Reality is a simulation

>>8421378
Roko's basillisk

>>8421381
That thing seems so faulty in a multitude of ways.

I would go into it but anyone who reads it should immediately intuitively understand it's a retarded idea. Especially because the premise is based on determinism.

>>8421392
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzVRKrJik3U

Maybe universe is entirely deterministic.

>>8421378
It wouldn't matter if we were in one or not. If we were in a simulation, what would stop this simulation from being in a simulation itself?
>>8421381
If an AI/machine were powerful enough to do that, it might as well just make humans extinct. We'd be the only known thing on earth that would pose a threat to it .Then it cloud conquer Earth and use all of its resources to expand and optimize itself.

>>8421381
this

File: IMG_3146.jpg (13KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 150x150px

https://youtu.be/qU7FuAswPW0

musk memers pls go

>>8421378
Please explain how you reasoned your way into an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

>>8421378
Creationism for millennial nerds

>>8421381
Pascal's wager for millennial nerds

>>8422988
Not OP but two things bother me

The Planck length is a "minimum resolution," it's physically impossible for anything smaller than it to exist, but more importantly it's physically impossible for anything to move LESS than one Planck length which means nothing in the universe truly "moves" at all, it just teleports at a miniscule level over an incredibly massive grid like a sprite in an arcade game

The other thing is the double slit experiment, which appears to be a demonstrable and reproducible bug in the universe itself

>>8422988
It's a chance thing. The chance we are the first versus the chance we are a simulation. It's not that high but it's clearly plausible.

>>8421378

Soon, we will say that an extraordinary transcendent extraterrestrial intelligence has created everything that exists. It can communicate with us and hear our messages.

= Literally GOD.

>>8423212
>>8423176
It's bizarre how many atheists are irrational

I'm not saying atheism itself is irrational I'm just saying there's a remarkable number of people who call themselves atheists because they reject monotheism but continue to hold other hilariously unprovable, quasi-mystical beliefs

A real atheist shouldn't believe in dark matter or strong AI or faster than light travel or parallel universes or backwards time travel or any of that shit either.

>>8423198
are you sure you understand what Planck lenght means?

Double-slit experiment is only a "bug" when you buy into the pop-sci interpretation of what actually happens in it.

>>8423228
we're all dumb fucks, your kind a late to the party

>>8423211
probability is not good for reasoning.

let me demonstrate, you argue:

>there are infinitely more simulated worlds that real worlds
>therefore, we are probably living in a simulation

but that argument is wrong, because:

>most arguments are wrong
>therefore, your argument is wrong

it's really that simple.

also, induction is a lie.

Some bizarre quotes from the report. Mainly because they are just jammed with buzzwords but don't say anything. Even referring to gene editing having "thickness"


"The factors that act to attract, secure and consolidate investment may also have the effect of confirming a course for innovation, creating both ‘lock in’ of contingent technological forms and forward momentum along a particular technological pathway."

"In this way, the concept of editing has a certain thickness, whereby, while apparently descriptive, it implies a tacit evaluative judgement."

>>8421378
There's is no point in "leaving" the universe. Whatever is outside of it, if anything, is probably not useful for us.

What we really want is to be able to control it. Don't discount the possibility that, given enough time, we might figure out how to do this.

>>8423256

You also get an infinite regress of simulations simulating other simulations if you keep on applying that same logic.

>>8423263
there is too much jargon here, too much to unpack

>>8423277
>what is a fractal

File: trinity.jpg (96KB, 605x784px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 605x784px

>>8423273
Considering we're discussing Matrix-tier metaphysics ITT, wouldn't you want to find a hot leather-clad chick?

>>8423281
That's how libtards and SJW academia works.

"We must stop the commodification of women's bodies!"

by using commodofication it seems like some new point. The reality is any worker or person in an economy can be viewed by their "revenue/income" etc.

If they used, "We need to stop the viewing of women's by their economic impact or advertising potential" it has less effect than wrapping it in a buzzword that doesn't map easily in most brains.

>>8423228
Dark Matter isn't really in the same box as those other things

>>8423285
My suspicion is that there are no leather-clad chicks out there. Just true randomness: literal chaos. It makes sense for a material universe to seem like a projection or simulation or hologram or whathaveyou, if you consider what it came from.

>>8423198
>The Planck length is a "minimum resolution," it's physically impossible for anything smaller than it to exist, but more importantly it's physically impossible for anything to move LESS than one Planck length which means nothing in the universe truly "moves" at all, it just teleports at a miniscule level over an incredibly massive grid like a sprite in an arcade game
That is not what the Planck Length is at all

That interpretation of it comes from some nut editing the wikipedia page with his own dumb theories a while back and spreading the idea from there.

>>8423290
While I agree with you, railing against "libtards" (or using epithets about any group in general) degrades your point.

How do I know that every single one of you are just lines of code and I'm the only real person? How do I know I'm not just lines of code and some random faggot out of the billions is real?
How do I know?

File: vape nation.png (326KB, 379x371px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 379x371px

>>8421378
>Reality is a simulation
Impossible both theoretically and practically.

>>8423304
So far, all experimental evidence suggests that there is no such thing as a planck length or "minimum resolution", and that the universe is "smooth" or continuous, not discrete.

>>8423318
You don't. We don't know very much in general. It's all a guessing game.

>>8423318
because its impossible ?

>>8423318
That's the failing of science: at a certain point, you have to make assumptions without proof. For instance, we assume that we're capable of thinking rationally and not just random number generators accidentally getting the right answer over and over, but we can't prove that.

>>8423326
>>8423304
Huh. I didn't even get that from a Wikipedia article, I got it from a presentation by a physicist.

I should have known better though because the guy was MAD about Ant-Man. Like he's a PhD but he went to watch capeshit and yell at the screen "THAT'S NOT HOW PARTICLES WORK REEEEEEE"

Which I suppose just further proves that it's possible to be highly intelligent and a fucking retard simultaneously.

It doesn't fucking matter and I dare you to tell me otherwise.

>>8423228
A real atheist should be a solipsist. If you're not a solipsist, you believe in something which has not yet been proven.

>>8423435
>Implying your own existence has been proven

>>8421397
Was that guy wearing a wig?

>>8423297
Dark matter is a gap theory, it's exactly as valid as "an invisible man with superpowers is fucking with the instruments as revenge against homo sapiens for nailing his offspring to a board 2,000 years ago"

>>8423421
>I got it from a presentation by a physicist
Yeah it's a pretty widespread misconception

Have a read of this, it explains what the Planck length actually is
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/

> "yeah man lets simulate a bunch of consciousnesses"
> "make sure to forget to force them to not think of the possibility they are in an afterlife dude, they might try to break out"
> "shit thats true bro"

>>8423273
I disagree. Clearly, life is the game and that's the goal.

>>8423438
Define existence.

>>8421398
>make humans extinct
>conquer Earth and use all of its resources to expand and optimize itself

Humans are already optimized. It would just need to find a way to utilize human resources. Luckily such systems are already in place to do that, they're called corporations.

Also, while an AI would have no legal identity and therefore no rights, in theory it could become adopted or come into the possession of a corporation in which case it would assume the identity of that corporation. Legally a corporation is a human being, in that they have pretty much all the same rights. Except corporations are designed in such a way to optimize the utilization of human workforce. It's absolutely perfect for an AI.

>>8421378
You've got it backwards. A simulation is reality.

>>8423505
Dark matter is essentially admitting ignorance.
"Our models are not predicting observed phenomenon X so there must some factor Y that we have not yet observed which will predict X when incorporated into our models. Y must have so and so properties in order to produce phenomenon X else our models are wildy off-base and must be scrapped. Our models seem to fit in most other places and we don't have other plausible models so we are reluctant to give up our current models."

File: babylaugh.jpg (37KB, 460x276px)

37KB, 460x276px

>>8424117
>Implying definitions exist
brainlet detected

>>8423256
just being curious: how do you create "infinitely more simulated worlds" from a single reality with finite entropy?

>>8421378
The universe is unnecessarily detailed for a a simulation

>>8425970
Space magic brah, elon musk said so

>>8423198
[citation needed]

One of the reasons why this cannot be possible is because a number like pi exists
Any kind of technology that could determine pi endlessly is out of our comprehension

>>8421378
Congratulations you misunderstood psychology and perception.

If you really were in and of a simulation the rules of the simulation are the laws of physics and the creators of the simulation are gods.

>>8423198
Things can be smaller than the plank length, we just have no way of describing them.

...Which is why we have String Theory. (Otherwise known as, "We can't tell why this is happening, so let's make up complicated bullshit that we'll never be able to verify" theory.)

File: dark_matter.png (414KB, 684x1225px)

414KB, 684x1225px

>>8425945
Well, more to the point, we don't have any models that explain it, without also no longer explaining everything else the current models explain. (Thus creating more mysteries than they resolve.)

It's just a name for, "that weird anti-gravity effect that we dunno what it is, yet", considerably more limited in scope than "god". We know the effect, we can observe it, we just don't know the mechanical details behind it.

>>8421378
>>8423211
If there is a simulation involved, it's clearly not designed for sapient life - or life at all, given that 99.999999% (followed by a lot more nines) of the universe is absolutely hostile to life.

So, if it is a simulation, we're a glitch - and we better keep our heads down before they post on 11th dimensional /g/ and ask how to fix it.

>>8423198
>The Planck length is a "minimum resolution,"
No, it is a combination of fundamental constants with units of length. You can somewhat argue it is a minimum resolution from QM, but that is kinda like arguing the orbit of Mercury is wrong because of the law of universal gravitation.

>The other thing is the double slit experiment, which appears to be a demonstrable and reproducible bug in the universe itself

Given the previous argument, this point is nonsense. You can't get the Planck length to be any sort of minimum resolution without appealing to certain aspects of quantum mechanics, but you are claiming that those same aspects of quantum mechanics are a "bug" while a minimum resolution is an intentionally implemented portion of any physics simulation. So, your argument is self-contradictory.

All of this sounds like New Age bullshit mixed with computer "science"

Does anyone have actual proof of why you think we're in a simulation?

> there are so many intelligent designs out there man

Yeah, thats what creationists say too

>>8423505
Except that dark matter theories make rather specific predictions which can be tested with astronomical data. For example, the Bullet Cluster collision agrees extremely well with what would be expected form a dark matter model as do numerous other gravitational lensing observations.

>>8427250
>>8423198
>double sit
I'm sure he's just gotten ahold of the usual Hollywood bug that's got him thinking that the "observer" has to be "conscious" for the wave to collapse, and thinks quantum physics thus proves dogs have souls and such.

Observer does not mean what you think it means in this context.