The fact that our universe is empty is the biggest proof that

The observable universe is not empty.

Evidently speaking, these words alone are enough to remind you that you are in fact, at the minimum, alive.

what you think ''reality'' is is a simulation, nothing we experiences is real except nature

It was full, then gravity started to pull matter together into the first stars.
You should be more concerned with the empty space within objects.

There is no such thing as empty space.

Just layers of fields of effects not completely distinct from each other, blending and blurring.

Slowly dissolving into nothing.

An outward spiral toward motionless stability.

Peace.

Binary Mind theory says that we are merely avatars controlled by Daemon on some reality plane higher than our own.

>>18150015
That theory is gay as fuck

>>18149992
This.

>>18150272
>Quoth the cyberdaemon
Then John was kill

The fact that we alone exist is not proof that we are in a simulation.

File: file.png (3MB, 1397x1844px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1397x1844px

Good morning OP!

>>18149992
There isn't really any empty space within objects.
Each atom is made of particles, electrons and quarks, all of which are single points and hence have no volume. If we take that the definition, each atom is 100% empty, because its only constituents are points. However, we know each particle is a quantum object and hence described by a wavefunction which means each particle doesn't have a certain location, only different probabilities to be found at different points. Since each particle has some probability to be found at any point in space, using the wavefunction to define the empty space inside an atom means the atom has no empty space at all, and in fact has an infinite volume (i.e the wavefunction extends to infinity).
When people talk about the empty space inside of matter I assume they are talking about the cross section of the atom, but this term is misleading. The cross section is actually the probability that a given particle interacts with some incoming radiation beam (that is to say another particle). The problem is, the cross section depends on the energy of the incoming radiation, and what type of particle the radiation is made of. It is also an area, not a volume.

>>18149972
Something that I always try to work out with this theory is that we're probably not the first time something else has made this simulation. We're probably like the V1.4.1 of Life.exe. As a result, they've probably run it multiple times to this point, and are probably still surprised at the results.
>/x/ was on top of shit last sim, I wonder if they could crack the code even earlier? Let's check on what 2016 /x/ is doing.
>TULPAS, BIGFOOT, SKELETONS
>wtf, this shit is broken, start it over.

>>18149972
And why do you think that?
I mean, what are you based in to say that because of the universe being ''empty'' makes it a simulation?

I support the idea of the reality as a simulation, produced by someone or something far of every concept we can even imagine.

>>18149972
>The fact
not sure if retard or troll

It proves that nothing is yet is not.

>>18150429
Pls post this on /sci/. I am not smart enough to refute this, but it sounds like a load of shit. Just because we lack the capability to measure the volume of said particles does not mean they lack a volume. They occupy space, therefore they have mass, and therefore volume.

>>18149972
>The fact that our universe is empty
Earth is flat and at the center of this universe, how can it be empty then?

>>18150006
Could you try harder to be a faggot next time?

Thanks a lot, I need chemotherapy after reading this fucking thread

>>18149972

>the fact that our universe is empty is the biggest proof that we live in a simulation.

No, no it doesn't.

>hurr durr space isn't empty it's ackshually full of an extremely miniscule amount of hydrogen

That's still being relatively empty you faggots. Do you people also say the glass is full just because there's always going to be a tiny layer of dust inside of it?