http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s tyle/gadgets-and-tech/ne

Also I know this article is several months old. I haven't seen a discussion on it on here yet

Not even the universe takes us serious:

http://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/wp/is-the-universe-actually-a-giant-quantum-computer/

>>18914937
well, the basic idea kind of makes sense. computers haven't even been around for a century yet, a tiny blip in galactic time, yet we've already tried to make more and more realistic simulations of life. VR, MMORPGs, etc. there's no reason to believe humans would ever stop wanting to get better and better at that process.

there is a logical argument (not without flaws) that looks at the probability that we exist in the amount of time a true biological species would have a physical existence in a physical universe, vs the amount of time a virtual species would spend simulating existence in one of a multitude of processors running with unimaginable future technology speeds, and decides that it's very, very likely we are simulated rather than "real".

however, that doesn't change the fact that the article you linked is garbage written by somebody who has no idea what they're talking about. read the wikipedia article on Simulation Hypothesis, at least it's coherent and cites its sources.

the problem with the idea that billionaires are trying to "break us out" of the simulation is ... why in the world would that be possible, and why would we want to? is a Sim going to break out of the Sims 2 game you've got going on your PC and explore your apartment? it's retarded and the reporter's confusing mish-mash of quotes indicates a low probability that anyone anywhere is spending billions of dollars on anything like this.

there ARE real scientific experiments being done to examine, e.g., the holographic nature of the universe. not the same thing, and not being done in secret by mysterious unnamed "billionaires".

>>18914946
and this article is a good intro to quantum computing but doesn't really have much to do (directly) with the topic at hand.

Simulation implies another universe to compare it to, that is it simulating. So, even if it's a simulation it really means nothing if there is no original. It means this is the original.

>>18916375
We're not trying to emulate reality, we're trying to escape it. There's a difference. There's no games where all you do is go to the toilet and browse 4chan all day.

>>18916388
Some scientists have a serious issue with philosophical concepts. There is only one universe we know of therefore it is real, that is the only conclusion you can make but scientists will act like AI continuing asking if it's real, they can only calculate they can't think.

>>18916396

i literally mentioned a game (the Sims) where you do nothing interesting ever.

also, Second Life is a game about nothing.

anyway, if we somehow achieve immortality as a species and get to the end of sustainable existence (heat death of the universe or whatever), extending our existence in a sped-up simulator may be the only way to wring the last precious drops out of our remaining time.

personally i don't really believe we're in a simulation at all. i doubt that it's possible to create a simulation so "fine-grained" that the inhabitants can't tell it's not real, using the finite resources of the physical universe.

some people think our ability to improve existing computers has no limit, but it's been shown (just as an easy example) that the game Chess can't be perfectly solved by a computer because there's more possible moves than all the states of all the particles in the universe. if we can't perfect Chess how the fuck are we going to perfect something as complex as human society?

but maybe there's an answer for that too (e.g. Quantum Computers). it's hard to say what we will or will not ever be able to invent.

>>18916423
If you think the Sims is as hard as real life I have some bad news for you. You can literally manipulate time in this game.

>>18916423
Second Life is the best example of trying to escape from reality. People make their life on there because it's way easier than reality. You can be whoever you want.

>>18916423
>
personally i don't really believe we're in a simulation at all. i doubt that it's possible to create a simulation so "fine-grained" that the inhabitants can't tell it's not real, using the finite resources of the physical universe.
the mind does not work this way: a sentient creature can exist in any set of circumstances that the mind operatively responds to. any stimulus works. you just fill in the gaps with logic and science and use empiricism to reinforce the idea that real is real and fake is fake. whatever you observe is real, even if it is an illusion, because its the only stimuli you can use to react and survive with.

>it's hard to say what we will or will not ever be able to invent.
if it possible to imagine something, we usually already have invented it. handheld computers, replacement limbs, flying devices, space travel, cures for numerous "incurable" diseases, and soon we will cure old age diseases, extending our lives far beyond their current limit.

humans always break through even when they probably had immense odds against them: we are very good at thriving far beyond simple survival.

>>18914937
Religionism: the universe exists in the mind of god
Sciencetism: that's ridiculous, the universe exists in and artificial electronic mind.
It's just god distorted by the arrogant assumption that man can create minds and bodies superior to nature, although they are far from being close to equal.

>>18916423
>there's more possible moves than all the states of all the particles in the universe.

Son, I don't think you realize how many particles there are in the universe.

>>18916521
We're engineered to thrive, and thrive we will

>>18914937
but why break out of it

It's a neat idea, and I suppose it's plausible, but not at all relevant. There's hardly any point in considering it.

>>18914937

Fuck yes, this is what needs to happen, but it will be hard to do if not impossible, because of what might be watching over us.

I had a NDE and what I saw leads me to believe this is a computer simulation. I hope we can do it.

>>18914937
Reality can only be broken changed and transformed on an individual level, through ones own experiences. In other words, they're wasting a shitload of money, but its theirs to waste.

>>18917238

>why break out of literal hell

>>18917311

Bro, you don't know that we can't break out. What we were supposed to break out this entire time?

>>18917337
>Bro, you don't know that we can't break out

"We" lol.

>What we were supposed to break out this entire time?

What if we're breaking, in, not out? and what you think of as out, is really in?

>>18917328

At what point would this place turn from Hell to Heaven if most of the greedy people break out?

>>18914937
They are wrong. A simpler explanation is something like the spiels which I below paste:
Humans got eternal life technology. They got this a long time ago. They use machines, far away, to flex their muscles. They plan forcing all humans live. They want to be sure they live.
---------_________---------
Humans got eternal life technology. This happened thousands of years ago. They use machines to control, flex, their muscles to plan what is happening. They plan because they know if all humans live then the humans who get eternal life technology live. Many humans were dying while the humans who get eternal life were trying to plan how to force all humans live, and many humans ARE dying while the humans ARE trying to plan how to force all humans live.
--------_________---------
Humans accessed eternal life technology...thousands of years earlier than now. They mingled, cooperated, conflicted, and married humans not accessing eternal life technology. They are savage by their reliance of computer controlled muscle flexing technologies of electricity caused at body by computers far of miles. Thus they learn simple methods of forcing eternal life. All humans are forced to live since if all humans live then humans who access eternal life technology are among those humans living. The history/herstory of humans dying is while the savages are forced (flexing caused by machines) to live their best try to force all humans live.

>>18917337
This experience is a highly regarded one. Maybe not here, but in other places.

File: 1477715869560.gif (530KB, 385x353px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 385x353px

>>18917350

Have you ever seen the show "Caprica" when the murderers tried to "breakout" into a simulated heaven when they died?

>>18917377
This guy reminds me of when you wash your car, and its nice and shiny, then some asshole bird comes takes a big shit on it. This guy just goes around shitting on things.

>>18917328
>literally hell!
>literally hitler!
>literally dieing!
on second thought, please, go ahead and break out. I dont want you here anymore

I think the idea that we are in a hologram, or an illusion is close to the truth. Those don't quite hit it, but there are rules, but those rules can be bend, and there are things operating outside those rules. Calling it a simulation makes it seem as though we are a test. Not sure if that's true or not. That's not based on science though, just experiences.

>>18914937
It's a reinvention of the idea of God as creator, essentially. Any computer powerful enough to run a simulation of our entire universe...

You'd be doing it a disservice calling it a computer. If we are part of the simulation, we'd be part of that computer. The computer would have to be self-aware many, many times over.

I understand what's being said but the word 'simulation' has too much semantic baggage in this context, I think. It's a way of saying 'the world isn't just as we perceive it', which of course unless you're an absolute materialist that's what you think, but framing it so that those figures we fetishize as the font of all knowledge in our time i.e. scientists get to put themselves at the top of this. That's what the word 'simulation' means here. It means 'scientists are the top dogs of knowledge now, so that must be what God is'.

>>18914937
It is in one respect, in that the reality you experience is the approximation of 'true' reality that exists within the microcosm of your existence. Subject reality is a simulation, or painting, or echo, whatever you want to call it, of object reality, because object reality can't be directly observed.

>>18917655
Good response anon.

>because object reality can't be directly observed.

I think it can be with psychedelics

>>18917425
lol. Know no.
My text is a helpful text because its the most likely explanation of what happened till now. More people should go with the, "eternal life technology accessed thousands of years earlier than now" hypothesis...not some, "matrix" movie hypothesis.

>>18917674
But psychedelic experience is still part of your subject reality, is it not?

I agree that altered states of consciousness are valuable, though. Realising that consciousness can be changed, through psychedelic experience or meditation, can be the first step to recognizing that one's sober 'reality' is also a conception of reality, not the 'real thing'.

So I'd say that on psychedelics you're less observing object reality, more understanding it.

Bear in mind I've only had experience with less powerful psychedelics, however, I won't write anything off that a DMT experience could provide until I've tried it myself.

>>18917712
>But psychedelic experience is still part of your subject reality, is it not?

Not from what I have come to know, people are mistaken by thinking it projects you outwards, in my experiences it has shown me it retracts your "consciousness" to where its being projected from.

I'm not concluding this on one experience but many.

>So I'd say that on psychedelics you're less observing object reality, more understanding it.


This makes sense also.

>Bear in mind I've only had experience with less powerful psychedelics, however, I won't write anything off that a DMT experience could provide until I've tried it myself.


Thank you for being honest. Dmt breakthroughs are where you come to understand what we're trying to word.


When in a breakthrough state, one has a strong sense that, that "space" or "place" is ones true, I don't have a word for it....


But it seems as though the beings there are us thinking this reality into existence, you know it is. It may sound corny, but go try it.

>>18917712
>>18917737

I would also like to add, this is why I find people who talk about "breaking out" funny, because they don't see its the ego that wants to break out, but the ego can't and never will, it CANNOT exist on that place.

There is no breaking out. Because there is no one to break out.

>>18914937
How are computer programs going to 'escape' from the inside of the computer they are in? That would require a bunch of people outside that are technological advanced enough to actually accomplish that magic task of making the word made flesh happen.

Plus it would also require the people outside, who may or may not be human, to give a shit about a bunch of old computer applications that need meat suits.

>>18917775
Stop and consider something. Would a person or a computer have ego? Which one is more likely to exist outside the box?

Just stop and think about it for a sec

Lol there is no one to break out, its all an illusion. This isn't the fucking matrix.

When neo breaks out in the Matrix, well he could ask again if the experience he is having is real again.

It will always escape observation

>>18917796
>Stop and consider something. Would a person or a computer have ego? Which one is more likely to exist outside the box?

Can you reword this please.

>>18916375
>why in the world would that be possible, and why would we want to? is a Sim going to break out of the Sims 2 game you've got going on your PC and explore your apartment? it's retarded and the reporter's confusing mish-mash of quotes indicates a low probability that anyone anywhere is spending billions of dollars on anything like this.


A Sims character isn't complex enough to have it's own intellect and volition. If we are in a simulation, obviously there is an outside world. If this is true, our simulated reality could become so advanced that we could "break out" through other means. If this outside force created us, surely they would have shells we could find a way to inhabit (androids, some other synthetic lifeform we wouldn't be able to comprehend at this time) through some sort of glitch like way.

On the flipside, this is why I find A.I. and robotics in our reality to also be interesting. What if a future synthetic lifeform we create such as an advanced A.I. android are just ways for our intelligent creators who helm the simulation to inhabit this world in a more tactile, engaging way?

>>18917805
What's more likely in the situation. You are a computer application with no ego - no emotions. Or you are a living being with ego - you have 'feels'.

This doesn't remove the idea of a reality of an ancient civilization of people the once digitized themselves to save themselves from an approaching disaster. The point being if you are in a digital environment, and in theory time passes as do generations completely oblivious to the idea they are digital because they have been recycled so long after so many subsequent generations. While unlikely, it is more likely than the idea that the universe is a simulation outside the systems that manage the simulation of digital people.

Still obviously doesn't change the primary issue that people in the simulation wouldn't have a method to escape the civilization if the y put their best and brightest in long term digital storage. The other obvious issue to that plan was a power supply to run continuously over the course of time. One of the largest flaws in the movie the matrix is their explaination of power production, it simply would never work due to the second law of thermodynamics dynamics, entropy would eventually claim it. Or it would break beyond repair by means of Murphy's law.

The premise is flawed to begin with.

>>18918912
I waited about 4 hours for this response. Be ready to wait for mine.

>>18918912
I have to understand everything you're saying in order to respond.

And when its worded like this, I have to break it down in parts to respond

>>18918912
Already I see your problem with understanding, is due to the fact that you don't understand the moment.

The moment, here meaning, where everything is projected from. There is no past, there is no Future, there is only now.

>>18914937
Yep. This is the warped religion of transhumanism and it has to be stopped NOW! Industrialism has done enough damage to the outer world and the fringes of our mental space, we must not let it continue to our very core!

>>18918949
Should we stop speaking bout these concepts, perhaps its for the best?

>>18918912
>The premise is flawed to begin with.

Can you stop and take a look around, generally. What do you see anon, what do you see?

>>18917707
No, it's fucking retarded.

>>18918943
I think you are attempting to rationalize something that doesn't exist in the framework of reality. It almost sounds like you are attempting to escape some sort of guilt around something that never happened except in terms of fiction.

The reality is, at least by my observation is I have physical needs, emotional needs and social needs. In the concept of a virtual simulation condition I would not require any of those items to survive. I would merely be a computer application rather than a man with physical needs. Where you are heading is down the road of mental illness fixing yourself to an obvious deadend to the given requirements of life. There is nothing to be gained from the effort of digitizing a civilization and hardly an action counts within the idea.

It would merely be postponing what was going to eventually happen anyways.

>>18919002
I am pretty grounded anon, I have a family, which I love, this is just a playground of thought.

It's a place where I can spew my thoughts. Nothing more

>>18914937
I don't think our universe exists in a dusty computer in some alien NEET's room. If it is a "simulation", it's probably "stored" in an entirely different way that we can understand.

>>18914937
even if this is a simulation, why do we assume we are trapped in it against our will
what if living a simulated lifetime is entertainment for our true, immortal selves. or maybe this is hypersubconscious and we are actually in the distant future living a historical time in only a couple hours real time.. for funsies

and we simply block our real memories for authenticity.

"break out " of that and you're just cutting the story short

>>18919444
Truth. Trips confirm

For starters read on about cellular automatons.

>>18919444
Yes, but "breaking out" is obviously still part of one of the paths you can choose in this game. It's the "Easter Egg" left in here for our own enjoyment of discovery. I know myself, and I know if this was a simulation this is exactly the kind of story I'd want to write and experience.

>>18914937
Say
>Word
To leave the vr simulation
>Word
Has no English translation

>>18914937
does this mean that when we died, we'll disconnected from the supposedly VR and back to the "real life"?

>Die in carcass
>Exit vr and stretch your 11 penises
>Why DID this game only have one penis per person?

>>18916375
>Doesn't understand what it means when a program with possibly infinite hardware infects the software and expands.

Anyways this elaborates on my favorite point. The simulation could be turned off for eternity, but what would you know the Universal laws of change still apply and here we are talking to each other. Welcome to infinity friends. The only way out is death. The only way to death is infinity where you obscure yourself into nothingness.