Is there any good argument that suggests reality isn't simulated?

>>17031404
the word and idea of simulation was made by humans.

>>17031428

You could also say that the word and idea of dimension was created by humans, and yet..

>>17031448
you could say a lot of thing but what I said has nothing to do with that.

File: 1448221734171.jpg (103KB, 500x243px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 500x243px

>>17031404
Kill yourself and find out op.
>you're fucking retarded

There would be repeating patterns based on a framework (like binary) if it was true.

>>17031428
A lot of other things was made by humans too, several of them concrete and real. This doesn't invalidate that we could be a simulation made by humans, if anything it supports it.

>>17031494
>Kill yourself and find out op.
I probably have but the last autosave is loaded every time so I always end up waking up alive.

>>17031498
There's a lot of repeating patterns all over in nature. Where would you expect to see the pattern and how would it look like?

A question that comes to mind is that if we are in a simulation (or nested simulations), then I guess it would be logical for there to be a 'real' reality at the top. But then that just leads to the question of what reality is and how did it start?

Also if we are part of a simulation, would it not make sense that we may just not be compatible or able to comprehend the higher reality?

The computer running the simulation would have to be incomprehensibly powerful and most of existence is basically jack and shit which makes simulating it kind of pointless, also that's dumb and you're retarded.

>>17031618
>a 'real' reality at the top.

Depends on how mallable the fabric of reality is. If we run materialistic computers then sure the simulation will be layered in some manner. But if you can alter the fabric of reality and manipulate it with probes and whatnot then you're not really simulating as much as creating scale models, you could call it a 1:1 simulation, just like a rock is a perfect simulation of itself a suspended microuniverse would act as a perfect simulation of itself. Of course it would still be layered in that lower simulations would be contained within the manipulated spaces of the higher ones, but we could all be teasing at the same basic fabric of reality even if the texture is a bit different.

>>17031625
>would have to be incomprehensibly powerful
A smartphone is incomprehensibly powerful compared to anything that we had 100 years ago.

>most of existence is basically jack and shit which makes simulating it kind of pointless
Your taste not agreeing with something doesn't invalidate it.

>>17031404
fucking idiot solipsism

you can't exist if your a fucking computer

>>17031404
>The way I see it
This is never evidence of simulation.

>>17031404
I just had a sudden realization while reading the replies on this thread. Wouldn't it make for sense if the "real world" is what happens when we're asleep? Think about it. If you've evr had a lucid dream, you know you can do literally EVERYTHING in a dream except die. Now compare that to what WE call the "real world". Our bodies have limits and we can die. The mind and soul have no limits beyond death. I'm not trying to preach that this is the truth, in fact, I JUST came up with it.

>>17031940
Welcome to philosophy 101. You're not wrong yet.

You more likely than not woke up today, went somewhere and provided an entirely unnecessary service to other people for several hours in exchange for electronic signals transmitted as radiation in the air from a computer to another computer at a facility that issued you a plastic rectangle with a magnetic strip on it. Later you'll use your plastic rectangle to give electronic signals to another person's rectangle facility in exchange for being allowed to live where you live. The amount of resources these electronic signals can be exchanged for is arbitrarily decided, not backed by any finite resource, always subject to change and permanently decreasing constantly as a natural result of the long term debt cycle. Meanwhile, the people who run the rectangle facilities live like kings, exchanging abstract profit from the abstract system for tangible holdings, and your school teachers tell you that if you go to college and give, on average, half your yearly accrued electronic signals to them, you can be on top too, despite the glaringly astronomical statistical improbability of any individual to ascend above the social class into which they were born.

The reason the notion of an overarching simulation resonates so strongly with you is because you're already in one definitively.

where do you guys get this music. Haven't heard any good yet. But here is one fitting the theme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzgGTTtR0kc

>>17031975

whoa

What is the difference between a simulation and "the real" phenomonologically?

>>17032205
Nothing, unless the simulation managers interfere.

>>17032222
Wouldn't an intelligent simulation manager make its interference impossible to differentiate from other phenomena?

If the manager wants a hurricane, wouldn't he just make a butterfly flap its wings?

>>17032235
>Wouldn't an intelligent
Your question sort of destroyed itself with that word.

Intelligent entities can, by definition, choose to do whatever they please. They are under zero obligation to follow your whims or reasoning. If they want to make themselves known, they have no reason not to. If they want to stay hidden as someone like you might suggest, they can do that too. It ultimately depends on their skills and capacities, and whether or not they have exclusive access to the simulation they're managing.

>>17031404
>There's so many conveniently fitting rules that fit a simulated universe, both on the larger scale of the cosmos, but also on the smaller scale of human behaviour and biology.

Like?

>>17032252
Not OP, but here. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix

>>17031428
You could also say the brain named itself.

File: aaaaa.png (42KB, 189x199px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 189x199px

>>17031428
So was the scientific method.

Obligatory link to Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument: http://www.simulation-argument.com/

File: latest[1].jpg (263KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1280x800px

I've worked in a couple casino resorts and I swear only a handful of players there seem normal. The others seem to move like a.i. characters in GTA. Sometimes even sticking to me and following me around a few corners then they break off into a different direction like a.i. robots. Sometimes I see the same exact people walking in the very same directions at the same time on different, random days in there. It's creepy as hell sometimes and makes me wonder if at least a good portion of our lives around us are in fact a simulation.

>>17032205
The simulation has to be simplified or smaller than Reality, the creators must have cut corners somewhere

>>17031975
If you extend these ideas you may end up believing in the Gnostic doctrine of the Demiurge

>>17031404

What points you to believe we live in a simulation? If it's not completely fucking bananas like I expect I'll take you seriously.

>>17032980

It's called gambling addiction you silly fuck. It's half way to paranormal. Calm the fuck down and don't hurt anybody.

File: 9a935da6-dbc0-4d27-b0d5-9d99d91dca39.jpg (105KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x600px

>>17031600

>>17033564
>Occam's Penis
Never forget.