There are lots of indications telling us we live in a simulation,

File: image.jpg (110KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 500x365px

Have you considered the fact that there is none, as we are inside the simulation?

File: HAQ8LOz.jpg (412KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1920x1080px

>>8483000
Brainlet detected.

>>8482933
>lots of indications
such as?

>>8483000
6. The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

>>8482933
have you considered commuting sudoku, since it's just a simulation?

File: le demiurge.png (8KB, 203x248px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 203x248px

Let me break it down to you science faggots that hate religion and spirituality.
Simulation theory is just a rip off of christian Gnosticism.
You faggots who would laugh at someone who believed in god are pretty much just whole sale practicing a form of Christianity that thinks the universe we live in is a prison and the only way to escape is through divine knowledge

>>8482933

By finding inconsitencies, but if the inconsistencies are so complex they scape our possible scope of knowledge, then we are fucked.

We can only expect we aren't brainlets defront a cosmic horror beyond our reckoning and keep changing of paradigms until we are free, or discover we are boxers without arms, and therefore, hopeless at boxing.

File: contact.jpg (7KB, 300x150px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x150px

Very few people understand that a simulation is a virtual experiment.

File: 1467805763605.jpg (14KB, 319x331px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 319x331px

>>8483180
if parallel universe are real, then shouldn't there be a universe where the inhabitants have discovered how to travel to other universe?
This is what we call space aliens.
This would explain why they can appear and dissapear in an instant
They arent from space but actually another universe, and we are their slaves

File: Monty python.jpg (12KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x180px

>>8482933
>There are lots of indications telling us we live in a simulation
Please name one.
Just one.

>>8482933
>>8483041
>>8484474

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/how-quantum-mechanics-derives-from-a-revolutionary-new-theory-of-information-4487489dbb34#.g3hg9lsj4

BOOM

>>8483149
Praise Sophia.

It's impossible for us to live in a simulation because number like pi exist

>>8482933
Believing in the whole simulation thing is just a new god for atheists.

>>8484500
How serious is this?

>>8482933
>There are lots of indications telling us we live in a simulation
Like what?

>>8483186
Is this bait?

I'm not a physicist and yet I know thats a popsci interpretation of multiple universes model

>>8484500
>https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/how-quantum-mechanics-derives-from-a-revolutionary-new-theory-of-information-4487489dbb34#.g3hg9lsj4
>The problem is that quantum mechanics has to be derived from abstract mathematical ideas that have little or no meaning in the real world.

Thats all I needed to know if I should keep reading this drivel or not.

>>8484563
Does it exist tho? Or is it just an abstract mathematical entity?

>>8485878

You misunderstood, it says QM is at present based on abstract mathematical formalism that is difficult to interpret in real world terms. The new approach described in this article derives QM from clear and understandable axioms about information.

>>8485895
How do you determine what is difficult to interpret in "real world terms" and what is not? Mathematics are always kind of difficult to explain in "real world terms", as you'll always end up with making random assumptions about real world objects.

In any way, I see no indication for a simulation or anything like that. It's a meaningless statement anyway. It is based on random assumptions on what is "real" and what is not.

>>8485903

Well, physicists have been arguing over the interpretation of the mathematical formalism for QM for a century. Anyway, your post was unclear and there was a possibility that you misunderstood this sentence as saying that it is the new approach that is some abstract mathematical wankfest which supposedly proves anything. Because otherwise it would mean that you are dismissing the new idea on account of the author of this article describing QM in a way that you don't agree with, which is silly. He's not the author of the paper.

The indication for a simulation is that QM is equivalent to a bunch of straightforward axioms about information (or so it's implied, I haven't read the paper yet, I'm about to o it today).

In a similar vein:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/deeper-than-quantum-mechanics-david-deutschs-new-theory-of-reality-9b8281bc793a#.6e4e2wq49

File: 1448873919441.png (3KB, 344x341px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 344x341px

>>8482933
Find API to access the universe framework or find some bug which will reveal some of that framework to us.

>>8485962
Oh god, you clowns with root access? You'll probably segfault all reality while trying to hack a frog's head on Trump's body.

File: enhanced-buzz-26895-1445458041-7.jpg (31KB, 540x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 540x360px

>>8486165

>>8483149
GUD b8

>>8484500
>https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/how-quantum-mechanics-derives-from-a-revolutionary-new-theory-of-information-4487489dbb34#.g3hg9lsj4

This is garbage. Every physicists know that quantum mechanics = wave solution for particles

Well if this "simulation" was executed perfectly, meaning its designers constructed an exact, scale replica, then really it wouldn't matter whether we were living in the simulation or the reality being simulated.

If this simulation were imperfect in design, why do you assume you even have the capacity to comprehend the hints that might give it away? A flaw within a system would be perceived as a natural process by those within the system, at least that seems like the most logically sound explanation to me, obviously I have no way of proving such a claim. To me, it just seems like all these patterns we recognize within our universe that would seem to indicate a simulation, are associated with concepts that we have created.

>>8483149
this

simulation ""theory"" is just tacit acceptance of a higher power

>>8486473
Explain "Delayed choice quantum eraser" then, tough guy

>>8486516
Yes, if it is only a small imperfection we will assume it's how things should be. But if we manage to find some evidence of intelligence embedded on fundamental level, something overlooked or leaved by hypothetical engineers who constructed the simulation. Maybe even break the sandbox to some degree.

>>8482933
>There are lots of indications telling us we live in a simulation, but how do we find hard evidence?

I am going to answer this question with the answer I gave to a question about why people don't believe in god.

There is no evidence it exists and no benefit from believing in it.

all this hooey about there being evidence that the universe is a simulation is actually just a hypothesis that cant be falsified.

You know what other hypotheses cant be falsified?

Unicorns are gods that created the universe by crapping magical elves with super powers yesterday exactly as it appears now and did it in such a way as to leave no evidence of their influence on the universe.

The box that contains all the things that cant be falsified is infinite and its illogical to take any of it seriously.

Your percievence of the world is simulation in your brain, how the fuck you can find the difference?

>>8486565
>Delayed choice quantum eraser
what does it have to do with what is the definition of quantum mechanics?