Could it be possible for us to be inside a simulation?

Could it be possible for OP to not make shit threads?

>>8396729
Could it be possible for you to click the toggle button and hide threads you don't like?

yes, but would it really change anything for you, if you found out for sure?

>>8396726
Yes, but it also possible we live inside a flatulent Mexicans dream

>>8396749
It wouldn't

But I ask this question because if the people behind the mirror didn't want to be known, they could make it happen.

read descartes meditations. This ida has been around forever

>>8396726
define simulation

Probably not. Stuff is made of HUGE amounts of atoms, accurately simulating atoms requires sub-femtosecond timesteps. So if we have a simulation that has 0.5 femtosecond timesteps, and we can do a sim time step every millisecond it would take 63,000 years to simulate 1 second of time.

Oh but quantum computers will fix this you say? Well we need the quantum computer stuff to accurately model atoms. And as far as we can tell, we need more qubits than atoms we are simulating. In other words, if the computer exists in a universe with similar rules to ours, it must be larger than what it is simulating.

>>8396889
It could just be that only the brains of sentient beings are being simulated and everything else is ad hoc

>>8396773
The idea even dates back further to Plato.

>>8396904
Not everything can be simulated adhoc though. For example, the evolution of bacteria and what not

>>8396889
What if parts of the simulation are only displayed when a sentinet being is observating it thus reducing the amount of crap you have to "simulate"

If any civilization to ever exist in any universe with any set of laws reached a point in technology where they can simulate the laws of our universe, then we are probably a simulation

An error you guys are making is that you assume the laws of the simulating universe (i.e. our 'parent' universe) are the same as ours; it could be a lot easier for them to reach such a computing power

Regardless to that issue, the idea is that if anything, in any universe, reached a point where they can simulate universes, it is far more likely that we are one of such simulations rather than our own "real" universe.

The thing is, it only needs to have happened once for any civilization in any real universe to reach a point where they can simulate a significant amount of universes.

>>8396996
Well if we have enough sentient beings observing things to a sufficient degree, then the computer must still be huge

>>8396726
This question is isomorphic to asking if God exists.

It would make no sense for our descendants to make a simulation to study us, considering that we currently have the technology for record keeping (photos, videos, audio, etc.), so we would need to be extremely shitty in record keeping for our descendants to have a reason to study us, which we don't. Also, a simulation would have to be based on what's real, so it's not like the Internet is an illusion.

Also, in a more scientific purpose, it would make no sense for an advanced civilization to create us to learn about something; surely, if a civilization is advanced enough to simulate an entire consciousness (or various, assuming the p-zombie dilemma doesn't exist, which it doesn't), then surely they have enough capability to solve the problems we can't. I mean, what can we do that a hyper-advanced civilization can't do?

In terms of entertainment, whatever we are doing be entertaining somehow. If entertainment exists for them, so should subjectivity, and I'm pretty sure that some of the "creators" must have gotten bored at some point or another. People have different personalities, so why wouldn't the creators want to make us more interesting? What's so enchanting about simulating an entire consciousness, wasting what could be terabytes in data, and giving it to a pedo or a deplorable that sits and jerks off to anime all day long?