What speaks against the simulation theory, also supported by

>vox

>>8636036
Occam's Razor, the exact same principle that speaks against intelligent design and tiny goblins deciding on the behavior of electrons.

>>8636036
why is he getting any credit for this idea and why does anyone care what he says?

>>8636079
Doesn't occam's razor not only occur if there is an easier explanation? For me the simulation theory is very understandable and makes sense.

>>8636086
I just found out that he likes this idea and therefore posted him as an example. He is good with businesses after all

>>8636093
The introduction of a new entity (that is a reality that is separate from the one we know) requires a complex set of rules and theories that make it more complex of an idea the visible world as an entirety. It is not about how easy it is to understand.

>>8636093
>Doesn't occam's razor not only occur if there is an easier explanation?
Occam's razor is the preference for the simplest explanation that fits all available facts. Nothing we observe requires that the universe be a simulation, and a theory in which our universe is simulated is more complicated by an entire other, larger, more complicated universe.

>>8636036

Just because some rich computer programer believes in some abstract physics theory, doens't mean he makes simulation theory more credible

Elon musk is a meme.

he's a hack.

Stop using him to vindicate your topic, because it does you.

The simulation idea is just combination of solipsism and intelligent design, but of which are easily refuted. Any criticisms of those are equally criticisms of the simulation idea.

>>8636154
>the salt on that post

>>8636159
Refute solipsism.

>>8636079
There is still hope for humanity. Thank you.

>>8636036
Its certainly not a scientific belief, but it is logically and physicallt unfalsifiable and unprovable. Belief in this conjecture is something of a litmus test on how far one is willing to distance themself from reality.

>>8636159
>solipism easily refuted
lol

please share anon

File: 6a010535ce1cf6970c0163018bb9c2970d.jpg (441KB, 1230x862px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1230x862px

Even if the simulation theory isn't true, it still kinda is.
Your body may reside in the real world (or not, it's debatable), but your consciousness and what you perceive as the world is a recreation created by your brain after it's collected, interpreted, analyzed, and prepared the sensory information for you. This is why the placebo effect works, because the placebo effect basically changes that "inner universe" your mind creates and presents to you as the "real world." Still don't believe it? Step inside a sensory deprivation chamber. With no sensory input for your body/mind to recreate the exterior world with, it starts freaking out and hallucinating. Obviously the the hallucinations aren't real, but the mere fact that you're experiencing them means you're not experiencing reality. Just because you're not in a sensory deprivation chamber doesn't mean you're experiencing reality. It just means you're experiencing a fairly accurate representation of reality. With that in mind, it's still only "fairly" accurate. There will always be flaws.

>>8637214
BR = 1

Welcome to Humanity. You are beautiful.

>>8637214
You faggots always make fun of philosophy and philosophers (that you obviously never read)

And then you write garbage like this

Fuck you /sci/, bunch of hypocrites, stay to your topics.

>>8637184
eloquently put