I have a theory about the universe that may change the perception

Tl;dr for anyone wondering.
>dude everything's a simulation woah I'm the first person to think of this

File: ed2.png (180KB, 680x1483px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 680x1483px

>>8663735
Is there a name for this phenomon?

>>8663746
ye boi

u're a fucking BRAINLET (puke)

>>8663746
don't listen to that other guy, he's a dick
the important thing is to keep thinking even if someone else has already thought of some of the things you think. Your idea is pretty common, it's just called the simulation hypothesis

File: ksbw830y782ms.jpg (62KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 590x350px

>>8663735
>>8663746
As predicted. Linear minds can't accept my theorized paradigm shift. Cognitive dissonance is setting in

>The simplest solution is that there are infinite nested universes.
Try again

>>8663714
>whoa dude, the basic natural number
>is related to the natural base number
>duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude

File: 9r9xjq0oxjsnbr.jpg (10KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 223x226px

>>8663765
>>8663768
We're reaching levels of small minded cognitive dissonance that shouldn't be possible

File: KardashevScale_v8.jpg (2MB, 1200x6084px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x6084px

>>8663714
You're dangerously close to Kardashev scale here.

>>8663776
Do you know what cognitive dissonance means?

>>8663778
>tfw unless you make bank and Google succeeds in offering some form of radical life extension you won't live long enough to see even type 1 on this scale.

I mean Type II + GitS bodies is essentially a guarantee of near-permanent being, even if you don't progress to type III and beyond.

>>8663811
It means when you think something different from what someone on the internet knows to be an irrefutable fact of life, the universe, and everything.

>>8663840
Type 1+ is pretty incomprehensible from a Type 0 point of view. I mean look at our current state.

File: f93.png (279KB, 898x790px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 898x790px

>>8663811
>>8663846
OP here. It's when the irrefutable facts you're presented don't match your previous belief set. Thus, contradicting beliefs are formed. Therefore you see these illogical arguments and personal attacks. Sorry you small minds can't understand irrefutable facts

>>8663714

So here are some unrecognized assumptions with this theory. You must assume that consciousness is able to simulated with software (we don't know if thats true). And second we must assume something that we know to be false, that everything around us is discretely measurable (Like how a computer has atomized data). The idea of finite and discreteness seems to be a made up human concept. From everything we can tell, all information is actually infinite and only limitations in technology make things appear to have a finite measure. For instance we'll never stop finding new particles, mainstream physics recognizes this, and tries to solve it with String theory, which basically says everything is a loop so it only appears that you keep finding new particles, but really it's repeating.

So unless you can prove that there exists something discrete, and you can simulate consciousness. Your theory is bunk.

>>8663714
>These constants show, undeniably, that there is at least some structure to the world we live in.
I take issue with this statement. Prove it please.

Even if we are in a "simulation" it simply means we have no real concept of the reality we live in. Its being generated by entities building machines crazy enough to render everything in what we know as the universe. Our terminology doesn't do it any justice, our physics are determined by a mathematics completely out of our realm of understanding. We couldn't know if we were spontaneously spawned sentient programs, or if we are actually sentient beings in another universe living in a virtual realm here, ultimately it wouldn't make a lick of difference. Its an interesting theory, but it ultimately amounts to nothing. We'll learn more when we start to develop fully emersive virtual worlds. Its very likely it loops in on itself too we'll eventually program a world thats programs a world ....a billion iterations... that ultimately programs a world that actually programmed the very world we live in. Then what

We might just live in a infinite field where all information is eventually expressed in every possible format.

>>8663714
I refute your theory based on the following.

The only reason we've created computers the way we have, such that there is some logical ordering to them, is based on the ordering of the universe. So, we should not ask whether or not the Universe is a simulation BUT RATHER will our computers be able to simulate the Universe?

Also, stop calling people dumb. It makes you seems super fucking pretentious.

On another note >>8663759 "Cognitive Dissonance", yeah nice buzzword mate. This revelation would have zero ramifications to the individual.

>>8663902
>>8663889
I also agree with this guy.

That is one equation that shows a relation between between three constants. We need more proof.

>>8663714
>we will create a computer simulation of our universe.
What does it mean to simulate the universe and why would we do it?

File: 1486389364994.png (208KB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 5000x5000px

>>8663948
>>8663908
>>8663902
>>8663900
>>8663891
>>8663889
>>8663884
I don't argue with small minds

>>8663714
OP I have a theory also. I think humans create heaven.

In the future we master time travel and eventually "save" everyone that has ever died and rehabilitate them (purgatory) and they all live forever in happiness.

>>8663714
Fucking trolls... man
>>>/b/ is that way

>>8664150
>Time travel

Assuming humanity doesn't make itself go extinct (which is a possibility given current global political attitudes) within the next 1000 years, it'll take 5000 more before I'd say we even have the potential to question whether or not backwards time travel is possible.

Even then, if time is a closed loop, we'd already have proof that humanity did this because it'd be common knowledge that when you die some cloaked beings appear and whisk you into a dimensional portal instead of you getting buried/disposed of.

>>8663778
Wew, you can't say there wasn't good weed around back in 64 then.

>>8663746
>a name for this phenomon
Dunning–Kruger effect

>>8663714
>I have a theory
No, you have a baseless conjecture.
Lrn2theory fgt pls

I think most people have got it a bit sideways with the whole ''simulation'' thing.
In case you believe in an external reality, something that supasses your inner experience... then you have admitted that you only experience a partial reality.
Further: If allow ourselfs to preassume that only something that has been understood fully can be called knoweldge ultimately, then we must admit that we our perceived reality isn't reality in itself, but merely a simulation of reality.

Hence we live in a simulation.
I guess that's were this whole debate started and it's older than the thought of computers such as these calculating machines infront of you.

This will be bit of a thread hi jack though I'd like to break this one down as well:

In case you can experience and you are made up of atoms then the most logical conclusion is that atoms also can experience.
There's no proof to either other than you very own experience, everything surpassing your own experience can be labled belief.

In case someone has delved deeper than this descartian model I'd like to hear it.

>>8664213
I agree. Let us say it takes 5000 years to master time travel. At the moment of death these future humans take you and leave whatever behind to fool the people of that time. Now sure could more modern eras figure it out, sure. But they would only harvest from eras they can completely fool.

are you retarded how the fuck is that new LOL

>>8665025
delete this

>>8665025
Why is the lower left panel blank?

>>8663778
>A few theorists like, Asian meme man, a NASA engineer and erudite meme man.

>>8663714
nice tower of turtles, but you have to adequately define the universe containing this "simulated" one for it to be a valid theory

File: 1473477128175.gif (113KB, 280x181px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 280x181px

>>8665178
It's literally the plot of The Thirteenth Floor
Yeah fuck OP

>>8663714
Babby's first ontological theory. Who hasn't thought of this before?

>>8665829
Yeah I've read about the theory before so it's definitely documented.

>>8665247
Glitch in the matrix

>>8663962
You don't argue. You preach and hope people listen.

>>8663714

>the matrix has you Neo

Yeah nah, you're definitely the first person to think of this.

>being this late to the show
>even Hollywood beat you

This is Philosophy. Go over to /lit/

>>8663714
>Muh hard solipsism

>>8663714
Given that in order to render something the size of our universe with 100% accuracy (down to the very atom) we'd need a computer at least the size of the universe>>8663714

>>8666540

This, there's no way we could ever simulate our entire universe reliably

>>8663884
It might not be a computer in the traditional sense, but something behaving according to some kind of continuous model of computation. Then things might not have to be measured discretely.

A network of water pipes might be used to simulate electric flow, for example, continuous phenomena simulating continuous phenomena.

A sillier example would be that a roll of tape "simulates" a roll of tape by being itself. It carries out the operations of a roll of tape.

>>8663714
This is a sci-fi trope. I mean just look at Rick and Morty, Total Recall, The Matrix. Your idea is not new,

>>8664990
My car can propel me around the highway but the atoms that make its chassis cannot.

>>8665247
The original format is the top strip and the lower right image are separate. They were combined when someone made that image.

>>8664837

more like denial

>>8666565
We could but there would only be room for one simulation and it would take the entire mass of the universe.

>>8666581

Well not really because you'd need some of that mass to actually run the simulation so it could never be 100%

>>8666583
You just need to organize the universe's mass just right so that it simulates itself

>this natural phenomenon proves that we're in a simulation, see if you compare the rules of our universe with this other, unsimulated universe you'll find tha-

oh wait, no you won't, fucktard. nice posturing though.

>>8665809
That picture is a good example of aliasing.

>>8666591
shit

>>8663714
You fucking asshat, i thought this was going to be an interesting thread. This isnt "your theory" this is a very popular view held by many people. Elon Musk for example is an advocate of simulation theory. I hate you OP, you small minded attention whoring fuck.

>>8666540
A few problems with that.
1) who said anything about our universe? It could be a much larger universe above us
2) compression algorithms. If you have something that is all over the universe and behaves the same way everywhere, you could simulate it with decent enough accuracy with very few resources. Think about electrons.
3) you are basing this off our current technology. Once quantum computers and strong AI are developed everything we have ever made is going to look like garbage in comparison to what the machines develop.

>>8666565

Well, we introduce the concept of ''ignorance'' and make our produced AI's just default to that state when they cannot understand something further, + we make the render progressive and make them think they are evolving while actually the sim is just running better.

We dont have to simulate the WHOLE universe at same quality, we dont even see the whole Uni now, we know parts of Earth, and some pics from the Hubble.

We need maximum rendering on Earth and everything else can be made run with minimum req's.

Like Procedurally created worlds in some games.

Time might be tempered with too, so when we need big jumps in consciousness we pause it and build more of the world and resume it and everyone is like wow we can fly now weeeee!

Basically we can do anything in the sim, and our Universe might be a sim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXidW7fEH8g

>>8666689
We dont need to simulate every electron.

They dont even have to ''exist'' until scientist looks at them.

We can simulate even human knowledge and make not only outer, but inner worlds (realizations) progressively generated, so when simhumans (or sims hahaha) look at something long enough we give 'em something to look at. We can simulate the feeling and correctness of truth even if its a lie.
When you give attention to something you start seeing more and more in it.

If everything is simulated then there are no limits.

You ppl keep applying simulation to everything but consciousness but ITSELF is part of the sim, therefore we dont need to make the sim appear REAL or CORRECT.

That way of thinking stems from the subconscious idea that consciousness is outside of the sim? Maybe it is. Maybe that's the great Enlightenment of ancients, when you achieve a state in which you recognize your consciousness ( The Observer) to be one with the Creator.

>>8666576
no
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-02-29

>>8663714
>The odds of us being the "first" universe to create a simulation are slim
How did you calculate these odds?

This is such a popular popsci theory that there are already movies and tv shows based on it.

>>8665429
>Asian meme man

I kekd

>>8663962
Hm was figuring you were earlier but it's a damn shame.

Perhaps you have autism, that would be a decent explanation.

Would you like to improve your debate skills anon?

>>8663714
unless you can find stars arranged into "programmed by timmy age 5" somewhere, all you can prove is that the universe is simulatable, not that it is a simulation

>>8663714
>There is no free will and no mistakes.

Denial of free will is for irresponsible ignorant people who ignore karma and consequence.
If you don't see mistakes on this f'd-up earth: then you are seriously ignorant (in denial, in la-la land, stoned, drugged...).

>>8664150
i can't even live with roomates in happiness.

>>8663714
i see no problem until the part at which you mention the simulated universe interacting the more basal one from which it derives it's irreductible laws, such an interaction would be a manifestation of reverse entropy, and thus it cannot be in our universe; either we "get them out of the simulation" or indirectly create a system that converts information from their universe into information on ours (like for example ur current methods of developing A.I by feeding a neural algorithm huge loads of information and then giving it the ability to process this information or even further making the a.i interact through a robotic avatar), only if we chose to do this by digital to analog conversion (which would imply the loss of some level of essentiality) then this universe can interact with the original, otherwise it cannot and only perhaps with others on its same level of magnitude

btw you are retarded and pseudoscientifical as fuck

File: turtles all the way down.jpg (60KB, 512x640px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 512x640px

So your theory is basically "Elon Musk said the universe is a simulation"

Did I miss anything?

I'm not saying it's not. It's just 'turtles all the way down' is not a new idea.

>>8663714
OP, you've played too many games. I like your thinking though. I am constantly thinking about the universe but everytime I come to the conclusion that God is at the beginning of everything.

neither free will nor predestination are true.

>>8668927
Oh yeah because simulation theory and the turtle joke are TOTALLY the same thing...

File: 1486769114457.jpg (128KB, 476x349px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 476x349px

The universe isn't a simulation.

If I simulated a universe on a computer, that computer is part of this universe. Therefore, the sub-universe is also part of this universe.

The reverse is also true. If this universe is simulated, then when you refer to "this universe" you're actually referring to a subsection of a larger universe.

There is no distinction between levels. It's just a Russian doll with more and more layers. Ultimately they are all the same object.

I find it far more likely that our universe exists because of spontaneous symmetry breaking than godlike aliens fucking with us.

>>8669534
What if we're able to get computing power up to so powerful so that we can simulate the universe?
Would we need al the energy available in the current universe to create that universe, or can we do it more efficiently?

>>8669544
to simulate the entire universe perfectly you would need to simulate every particle in it

if you could somehow completely describe a particle with only one number, you would still need N numbers, where N is the total number of particles in the universe.

Keep in mind that N increases if certain assumptions we have made are wrong. For example, quarks might be composite particles. In that case N is much larger than we could possibly imagine.

>>8663714
Holy anthropic arguments, Batman!

I prefer the time is an endless circle thing.

There is no beginning, no end. The big bang starts a universe, it keeps expanding, stuff happens bla, it crunches down again into an infinitely small thing, which is literally 100% the same thing it was before the big bang, which means the next big bang will create the exact same universe. That includes every shitposter on this board.

You already have read this endless times, and you will read this again endless times.

>>8669663
I like to think it's like that also. But doesn't the data not support the big crunch? Of course humans have been known to be wrong.

Shit nigga I've been posting this same message to you forever and will for eternity

>>8669663
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return
http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nrecur.html

>>8663714
The words get in the way. Time is an abstraction. We are the product of untold years of genetic information stored through electrochemical interaction. Our thoughts and feelings are mostly from outside our direct observation of the world around us, which is woefully limited in comparison to the near-infinity of input upon which we stand. Of course there is an unbroken conversation with the past, and of course there is a logical thread connecting us with all known information. We are the product of the kind of intelligence that lives outside of our linear causality, unbound by spacetime altogether, and capable of observing every possible consequence of every wave-function collapsing under every other observer. We are like seeds that have been planted aeons ago, whose awareness is only now coming to fruition, and only now capable of even understanding enough to be able to glibly hint at speaking in a meaningful way beyond our selves. Your wisest course of action is to embrace the beauty of this awareness - but never think that you have discovered it, or own it, or deserve anything for realizing it: self-awareness is both its own reward and the cause of all suffering and joy.

>>8669379
If you can't see what they have in common that's your problem.

>>8669555
Not necessarily. I dont participate in the belief that the universe is simulated as it provides no truth value, falsifiably, or any more impact to human knowledge than hard solipsism, but it is theoretically possible for algorithms to handle the interaction of objects at a macro scale without needing to calculate atomic interaction, and only when observed closely will atomic interaction be rendered. This is just as the witcher 3 can be run without calculating the atoms of the characters. We could theoretically just be hollow models coded to behave as solid objects, and only upob inspection are our innards rendered.
Given optical processing and qbit computers, a computer within a feasible size and cost could be constructed to simulate the universe on this level. An AI we may see developed in the next 100 years could be complete enough to emulate the human brain. Given 1000 years, 2000 years, however long, is it unreasonable to assume this then-rudiemntary computer program would be able to run 7 billion times simultaniously on a single machine?

>>8663714
Do you have any idea of the incredible amount of energy and space-time we need to create a universe ? Probably your idea in a theoretical way is possible, but not probable..and where are we? If we were a simulation we should stay in a definite place and (according to science) the only place that is able to turn enough the space-time to (almost in theory) contains an universe is a dark hole (dark star). Do you have any idea of the incredible dimensions of our universe, and how much dark holes there are in it? Do you really think a dark hole can contain all that stuff?do you still think your theory is right? I don't think so.
Anyway prove it with some calculus, otherwise that are just words.

File: A Space Ship.png (609B, 321x211px) Image search: [Google]

609B, 321x211px

>>8663714
What if UFOs are our creators mouse pointers made to look like saucers with humanoid avatars of themselves inside the mouse pointer.
Right click, menu, heal the blind, click.
Right click, menu, wine from water, click.
This simulation would explain ufo and miracles and other physics law breakers.

>>8663714
please kill ur self

File: delme.jpg (81KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1920x1080px

>>8671746
I have to admit, that is one I had not heard before...

>>8671746
what if my dick was your creator

File: WojakTesseract.png (19KB, 500x590px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x590px

>>8663759

>>8663746

Yes.

GIGO

>>8666710
this.

>>8666570
Ur right it can be simulated as a continuous simulation, but computation requires discrete values. Therefore it can't be a computer simulation.