Is the universe a simulation?

stfu ***z

>>17044208
>implying that thread was made by me.

The universe can be real, but still a work. In that sense, sure.

It could be

>>17044207
Nope it's happening op. this is it. can get any more fucked up but beautiful at the same time then reality.

File: MagrittePipe.jpg (34KB, 378x264px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 378x264px

>>17044207

I guess it would depend on what you mean by 'simulation'.

Technically I'd argue 'yes' but not in the way that you're thinking. The reality you experience is a 'simulation' which is a product of your consciousness, it's not what's actually going down in the real world.

Yeah,I do. Look at how physics works on things you can see and not so well on things you can't. It's like a video game where everything is normal but there's some NPC waking through walls off in the distance.

>>17044366
Beautiful six

This is the one reality, the one people keep coming after the drug trips

We're actually sims character, anon.
That's why sometimes you open the fridge at random.

>>17044399
Wisdom nines!
Well that's the case of asleep people, but people who awaken are beyond that.

File: ericwmindblown.gif (491KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 200x200px

this has been proven already

this is indeed a simulation within a simulation, and we are in the midst of creating the next simulation, and within the simulation we create a simulation will be created within that, and so on

>>17044366
>>17044388
>>17044399
>>17044411
>>17044422
hmmmmmmm

>>17044207

Boström's trilemma puts it all down very neatly:

>"A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:
>1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
>2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
>3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

>If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
>Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."

It's all fairly basic conventional logic, but if the technical jargon is still too much for you, at least read the last sentence, as that one sums up our scenario pretty well.

>>17044422
>this many declarations of time war

>>17044207
No.

Not even remotely.

>>17044207
Would it matter?

>>17044207

I wish it was

I feel like the simulation theory is just the intelligent design theory adjusted to people's experience with modern technology and a step removed from religion.

>>17044665

That's an interesting observation, I've never though of it that way before, they do indeed share some common ground.

That said, there are ways in which they differ greatly. Intelligent design in it's common forms is demonstrably false, whereas the simulation theory is logically sound but unprovable.

>>17044207
The universe is not a simulation, but rather simulations are universes.

We call them simulations because we always think we're special and are the only ones with special shit.
But universes are not special. There are universes in our minds, in movies, in video games, and we create them, and it will become increasingly apparent that they are real, and not "virtual", as our ability to create universes improves.

We haven't yet realized our power, and the power all around us, of universe creation.

>>17044722

Ironically, it's quite the opposite, you think you're so special you even believe you have the power to create entire universes in your mind.

>>17044769
Who's to say they can't?

>>17044777
me tb h, f4m

>>17044722
You reek of otakukin bullshit.

>>17044834
Cool opinion, I had to look that up; but no, that's from physics, I study/do astrophysics/cosmology and I'm a futurist

>>17044722
Why do you oppose the virtual to the real?

>>17044769
I don't think I'm special, because I don't think I alone can do that. Anyone/anything that has the capacity to imagine has developed an inner space within them.
We now technologically create inner spaces, like artwork, books, movies, games, internet, etc, to expand on our biological inner space (our imagination), and it will continue to evolve until the universes we create are greater than the physical universe we perceive with our senses, which will in hindsight seem very limited.

>>17045061
I think virtual is a transient concept; it describes worlds which exist tangent to the physical world we experience with our senses.
The worlds in our minds, which contain all human created entities like gods, ghosts, monsters, demons, etc.
And the worlds beyond what we physically perceive, such as the quantum world and what lies beyond the cosmic microwave background.

>>17045061
>>17045091
cont.

The worlds in our minds evolved naturally, and then we developed technology to enhance that, such as with computers. Computer power will quickly overtake our biological power and our imagination will evolve into virtual worlds that will overcome the "real" sensation of the physical world. After that, reality as we perceive it is anything logically possible I suppose, but not limited to the physical laws we "grew up" in.

>>17044260
/thread

>>17044692

No it's not. Explain the Fibonacci spiral appearing in not only the smallest things in life, but also the largest things in our universe, but yet also being contained in our bodies. IE, water down a drain, black hole in how in absorbs matter, galaxies, and the inside of our ears. There are a myriad of other examples, but to say that there aren't is just showing complete lack of EVERYTHING.

>>17045307
Linear homogeneous recurrence relations with constant coefficients are the chords of the universe, and the false pattern you're perceiving is its chorus.
Just because something's beautiful and complicated and you don't understand it doesn't mean you can attribute to it whatever explanation you wish.
If you wish to know things that are true, it's a little fucking harder than that.

>>17044493

I dont believe that last sentence, if we had the computing power to simulat a different time period i would do the roman empire and explore and interact with the people. I would start wars and join the battle for fun. To me your not real so why would I care?

>>17046039
what? you lost me after the first few words :\

Yes it is, and we'll figure out how to deal with it when Star Ocean 5 comes out.

>>17044422
>this has been proven already
no, it has not.

>>17046061

WE don't have the computing power, OUR DESCENDANDTS might, a thousand years from now.

>>17046362
Military/Black world computers are far, far superior to our domestic ones, so we may well have already, or be much closer than you think.

>>17046367

I don't think you appreciate the magnitudes we're dealing with here.
>~10^14 operations per second for the entire human brain.
>An alternative estimate, based the number of synapses in the brain and their firing frequency, gives a figure of ~10^16 - 10^17 operations per second.
>While it is not possible to get a very exact estimate of the cost of a realistic simulation of human history, we can use ~10^33 - 10^36 operations as a rough estimate

The world's most powerful supercomputer, the Chinese Tianhe-2, has "only" 33 Petaflops, or 3.3 * 10^16 operations per second
It could, in theory, as long as the estimations aren't too far off, simulate one human mind as long as it doesn't run out of memory, it's still several magnitudes away from a even a real-time world simulation. Simulating a small world with just 1 000 000 inhabitants would require around 1 000 000 Tianhe-2 computers, simulating human history up to this point on the Tianhe-2 would take 10^17 - 10^20 seconds or roughly 3 Billion years.

Here's the original argument, if you're interested:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html