Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Our reality probably isn't real 2016-08-21 08:21:15 Post No. 8286422
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Our reality probably isn't real 2016-08-21 08:21:15 Post No. 8286422
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: cd0f08b969a0401b9bda79dc06f99efc_de15aef6ad4242e4add89bb058fa7349_header.jpg (172KB, 1150x647px) Image search:
[Google]
172KB, 1150x647px
Logically thinking, isn't there a higher chance of the universe being a simulation than there is of it actually being real?
Any intelligent lifeform would probably want to simulate an universe (humans would do it if they could). Since nothing is actually random, if you know the starting conditions of your universe and simulate it with the ability to control the time, you can see into the future.
Let's assume our universe is a simulation, and quarks and atoms are simply digital information. The real universe hosting this simulation would have to be a bigger scale than our own in order to achieve enough resources to simulate a universe of our size.
If the real universe is a centillion times larger than ours (can be any number a lot higher than ours, they'll just scale it down appropriately), they'd easily be able to get enough resources to build a supercomputer through advanced technology and automation.
And then comes the part that makes me believe this is more likely than not. They'd simulate more intelligent lifeforms, which will result in the simulated lifeform making a supercomputer themselves and simulating another universe on an even smaller scale.
It just seems so extremely likely to have happened. If I'm retarded please explain how it's not possible or likely.
>>
>>8286422
I want to fuck your mouth and cum in your throat.
>>
woah dude...
relaly makes u think
>>
>>8286422
The assumption that it is actually possible to build a simulation in this way due to a theoretical increase in scale, rather than reality being contained within itself?
>>
>>8286422
The question is how many universes can you go down before it becomes impractical to do so? Since each universe is gonna have less complex laws of physics.
And the answer is probably 0, as even with supercomputers reaching the theoretical limits of computation, it seems really improbable to be able to make a simulation so powerful it would evolve intelligent beings.
And if that was our goal, there would probably be much simpler ways than simulating a whole fucking universe for them.
>>
>>8286422
The problem is that you're making an assumption about complexity.
How does a car move?
The simplest answer would be magic.
This doesn't take into effect how complicated magic really is.
When you talk about something like a simulation, you have to consider whether it's possible to get the kind of accuracy we find in reality from something a layer removed. The answer is that we have no idea because it's impossible to measure things outside of our reality.
This is essentially just a brain in a vat argument, which you can read up about how different schools of philosophy resolve the question.
>>
>>8286422
you're making a naive frequentist assumption based on an assumed search space. you've not stated anything testable or falsifiable. therefore, not science.
>>
>>8286422
I think that you can't realy know the exact location of everything because it's just a chance that it will be there when observed (QM), not sure though, not an expert on this.
>>
>any intelligent lifeforms would want to simulate life (humans would if they could)
You can't make inferences like that based on a sample size of a single intelligent species on another planet
>>
>>8286510
It might be enough for one single species to want to simulate life if they do it a lot. Very soon the number of virtual people might surpass the number of real people and thus make the chance of being born as a real person highly improbable.
>>
>>8286422
This is just another manifestation of the intelligent design meme
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1