Can we talk about "Living in a simulation" You ar

shameless selfbump.

>>19116704

>Living in a simulation

Its wasteful , way easier to put the simulation in the living , less machinery around and its self sufficient and self replicative , the real matrix its yourself.

Well if you are super logical and into statistics and odds, then yes, we must be in a simulation.

It's very difficult to decide what we want to believe, since if it's a legit simulation then we would never be able to prove it.

>>19116864
what about mathematics? Aren't mathematics actually proof that we are the result of a computer programm, is the computer language a copy of universal matrix that build our reality?

>>19116913
>if it's a legit simulation then we would never be able to prove it.
I guess because of a security program that records and monitors everything, rewrite and make arrangements to interfere with anticipated events, stop them, or go completely out of the way. As the Quantum split test program has shown. Everything seems to be part of a frequency, or influenced by frequencies. Quantum Computing goes beyond that and actually shows on what hardware a simulation could run. What kind of secruity programm would quantum computing have and how to exploit this? Changing the frequency through a 3rd party tool? A tool that can interfere with the frequencies of another, to change their behavior.

those people are morons and probably charlatans.

it can't explain newborns because newborns enter the simulation whenever we give them birth, which is ridicules.

>>19116925
mathematics is just a way to model things. we didn't get mathematics from god. we invented it and tailored it to our needs

>>19117093
>enter the simulation
but do you know how th emodel of this simulation looks like?
As >>19116864 said;
>its self sufficient and self replicative.
And with that note, a simulation based on the frequencies, coerdinated on a quantum level/mechanic as we see it nowadays in our own scienes with quantum computing. There might be a self-regulation of the forms of life in the simulation, the old data is overwritten with new data (life, newborn) Which sometimes leads to far larger glitches and the so-called effect of "I remember my previous life" happens.

>>19117096
what about fibonacci code than? Did we invent math or is math evolving while we learn more and more about our reality?

The problem with this "theory" (no evidence) is that it's just another in a long line of new age thought experiments that set out to answer a difficult question with another infinitely more difficult one.

"Why does the universe exist?" and by extension "Why do we exist?". If the answer is that our universe is an artificial construct, then what about the universe that created ours? Is that universe a simulation too? How many layers of simulation are there? And what about the original universe that isn't a simulation? Who or what created that and why?

All it does it pass the buck and turn the original question into an infinitely recursive one that solves nothing and only creates more questions. It's the same problem as the thought experiment that inspired the Alien backstory in Prometheus. Well ok, if humans were engineered, who or what engineered the engineers? If they weren't engineered why and how do they exist?

And it's no wonder our systems of math and the programming languages we build from math reflect the universe from which they were abstracted. The entire purpose of math was to quantify the world around us. This has always been a sad attempt to turn cause and effect into chicken and egg.

tl:dr this entire theory is nothing but pseudo intellectual masturbation.

>>19116704
This movie was beyond horrible.

>>19117132
>then what about the universe that created ours? Is that universe a simulation too? How many layers of simulation are there?
for this please watch the first video in op
>You are a Simulation & Physics Can Prove It
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chfoo9NBEow

>from math reflect the universe from which they were abstracted. The entire purpose of math was to quantify the world around us.
this is actually something that amaze me everytime i think about it. And than i wonder why nobody else is blown away by this fact. Do i see more in this? What is it actually that blows my mind when i start to read stuff like this? Why is it for me so amazing to see the wonder, yes i call it actually a wonder, a wonder of math and how it is intigrated into our nature.

command: get qt gf

another question would be, if we were able to simulate to 100% our own sociaty, could we foresee the events happening in our reality?

on top of this, what if, a higher inteligents in the universe already build something like that and can now foresee the events and can now exploit this?

what if, that ayyy lmao tech that is simulating the reality to foresee the happenings actually is able to interact with the reality itself to prevent happenings as early as possible. A simulation that is able to go into reality. Blending in and change things to its own advantage to ensure its survival, prevent its own destruction. It foresees his own existing in reality, now it wants to make sure of the possibility of it. The possibility that a higher intelligence have made an "artificial intelligence" is damn high and as for every living intelligence, survival is the first and most instinct of it.

What would happen if one became aware of it? What would happen if one would go against this artificial intelligence? This AI would actually know before hand, it would start to interact with reality based on the data from the simulation and prevent this happening to ensure the survival of its own.

Every little happening, be it someone who Interrupts you, traffic, and so on, all this could actually be a changed code to prevent another happening or bring up another happening.
So, according to this. We would never be able to discuss this now.

File: 1495482042647.gif (887KB, 500x268px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 500x268px

>>19117186
Roko's Basilisk. Also holy shit where is your spell check?

>>19117096
The names we give numbers and the bases we use to organize them are made up but numbers and math are real.

I'm someone who thinks reality is malleable and much of its parameters are a result of perception but the existence of math is verified by results that can be replicated by anyone.

>>19117132
I think that too many people dwell on the "who created the simulation" question when discussing this. To me what's interesting is seeing how much the building blocks of our reality are reflected in the tasks we program computers to perform. I also think it's interesting how much it matches up with various ancient immaterialist philosophical traditions.

I don't know if it means that an entity programmed our world. What it could mean is that our reality functions like a program and thus we may be able to "reprogram" it. That's why I like to consider this stuff.

is the dispair code behind all of this?

>>19116940
>inb4 the anticheat detects you and you get b& from the server

Game over.

>>19116940
this is not an answer, just ambiguous muble jumble that helps convince not one person

>>19116704
The thing about probability is, it only works when you know the parameters. Arbitrary approximations lead to arbitrary conclusions. There's no proof of anything yet.

>>19118607
>Arbitrary approximations lead to arbitrary conclusions
welcome to /x/.

>>19116940

You mean something like the LHC?

>>19118226
recommended in jay parker free your mind 2015 and 2016 on youtube

>>19117132
Physics PhD student here. It is honestly disheartening to see the mathturbation and baseless theorization that is becoming fashionable these days. I can appreciate a scholarly effort by its own merits, but millions of dollars have been wasted on string theory research which could have gone toward helping people.

Grant-grabbing academia taints everything with avarice.

>>19117132
Just because a question leads into another question doesn't make it meaningless. Questions will always lead to more questions, that's just the way it is.

File: 1366255893177.jpg (213KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1280x1024px

Honestly I think that sometime within the next 50-100 years we will somehow find definitive proof that the universe is a simulation. I don't know how this discovery will be made but it will most likely involve the creation of our own near-perfect simulations or the creation of artificial intelligence.

>>19117096
we didnt invent prime numbers