Check mate atheists

If it is all a simulation then how can you be sure of the rules that prove it is a simulation?

shitty troll is shitty

alternatively, OP might be in high school

>>8980013
And why is that? I believe that I make a valid points.
attack the idea not the fucking persona, this is why we have imageboards ffs

>>8980011
I can't.
Doesn't stop me from trying to know, didn't stop any scientist from trying to understand the laws of physics until they were facts.

>>8980016
no, you don't have a point because you literally don't know what you're talking about.

I'm perfectly fine with arguing with a point that I disagree with in a polite manner, but you *literally* do not understand the subject material, and I'm not here to do your homework for you.

Your comments aren't even wrong. The facts in your post are wrong. Your interpretation of quantum mechanics is high school meme tier.

>>8980006
>everything is uncertain until
quite the opposite,
Schrödinger's wave equation is perfectly deterministic,
the uncertain thingy is the moment of observation

>>8980021
wow dude nice post

>>8980025
the only deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics (that is even remotely mainstream) is pilot wave theory. The other interpretations aren't secretly deterministic at all.

>>8980028
kek you beat me to it.
+1

>>8980024
Then why don't you just fucking correct me, instead of being an asshat about it.
>high school meme tier
k

What a fucking great thread OP.

>>8980028
Sadly we don't know enough facts yet to determine which theory is correct.
I have seen so many fucking people just choose what suits their "deterministic" mind kek

>>8980037
personally I hope pilot wave theory is the successful interpretation, but I recognize that this is just my human desire for things to make intuitive sense and not an actual scientific observation

>>8980034
Correcting you would require literally teaching you the entirety of quantum theory from the ground up and ain't nobody got time for that. You have access to the entire wealth of human knowledge in another fucking tab. Go for it champ.

>>8980047
> I hope pilot wave theory is the successful interpretation

>what is double slit experiment?

It may be a bit egotistical to consider computers as this important, considering they haven't been around long at all in the grand scheme of time. However, it seems humans have a drive for understanding that is largely being fulfilled with computer simulation and modeling. Computers are the best way for us to simulate our universe. People even simulate shit for fun ala the Sims and all the other simulator games. It isn't hard to see where this is heading. Once computers become advanced enough and enough data is gathered, we would at least try to make a full scale computer simulation if our universe. It would teach us everything if we made it right. Even if we didn't, it would still be interesting. The masters watching their creations interact and evolve, discover and create.

What if we were that simulation, and our goal is to make another simulation? If you think of it like that, what if our master simulation runners are merely slaves of simulation runners with better computers? Where does it start? Where does it end? The computer simulation hypothesis has no real basis other than conjecture, but it is still fun to think about.

>>8980050
wow a bunch of scientists forgot about the most famous QM experiment

oh wait no they didn't, you're retarded and can't use a search engine, this was literally the first result on DDG

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-does-the-pilot-wave-theory-explain-the-double-slit-experiment.732604/

"The pilot wave theory has 3 assumptions
1) the pilot wave, which behaves deterministically and in the same way as the wave function of quantum mechanics
2) particles with definite positions, which are deterministically influenced by the pilot wave
3) random distribution of initial positions, even for the same pilot wave"

I'm not saying it's the truth, but holy shit "did these guys even think about the DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT? man, they're so dumb. I'm so smart."

>>8980058
a full scale simulation of our universe couldn't be done by a computer inside our universe

what is information theory

>>8980062
>being this autistic

>>8980065
it's more autistic to have fantasy dreams about technology because computers are magic and can simulate the universe because why not

>>8980062
lol wut?
>>8980058
I believe that the fact that we even know about simulations at all in this universe rises the chance that we are in a simulation.

If something is not imaginable in the real(real world) then it can't exist here.

>>8980067
Why couldn't a computer simulate a universe?

>>8980073
It can simulate a universe.
Proof? The Sims, that's a universe.

However it can't simulate a universe bigger than our universe, that defies logic.

>>8980073
I don't think you understand the scale at which things are happening here. You can barely even get a coherent computer once you get over a certain size because electrical signals can't travel faster than light. How the hell can you simulate a universe, which requires incredibly complicated math for all points at all times forever? And there is no "haha it's only rendering when you look at it" shortcut because this is demonstrably false.

The idea of a reality simulation is nonsensical at the outset.

>>8980062
>>8980067
>>8980077
Well you'd just have to tone it down a little. Maybe not atom for atom and wave for wave. Play around with the Planck length and speed of light. Besides, not everything would need to be simulated. If there is no observer that can see it, who cares?

>>8980077
It can't simulate a universe like ours or one with near our level of complexity.

Of course, simulating artificial universes like the Sims, Dwarf Fortress, or various cellular automata universes is not out of the question, or would simulating a universe containing even sentient beings be automatically impossible. But simulating anything like our universe? Nonsense.

>>8980081
That's the idea pretty much

a rule of thumb is that no universe can create a universe bigger than itself or the one that simulates it.

>>8980081
You can't just simulate it at a lower resolution. Things don't work like that. Very complicated and meaningful phenomenon have specifically quantum causes. You can't "play with the Planck length and the speed of light", this is meme physics. Changing the speed of light doesn't even change anything. Everything else adjusts along with it, since the speed of light is just the speed of causality.

>>8980081
I just got this idea.
what if?
the speed of light is the technological limit of the universe that created this possible simulation. that's why it's the speed limit.

>>8980081
>>8980087 (You)
what I mean to say is that you can't just simulate a quantum universe at a different resolution, you can surely create a universe which is sort of similar but the people inhabiting it would notice eventually.

If you make the Sims complicated enough that the people become sentient and their universe becomes meaningful to simulate and for them to manipulate, then that would be some manner of simulation, but they would notice pretty quickly that things are fucked up and that they're in a simulation.

>>8980088
uh, no, sorry. Good try though, it's an interesting thought, but the "speed of light" isn't actually special at all.

>>8980090
You don't get it.
What I mean by that is that's the limit of their technology
kind of like the moore's law.

Just like the computers in the sims can't be faster than our computers.

>>8980090
And yes, the speed of light is special. it's the limit of how fast information can travel without taking shortcuts like wormholes

>>8980095
no, YOU don't get it. The speed of light isn't special and it would change exactly nothing if the speed of light were doubled or cut in half. In fact it isn't even meaningful to talk about the speed of light having any other measurement.

>>8980089
Sure they'd notice eventually. It seems we are noticing now. What is this three spatial dimension bullshit? Why can't we go fast?
>>8980090
The speed of light determines among other things:
How much of the universe we can see
How fast our computers are (this is part of the reason we can't have xboxhueg processors)
How far we can travel and how fast we can communicate
And basically a whole bunch of other shit

>>8980096
What I mean by "the speed of light isn't special" is that it's not an independent variable. Literally everything else is defined in terms of c. You can't meaningfully fiddle with it, and even if you could, not a single thing would change.

In some perspective, this privileged status makes it special, but as a variable to be changed, it's the opposite of special. It's worthless.

>>8980101
All that bluff is relative to this universe. how do you not know if the speed of light is to the hypothetical creators as the speed of sound is to us.

>>8980100
Three spatial dimensions are important because nothing works in any other number, basically. You can't meaningfully talk about a fourth dimensional universe because the very manner in which a universe develops and creates structure and order depends on its 3D-ness.

Also, see >>8980101. You can't change the speed of light because it's the foundation for the rest of it. Speed of light = speed of causality. I understand that it's important, but it's not *special* in the sense that you can make changes to the universe by modifying it, like an independent constant.

>>8980105
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE A GODDAMN DIFFERENCE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SIMULATION. THE SPEED OF LIGHT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MODIFY ANYTHING.

Now, if you want to ask a real question, you could ask whether they are simulating our universe at the same speed as our own, but it would be pointless to simulate a universe at the speeds necessary to close the gap in complexity between a full universe and a computer's capability to simulate. This isn't an order of magnitude here. It's unthinkable.

>>8980109
They just smash dat slo mo button on the jabroni box so that shit stops using 99% CPU and they can still watch porn at a good framerate

>>8980109
>IT DOESN'T MAKE A GODDAMN DIFFERENCE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SIMULATION.
It actually does. let's say we can make those electrical machines that work on light rays instead of electrons.

If the speed of light was much slower. the computer would run much slower too.
the speed would act as a limiter to the technology


get it now?

>>8980113
kek

do they have 4chan too? or would it be called 4Dchan?

>>8980114
Don't defy brainlet logic. HE WILL CAPSLOCK YOU OUTA HERE FELLA!

>>8980109
Back to the original point.

Qunatum mechanics could be the universe's method of saving "memory".

> If the speed of light was much slower. the computer would run much slower too.
the speed would act as a limiter to the technology

Except if the speed of light changed, that would also slow down our biological process exactly the same amount that computers slowed down, so we wouldn't perceive it as slower.

>>8980127
Stop please, you are confuse.

>>8980130
get out brainlet.
>>8980127
We wouldn't..

but the people who are observing the simulation would.

>>8980114
if the speed of light was slower, literally every single physical structure would scale down to that new speed, the speed of causality itself would change, the whole thing becomes exactly similar (in a mathematical sense) to the universe you had before you modified the speed of light.

"Hurr durr the slower speed of light would just change how fast my computer runs." Yeah, but if you're only changing the *speed of the simulation* then you're not changing a goddamn thing. A universe with a speed of light X and a universe with a speed of light 2X are identical for internal observers.

>>8980142
>A universe with a speed of light X and a universe with a speed of light 2X are identical for internal observers

keyword is : "INTERNAL OBSERVERS"

>>8980121
Would be far more believable as per the OP if things didn't exist prior to observation, but they do exist - in all possible states - which would seem far more complex to simulate compared to one state in a quantum-less simulation.

>>8980146
They do exist in all possible states, and also none of them.
It's called superposition bro.

>>8980149
Still seems apples to oranges to me using the OP's original premise.

For example in the double slit experiment how is memory saved in the case of no observation vs. the case of observation?

>>8980006
>If the shoe fits...
read popper

>>8980144
yes, and that's important because it means that the complexity of the universe being simulated doesn't change, so talking about the "speed of light" is stupid, you're literally just talking about the speed of execution of the simulation instead

>>8980006
But calculating the result of an interaction between two "complicated" quantum states is far more computationally difficult than evaluating the interaction between two simple eigenstates.

So this "lazy evaluation" is actually creating far more work than just working with classical particles.

All of you are stupid. If we were in a simulation. Ie a universe that wasnt infinite. Then numbers like pie will have a definite fraction. So far exe. Had not been found. Were still real... for now

>>8980028
>>8980037
>>8980047
Pilot wave is bullshit. It works for a very simple cases (like one spinless particle), but absolutely breaks apart when you try to do anything relevant (QFT).
Copenhagen is the right set of axioms, thank you very much but determinism is over.

Am I a brainlet for liking Many Worlds Interpretation?

I like to imagine myself as some little component of the Universal Wavefunction. Kinda retarded, but still makes more sense than Copenhagen.

>>8980068
Congratulations, this is the most retarded post I've ever seen on /sci/.

>>8980068
It's more that the idea had to have come from somewhere, not merely the fact that you can imagine it.

>>8980006
We have to be clear what you mean by a simulation. Are we literally in "the matrix"? Certainly not - that movie is not only as unrealistic as it gets, it's pretty much the opposite of reality. People with names like "Neo" and "Trinity"? And "Agent Smith" is the computer program?

On the other hand, are the laws of physics we know of not the absolute most fundamental way that everything stems from, but rather a "law", much like how laws are passed in the legal system, that something on some level chooses to act according to for some reason?

The latter explanation would be consistent with the fact that scientific experiments produce consistent values yet they seem like total BS on some level.

>>8980324
Yes, you're a retarded brainlet for liking many worlds. It has been a very long time since this question was settled and copenhagen was established as winner for a reason. You have much better chance in liking multiverse though.

>>8980387
I should be clear that the "thing" I was referring to is actually consciousness, a part of a person's being, not really a thing.

But if this is what one means by "simulation" (made to look consistent through artificial means on some higher level through conscious choice, but not really real), then this would be the only logical explanation consistent with what we know and see.

Now the question is, if the laws of physics aren't truly absolute, fundamental or inescapable, what are the real possibilities?

>>8980407
made to look consistent through artificial means on some higher level through conscious choice, but not really real
By design I mean, not necessarily conscious choice.

>>8980006
Now to answer the question of how this pertains to atheism.

If indeed the world we lived in were some simulation the behavior of which can be likened to a computer program, then the creator of this simulation would within the context of the simulation would have the role of a god, but not so in reality. A "god" here refers to which defines what is right or wrong, how things work and what goes on.

This is why there are so many delusional faggots in places like the Bay Area - they think their computer world is real life and that they themselves are literally gods.

>>8980087
Is the speed of light just the maximum propagation rate of the fastest cellular automaton shape that exists within the next level universe's simulation framework?

>>8980407
>Now the question is, if the laws of physics aren't truly absolute, fundamental or inescapable, what are the real possibilities?
This basically

The only other possibility is probabilistic laws of physics

It's either determinism or randomness

>>8980430
In the context of a simulated universe, the speed of light would be just like the speed limit of a road, a speed you can't exceed or the cops come get you. ("law of physics" <-> "law of the land")

File: 1469120574826.jpg (131KB, 742x742px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 742x742px

>>8980435
Love this post tbqh lads

File: sat-reading-scores.gif (20KB, 640x432px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 640x432px

>>8980028
Garbage. Relative state is deterministic in that the wave function is everything and it evolves deterministically.

Measurements at a macro come out probabilistic because measure theory stuff and decoherence.

But at a fundamental level the world underlying things is deterministic.

Copenhagen must be the most philosophically incoherent theory ever.

> requires classical apparatus to do a measurement of a quantum system
> don't look too hard, nothing to see here

>>8980273
Who said that by being in a simulation doesn't make the universe infinite?

If the "creators" have the technology to make such and advanced simulation, what say they can't make infinite loops without running out of memory?

>>8980387
We are not talking about the matrix at all.
What we are talking about is the idea of a the possibility of us being in a random simulation. That we can study and "predict" using quantum mechanics

shameless self bump

>>8980435
Which is why you go offroad if you want meme it.

>>8980006
pop sci/pseudoscience crap belongs to reddit.
GTFO

>>8980395
>You have much better chance in liking multiverse though.

What are you even talking about?

And no, these issues are not decided. Many notable physicists prefer MWI to Copenhagen. David Deutsch has even proposed experiments (currently unfeasible) that can test the validity of the two against each other.

>>8980483
Its absurd how people think Copenhagen is so great.

MWI will forever sound retarded in comparison because brainlets can't ignore all the stupid sci-fi pop-sci memes about parallel universes and shit.

>>8980006

>quantum mechanics is the way for the simulation to save "graphical memory"

you couldnt be more wrong, quantum mechanics is MUCH harder to simulate than classical physics, especially for more complex systems

so it does not "save any memory" at all, rather the opposite extreme is true, to simulate a quantum world you need to compute a huge number of possibilities, properly sum over them etc.

it is computationally a VERY inefficient way to "run a universe"

quantum theory makes the universe being a simulation LESS probable when compared to classical physics, and significantly so

http://backreaction.blogspot.sk/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html


Universe being a simulation is an attractive idea for computer savvy people but I am afraid nature simply does not seem to care about computational efficiency at all

>>8981241
Exactly.

The "we live in a simulation because QM and lazy evaluation" is a CS brainlet meme.

Leave /sci/ and never return if you actually believe this.

>>8981190
You mean crackpots, right? Interpretation of probability densities didn't change with QM, only the laws of their calculation did. The wave function doesn't represent anything real, it's just a black box we use to calculate probabilities. I don't get how people are struggling with probability theory in anno domini 2017. If you really want to believe that our universe isn't the only one, multiverse is the thing to shill. But considering you're struggling with copenhagen, strings really aren't for you and by the time you'd get to the juicy stuff, multiverse might already be (dis)proven.

does a bug watching count as observation?

>>8981471
yes.

File: Kowi_a83685_6301203.gif (130KB, 468x474px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 468x474px

>>8980483
>because measure theory
Lel

>>8981446
Copenhagen involves an instantaneous wavefunction collapse. It also has the philosophical problem of what constitutes and observer and an observation.

By no means compelling, but it doesn't matter anyway. When I'm doing QM I honestly am thinking in terms of Copenhagen on an intuitive level. It goes very nicely with the formalism. But still, it leaves much to be desired.

Imagine the wavefunction of the entire universe evolving according to the Schrodinger Equation. There are no external observers to make an observation and "collapse" it so it just continues to evolve deterministically. This is basically the Many Worlds Interpretation as Everett presented it originally.

>>8981673
There's no real problem with instantaneous collapse of wave function. Heisenberg made it very clear what the collapse means and why it's not an issue that it "happens" faster than the speed of light. The wave function is subjective to the observer and anything that happens to it is too. This affects observables as well- the H evolves the density matrix, so it tells us which states are observables. The realized state can not be pre-determined, it is always determined at the exact point of spacetime. Once you measure the state, it's retarded to keep the other around and use them just because. Again, MWI boils down to misunderstanding of probabilities or perhaps to philosophical bias against copenhagen. As for observers, decoherence is the answer.

>>8981718
>at the exact point of spacetime
Should be "at the exact point of spacetime when you take the measurement" in case it's not clear.

A simulation would require binary code, which is uncertainties of interpreters information, not uncertainties. I'm not even an Atheist and I'm pointing out your shit son.

>>8981784
On phone, autocorrect fucking butchered my post.
Ahem,
"which is defined certainties of interpretted information"

The simulation would be on a quantum computer but most things just wouldn't have really existed like, the dinosaurs never really existed. Yeah there are fossils but they were never rendered. They were calculated for in a probablistic way. In fact nothing except for your own experience has ever been totally rendered. Even most of that hasn't been. There are levels of complexity and almost everything is sort of coded like a Linkin Park song so everything fits. For example nothing someone in another universe ever did will have any relevance to you no matter what. So while other planets may have 'life' it doesn't even matter. Even most of human history hasn't been rendered yet because you've yet to come into contact with it. At some point black people began demanding rights but your experience of it is dependent on everything else you've done. Most choices limit exactly how much specific knowledge one can acquire. One can spend their whole lives reading about everything but they won't have any 'real world' experiences of those things.

Tldr your reality is an illusion and only a very partial one

>>8980006
>How is quantum uncertainty not proof that we live in a simulation?

It just means that we can't measure shit really accurately at that scale.

>>8981830
>it means the measurements aren't accurate on that scale
>/pol/ can't into science
EEEMAGINE MY SCHOCK

>>8981830
Read up about quantum theory please.
>"My mind can't comprehend undeterministic things because it's built upon recognizing patterns"
>"SCIENCE IS WRONG AND WE DON'T KNOW SHIT"

>>8981826
wat the fug is this retaredededed shit?

>>8980426
FUCK OFF AND LAUNCH SPACE SHIPS WHILE MINING URANIUM REEEEEEE

>>8981241
ever heard of qbits retard? quantum computers are much faster in solving certain problems.

The simulation can not be a normal computer that runs on simple transistors of ones and zeros.

>>8980006
>Quantum phenomena meaning anything on a macroscale
>Implying if we are in a simulation that whatever is generating our universe has to operate under the same laws we do

We are living in a simulation and it's easy to prove.

For instance, the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws. Perhaps that is not a given, but a function of the nature of the universe we are living in. “If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical,” said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “That just reflects the computer code in which it was written.”

Furthermore, ideas from information theory keep showing up in physics. “In my research I found this very strange thing,” said James Gates, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland. “I was driven to error-correcting codes—they’re what make browsers work. So why were they in the equations I was studying about quarks and electrons and supersymmetry? This brought me to the stark realization that I could no longer say people like Max are crazy.”

File: 1496240157836.jpg (164KB, 650x1176px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 650x1176px

>>8985381
>mfw I realise I'm not even one of the quest NPCs. My role is just to do stuff in the background to make the area look busy

>>8985381
That's totally fucking circular. We need to use mathematics when we simulate things because the universe is mathematical (and our computers have to exist and run in our universe). You're saying the universe is mathematical because simulations are mathematical. But they're mathematical because the universe is mathematical.

>>8980006
if the universe is expanding faster nad faster, how long will it take to the simulation crashes? why haven't it crashed yet? it should have. it's just too much information contained in the entirety of the universe for it to be simulated unless the universe isn't infinite.

File: 1488557504693.jpg (61KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x800px

>>8980006
>Quantum uncertainty is a bit similar to a human invention that we use for rendering anime titties
>Therefore we are in a simulation

>>8980068
>using the conceivability of something as evidence of its existence

muh flying pigs