Are we living in a computer simulation?

>>8252598
No.

>>8252598
not computer, but our world is not objective as it seems.

File: VIcFz78.jpg (82KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x960px

>>8252598
>Are we living in a computer simulation?
If this universe is simulated, the underlying hardware is radically different from the kind of equipment we call computers.

Do people view the world subjectively and try to frame their surroundings in a current cultural/technological context?
Yes.
And that's where the whole IDEA of the simulated universe comes from.
What an incredible coincidence it would be if our current, culturally shaped worldview were also how the universe worked.
That's why objective truth is found in actual science, and not round-the-bong philosophy.

Not any type of computer we can wrap our heads around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDdiCYTK160&list=FLgVrU5vfAlNfsvvWpYeG3qA

Why do people fucking entertain these dumbass questions? Are you all fucking dumb? I thought this was supposed to be the smart board. Jesus Christ.

>>8252598
Seems like only mathematical concepts truly exist.

It is more probable that we live in the universe where you can construct perfect simulation of itself.

>>8254606
It's clearly that there is enough room and laws of physics allow for you to simulate a smaller universe.

You can simulate consciousness perfectly and let procedural generated objects to fill the world when needed while they would follow a rigid set of laws.

>>8254600
Asperger man-child

>>8252598
I sure hope so. Where's the reset button.

Jokes aside, I can't count how many times I've dreamed that my life was a dream designed to keep my mind healthy during cryosleep during a voyage between stars.

File: contact.jpg (8KB, 300x150px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x150px

>>8252598
A computer simulation is a virtual experiment.
We are the real thing.

It's impossible to simulate reality.

/thread

It doesn't fucking matter.
Literally, if we were, how does that change our understanding of the world? If we're simulated by a system following an underlying set of rules, then the reality of that system must also follow an underlying set of rules.

Then there'd just be endless theoretical layers of simulation with no apparent end, and we'd be no closer to understanding shit.
Unless the system which simulates us is somehow exempt from the rules that governs us, in which case get on your knees and start praying.

Probably.

>>8255144
>I'm an idiot who has no clue yet I must express my arrogant and stupid opinion

File: ElementaryCARule110_1000.gif (14KB, 554x375px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 554x375px

>>8255135
Toppest of keks. It actually is possible. In fact, it's possible even under the most rudimental computational models.
Very complex realities can most certainly be simulated on more complex kinds of machines (Turing machines, hyperturing machines).

It's funny how arrogant popsci documentary-watching "amateur scientists" think that they understand how reality works better than the legendary reputable scientists themselves.

Realizing that we're living in a computer simulation may be just the next shift in our world view as a society. We once thought that the Earth was flat. Then, we thought that the planets and the Sun were rotating around the Earth, and that the stars were just tiny holes in a huge sphere which englobed our universe, through which the light was shining from the heavens.

Our worldview changes fundamentally every few hundreds of years. And we may be near yet another fundamental change in our worldview, and a radical paradigm shift in the exact sciences.

>>8252598
We will never know, but whatever created us would not be something as archaic as a computer now anon.

File: 1313581283558[2].jpg (13KB, 306x295px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 306x295px

>>8255431
>Turing machines, hyperturing machines
>Simulating reality

I've seen some /x/tarded posts in my life but this one gets the cake

>>8255476
You are out of the game, that's what you wanted.
I'll spend some of my energy to tell you a few things.
First, you are one adorable monkey to my eyes, a really stupid one, since what you just said is wrong, since you can talk about math using words, one plus one is two, and you can understand nature without understanding math, you drop an apple, it falls and so on :)
a small tiny lecture to you, understand it.

And since you are not in, you don't want to know how to.. for example know how to calculate how to get your dream job? Like I have.. or.. How to be the perfect father?
Those are all states of everything in existence, plausible ones.


And yes, I am aware this is waste of time, like trying to teach algebra to a dog, but to others here who don't get this, be humble, don't attack me, but the theories, we will never be finished, but we can use these for literally anything..

be smart, for once in your life at least.

>>8255481
ssshhh...your friends want you back >>>/x/

>>8255495
not him, but please stop being such cancer. you spam these posts randomly everywhere here.
like
>>8255442
I see it all the time. shit meme

File: zing.jpg (55KB, 440x460px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 440x460px

>>8255481
wew
please check for autism

>>8252649
this video was way to edgy, and I'm honestly not surprised to find it here on Jaden Smith's twitter account

>>8255501
Making childish stupid claims about reality with zero evidence or scientific basis can be the norm in /x/ but not here.

So you need to go back where you belong >>>/x/

>>8252598
If we are we can't tell so there's no point in asking.

File: 1470361487394.gif (219KB, 213x176px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 213x176px

>>8255481

>>8255507
I posted evidence by referring to another post with the same formating. you know damn well, that you spam this shit everywhere

What's the point of living if reality is just an illusion and we eternally return anyway

>>8255529
>I posted evidence
where ?

File: sci.gif (3MB, 266x138px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 266x138px

>>8255536
See for yourself how many cancerous shitposts you have done

https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=ssshhh

You are pure cancer with zero argumentation skills, that spams pure shitposts like a retard. Good job!

File: lel.gif (674KB, 245x180px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 245x180px

>>8255556
holy fucking shit
BTFO

>>8255556
Oooh I thought you actually posted evidence for your retarded childish simulation claims with no scientific basis so there could be a scientific discussion. Well I was expecting way too much alright.

Now back to where you belong you illiterate retard. >>>/x/

>>8255556
>https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=ssshhh
SAD
A
D

>>8255495
ssshhh you're wasting whatever IQ you got left little braintard. Not that it matters to you anyway.

>>8255565
never made any claim about simulations, mate. my first post was itt was to point out how pathetic you are. and btw, I'm pretty sure this thread is philosophical in nature, so your autism about evidence is twice as retarded

>>8252598
Yeah

>>8255574
>my buttfrustration counts as evidence
Didn't expect any differently from a retard thats defending /x/ bullshit here and calls it cancer when people don't wanna see it.

>>8255580
>>my buttfrustration counts as evidence
>dat reading comprehension
>what is a philosophical question

keep spamming non-contributions
hmmmm, all those (You)s you are getting. What an epic troll you are

>>8255580
see
>>8255574
>never made any claim about simulations

>>8255584
i just dont wanna see /x/ garbage on my board. end of story.

until the trash is taken out, >>>/x/

File: 1420505587177.jpg (34KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x480px

>>8255135
this
I thought it was possible to have a reality in a computer substrate until I read some penrose. either way it's unfalsifiable. It helps to read about the distinction between sybolic computation and semantics. Also helps to understand intentionality (the philosophical term) and how it relies on physical causation to function, not merely a representation of the causation. We could create a perfect simulation of reality in a symbolic computer, hypothetically, with no loss of classical information, but the agents inside it would not have consciousness.

>>8255589
>my board
/pol/ is that way >>>/pol/

>>8255601
>that desperation
back to >>>/x/

>>8252628
explain please, I always thought that

>>8252642
/thread

>>8252598
I swear, this meme gets posted at least twice daily at this point.

It would really be best if the mods just banned this shit to >>>/x/

>>8255595

>with no loss of classical information, but the agents inside it would not have consciousness

Explain, please.

>>8252598

Possibly, but not the sort of computer you're thinking about.

File: 1455470705445.jpg (17KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x346px

>>8255680
The ontology I subscribe to makes a distinction between a representation of a physical state of affairs and the physical state of affairs itself. In short, I think there is a fundamental difference between a perfect simulation of a thunderstorm and a thunderstorm. A perfect simulation has all of the information but none of the inherent existence of something physical. To me, saying that a church-turning style simulation of a reality could make conscious agents is absurd, as it would imply that sheets of paper implementing cellular automata rules with extremely high accuracy would create worlds with conscious agents.

Of course I reach a point where I can't justify my assertions, but that is reached in any ontology. However, I think asserting the existence of a physical world that exists regardless of our opinions is and should be noncontroversial.

To be blunt and snarky, I see this whole "simulation" craze from Bostrom to be not much more than gussied up idealism, the echoes of Berkeley.

>>8255595
thanks guy who actually put thought into this.

"computer simulation" is reductive and detracts from this whole issue. If we were talking about information based universe as opposed to a matter based universe the conversation may improve, or at least it would be harder for people to just show up willy nilly with their own emotional sentiments they never examined and lay them like turds (people on both sides, that is)
This is not a pop sci, vs. real sci issue. for the moment this is beyond science and can only be approached with scientifically informed philosophy.
I stand neither here nor there, because I haven't put the work in to justify either position. I find it hard to discard the basic notion of an information based universe off hand because on the quantum level, matter behaves more like information than material in some pretty fundamental ways. I'd love to hear informed opinions on this

>>8255735
tl;dr

>>8252598
>Are we living in a computer simulation?

Yes, as a matter of fact, on an acid trip, I was faced with a test from the simulators that would presumably grant access outside, but I failed it.

But usually, we are locked down in numbers...

>>8255746
that's funny, what is your name?
I myself had an acid trip some months ago and this very same scenario happen to me
I failed up, but they told me some fag had really fucked up his test, like, for a very wide margin, so mine in comparision didn't look that bad and it soothed me

>>8252598
I mean, it wouldn't be that hard, have you seen dwarf fortress?
Give that game a few years and every dwarf in that game will have more psychologycal complexity than the average redneck

Jokes apart, It all boils down to ' It could happen If there existed a vastly complex machine able to, one we could never understand its behaviour' and philosophically speaking, to consider ourselves, a rather plain result of nature, able to understand the utterly complex aspects of reality is pretty dumb

>>8252598
No way to tell, so why care about if or if not?

>>8254600
There is always a possibility.

>>8255135
You can't /thread your own post dumbass cunt.

>>8256178
/thread

>>8252598
If we are, its radically different from what we understand as a simulation. No lattice model can support relativity

It's impossible to simulate reality.

/thread

>>8252598
It's impossible to prove that we are, and impossible to prove that we are not.

But I like to think that we are.

File: 1470600397743.png (133KB, 470x246px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 470x246px

>>8255556
>australian

Per the laws of physics, as the universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage) increases unlimitedly with a hyperbolic growth rate as the radius of the universe collapses to zero, allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed and stored before the end of spacetime. Via this supertask, a simulation run on this cosmological computer can thereby continue forever in its own terms (i.e., in computer clock time, or experiential time), even though the universe lasts only a finite amount of proper time. The known laws of physics require there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time in order to force the collapse of the universe and then manipulate its collapse so that the computational capacity of the universe can diverge to infinity. Due to the increasing temperature of the universe during the collapse phase (wherein the temperature diverges to infinity), life will have to transfer its information processes to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on via traveling waves and standing waves.

As the radius of the universe goes to zero, the matter energy of the universe goes to positive infinity,1 thereby allowing the number of particle states in which to store information to diverge to infinity. The Omega Point final singularity and its state of infinite informational capacity is by definition God, due to it having all the haecceitiesclaimed for God by the traditional religions. The final singularity is actually a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions. The implication of the Omega Point cosmology for present day humans is that the cosmic-scale computer close in proper time to the Omega Point will be able to run computer emulations which are perfectly accurate down to the quantum level of every physically-possible universe, and of any life contained in them, from the start of the Big Bang (which starts at zero informational capacity and diverges to infinite informational capacity as the universe progresses in time, thereby allowing sufficiently later states of the universe to perfectly render earlier states). The recreated inhabitants at the states near the Omega Point will thereby be resurrected in an infinite-duration afterlife, which can take any imaginable form due to its computer rendered nature.

The interstellar colonization phase required for achieving the Omega Point will be accomplished by naturally-evolved sapient lifeforms (with such species indepen dently evolved on average roughly every Hubble volume2) whose brains have been transformed (e.g., with nanotechnology) into artificial computers (such as quantum computers) onboard tiny starships of circa one kilogram that will exponentially colo nize space, many times faster than mortal human beings. The incredible expense of keeping flesh-and-blood humans alive in space makes it highly improbable that such humans will ever personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient substrate transformations of naturally-evolved sapient minds and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. Given the rate of exponential growth of human technological development, this colonization phase should likely start before 2100. Small spaceships under heavy acceleration up to relativistic speeds can then reach nearby stars in less than a decade. In one million years, these superintelligent self replicating spacecraft will have completely colonized the Milky Way Galaxy. In 100 million years, the Virgo Supercluster will be colonized. From that point on, the entire visible universe will be engulfed by these sapient spaceships as it approaches the point of maximum expansion. The final singularity of the Omega Point itself will be reached between 1018 and 1019 years of proper time (i.e., one quintillion to ten quintillion years, using the US short scale convention for names of large numbers).

>>8255135
>implying we can perceive what is reality and isn't on a grander scale

>>8255481

Oh shit, it's that schizophrenic guy from last week.

Dude, go to the doctor.

>>8255556

What anime is this from?

>>8255144
the knowledge of being in a simulation would change our experience, though

personally, i'd feel pretty bad about it, knowing that everything about me (including inner thoughts) can be observed by whatever creature is debugging the simulation

>>8255449
>Our worldview changes fundamentally every few hundreds of years
I'm guessing you don't meet many muslims.
Lucky you.

It's impossible to simulate reality.
/thread

File: objective_failed.gif (908KB, 180x200px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 180x200px

>>8255708
> create worlds with conscious agents

They could also manifest randomly. Boltzmann brain?

>>8254606
if you can perfectly simulate a universe at any point in technological advancement, it's rather naive to assume that we exist in the original one

that's the entire reasoning behind the simulated universe argument

File: 11088018_1576013869321168_20254227_n.jpg (9KB, 167x172px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 167x172px

>>8252598
>>8252642
>>8255481
>>8255595
>>8255708
>>8255735
>>8257236
>>8257265
>>8257239

File: DanielWebster.jpg (93KB, 342x509px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 342x509px

>>8260018
>it's rather naive to assume that we exist in the original one
It's even more naive to believe that being deliberately cynical makes you better than others.

Assuming the total population of all first-level simulated universes is half (or less) than the population of the parent universe, you could nest simulations within simulations indefinitely and most people (real and simulated) would still live in the physical universe.

Apparently cynicism doesn't help your math skills either.

A theory I find to be very fascinating is one that goes like this : once an extremely intelligent civilization can create the perfect simulation of their universe ( perfect algorithms that simulate everything they know including being able to perfect all sensations, they'll no longer feel the need to explore their universe as they can do it right from where ever they are. I find it be a depressing one but whatever.

>>8254600
>hurr I refuse to think about possibilities even in the hypothetical because I'm so smart hurr

>>8252628
its very much objective

>>8252642
You're fucking retarded. Mathematics is the foundational structure of the Universe -> Humans observe a subset of Math -> Humans create computers to operate on said subset

A "computer" is just an entity that takes input, runs the input through algorithms and spits out output. As we can tell, the Universe is very much so a "computer".

>>8255425
He's not wrong

File: EqeBO.jpg (137KB, 550x849px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 550x849px

chances are, yes we are.

statistically speaking, its a near-certainty

>>8260663
lol

Ever since that autistic fag Elon Musk got asked that on some TEDx level edgy popsci video these threads keep popping up.

I think idiots like OP misunderstand the word simulation for logic/math.

>>8254600
Most of us don't actually believe it (though there are the outliers that are actually dumb enough to), it just provides an opportunity for an interesting discussion about philosophy and human psychology. Basically, it's just rhetoric.

>>8255135
Except, "reality" is relative.

>>8260803
>Most of us don't actually believe it

Then you're an idiot.

>>8260813
If by idiot you man rational, objective, follower of science, then, yes, I am an idiot.

File: 1309307585227.gif (559KB, 400x276px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 400x276px

>>8255135
>It's impossible to simulate reality.
LOL, define "reality"

>>8252642
science is not objective because we always measure through subjective experience.

>>8252598
It is funny how the actual plausibility of the possibility of living in a simulation is considered stupid to the stupid.
booyah!

>>8252598

Yes.

How else do you explain quantum mechanics?

See these to start:
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/the-peer-to-peer-hypothesis-and-a-new-theory-of-free-will-a-brief-overview/
http://holographicuniverseworkshops.com/

>>8254600
>Why do people fucking entertain these dumbass questions? Are you all fucking dumb?
Unthinking uneducated idiot detected. This is the easiest status grab:
>I am superior for not discussing anything!
Note the complete absence of any kind of argument.

The truth is that the probability of us living in a computer simulation is actually quite high. Not as high as the alternative, but higher than most people would assume as a prior.

All it takes is a large enough civilization with the technology to do it and no specific laws or hard optimization constraints against it. These combined assumptions are no less than 0.1% probability.

File: 1469328651368.png (10KB, 384x418px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 384x418px

>>8252598
>>8252599
>>8252628
>>8252642
>>8252649
>>8254600
>>8254601
>>8254606
>>8255038
>>8255048
>>8255131
>>8255135
>>8255144
>>8255425
>>8255431
>>8255449
>>8255467
>>8255476
>>8255481
>>8255495
>>8255501
>>8255505
>>8255506
>>8255507
>>8255508
>>8255519
>>8255529
>>8255533
>>8255536
>>8255556
>>8255564
>>8255565
>>8255567
>>8255574
>>8255577
>>8255580
>>8255584
>>8255588
>>8255589
>>8255595
>>8255601
>>8255605
>>8255615
>>8255623
>>8255626
>>8255680
>>8255694
>>8255708
>>8255735
>>8255745
>>8255746
>>8255769
>>8255908
>>8256082
>>8256098
>>8256171
>>8256178
>>8256183
>>8256185
>>8256187
>>8256193
>>8256373
>>8257236
>>8257239
>>8257265
>>8258018
>>8258052
>>8258068
>>8258070
>>8259050
>>8259051
>>8259053
>>8259987
>>8260018
>>8260032
>>8260041
>>8260049
>>8260078
>>8260099
>>8260659
>>8260661
>>8260663
>>8260691
>>8260762
>>8260803
>>8260808
>>8260813
>>8260817
>>8260818
>>8260834
>>8260847
>>8260856
>>8260858
All fucking idiots.

The truth is, we're living in a smaller universe in a bigger universe.

We live inside a spatially tesellated void inside a modified temporal field where a planet developed intelligent life. We then came to discover the wonders of eletricity which we now generate on a global scale. Aliens gave us the gift of synthesizing fossil fuels, which when burnt, create energy powering our homes and businesses and improving our daily lives while safely removing the dangerous waste power to the atmosphere.

File: MUSK.png (296KB, 2056x2524px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 2056x2524px

Oh, we already went through this a billion times.
Can't 4chan just apply r9ks rules to the whole site so that idiots don't waste everyone's time?

GOTO THE ARCHIVE.

File: 1470040855519.jpg (10KB, 368x326px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 368x326px

>>8261586

>>8261586
A fellow Rick and Morty fan? On my /sci/? Gasp

>>8261623
Someone's gonna get laid in college

You autistic?

>>8252598
I always joked about how God turns the world's graphics from 'High' to 'Low' when the weather is foggy.

File: morty-and-sad-scientist.jpg (91KB, 1417x797px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1417x797px

>>8261586
What if I create a teeny-verse to end all our energy problems the same way, and Rick's car battery goes out as a result?

>>8263087
You can then expects ayys to meet you

>>8263074
infact you need higher settings for realistic water reflections, fog light scattering, water droplet refractions and water physics.

>>8252598
Are computer simulations living?

>>8263143
If life is contained within a simulation, does that mean that the simulation is alive?

>>8263145
That is a convoluted and unnecessary addition to my question with a hypothetical that answers nothing.

>If life is contained within a simulation
You just created a hypothetical scenario where a simulation is living which is what I was asking was even a correct interpretation of the word living.
>does that mean that the simulation is alive
You just defined it to be a life, so yes a life is alive.

>>8263149
define life, define simulation etc.

because the biological definition of life easily answers your initial question.

>>8252598
everything discussed in this thread should be obvious to any normal person
these threads are pointless
please STOP making them

>>8263155
Then that easily disproves that we are living in a simulation.

>>8263159
Musk BTFO

>>8263159
reality simulation is impossible

>>8252598
It probably just seems like one, and is similar in ways, but is nothing like what we normally would call a simulation. What would the Universe be a simulation in? Maybe reality is computer like, but that does not mean it is like a program running in a really advanced laptop in some alien lab.

File: 1461167118Konczakowski.gif (2MB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x450px

>>8252598

Ultimately this sort of question leads you to one conclusion. That any simulations would be fractal replicas of the original universe with variation, and of smaller scale. Nothing is stopping these sub-realities from creating realities of their own.

Thus the conclusion must be a simple One.

File: 1464574597251.jpg (43KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 300x168px

>>8263191

Turtles all the way down..... to the first cause.

File: 4chan_argument.gif (847KB, 210x172px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 210x172px

>>8260818
it's the only thing that cant be defined.

>>8252598
Why are physicsfags biologically illiterate?

If assume that life exists elsewhere in the universe and that at least a few alien civilizations are more advanced than our own and could theoretically create a simulated universe. Then, if we assume that some of said civilizations have done exactly that, then that means that there are multiple simulated universes, inside with could be many more simulated universes. Then the odds actually lean heavily towards us being in a simulation as there may be many more simulations than the one "real" universe.

>>8263511
Whatever universe a simulation could exist in would be the real one, why would a simulation (as a subset of the total universe) be less real?

>>8263530
That's exactly why I put real in quotes, by real I mean the original universe that is not the product of a computer simulation, the sort of root node in the universe hierarchy. Of course, none of the universes are any less real than the others.

>>8263562
So the question is likely irrelevant? If it's a simulation it'll be simulated how it's simulated, and it's not, then it is what it is?

>>8260858
You're a fucking pseudointellectual. Fuck off to reddit you faggot.

>>8263568
it's an interesting question, of course all of the information that creates these universes must be stored in the "root universe" so we are just information(probably in electrical impulses) stored in a computer. which means that everything exists in the "root universe" the information is just formatted differently(sort of).

File: the_field.jpg (20KB, 446x207px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 446x207px

>>8255735
Some think the information field is a necessary counterpart to the realm of matter/energy and you cannot have one without the other because they are the same. The interface (connecting medium) to 3d is the gravity field. Expressions of the field appear to us as light and matter while for them, they appear as internal structures of the field. "As math" they said but cautioned that we wouldn't even recognize their math as such.

The revolutionary scientists a hundred years ago were heavily into philosophy to mutually remind themselves that internally consistent thoughts can still be insane. But the bang was too loud.

'The Physics of the Future is the Physics of Information' will not pass beer review yet.

>>8255589
>my board
I just threw up a little.

>>8252628
>but our world is not objective as it seems.

Tell that to death.

File: PeaceAmongWorlds.gif (231KB, 640x359px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 640x359px

>>8261586

Well, erm, everything in our daily lives is based off of an algorithm, all planets or bodies in the universe hold some sort of magnetic or electrical field and even our brains give off electrical signals, all gymnosperms and angiosperms follow the "golden Ratio" and everything we know in the universe can be explained using math, even the complex code for life can be written out by a computer. It is very likely that we are a computer simulation due to the unexplainable nature of certain phenomena, one instance being the fact that there is a "maximum" velocity that can be reached, represented by "C" , or the speed of light, yet this seemingly unbeatable speed is completely left in the dust by the opposing power of the super-vacuums known as blackholes. Which very well should not exist and trap everything inside of its super massive center. We also cannot see the edge of the universe, most say it is becasue the universe is expanding and therre is "nothing" outside of the edge of our expansion, but I prescribe to the belief that it is the edge of our simulated "reality". Hurr durr, look at me, I know nothing about science, roast me like I'm in /b/ *mmmrrrrpppp* wubbalubba-dub-dub /sci/-cunts.