If we're living in a simulated universe, does that mean

He double majored in philosophy and math

Lmao I can already tell this is going to be a great thread.

>>7919367
Just because pic is different I'm on to you gorilla poster. I recognize your style.

prolly CS and Biology desu, everything in physics is reversible from those two

File: o-RAND-PAUL-facebook.jpg (299KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 2000x1000px

I'm believe this is a simulation.

This impossible according to the laws of physics -- some kind of processing power issue.

The simulation is run in a universe with different physical laws, so that math does not apply.

I believe the issues we see when looking closely at atoms (Schrödinger's cat type stuff) is a result of running up against the limits of the simulation. The particle does not have a specific place in space because the simulation is not rendered in a resolution this fine.

I like to think this simulation is just one of infinite ones. Possibly a single thought from a being that exists as a singularity.

A single thought about the rules of a universe, the injection of matter in the form of The Big Bang, then let it run

Even from the view of a hard materialist the fact that there can be consciousness inside a simulation is remarkable an beautiful in its own right.

It does not need to nihilism because scientific study and progress leads us to understanding the nature of ourselves and our creator

Maybe the end of the simulation is humanity or some other life form sending the creator a message "Hey, we figured out what we are and what you are. You can turn it off now."

If we define God as the creator of the Universe, then no. You'd need a team to make a simulated reality.
But if God is the creator of everything, regular classical Theology follows, God is just a being that started existence. So it's omnipotent, not interested in making simulation universes.

File: 9cf.jpg (24KB, 245x310px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 245x310px

>>7919439
Thanks anon

>>7919367
but what if god is in another simulation?

>>7919450
Then the simulation must be replicated into infinity

>>7919367
no he just downloaded some shit off pirate bay and double clicked it like 7 nanoseconds ago .

>>7919439
>This impossible according to the laws of physics -- some kind of processing power issue.

yea because the laws of physics in the simulating universe have to be the same as the simulated one .

its possible that we'll be making rudimentary conscious entities within our lifetime that wont know the inputs they experience are 'simulated' or that such a thing as simulation or reality even exists .

>>7919505
>yea because the laws of physics in the simulating universe have to be the same as the simulated one

I explicitly said the rules don't have to be the same

File: 5387f8294277fe629aa65a2ce16540c3ebd3d865facfc3ff4fab54af201f4dde.jpg (41KB, 450x335px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 450x335px

>>7919499

>>7919367
Computer science, it doesn't require understanding of math or science in order to be able to write a simulation with mathematically consistent behaviour. A sunflower has patterns of seeds consistent with the fibbonacci sequence but it's cells have no understanding of what math is.