Is evrything a simulation?

Yes, you are your own minimal simulation.

how old are you OP? just curious

>>8097183
Unfalsifiable, makes zero impact on the universe itself, meaningless pseudoscience. You can believe it, but it's even less meaningful than believing in religion.

>>8097289
Exactly. As ive said out of pure boredome i came up with this. May or may not be true it may explain some things aswell it may not but yes as youve said doesnt change a thing.

>>8097289
I'd even argue it should be forgotten. If it is true, there is probably no good from us knowing, and it might invalidate the experiment if too many know.

>>8097289
>Unfalsifiable
Can you distinguish philosophy and ideology from science?

p ^ ~p

>>8097289
Might be unfalsifiable but wouldn't it be cool to learn about what's outside the simulation if we can even comprehend it?

No.

>>8097660
Is this the philosophy board?

>>8097676
You could come up with endless list potential explanations for "what's outside" and never get any closer to deciding which is more valid. You can pick the one you like the most, but what use is that?

>>8097289
Just because something doesn't help us make predictions doesn't mean it's useless.

>>8098070
>Is this the philosophy board?

>>8098030
Yes there could be unlimited explanations wich could explain evrything. It could literary be just god farting and because the flatulent gasses mix space goes wonkey and thats why things dont make sence when you realy think about them and try to apply logic to them.

Anyways i thought the comupter simulation theory would explain certain stuff but you could make a unlimited number of theories. But one thing is certain if youd ask me. If evrything is based off logic and reasoning why do some things not make sence (like certain laws or furmulas). We are probably looking at only a part of the puzzle and not how the bigger picture functions.

Im just wondering how the fuck someone hasnt heard of simulation theories and thinks some guy on /pol/ made it up.
what the fuck

>>8098070
Not being unable to make predictions isn't why simulation theory is useless. A blender can't make predictions, but it can make smoothies. Simulation theory is useless because it doesn't do ANYTHING.

>>8098093
10% of sciene is measurement and 90% of science is interpretation (philosophy)

>>8098928
Didnt know it exsists

>>8097289
>Unfalsifiable
Could have simulation flaws
>Makes zero impact on universe itself
Could allow literal magic to exist by running exploit codes.
>even less meaningful than believing in religion.
Religions are a subset of simulation theories.

>>8098959
Please fuck off lol, what the fuck are you talking about. This isn't the matrix kiddo.

File: the-matrix5.jpg (367KB, 1436x601px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1436x601px

>>8099094
>This isn't the matrix
How do you know that

>>8099104
>burden of proof
>special pleading

>>8099108
> atoms exist
> you have no proof that atoms exist and the burden of proof was on you
> which proves that atoms don't exist.
Yeah, thats how retarded you actually are.

>>8098896
The reason some laws and/or theories may conflict is because science is ever-evolving and much of what we know now is probably wrong in some fashion. As time goes on, we will improve our theories. It's as simple as that.

Simply put no God exists

>>8099199
Well would you care to explain why do some laws/thoeries comepletly faulter when you apply logic and reason to them if evrything in the known universe is supposed to be based on law and order there should atleast be a foundation of basic of the most basic rules. But there isnt. Even if science is evolving certain aspects should be watertight inorder if we want to expand them.

There is even some degree of order in the most chaotical examples. Lets say theres a ripple effect. It will continue expanding on all sides no matter what. If it colides with another wawe the new wawe can either dissapate or gain energy and it moves forward. What im trying to say is that there is supposed to be order atleast on a basic principle on evrything. But certain laws/theries just dont agree. Even Einsteins theory of relativity stops existing when you die (meaning: there is no law and order just emptyness wich doesnt get filled and that doesnt agree with the principles of finding order in evrything). Also it can imply that evrything we made as observations could be fake because its just our way of thinking.

Correct me if im wrong i dont know about theories/laws in physics all that much im just saying tthings that im a bit more certain off.

>>8097278
Compression does makes is possible for reality to contain an accurate map of reality.

>>8099339
I don't think you fully understand it. The laws don't conflict as they say you do in your example. Entropy is an overall greater decrease in order. So it is possible for individual reactions that promote an increase in order, we do these often in organic chemistry lab. But overall the universe is continually increasing in disorder. I hope I directed this at your question, I am a bit confused to what you are asking.