Prove we don't live in a simulation.

>>8725486
No.

>>8725486
how about you prove that we live in a simulation?

File: before.png (859B, 147x20px) Image search: [Google]

859B, 147x20px

>>8725497
before

File: after.png (982B, 146x27px) Image search: [Google]

982B, 146x27px

>>8725497
after

>>8725486
Prove that god didn't create the universe.

>>8725486
i also enjoyed the thirteenth floor

>>8725486
Prove that you're not an idiot.

>>8725486

There's no costumer support.

>>8725486
There´s no way candlejack could exist in a simu

>>8725500
>>8725502
Really activated my almonds

>>8726421
Please don't bring this stupid candle jack meme ba

There's like, shitloads of unnecessary parameters which are being simulated when there's no need for that.

>>8726421
>>8726425
You guys are stupid if you think candlejack is tha

>>8725486
You are a faggot.

If we live in a simulation, what's the point of being aware of that? How can we potentially exploit this?

>>8725486
you can't simulate time because it's infinitely divisible

>>8726421
>>8726425
>>8726448
It's refreshing to see people candlejack'ing corre

>>8725486

Solipsism is inconsequential. There are still phenomenon before me and I am experiencing them in some capacity. Whether or not it is """"fake"""" does not change that.

come on little babby hit me with a harder one

File: PepeInVatMatrix.jpg (41KB, 400x568px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x568px

>>8725486
Your reality is part of an experiment. Nothing is real.

>>8725486
Nick Bostrom's simulation meme relies on assuming video game-like simulations as opposed to some sort of brute-force physics simulation of every single particle in existence, to reduce the computing power needed to simulate our universe, and to make the whole thing more believable. Of course, such a simulation would have noticeable glitches, which he acknowledges, and only addresses by saying that there would be some AI overseeing our thoughts, and correcting things when it detects that a human has detected a glitch in the simulation, which sounds a bit hand-wavy to me. Of course, we could still be living in an actual brute force simulation, but the "simulation argument" is a bit overrated in my opinion, and it does not help that memes, like Musk, fell for it.

>>8726588
>There are still phenomenon before me
prove it

>>8725486
I can't wake up

>>8726802

I'm witnessing them. That's all I can say. I can't prove whether these phenomenon are real or of my own creation-- but they still occur before me and I am reacting/rationalizing them.

>>8726703

isn't that what the bible says?

that an omnipotent creator basically made an environment and did a big experiment with consciousness and free will?

>>8726566
What is the candlejack meme? Is it like sniper meme where you-

>>8725486

A better response: There's no need to prove it since any ontological arguments are, in a unprovable concept, false. The better question is if why the doubt exists, and on a phenomenological aproach, if the doubt is something really necessary. Pro-tip: It's not.

>>8726870
It's a philosophical question, not physical. Philosophy only asks questions that you cannot prove absolutely.

What OP is asking is your thoughts on the matter, for and against.

>>8726886

I did give my thoughts on the matter, anon. The doubt on itself it's something unecessary. Existence by itself it's existence, and There's no possível way we van even discuss if it's a simulation or not. It's just false.

>>8726895
The answer is not false. The question is loaded. All realities are a simulation. As above so below.

>>8726895
Nonsense. It's incredibly complex and interesting question. Think more about it.

I'll give you examples that relate to simulation-hypothesis
>When we create AI, is it conscious?
>Could you yourself enter a simulation with drugs/brain-devices and you couldn't tell the difference?
>Where are we in our sleep?
>What does our pet dog think about us?
>When we come and destroy ant colony, what do they think of us?
>What kind of system in our Universe ensures that all physical laws are followed? If it were a computer it would require spectacular processing power even to simulate one drop of water perfectly
>Does our Universe have infinite resolution?
>Are there any ways to oppose physical laws? Like break them with some device or alter them?
>Why are the physical laws tuned just at these values? For example, why is the ratio io
>Is there multiverse?
>Could there be advanced alien species that observes us constantly while being absolutely invisible to us (their observers wouldn't couple with our known four fundamental forces)
>How can we ever know of a system that there is not MORE to the system that is just invisible to us, because everything we do gets processed through human mind?
>When we die, do we feel time? If not, are we instantly reborn or is the reformation of our identity an event with a zero possibility?

>>8726930
Yes agreed. Relegating all works through derivatives of the common 5 senses is short sighted. If one does a bit of research and you find the human form is designed like a living antenna. There is a cosmic or perhaps galactic "song" and living is matter dancing to its beat. Consciousness is information processing plus novelty. Novelty is new combinations of information ergo dark energy expansion. The fact that there is more dark energy than scientists can account for is a good sign that there is a shit ton of intelligent life out there.

>>8726421
>dumb newfags who say Candlejack because they say it on ED trying to fit in
Are you all fucking retards? Does he go on your computer, solve the captcha and submit your unfinished p

>>8726194
>costumer support
Aw shit there's nobody to help me with my costumes!

>>8726844
Basically yea. Genesis was a shitshow

>>8726811
WAKE ME UP INSIDE

>>8725486
>prove a negative
Lrn2proof fgt pls

>>8726802
cogito ergo sum

>>8725486
prove you're not a faggot

>>8727253
>implying proof of negatives is not possible or not required
hope you're trolling but I think that's giving too much benefit of the doubt

>>8725486
>no evidence at all to suggest anything of the sort, the concept is purely just making up shit, the exact same thing as religion
>prove my religion to me /sci/cucks
???
Leave.

>>8725486
If the "outside world" can affect the simulation (i.e. the simulation has sensors) then it is not really a similation and just a part of the outside world.
To elaborate, you could say you are just a simulation running on your brain but because things outside your brain influence you that doesn't make sense.
If the simulation is completely closed off then the matter if it is a simulation or not is completely 100% irrelevant.

>>8728390
but we do have evidence.
We have run simulations on our computers.

>>8725486
How about the existence of irrational numbers as an inseparable part of our reality? There's no way a simulation could contain an infinite amount of information.

File: 1476933478909.gif (841KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 800x800px

>>8726424

>>8728526
this guy get's it. Try simulating π to the last number. Oh that's right, you can't, because there is no last number...

>>8728402
not an argument

>>8728526
This sounds retarded but I am too brainlet to disprove, someone help?

>>8728578
if you can't even disprove it, maybe it's not that retarded.

U CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN

<bold>NUFFIN</bold>

>>8728578
Pi doesn't exist, and your inability to calculate it demonstrates the limitations of the system you inhabit

>>8728526
where does our universe store the "information" of all the irrational numbers?

>>8725486
You cannot observe anything from the inside out unless it has a reflection.

>yfw existence itself is a reflection of its outside

>>8726789
It's possible to simulate a universe
http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

>>8726939
>biocentrism has been proven
You act as if it's an uncontroversial fact.

Also, with the high ratio of anti matter to matter, I'll implore you to ponder if we're not in fact the strange ones

Intelligent design is retarded. Just google any criticisms of it. Any creationist idea is unfounded.

>>8728804
What is your definition of something "existing"?
Pi and e, both irrational, are parts of some of the most fundamental laws of nature. They help define the existence of most things. So how come they don't exist to you?
Pi can't be calculated accurately. I guess you can define a number system that has Pi as a rational number, but it can define all of the irrational numbers as rational.

>>8728526
>>8728541
>>8728812
>>8728578

It doesn't need to store irrational numbers precisely, it can easily round it to several duodecillion significant values or more and we'd be none the wiser

>>8728812
It doesn't have to store it anywhere. That's the whole difference between a simulation and a reality. A reality doesn't have to "define" anything, it just contains it (without falling into tautology).

>>8728829
Have you googled any arguments for it though?

>>8728834
But some of those irrational numbers exist in fundamental laws of nature. If they were somewhat rounded (even to a huge decimal place), over time those laws of nature would start to act chaotically.

>>8728839
>over time
How does just over a trillion years sound?
Our universe isn't infinite, so the numbers wouldn't have to be either

File: 1469177930268.jpg (16KB, 480x333px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x333px

>>8728526
>irrational numbers
>implying

>>8726198
I waited way too long for the door to close.

>>8725486
It literally does not matter, you play the game by the rules and with the cards you are dealt either way.

>>8728850
this

>>8728824
That is literally what I've read though, and he clearly says that it's not possible to simulate an entire universe down to the subatomic level, the best you can do is trick the people inside the simulation into thinking they are in a real universe. I mean it's pretty fucking obvious that you can't just disassemble a couple planets and then properly simulate an entire universe down to the smallest particles, that would be like simulating an i7 on a pentium 3 to have a faster PC.

>>8728831
pi is something we created, an attempt at describing something we observe
the fact that we still call it pi should tell you something about how well we understand it

File: 1402480034977.jpg (7KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 231x218px

>>8728526

holy shit

anon my neurons just overloaded

>>8728847

he made a case against irrational numbers you brainlet.

>>8725486

How can a simulation store infinite irrational numbers?

Protip, it can't. Irrational numbers don't exist thus our reality is a representation of a finite simulation.

>>8729105
But real-time rendering is possible. Like in advanced video games, not everything is always loaded, but rendered as you approach it

>>8730081
Interesting. It's like how perfect circles do not exist in nature because that would mean pi exists in real life and not just in written math.

>>8725486
The Bible doesn't say anything about it

The biggest problem for people arguing against a simulation is that they forget hardware constraints don't matter.

If you are the subject being simulated then no amount of "simulation slow down" or "speed up" will ever be visible to you. Time units are how you measure reality so it taking more "time" outside doesn't mean time inside slows.

You could simulate the universe on a pentium 3 if you were okay with waiting fucking trillions of years for each tick. But for the people inside the simulation it would appear constant time.

>>8730769
it's a big book. maybe you just missed out on that part.

>>8725497
With how low the rate is that life forms and survives on planets in space it's more likely we're in a simulation of the .00000001% that got to the point in scientific progress where they had the technology to simulate life.

It's obvious why we don't see aliens everywhere, nothing exists yet outside our the outer limits of our solar system. Everything is just a holographic projection and wont be finished rendering until we reach it- but we will never reach it, because the human race annihilated itself in 1956AD.

An alien civilization 28 million years into the future (the present) rebuilt us from what evidence and archaeological record remained on our burned out planet. The genius who managed to recompute us into this simulation is now under heavy scrutiny by his governmental and various galactic ethics committees.

He claims we are sentient and deserve to live, be freed, have a second chance at being a species.

They claim even if that were the case, and it isn't since we are just machines in a computer a distant and incomplete memory of our past, given what they know about our history we will just destroy each other again, and maybe their own kind if allowed to exist in a corporeal form.

He has tried entering the simulation numerous times to plant sufficient clues so we can change our ingrained pattern of behavior, so that we might pass the test for survival. Each time he has failed to make us more peaceful and cooperative. Even his gifts of technology, which were supposed to be used to generate endless energy and feed and shelter all of human kind were turned into weapons.

>>8730807
One day we will understand our situation intitely and how it works, at that point we could hack our way into the main system and project ourselves into reality and can save ourselves from the simulation.

>>8730804

Shit argument as whoever runs the simulation would also have to have that probability, and then you'll assume they're also in a simulation and then whoever simulates them etc

>>8726860
You're not supposed to put the hyphen, you brai

>>8730834
You're dumb as fuck

File: 1477051708953.gif (528KB, 260x194px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 260x194px

>>8725502

>>8728541
> Impliying this simulation runs in a digital environment
> Falls to the simulation meme

>>8730864
You didn't even say candlejack you mon

>>8730700
Yes, and saving on processing power by making a video game-like simulation leads to a glitchy simulation. If we lived in a video game, we would have a quadrillion ways to prove it. Btw, I addressed this in my original post too. If you ever played a video game, you know how limited video game engines are, by their nature.

>>8730081
>>8730744
The simulation could still be precise enough that we could never tell it apart from an actual infinitely precise reality, because the difference would be below the measurement errors. It would be interesting to devise an experiment that would work reliably in an actual reality, but would have accumulating errors in a simulation that would produce retarded unpredictable behaviour, if such an experiment is possible.

>>8731058
Yes I thought so too... God aliens using digital processors lol. It doesn't even have to be one or the other in fact. This could be the "real" existence and still be a simulation. Matter is under constant vibratory influence from somewhere, either the milky way supermassive black hole or something grander. That influence determines much of how matter interacts with each other. Who or whatever could be playing our reality out like a sad song, no less real than anything else.

>>8730804
>rare Earth hypothesis motherfucker

There are some massive assumptions being made in Drake's equation. First you must prove that Earth isn't one of a tiny handful of civilizations that exist in the universe now. Sure, there will be plenty of opportunities in the future for advanced life to evolve but the universe is still young. The metallicity necessary for complex solar systems only began existing about 4 billion years ago and it took more than that long to form life on Earth (our sun is unusually high in metallicity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

>>8730081
Convert it to standard form.

Prove that simulationism has even a shred of consequence

>>8728836
Where does reality contain all real numbers?

>>8730785
>hardware constraints don't matter
They do, though. If the simulating universe is similar to ours, the slowdown would be so significant that you could barely simulate the first second of our universe before the simulating universe dies a heat death, not to mention that there would be no incentive for anyone to run such a slow simulation. And if the simulating universe has different laws of physics, then computing power is not an issue at all, since we can just assume that its laws allow much more powerful computers to be built. Also, you can use tricks to save computing power, but you can't use tricks to save space. For example, if you can turn a planet into a computer that has N bits of storage capability, then simulating a planet of that size would also require at least N bits of storage, so you would need to turn at least as much matter into computers as the amount you want to simulate.

>>8731328
The simulating universe isn't relevant as you can't interact with it.

>>8731348
It is quite relevant, since it is mathematically impossible to build a computer capable of simulating our entire universe within our universe (and therefore the universe doing the simulation can't be similar to ours), however it may be possible to build way more powerful computers in a different type of universe, that would be capable of simulating our entire universe. I never talked about interacting with the simulating universe, just about its limitations on computing power.

>>8726954
I just remember watching freakazoid when I was a kid. I don't know how candlejack became a me

>>8731354
What's a candleja

>>8730809

Woah, I remember watching a movie in the late 1990's that was based on this assumption. Can't remember the name though...

>>8726588

this desu

>>8731858
electric boogaloo?

>>8728541
>implying a simulation running beyond the bounds of our consciousness would'nt be able to simulate numbers that appear infinite to those living in the simulation

>>8725486
a simulation could never be vast enough to contain your mom

>>8725486
Are the ones who created the simulation supossed to be real then?Why would they be real if we are not? And if they are a simulation themselves, who created them? You can ask this question indefinately. What is the endpoint e.g. reality?

>>8725486
Prove we weren't made by ancient monkey rocket scientists

>>8732908
Or that this is the original simulation, ran by the being of God himself, and history plays out because we are convinced that we need to live, then it ends, then it runs again, ad infinitum

>>8726968
CAN'T WAKE UP

>>8725486
Quantum zeno effect. Rekt.

Don't read any of this, guys. You'll be spooked for life.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk#The_Basilisk

>>8734992
That's bullshit, and the article itself says it's bullshit. It's literally in there that the computer can't just recreate someone, because the information describing them would be lost (and anyone with some physics knowledge knows that anyway). Furthermore, even if it was possible to recreate past people, the article mentions numerous ways you could counter the AI.

>>8735089
That's the simulation argument, but what if the AI is so advanced, it doesn't adhere to limitations of time and thus can go back and influence everything around us right now to meet its goals? You exist, yes, but now that you know about the basilisk, ie. AI, you won't be free of its claws and if you try to go against it, you will be destroyed.

>>8734992
>life has meaning after all
oh you beutifull giant marsupial creature here i go.

>>8725486
Space isn't continuous.

>>8735095
>What if the AI is so advanced
AIs are not magic, they can't break the laws of physics.

>>8725486
kill your self , and you will see other side of simulation

>>8736096
Any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from magic.

>>8736792
Or god

>>8725533
for all powerful bring he did a pretty shitty job of it

>>8725486
Why would we live in a simulation, that's in a simulation which is again in a simulation and so on? Where would it start? That's a shit theory.

>>8731083
What the fuck is going on here? Where are you gu

>>8727457
Lrn2proof fgt pls

Prove the simulation we're in isn't another simulation.

>>8725486

prove we don't leave in a space beetle's butt

>>8738613
compared to what?

Can't. Every day more shit like this >>8739191 happens.

This place is fake as fuck.

>>8736096
As we see them in this reality. There is no reason base reality would have the same laws. Maybe storing the equivalent of "data" is extremely easy. Maybe the laws of that place are fundamentally unlike those for our realm.

The argument for or against simulation is very similar to the argumentfor or against godhood.

>>8725486
Can the simulator create a simulation so real itself does not know the difference?

>>8726957
I'd like to transmog my bike into a Tesla D please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow

Djoobadoo badoo
I can't

File: false.jpg (1MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2000px

>>8726421
>>8726425
>>8726448
>>8726566
>>8726954
>>8726860
>>8730864
>>8731083

Candle Jack. Candle Jack. Candle Jack.

>>8731239
>how limited they are by their nature
anon, we are having a discussion about an unknown race that has the ability to potentially simulate the universe. We don't even know if the laws of physics we have are actually modeled on "reality". For all we know P = NP in reality and the simulation instantly finishes running on a desktop in a few microseconds with a Quantium 3 processor.

Irrational numbers

File: ok.jpg (231KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1920x1080px

>the bad news
we are in a simulation
>the worse news
it's a death simulation universe

>>8727457
>I think
...that's where you went wrong.

We're basically rats, and they're trying to see if we'll figure out a way out of their little rat maze. That's why every fucking man, woman and child should be doing FUCKING PHYSICS, assholes. So we can get the fuck out of here and strangle them with our bare hands for putting us all through this.

>>8741416
worse than rats, we are merely npcs to them. how would we recognize any changes occurring, glitches hotfixed, or rollbacks implemented? how would we even know if they shut down the system for an extended period to do maintenance?

File: angry_pepe.jpg (40KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x900px

>>8741388
Holy fucking shit you fags with 0 reading comprehension start to trigger me. REEEEEEEEEEEE
Anyway, if P=NP then you might as well just do a proper physics simulation instead of a vidya game, and then there is nothing to talk about. And to make it clear, I meant that video game engines are limited by their nature, and not the race doing the simulatino. Btw, we were talking specifically about the famous simulation argument, which assumes that the people doing the simulation are like use and live in a universe similar to ours. Fucking click on the link a few posts above and read it.

File: 1426997401173.png (68KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 300x300px

>>8741557
>posts link halfway through thread
>arguments pertaining to link get responses based on previous discussion
>NO! DISCUSS _MY_ ANGLE ON _MY_ TERMS!!!

Son, we need to talk.

>>8741381
See I was ri

>>8728526
If there was an infinite amount of information necessary to contain irrational numbers, we wouldn't have found any yet, since we can't store infinite amounts of information either

>>8741675
>simlets can't even store numbers in Calabi-Yau manifolds
why dont you just post a fucking ticket with the GM.

>>8731304
If we are not in a simulation, then our highest purpose is to understand the world around us. If we are in a simulation, then our highest purpose is to understand the motives of the person that made the simulation.

File: 5cfc01fbfd834104858c60816f2fd3b3.png (1MB, 1080x1172px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1172px

>>8741581
>>posts link halfway through thread
If you're too fucking lazy to expand 4 links (or backtrack if you're not a 4chan x user), then please don't post replies either, because they will most likely be irrelevant to the discussion. And I mean in any case, not just this one. Btw the other poster posted the link, not I, fyi.
>>arguments pertaining to link get responses based on previous discussion
>>NO! DISCUSS _MY_ ANGLE ON _MY_ TERMS!!!
From the very first post that is a reply to the OP, that comment chain is about Nick Bostrom's simulation argument, which supposes that the simulating universe is very much like ours. It had no different branches or anything, the whole chain was about that particular type of simulation. So when some dumb fuck comes along and posts "but what if the universe doing the simulation is different from ours???", the correct answer to that is "read the fucking comment chain you're replying to, dumbass".

>>8741771
Who fucking cares, pleb. Your head is up your ass if you think that was the whole discussion. At any rate, its absolutely uninteresting to discuss "they're like us and physics is real!1!" scenarios in this case, it just limits the scope of possibility, which is absurd for a thought experiment on this scale.

>>8741771
Holy fuck this paper is dumb.

>>8741800
Or, well, not dumb per se, he's obviously on top of his field. I just don't see "it's the future humans of base reality" as the most likely option. That might be me waving hands, as I'm more interested in a premise which would actually allow the simulation to run on the level we perceive and measure it.

File: 1476120755277.jpg (65KB, 680x631px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 680x631px

>>8741779
>At any rate, its absolutely uninteresting to discuss "they're like us and physics is real!1!" scenarios in this case, it just limits the scope of possibility, which is absurd for a thought experiment on this scale.
I'm not the proponent of Nick Bostrom's model, but it most definitely is an interesting model. Assuming that the base reality is like us enables him to show that if these "ancestor simulations" every become a reality, then it is more likely for us to be in a simulation than in base reality. But of course you would not realise that, since you are too busy shifting the goalposts.

>>8741800
>>8741807
Well I'm not advocating for it.

>>8741834
>shifting goalposts
oh, I'm sorry, should I have read the entire paper before opening my stupid little whore mouth?

>>8741836
Look man, if that whole comment chain is about a very specific argument, and you are not familiar with it, and you don't even want to familiarize yourself with it, then why post a reply at all? Btw it's enough to read only the first 3 sections and the beginning of the fourth to understand the core of the argument, or just search for a /quick rundown/, since the argument is very well-known.

>>8728400
All our simulations are part of this universe. That isn't related to the def.

>>8728541
How does that affect it either way? At no point does the entire infinite number have to somehow be jammed into the simulation. Just has to be computed as far as anyone ever computes it in this universe.

>>8728812
Numbers are abstractions, not physical objects. The same way we don't have some physical writing of pi when we talk about it but just the word/symbol pi. Don't think lookup table, think algorithm.

>>8731304
If you're good, the simulators might upload you to a robot body in the real world after you "die". It's as close to a scientific basis for religion as you're going to get.

>>8725486
>prove we don't live in a simulation
simulation of what?

>>8743163
i don't know. how about this. if it's not a simulation, can you tell me what reality _IS_

There is only one way out of the simulation. Guess why you're so afraid to do the one thing that could liberate you.

If we live in a simulation, where are the glitches?

>>8743251
We have no comprehension of what a higher plane of reality might be like. Just because our crappy simulations have glitches does not mean that the simulation we're in must have them.

Think of dreaming. While you're dreaming you're convinced that what you're experiencing is real. Nothing you see or feel makes you think "this is a glitch GASP THIS IS A DREAM". I mean yeah, in rare instances some people realize they're dreaming but still.

On the other hand, you might consider the very strange phenomena we observe as "glitches", or otherwise artifacts that betray the fakeness of what we're experiencing. Like what the fuck are black holes? How the fuck does entanglement work? Etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlHUfuQ8d_g

File: 1482243406290.jpg (122KB, 341x530px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 341x530px

>>8729105
>tfw the speed of light is to give the simulation time to compute the things we see
>Things that are closer and more relevant to us get priority processing power
>Things that are far away like stars and galaxies get shunted to the back of the queue and the simulation takes it's time in rendering them

>>8725500
>>8725502
I always remembered it as the first. What the hell man?

File: heaven and earth.jpg (99KB, 580x296px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 580x296px

>>8743288
being a child is agreeing with aristotle (i did)
being an adult is realizing plato was right about everything all along (i think that more and more every day)

>>8725486
>Falsifiy the unfalsifiable
Get the fuck out with this shit
>>>/notscience/

>>8741800
>this paper is dumb
I'm not calling you dumb but Nick Bostrom is much smarter than you. Just saying.

>>8725486
Stop trying to make The Game crash.

>>8725486
Prove we live in one. And I don't mean saying that the probability of we not living in one is 1/1000000000 or something.

File: false vacuum.png (107KB, 560x489px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 560x489px

>>8743666
>here's how we crash the game

>>8743671
While as some have said, it has nothing to do with science, it's really quite obvious if you just think about it for a while.

File: cs_bubbles.gif (4KB, 545x166px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 545x166px

>>8743673

File: 1476843026055.jpg (54KB, 433x469px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 433x469px

>>8743434
>mfw we can still observe events happening in real time thousands of lightyears away
>mfw you still have to render everything that far away in real time because otherwise you'd end up with glithces in the sky in a couple thousand years
The only use of the speed of light would be keeping us from travelling to the stars.

>>8743251
Even if there were glitches, an ai could cover them up, predict them, or even rewind in worst case scenarios.

>>8743288
I don't know about most people, but I am actually aware I am dreaming whilst dreaming
>>8743671
Why are propositions and logic so hard for some to understand?

File: AUFN_LawrenceKrauss.jpeg.jpg (22KB, 220x333px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 220x333px

The bottom line is this: even if there is indeed a higher reality, where did IT come from? The buck has to stop somewhere. Something had to have come from nothing.

>>8743684
Nothing is obvious.

>>8725486
how would this simulation be able to store the infinite strings of digits of numbers like pi?

>>8725486
This is really no more than a religious belief. Don't waste our time.

The holographic principle is pretty much accepted. Seems to me that if the universe were a simulation, it'd be a hologram too.

>>8746335
One has to wonder why there is such a preponderance of physical theories that border on religion as of late. Are we approaching the limits of what we can know? Will we have no choice but to fall back on philosophy yet again? Are we entering another dark age of science?

File: 91WwR0N28oL.jpg (795KB, 1756x2560px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 1756x2560px

ok so the universe is made out of math

but whyyyyyy

>>8746071
nothing has to come from something.

You can't just have nothing and say it was always there.

>>8746480
It isn't really "nothing". It's more like chaos. The universe is spontaneously generated order out of chaos.

>>8746562
are these the only two options?

either it just happened on its own for no reason (multiverse)

or there is something more behind the scenes that explains what we see (supersymmetry)

at least that's my simplistic understanding of it

>>8728526
How about you stay on topic?

>>8725502
>>8725500
is this like people saying welp instead of well or worst instead of worse?

>>8725486


>When you reach a level of Math Physics and Engineering so hard that it allows you to rip open a hole in the universe proving that life is a simulation.

It was bound to happen. I fucked up.

>>8725486
Who made the simulation? Are they simulated too? They would have to be if were "definitely" simulated.

You're a retard.

>>8730804
Bayes theorem

>>8747926
>implying it's not simulations all the way down

>>8746619
Multiverse excludes god from existing within.
Unless he is like the admin to a bunch of servers and he swears he loves them very much equally but honestly favours a few among the bunch and updates their code more regularly.

>>8725500
>>8725502
>the simulation is so good that its find and replace didn't match our memories for some reason and change those too

File: willard_van_orman_quine.jpg (43KB, 325x495px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 325x495px

>>8725486

1) A hypothesis that we can live in a simulation requires a phenomenalistic conceptual scheme, which is less simple than physicalistic one.

2) Even under phenomenalistic conceptual scheme, a variant of a world in which we do not live in simulation is simpler than the contraty.

>>8747926
>You're a retard
It's retards calling other retards retards all the way down.

Anyway, as was said, there is probably a "base" reality in the simulation chain. We just happen not to be in it.

It's interesting to consider where THAT reality came from though. Given an infinite number of possibilities, a reality so organized is actually likely to occur.

>>8746071
>>8746480
>>8746562
>>8746619
All of those presume causality and existence of time dimension outside our universe.

File: IMG_0605.png (88KB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 260x260px

>>8741730

File: zack-300x171.jpg (13KB, 300x171px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x171px

>>8725486
EXPLAIN GRAVITY QUICK 3 SECONDS

>>8741416
This

>>8748309
We don't know any of this. You're confusing your silly fantasy with reality. There's no good reason to think we really live in a simulation. This is not even pseudo-science, it's religion.

>>8749179
No. It's SPECULATION. God when did they pass the law making it illegal to speculate?

>>8749186
It's baseless speculation, which is entirely worthless.

>>8749190
Okay. No one is forcing you to engage in it. I don't know why you're complaining.

>>8749193
Because this is a board about science, and I'm sick of seeing shitposts about unscientific claims like these.

>>8749197
Nick Bostrom
Elon Musk
A pretty long list of well-known scientists . . . . . . | | . . . . . You

I think I'd rather hear what people in the first column have to say, even if it's baseless according to you.

>>8749200
>Nick Bostrom
>Elon Musk
hahahahaha! I thought you were being serious here. I'm glad to see all of this is just a joke.

>>8725497

this. the burden of proof is on the person making the claim

furthermore, even if we are living in a simulation, there are still universal laws underneath whatever artifice

ie. the simulation is still real on some level

Assume we live in a simulation. A simulation is linear and maps the simulation vector space S^n to real life space, R^n. The mapping is one-to-one but not onto. Take for example the fact that I am trying to use fancy words from my linear algebra class. Thus we are not in a simulation