>tfw will always be a ghost trapped inside a meatcage, who

Sometimes I like imagining that this simulation is inside another simulation inside another simulation inside yet another one and so on for infinity until it loops back around. Spooks me out.

>>8765470
that's cool.

>trapped

Read some Alan Watts, you insufferable faggot.

File: pepethisisntweed.png (6KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 205x246px

>>8765470
>tfw you live in a set, that is not a member of itself, of all sets that are not members of themselves

File: iuBFXU4ISM.jpg (19KB, 468x295px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 468x295px

>>8765463
You will always be a ghost inside a meatcage that Is covered in tiny bacterial mini meatghosts and viral missiles/funghi that are all using your body, house and atmosphere as their ultimate RTS game.

I don't get the people that are sure that we live in a simulation.

Until now people used to think that the universe needed a creator and a master because they, as humans, popped out of a vagina and had a mother and a father and extrapolated that the universe must have one of those too.

But now people hear about simulations and machine learning and programming all the time and they're thinking "oh, we must live in a simulation because it's possible to simulate an universe in our universe".


How can you say that it's certain that we live in a simulation when a simulation implies that there's is an impassable information barrier between our universe and the one that simulates us?

Can a computer program communicate with the outside world if it's not allowed? Let's say you have a computer that only has inputs and no outputs, how can the program being run on the computer "break free" or at least find out that it's being simulated? Even if it has an output, like it should, since it's a simulation, what if the output will only come out when the simulation is over? What if the output will only communicate a limited amount of statistical information to the simulator universe? Therefore we cannot communicate with it.

This is just a version of the "my mother birthed me through her vagina so the universe was born out of a cosmic vagina too" but upgraded, with a sci-fi twist.

>>8765737
To be fair, there were numerous hacks demoed recently of virtual machines and privilege escalations:

https://it.slashdot.org/story/17/03/19/0126257/edge-vmware-safari-and-ubuntu-linux-hacked-at-pwn2own-2017

In principle, if a universe is designed, then the design may have flaws that permit either escape or violations, as long as the universe above is of a self-similar type (or if we find there's an information-"reality" interface, like if a self-propagating virus found a way to 3d-print a body)

>>8765749
true, but if a race is capable of simulating an universe don't you think they'd be more advanced than that? even here on earth we have software that is almost bug free thanks to techniques such as 100% inline code with no subroutines, no needless OOP or encapsulation or code re-use and by trying to be as functional as possible. I know that mathematically it is impossible to prove that a program is bug free for all possible inputs and even for a finite amount it's impractical, but if it's done carefully and by using whatever techniques such an advanced creatures would have it could be done.

http://number-none.com/blow/blog/programming/2014/09/26/carmack-on-inlined-code.html

Quote:
Indeed, if memory serves (it’s been a while since I read about this)…
The fly-by-wire flight software for the Saab Gripen (a lightweight fighter) went a step further. It disallowed both subroutine calls and backward branches, except for the one at the bottom of the main loop. Control flow went forward only. Sometimes one piece of code had to leave a note for a later piece telling it what to do, but this worked out well for testing: all data was allocated statically, and monitoring those variables gave a clear picture of most everything the software was doing. The software did only the bare essentials, and of course, they were serious about thorough ground testing.
No bug has ever been found in the “released for flight” versions of that code.

Henry Spencer
[email protected]

>>8765749
Are you daring to imply that "The God Admins" code is less than superb and has EXPLOITS!??!?!?

If we live in a simulation,

NOTHING we learn, know, feel, or develop here

WILL BEAR ANY MEANING TO THE SIMULATION WORLD.

For example, logical axioms like "something cant came from nothing; it must have a reason!" and "nothing can be infinite" would be just parameters in the simulations and would not necessarily hold truth in outside simulation.

I repeat. Simulation person cant find out any information about the outside world with absolute certainty. I mean he can guess some few things and end up being right, but he wasnt certain. Just like guessing a lottery number right; you didnt *know* it.

Blows my mind everytime i realize that something exists in the first place. Like, why is there something, rather than nothing? And i can't even put into words how i feel realizing that something is in order, follows rules and is beautiful.

>>8765761
Unless the simulation included a reflection of the outside world. The admin cannot make what he has not seen before. Ergo. The guess is 100 percent right.

>>8765729
The Admin is using your body to play mini games.

O_O

>>8765764
>The admin cannot make what he has not seen before.
how is this any different from saying that "because i have a mom the universe must have one too"?

you're extrapolating from the information we see around us, you're comparing a possible creature who designed this simulation of our universe to a regular guy on this planet

extrapolating is just silly when it comes to such incredibly complex problems, sure, it helps a bit, but extrapolating becomes useless when you reach the quantum level, imagine how useless it is to extrapolate when you're trying to describe the possible THING that created a simulation of this entire fucking universe

>>8765764
>The admin cannot make what he has not seen before

Human admin cant make something he hasnt seen before.

Alien admin could make something he hasnt seen before.

There's no definite reason why alien admin with ability to make something he hasnt seen before would rather make reflection of his own.

>>8765463
> tfw it's turtles all the way down

I actually believe we live in a prerendered simulation. That is because the computing power to simulate the universe is larger, than you could possibly build. To build a computer that is capable to simulate something as large and complex as our universe, you would probably need every single atom in our universe to build that computer.

This problem can be solved though if we assume the universe is prerendered, e.g. we live in a determined universe. This also fits nicely with our understanding of physics. People may not like it, but its the most plausible scenario. Once the simulation ends, the creators are probably going to change some minor things, run it again, until whatever purpose the simulations is supposed to serve is served.

>>8765764
Human admin likes pussy and fapts to youporn daily.

Do you think the extra-universal alien god guy fapts to his race's equivalent of youporn? how do you think his dick looks like? do you think his dick looks just like a human's dick?

>tfw my dick looks like our alien sysadmin's god's dick

feels good man

>>8765784
>i'm explaining the simulating universe by comparing it to what's happening on our planet right now
>a planet that's part of a solar system
>that's part of a galaxy
>a galaxy that's just one out of hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies that are incredibly far away from each other, in our observable universe

i don't get it

it's like an ant trying to explain human scientific advancement by comparing it to the piles of ant shit that gather in an ant hill

illogical

>>8765790
>the humans are feeble and tiny creatures argument

Wrong. Humans practically know the structure of the entire universe, expect for few singularities, symmetry breakings, and dark energy. Get on with the times boy. Humans are magnificent creatures, soon controlling the galaxy and then the universe.

>>8765812
it's not about that, it's about comparing a tiny component of a simulation that is adapting to the rest of the simulation with its creator, a potential creator (if it exists)

sure they're magnificent, but how does a magnificent adapting organism compare to the creature who designed and simulated everything?