 600x450px) Image search:
[Google]
86KB, 600x450px
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADHp_mz4vI4
really makes you think..........
But seriously, does anyone else think about the simulation argument and the simulation hypothesis a lot?
It wouldn't even need to be a very good simulation, just a close enough approximation to convince its inhabitants that it's real. It could have fucking PS1 graphics compared to the real world, and the people inside wouldn't know the difference.
If earth simulations are possible, and assuming the makers of them would run more than one of them (which we would, if we made them), then the probability that you're in one of the many simulated worlds would be greater than you being in the one real world.
With all the advances in AI and computers happening lately, I don't think ideas like these are entirely farfetched. I could picture us creating simulations one day, which is why I think we may be in one already
What do you guys think?
>>
>>36836402
It's utterly ridiculous and inconsequential, as it is unprovable.
And obviously things are gonna look like a simulation, what do you think physics actually is?
>>
File: consciousness.jpg (40KB, 652x366px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 652x366px
IMO I doubt a machine would be able to replicate consciousness like spontaneously-occurring organs can, and if it could what are the chances our consciousnesses are machine-generated?
then again that could just be my dumb ass simulation brain talking and I really don't know what the fuck is going on
Either way does it really matter? It is not only unprofitable, but our experiences are valid regardless and therefor it is irrelevant
>>
As possible as anything else.
The real thing is if it matters or not, like how people don't usually seriously think how the creation of the universe affects them. Relatively speaking if we are in a simulation it wouldn't change anything.
>>
>>36836632
physics is a model of objects
not saying you're wrong but that's not an argument
>>
>>36837290
It is an argument, if you do consider that this simulation garbage in its current form originated with physicists, based on the model of the real world they have constructed.
They forgot that they were doing is constructing a model.
This whole "oh the world isn't actually real" spiel is well over 2000 years old and nobody gives a shit, because it is of no consequence
>>
File: 1492982127931.jpg (80KB, 560x560px) Image search:
[Google]
80KB, 560x560px
>>36837362
I didn't understand what I read at first and now I realize I don't even disagree with you, withdrawn.
I shouldn't drink any more... or any less AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
As you were.
>>
Who cares?
I just want to die.
>>
The one argument that I like about this hypothesis is that our universe seems to have some sort of finite resolution in the form of uncertainty relation.
Other than that it is just as meaningless as any religious mythology.
>>
Did they choose two non white characters for this to make the simulation argument more plausible?
>>
But then, who created the creators?
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3