How do you prove that this isn't real?

you dont

>>9089889
You literally can't, fucking cretin.

kill yourself to see if the simulation ends.

what happens in this scenario if you kill yourself?

Just because something isn't true does not mean that it is possible to PROVE it isn't true. This is a very basic scientific concept.

The idea of Descartes evil demon is unfalsifiable.

Why the fuck do these threads keep happening? Go away

>you will never find a bug in the simulation and break out

>>9089908
Summer is almost over.

>>9089903
System reboot, new simulation begins. Its the easiest way to keep humanity (everything outside of the brain isnt considered human seeing as everyone was augmented) going seeing as the AI cannot harm or kill humans.

>>9089889
>Your conscious is simulated
>A consciousness has to have created the simulation by definition, unless you believe the simulation came by about itself and that argument would condense to "you have no free will"
>for now we assume an evil genius who has a conscience is simulating yours
>but if the geniuses conscience exists it was either simulated or it just is
>believe as many regressions as you want
>well at some point the regression ends, where conscious is just a symptom of what is
>but if consciousness exists without simulation then why not you?
something like that

>>9089889
Prove it's real

>>9089934
Sorry but philosophy belongs on >>>/x/

>>9089889
Well you cant proove but Occam's razor would tell you it's unlikely. Also it's highly unlikely anyone would go through the trouble of keeping a brain alive for 50+ years just to simulate a boring life of mediocrity for said brain. Whats the motive here? I mean sure someone might want to torture the brain, or simulate some fantastically interesting life for it like an advanced sims game. If you live a fairly normal life you can assume nobody is simulating it for your brain in a jar because it would be a waste of time and energy. The far more likely scenario, which you (and the person who made that image) probably misunderstood, is that no part of the system that is you is real. The brain, its consiousness, the atoms its made of, and the entire universe those atoms exist in are nothing but 1s and 0s in the computer of a basement dwelling faggot, like yourself, who exists in a far more advnced civilization capable of such simulations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

>>9089954
Occam's Razor says the simulation theory is fucking retarded and you should kys

>>9089889
>It's another "OP rediscovers the evil demon problem" thread
Please keep this shitposting contained to >>>/his/ At least we have the decency not to shitpost about IQ there

>>9089963
Sorry about your butthurt but science related threads will remain in /sci/ no matter how hard you cry.

>>9089961
Does it though? It implies higher levels of reality sure, but if we consider this universe to be the farthest extent of reality we can ever interact with, then simulation theory really simplifies the whole "how/why was the universe created?" question.

>>9089971
>simulation theory really simplifies the whole "how/why was the universe created?" question.
Not by a long shot. There always has to be some ultimate reality and you're just shifting the question to that one.
It's literally inconceivable that there is another reality where "how did everything come about" has a clear, straightforward answer.

>>9089971
"Simulated Reality" theory requires:
1. An external reality in which it's possible to run the simulation
2. An intelligent agency capable of running the simulation
3. A reason for that intelligence to run the simulation
4. An explanation why that reality isn't also a simulation (or, go to step 1 for that reality.)

"Not Simulated Reality" theory requires:
1. Us to exist.

Occam's razor.

>>9089889
It can't be real because reality cannot be a simulation.

>>9089961
>>9089989
Occam's razor is just a convenient rule of thumb. Many things in the universe are more complicated than you might expect if you didn't have full information.

>>9090006
>occam's razor says your theory is unlikely, but this other theory is way more likely
>occam's razor says your theory is unlikely too
>well, you can't use occam's razor for everything guys, i mean, come on

>>9090027
occams theory says youre a faggit

>>9090032
Only in theory.

>>9089889
It is obviously a drawing you tard.

>>9090006
if you go from machine learning though, you will see that maximum likelihood tends to minimise description lengths.

The simulation question is most certainly simple and pointless but anyways

You could eventully get out of the simulation and also enter the real world with enough technology developed...

Because the brain generating the simulation is made of the same particles that also exist on the real world (duh) so unless you are talking theres some magic separating the both realms it'd be possible to do that..

In this case it'd be better having a 3D printer connected to the simulator

>>9089889
Because there is no plug on that tower unit so it's clearly a fake.

>>9089889
who would do this?

>>9090077
Someone that still uses MS paint.

Can someone skip the bullshit and tell me what kind of device can simulate an infinitely big universe with an infinitely divisible timescale made up of infinitely divisible building blocks?
Answers like "might be like this" are outside the realm of science.

>>9090089
iPhone 8.

>>9090089
That's not necessary, all that's necessary is to simulate the subjective experience of a single brain (you)

>>9090089
>infinitely big universe
>infinitely divisible timescale
>infinitely divisible building blocks
You probably couldn't simulate THAT universe.

Of course, none of that is true for THIS universe, so who knows?

>>9090095
sooo everyone else is bullshit? I'm gonna need you to prove it.

Idk. It's lazy, unfalsifiable, and kind of pointless. What difference would it make. We have no idea what the point of our universe is as it stands it may as well be a video game.

>>9090027
Those were two different anons you responded too. I was the one who originally brought up occams razor. Im not this anon however
>>9090006

File: evoking-excellence-through-agile-coaching-28-638[1].jpg (59KB, 638x359px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 638x359px

>>9090113
>What difference would it make
it would make all the difference in the >world

>>9090120

You can't even derive a single bit of evidence that it's a legitimate theory, and you think you are going to make the leap towards attaining 4th dimensional understanding and ability

this belongs in /x/

>>9090121
you didn't even know the difference between our assumed reality and a simulated reality. you don't even have enough background knowledge to get involved in these discussions.

back to >>>/b/

>>9090128

science fiction

>>9089889
I never understood the point of this thought experiment.

It's like - yeah, okay, well, how can you prove that our universe isn't actually just an atom for some immeasurably larger universe? The scale is unreasonable, and it literally can't be "proven wrong", just like how you can't prove that there isn't a dragon sleeping in the core of the Earth.

If the point is to get people questioning reality and perception, and thinking about existentialism, I like analogies that hit a little closer to home, like:
How do you prove that you aren't the unwitting actor in some reality show, "Truman Show"-style, having your every moment filmed by unseen recorders, with everyone else you see being an actor or extra, and places like Paraguay and Botswana and Irkutsk don't even exist, because you've never been there to prove they haven't, and most celebrities are just CG and photoshop because you can't actually see or touch them to prove they're real?

Just find very unusual patterns happening in you're or our world then u can prove it

File: Teslathinker.jpg (21KB, 220x283px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 220x283px

>>9089889
If it is a simulation in a traditional sense then you can exacerbate limits and find glitches etc in the machine. Up to and not including updates.

The very machinations of the biological brain prevent the repetition of certain patterns due to it's very "design" If you believe in such a thing and as such, once you "break" the simulation in any way shape or form you can realize it.

Some have in jest, stated that mathematicians are such men because they have out counted the admins of the matrix.

Get a concussion or some form of brain injury. If it doesn't hurt your brain, then you're in a virtual reality. A computer can make you think you're in pain on the body, but it can't damage the brain.

File: A man.jpg (316KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1000x563px

>>9090164
A man walks into a mirror room.
A man walks into a mirror.
A man walks into a.
A man walks into.
A man walks.
A man.
A room walks into a mirror man.
A room mirrors a walks into a man.
A mirror room into a man walks.
A walks into a mirror a man.
Mirror walks into a man a room.
Room walks into a mirror a man.
Room walks a a man mirror.

>>9090173
Funky

>>9089889
Brain-in-a-vat disproves itself.
It's not specifically about being a brain in a vat, it's about not being able to prove your senses are reliable. This could all be real, or you could be dreaming, or you could be a computer program, or you could be a brain in a vat getting sensory input from electric probes.
But an actual brain in a vat has the same problem. How does it know it's a brain in a vat and not a real person dreaming it's a brain in a vat? It doesn't.
Assuming you're a brain in a vat you can not justify believing you're a brain in a vat. So it's a reasoning dead end.
Assuming you're not a brain in a vat (your senses give true/accurate information about the world) you can justify believing you're not a brain in a vat so it all works out, unless your senses tell you you are a brain in a vat in which case you're in trouble.

You'd be unable to experience walking without your legs and their nervous system.

>>9090454
Those experiences are just electrical signals. In principle, you can simulate them with sufficiently advanced technology and recreate the exact sensation.

>>9089943
>Brainlet: The Post
/sci/entists who don't read philosophy are to the natural sciences what code monkeys are to computer science.

>>9089934
Okay but what if this?
>Your consciousness is simulated
>A consciousness has to have created the simulation, unless you believe the simulation came by about itself and that argument would condense to "you have no free will"
>for now we assume an evil genius who has a consciousness is simulating yours
>but if the geniuses consciousness exists it was either simulated or it just is
>believe as many regressions as you want
>or how about we believe... INFINITE regressions
>or rather... THE SAME REGRESSION REPEATEDLY
>because if everything we know is a simulation and not real then why should forward causation be real? through time OR through space
>maybe it's not. maybe the true nature of reality is such that causation is unnecessary and infinite regress is valid
>and if that should be the case, then why shouldn't the evil genius be you, at some point in your future?
>who's to say that you won't one day create this simulation, and this simulation will be the very same one you have been living in since you were born?
>who's to say there's not an infinite recursive "mirror effect" of causation, such that space, time, and "realness" all become infinite fractals?

>>9090583
>>>/h/omestuck

>>9090583
The brain in a jar hypothesis is categorically boring.
But this is just about as close to not being boring as it gets.

>>9090569
Philosophy is myth

>>9090595
It isn't a hypothesis, since it can't be disproven.

>>9090618
No.

>>9090637
Yes it is, what I said is irrefutable fact. Philosophy is myth.

>>9090640
Nah dude.

>>9090644
Yes. Philosophy is myth.

>>9090648
You're myth.

>>9090651
If I'm myth you're delusional. Philosophy is still myth either way.

>>9090654
Fallacy fallacy. I win. How will you ever recover?

>>9090657
It's not a fallacy if it's true. If I'm a myth then that means you would be experiencing a hallucination/delusion because you are talking to me if you believe my existence to be false, and you would be paranoid of your fear of isolation that you would talk to people outside of your own realm of thinking. We know that philosophy is myth because it is fact that cannot be proven otherwise.
Philosophy is myth, QED.

File: 02875609845.jpg (26KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x750px

>>9090662
I can't argue with such a rigorous proof. *tips*

>>9090669
Here's the deal, kid. I'm right, you're wrong. That's how it is.
Philosophy is myth.

File: fingerless-gloves-fedora.png (117KB, 320x263px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 320x263px

>>9090674
>woosh
>nothing personal

File: tumblr_m192r2EdCz1qh97v4o1_r1_500.jpg (134KB, 500x570px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 500x570px

more please>>9090678
>>9090674

>>9090678
>>9090682
I am
You aren't
Philosophy is myth

File: 2kQogTB.jpg (77KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x960px

>>9090686
>>9090682
>sorry kid, but you leave me no choice
>brrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaap!

>>9090662
>Epistemology (/ᵻˌpJstᵻˈmɒlədʒi/ ( listen); from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and λόγος, logos, meaning 'logical discourse') is the branch of
>>>philosophy
>concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.

>>9090688
>epistemology
Also myth

File: 134125134.jpg (143KB, 1280x1040px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x1040px

>>9090693
>you're lucky my waifu's waiting for me at home
>count your blessings, kiddo

>>9090699
I actually envy people like this.

File: 2r_600.png (400KB, 599x600px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 599x600px

>>9090699
chek em

>>9089889
who or what made the brain?

File: 1502052656997.png (96KB, 819x872px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 819x872px

>>9089889
How can you prove that THIS isn't real?

>>9090732
Write an article. You'll be famous.

>>9089978
The difference is that a different reality can operate on different rules, potentially rendering the question meaningless.

File: 1500499152329.jpg (21KB, 425x316px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 425x316px

>>9089989
0 there is no "infinite" other than time, which had a beginning
1 in the beginning, was some basic computing mechanism (e.g. lambda calculus) which eventually became self aware
2 eventually this self-aware entity decided that it wanted to create a world
3 our world was designed
4 given that there is no "infinite," our world (by necessity) has an indivisible length, and an indivisible time (e.g. plank length and plank time)
5 this first self-awre entity has incarnated into this world many times, (e.g. Jesus, Krishna, and many others were all God incarnate)
6 consider creating your own simulation, how would you design it? yes, reincarnation, spirits, Heaven, etc... are all real

As per >>9090732 , this would mean that all actions and events are deterministic, although we (in this world) may never be able to gain sufficient knowledge of all contributing factors to determine or predict any outcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2-wd8bNJv8

You can't falsify the unfalsifiable...

>>9089908
>>9089999
>>9090000
brainlet

>>9090138
Where's the logic behindof a sleeping Dragon? Simulation theory is at least based on simple logical rules.

Apply yourself next time, brainlet

>Man, simulating all these particles is chewing up a lot of processing power.

>Why don't you just approximate their behavior with some probabilistic functions?

>Won't that be really obvious?

>Nah dog, just throw in a check to see if anyone's looking too closely, then use the full model if they are. No-one will ever notice.

>You're a genius.

>>9090865
That doesn't happen.

What does happen, however, is that the state of all particles is only updated as they are "needed," the needed condition occurs when someone (i.e. God) is observing the universe.

>>9090701
Life must be so simple and easy in mothers trailer. They truly are living life on easy mode,

you don't, it's probably true since our universe 'conspires' to be calculable
>not infinite in size
>finite in resolution & falls back on a RNG (quantum mechanics)

>>9090865
>Rather than just simulating simple, deterministic behaviour, let's simulate every possible path and assign complicated probability distributions to decide which path is taken
>Yeh, that's much easier

>>9090583
>u can't kno nuffin
has it really come to this?

>>9090113
It may drive gullible people to mass suicide, which could be argued to be a good thing

>>9091001
Yes, this is a true fact in the outer reality.
Don't question my narrative.

>>9090069
>if you go from machine learning though, you will see that maximum likelihood tends to minimise description lengths.
explain.

>>9091041
no u

Because I never go outside

>>9089889
Kill yourself, the only sure way to know

Actually, it's definitely not real, my brain would never accept a fake world with such shitty CAPTCH protocols.

>>9091261
And my brain would never accept a world where G-d is real.

>>9091007
Are you just now discovering that absolute certainty is impossible? That's why we postulate axioms lad. Knowledge is always built from a set of stipulated assumptions.

This simulation hypothesis bullshit is the new religion of the ""educated"" 21st century faggots. Sage

>>9089889
Enjoy your vat juice

>>9089889
What difference does it make if the perceived reality is the same as if it wasn't the case?

>>9091498
Mmmm... Tastes like steak.

plato's cave: still pissing realists off 2364 years later

File: 1463839496622.jpg (65KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 480x640px

>>9089989
>Occam's razor.

>>9089889
You cannot prove either that the universe has existed for more than, 10 minutes and that all people memories (including yours) aren't a highly coherent collective illusion.

It's a pointless thought because you can never truly know due to infinite regression. It's the same problem science has trying to find the smallest, most fundamental "bit" of matter, it's a never ending quest.

Who cares? Perhaps our simulators are also part of a simulation.

>>9089889

You can prove it by taking psychoactive drugs.

>>9091393
nah it''s just the creation myth of their real religion, singularitarianism

>>9089904
Sounds bullshit. Sounds like politics/rhetorics/science instead of philosophy.

First of all, never discuss any phenomena that has no effect on anything.

Second, if you know something is false, but you can't prove it, it just means you have incomplete knowledge. Learn more. Admit failures.

>>9091630
There are some false things that are literally unfalsifiable, no matter how much you know or how much information you have.

>>9089918
>the easiest way to keep humanity
Who says humanity needs to be kept?

>>9091636
All of those things are imaginary and artificial. There are no unfalsifiable statement about a physical system. You just don't know them yet. Gotta improve yourself and learn something new every day.

>>9091644
It is possible that the set of all information which you know is false. Every single thing you've ever see or heard or felt your entire life could have been a lie.

This would apply to all fields of physical science (or at least your knowledge of them).

And this isn't just some philosophical "the wise man knows that he knows nothing" stuff. Information theory is an important part of math and other sciences such as cosmology.

Recognizing unfalsifiability exists is also extremely important because it is unbelievably common for people to make claims in real life, about physical systems or otherwise, which are not falsifiable but are clearly not true.

A perfect example is the OP of this very thread. No matter how much you knew about this universe, no matter what info you had, no matter how hard you worked at the problem, there is no way ever in any conceivable way that you could prove that you aren't just a brain in a jar with electrodes, because every scrap of information you ever got could have been false

>>9091658
>every scrap of information you ever got could have been false

How is the information false?

>>9091658
Absurd

>>9089889

It's obviously just a paint made image.

>>9090789
that song sucks dick

>>9091661
False in the sense that it isn't representational of the actual universe.

>>9091701
Sure it's absurd, but you can't PROVE it's untrue.

I'm not saying it's likely or that one aught to believe they are a brain in a jar, or being manipulated by Descretes evil demon. I'm simply pointing out that the possibility exists, and to claim that it is wholly impossible, rather than just extremely unlikely, is intellectually dishonest. To take it to an extreme, nothing is actually impossible. Some things are just much less likely than others.

File: datadude.jpg (137KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 600x453px

>>9091509
>Tastes like steak.
>like steak
>steak

>>9089934
The only problem with this is that it assumes that our alleged simulation has the same laws at the universe of our simulator. Perhaps our simulator lives in a universe in which causation doesn't exist, and so he does not require a Creator himself. Perhaps causation was only programmed into our simulation for some arbitrary reason.

>>9091661
the same way 1+1=3 is false
it's all relative, you know things to be true, because the information you have supports them being true
however, it is entirely possible that the information is untrue without you knowing

>>9090089
Iphone 8

File: 20100512after.gif (26KB, 362x360px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 362x360px

itt

>>9090089
actually it only simulates stuff within 1 mile of your current location, and then replaces everything else with low resolution copies, and only goes into a level of detail required for the current method you are using to look with

File: brain.png (218KB, 819x872px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 819x872px

does this not seem like a better analogy

File: 1496497524747.jpg (6KB, 226x226px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 226x226px

>what if you have an unfalsifiable statement?

what is the point of asking this shit? how about you make a point of how it might be possible to prove that you are in a simulation by finding signs of some sort? otherwise i could argue that the computer itself and the brain is also in a simulation ad infinium, and that the universe is an endless sequence of simulations, or better yet, the brain is the universe and the notion of being in a simulation is irrelevant.

put some thought into your shit.

>>9089889
because it assumes an indirect realist theory of perception, which is wrong

it's also expressed using language which only gets meaning among a community of speakers - who each police and correct each others use of the language (which is how words get their meaning, within the shared practice of a community/culture of language users).

File: Brain in a vat.png (130KB, 819x872px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 819x872px

>>9089889
>walking outside

>>9092937
it took me 5 minutes to make this picture now respond to it

File: IMG_5863.gif (2MB, 286x210px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 286x210px

Even if it is unfalsifiable and would indicate our lives don't matter/aren't real, we should still live as if they do in the off chance that you're wrong.
I honest to God cannot prove I am not living in a simulation and everything I know is a lie. But I can live a healthy life obtaining as much knowledge as I can and leading in what I believe to be is life's purpose, and if none of that matters, then none of that affects me anyways. But say I dedicate my life to believing I'm in a simulation, and I spend all of the time I have before I die trying to prove it or going on GTA style crime sprees because my actions don't have real consequences, and it turns out that I'm wrong and everything I did does indeed matter?

Don't let the fantasy of living in a simulation disrupt the living of a healthy lifestyle where your choices matter. Don't waste your life in the case that you do actually have one.
Case closed.

>>9092971
The point is that it's unfalsifiable. It's supposed to make you think about the fact that your assumption that the universe outside of your brain exists is fundamentally unfalsifiable. Eventually you just have to come to terms with the fact that your beliefs, no matter what they are, rest on assertions that are inherently impossible to prove.
Dwelling on it won't get you very far, but it's still a humbling concept.

>>9093004
What if it turns out going on GTA style crime sprees was the right thing to do all along? Shouldn't you be going on GTA style crime sprees just in case?

>>9093020
What justifies it as the right thing to do?

>>9093040
God told me to.

>>9093052
Okay now I know you're either just shitposting or trying to bump you're own thread. Pick one mate.

File: Network_mobile.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>9092937
We could be part of a globally interconnected network
Oh wait! We already are part of one Global network. The internet.

>>9093054
Neither.

You're just 300 years late...

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

>>9093175
You don't understand Descartes.

>>9089889
In a simulation I could get a girlfriend

>>9093257
Sorry bro, I think you are the one who don't understand.

File: That's fucking Aquanis and Anslem, not Descartes, you twat!.jpg (38KB, 614x645px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 614x645px

>>9089934
>>9090583
Even Flatland for Weeaboos handles this shit better than this thread:
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1501294753555.webm
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1501294871986.webm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGyGYN3YNIk

"Philosophy" threads on /sci/ wouldn't be so bad, if /sci/ wasn't so bad at them... Or rather, if they weren't all made by American High-Schoolers on summer break who aren't required to learn any philosophy, and thus are under the impression that things like the "brain in jar" conundrum are considered deep, let alone really discussed, in such circles.

Stuff like this is the philosophical equivalent of "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" No one takes such solipsisms seriously.

>>9093358
This whole thing is circular reasoning anyway. You can't prove anything without unprovable axioms.

>>9090089
>>9090097
>>9090095
>>9090094
Hey, idiots. Check this out.

What if... hahahhaha... huhuhu.... hihihih... what if the universe that simulates our universe doesn't have the same limits and same laws as our universe does?

Fuck, you're all subhumans.


YOU FUCKING GOD DAMNED RETARDED PIGGOTS, FUCKING PIG, YOU HAVE
MINCED PORK INSTEAD OF BRAINS, YOU FUCKING RETARDS

>>9090089
>>9090089
hell yeah man I agree, the universe that simulates our universe has, HAS to have the same rules, laws and limits as ours has. I know that because I feel it, deep inside my heart and my dick. Deep, deep, DEEP. It's true, nigga, I know it.

>>9090097
>>9090089
you both are brain dead, you're completely retarded

remember this post, it will be the most useful and interested piece of information that will ever be communicated to you, you subhumans

>>9090138
I've been to Botswana

>>9093459
Botswana is what I call your mom's ass.

I've been there too.

>>9093339
>no you

File: invisiblz.jpg (184KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 640x625px

>>9091636

>>9092937
>>9092994
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING GENIUS

>>9089889
Try running Doom in your vision

File: 1408158121947.jpg (81KB, 771x462px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 771x462px

>>9089889
You can't. I loved watching that glorified twitter egg Stefan Molyneux claiming that he had disproved the brain in the vat position, that was a good laugh.

>>9090138
I've always understood it was a case against conclusions based on intuition.

>>9089889
Basically, it's irrelevant. The reality we experience is the one we are left to contend with, whether or not it is "the ultimate reality" doesn't change this fact.

>>9089889
in rick and morty they tried to overload the system by giving the AI in the system a bunch of meaningless tasks.

if the simulation is a completely closed system, might be harder to determine. Have to wait for it to breakdown somewhere so it can be fixed.

if it isn't a closed system, you'd have to find the input lag.

>>9092993
what if the simulation was made by some /d/ user to automatically generate fetish porn

it could run in a few seconds from their perspective for all we know

>>9095067
Imagine trying to overload a modern computer using small sums in the built in calculator program

>>9093320
kek

Because God would not give us senses that would be so fully erroneous.

>>9089889
Can't do it, not even if sober.