Simulation-argument

>>8715272
how do i log out?

>>8715299
bullet

These papers probably went over your guys' heads. Too many symbols and logic for /sci/

This is so cute.

Back when feudal monarchies were all the rage, people conceived nature in terms of hierarchies, with the lion being the king of the animals, the oak being the king of the trees, and so forth. Now that we live in the era of computers, some people fantasize about the universe being a big computer. There really is nothing new under the sun.

>>8715321
Your red herrings and strawman fallacies have no power here. And neither did Weatherson's.

Not only did you argue something that was never mentioned, you never rebutted a single claim made in any paper.

>>8715358
meant for >>8715355

>>8715358
I'm appealing to your common sense. Philosophers of the past who attempted to use simple inductive reasoning to make strong metaphysical claims about the nature of reality have almost always looked foolish in retrospect. Empiricism is the only reliable tool for discerning the properties of existence, because the alternative is to entertain innumerable plausible-sounding theories from induction.

>>8715368
While you are correct that seeking conclusive evidence is extraordinarily difficult, I disagree that we should ignore abstract or philosophical queries--particularly when concrete evidence is virtually impossible.

Besides, the first step to concrete evidence is abstract thought.

>>8715272
Reality is a simulation being played out within the mind of God

>>8715373
Then it's not reality, and God has a fucked up, immensely complicated, and very long dream.

>>8715299
with a little kys

>>8715375
It's real to us, does anything else matter?

>>8715384
Yes

Also, assuming God's mind is like our own, the characters aren't actually individually conscious, but are all guided by a single conscious that has its pre-frontal lobe shut down.
Many people may fit that description, yet not all do.

>>8715272
>∀Φ: Cr(Φ | f Φ = x) = x or Cr(Sim | f Sim = x) = x

Could someone explain what this means? Thank you.

>>8715499
It's logic.
Google mathematical symbols, and read the papers to know what the variables mean

I don't go on /sci/ ever. I'm dumb as shit. But I work with computers a lot and the simulation hypothesis grabbed me when equating certain things observable in quantum mechanics and nature with computer processes.

Whilst I think "we are literally a hologram" like David Icke says is not correct, I think some aspect, probably a major aspect, of our reality is indeed simulated in some way. The argument about past cultures believing the world is whatever was popular at the time? Well, hierarchies are a simulation, too. Everything humans do is a form of simulation. Art simulates, music simulates, construction simulates. If you know anything about fractals you know that more often than not, in a mathematical system, shit is the same shape all the way down.

inb4 massive btfo by superhuman brainlords

>>8715355

no one is saying it's a big computer. it happens that the computer is something we can visualize to give us an analogy.

>>8716388
>zeno effect
>delayed choice double eraser
>fine tuned constants
>gober's holographic model
>distinction between mental and physical
>values (meaning) vs facts
>causality vs acausality

>>8715355
the lion is clearly the king of the animals though look at him

>>8717390
What's the significance of those?
>>8715355
The lion is in a sense king, it's only predators are humans.

a bear would reck a lion. all other big cats probably would as well.

>>8718579
>bear
>all other big cats
>big cats
wew lad

>>8718699
?