Simulation

>>8848221

No point in asking because there's no logical necessity for a homology between mechanics as presented to the simulated, actual mechanics governing the simulated, and the mechanics of the universe containing the simulator.

go to bed elon

>>8848221
It's highly likely
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

It's been peer reviewed by many

Brian weathersons critique:
http://brian.weatherson.org/sims.pdf

Bostroms rebuttal to the critique:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/weathersonreply.pdf


Basically if it's possible to simulate a universe, we're most likely simulated

>>8848873
And by current estimates it's possible

File: UgTefaA.jpg (105KB, 700x717px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 700x717px

>>8848873
>It's highly likely
As anon points out here >>8848225 looking at THIS universe can't tell us anything about the "parent" simulating universe.
"Muh simulated universe" is unfalsifiable, and suitable only for round-the-bong intellectual masturbation.

>>8848897
Bostrom argued for ancestor simulations.
That's THIS universe simulating what could've happened in the past.

Implying a different universe would of course make it a possibility, yet ancestor simulation brings it to "can we eventually simulate a universe" from "how many other universes are there and what are they"

So it is, in fact, justifiable, and can be falsified.

>>8848909

But "ancestor simulations" are only 1 possible set of simulations in an infinite set of possible simulation categories.

For all you know, this could be the equivalent of some autist's simulation for the purpose of examining the development of plant biota on a planet a few galactic clusters away.

>But why would our area be simulated?

Because the simulator is autistic and wants to cover the possibility of extra-galactic beings influencing the local area in various ways.

There, we now have two out of infinity. Do you want to dredge up the rest of it?

>>8848960
No you autist. It's argued that our far descendants simulated the big bang and what could've been.
Even if they only simulated two universes, any universe chosen at random has a 2/3 chance of being simulated.

It's hypothesized that the number of simulations will approach infinity as does time so really any particular universes chance of being base reality is lim X->inf 1/X

IF simulating a universe is possible

File: cicada.jpg (135KB, 475x363px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 475x363px

>>8848221
Dark Current theory suggests this is a simulation. There is a possibility that we have finally stumbled with a place that doesn't follow the established rules of physics as we know them. An "edge" to our universe, if you will.

Probability also suggests this is a simulation. If there is an original universe and an infinite number of simulations within simulations chances are we are not living in the real one.

For all we know, our Creators may be trying to communicate with a few of us:
https://youtu.be/qZQanP2WgJQ

File: ade.png (144KB, 545x329px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 545x329px

>>8849000
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4xys0D9LNC8
Embedded Fibonacci Sequence
Song plays the same when reversed
Could be made by a Human
Then again, maybe not

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4xys0D9LNC8

File: 467.png (312KB, 389x386px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 389x386px

yes, and unless you're another engineer testing suspension of disbelief fail-safes of IDSOs with me, you shouldn't be able to tell. intellectually dynamic simulated organisms with a decently high weight in the abstraction metric have the reasoning abilities to figure out that this is a simulation, but by IDSO design the concept SHOOOULD be impossible to grasp, no matter how easy it is to infer projection information from dark matter data.

could somebody please explain to me how dark matter is evidence of projection to me so I know that the intellectual dynamics of this procedurally generated race need to be tweaked or removed?

>>8849026

God, just give me eternal life and a harem of lolis that can out survive Entropy.

Please God, I might actually buy one of those stupid sex dolls.

>>8849000
probability is pseudoscience. it isn't real and doesn't derive factual conclusions.

>>8849023
prime numbers are not an inherent abstraction and it is not necessarily true that an intelligent being would recognize them as anything other than procedural noise. "divisibility" is not inherent to the universe.

>>8849032
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/Real-World/dawson_talk.PDF

>>8849039
yes, yes. nice opinion and nice article that talks about the implications of the opinion. I could post similar articles perpetuating flat earth hypothesis or write one myself about the inevitable subterranean unicorn invasion or some other unfalsifiable claim. I wouldn't pretend that such articles were proof of the concept's existence, instead I would make an argument if I had one.

sometimes when I open my eyes. My vision is pixelated and the picture has to widen and clear up for a second.

>>8849055
It's not an article about the simulated reality but the real world applications of probability to the different scientific fields. (Since you said probability is unscientific)

You didn't even open the link fucktard.

>>8849068
I didn't claim that it was about simulated reality. I pointed out that the applications of probability to science have subjective merit, and that that is an article defending the positivist opinion. subjectivity is commonly used in science, that's where hypotheses come from in the first place, but probability does derive facts within itself.

if you had an argument, you would present it instead of link me to articles.

>>8849077
probability does not* derive facts within itself, excuse me

>>8849077
Subjective or not it has real world applications that have improved human life.

>>8849084
are metrics of human "well-being"(a subjective concept in the first place) supposed to be supportive of or even relevant to whether or not probability derives factual conclusions?

>>8848221
Simfags are close but not right. It's true that something capable of information processing is what creates the universe but it has to be capable of more than that. It needs to be capable of subjective experience as well. That's why the universe isn't a simulation but a dream, being dreampt up by the perfect mind, God.

>>8849166
>being dreampt up by the perfect mind, God.

How do you know the dreamer is perfect? What is the evidence against imperfection?

Literally not worth thinking about. If we get close to figuring it out they'll just patch it.

Sure is unfalsifiable in here

>>8849174
How else could it keep the dream following the same rules so perfectly? When we dream it is random and chaotic but this dream of reality follows rigid rules. I am just assuming God must be perfect if he is capable of making a dream like that.

>>8849186
>I am just assuming God must be perfect if he is capable of making a dream like that.

But you have no notion of the infinite range of possible universes. This dream may seem like perfection but it's the wrong word to use when dealing with an infinite range of infinite arrangements of infinite objects and the possible combinations of finite elements that approach infinity.

>How else could it keep the dream following the same rules so perfectly?

Your reference point is a finite arrangement of elements. It's not your place to call it "perfect" unless done in some ecstatic spirit of gratitude. But does the mouse, that suddenly find itself suffocated by a snake, call its universe of sensations "perfect"?

>>8849193

CONT

>When we dream it is random and chaotic but this dream of reality follows rigid rules.

Maybe that "randomness" and "Chaos" reflect a far higher order system of logics than normal logic.

>>8849193
I see what you mean, I guess I just meant it would be "perfect" compared to us. Like God is the perfect mind relative to us but maybe relative to something else it is not. What I mean is that if you took a human mind and made it as perfect as imaginable God would at least be as perfect as that mind.

>>8849203

I understand. There's the concept of Boltzmann brains after all.

But the veil of Maya favors puts a proverbial "fog of war" when trying to conceptualize not only our local problem space but possible sets of them.

Maybe we're a bubble in a Buddha's bath.

>>8849065
my vision is constantly somewhat pixelated, am i seeing into the simulation

>>8848897
>our tech reaches a level where it can simulate the entire universe down to the quantum level
>we run said simulation
There are two scenarios that follow:
A) nothing happens and we watch our simulated universe evolve
B) the sudden increase in processing power requirements for the computer simulating our current universe causes the simulation we inhabit to crash or at the very least render in a lower fidelity.

So it is falsifiable, we just have to create a computer capable of simulating enough shit that our ancestor simulation cant cope with simulating our simulation along with the rest of our universe simultaneously.

>>8848221
A simulation could never be vast enough to contain ur mum

>>8849065
>>8849769
If this is a simulation and you report pixelated vision the most likely explanation is that you are so unimportant that it isnt worth the computing power required to simulate you, so theyve bumped your brain to a lower power consumption subroutine.

File: fh6r9t9SU2MvczG1Mrxc_Confused Ice Cube THUMB.jpg (27KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 308x308px

>>8850982
>lipsmackintensifies

>>8848221
Why would you even consider something for which there is no evidence, and can't be?

Hypotheses non fingo

>>8849032
>probability is pseudoscience
i am triggered

>>8849769
>>8849065
visual snow

i have it too

File: K6oMm.gif (576KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 400x300px

>>8850982
holy shit anon

File: Chart_97_rgb_500pxlH.jpg (74KB, 283x500px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 283x500px

>>8848221