Reminder that it is almost guaranteed that we live in a simulation

>>16689464 (OP)
Dont you need proof that a simulation is possible in the first place? It’s clearly impossible to simulate a universe with his much detail with current computing technology, and I’m not even sure if it would ever be possible. Even if the whole world were filled with computers, I don’t see how it could re-create the detail.

And it’s also completely irrelevant. So what if it’s a simulation? What are you gonna do about it? Nothing.

that's sort of a god of the gaps scenario though
simulation theory seems likely, but only because we know so little about the origin of the universe
simulation theory only works so long as we don't have a more likely alternative

reminder, if you think you are likely in a simulation, then you also think the simulators are likely in a simulation ad infinitum

Based on what?

It's almost guaranteed that people like bostrom and jann tallin have stuck household objects up their ass

>>16689464 (OP)
No, and it's retarded atheist religious nonsense. And it's not scientific in the slightest.

>>16689464 (OP)
Yes everyone's experience is simulated in their central nervous system through various tactile and electromagnetic reflections sensed by the body's various sensory organs.

>>16689533
How could you brain make consciousness but not a complex compute

>>16689538
Anyone can be far even as decided to use even go want to do look.

>>16689475
kek, God doesn't use primitive "computers" to create this "simulation"

>>16689503
OP's "almost guaranteed" means there's a final turtle at the bottom.

no human sim has been as complex as the universe not even quantum's

>>16689503
See what he did? You just refuted the existence of God. It was a trick.

>>16689533
>everyone's experience is simulated in their central nervous system
This is false. It's not possible, not even in principle.
read Chalmers

Looks like anon’s never heard of pataphysics.

>>16689464 (OP)
Didn't this bald dude get in hot water for being racist?
I can't support the philosophy of a racist.

>>16689464 (OP)
>coping and seething about God not being real so hard you invent the concept of God
Yeah. Sure.

>>16689464 (OP)
The only good argument for this is that the simulators hate the one who talks about it so much, they've made him brutally ugly

>>16689464 (OP)
Nah, the species of machine intelligence we create won't have any reason to simulate us.

>>16689608
Tfw you find the last turtle

The concept of living in a simulation is based on the assumption that computer technology will advance to a stage in which ancestor simulations will be possible, and therefore it’s reasonable to believe that we are much more likely to be one of the many upteenth iterative simulation than to be the actual people living in reality who have not yet reached technological maturity.

It’s an interesting concept for midwits to chew on because it ties together things that excite the imagination like AI and a science fiction premise with a low-level statistical bias that midwits can grasp. Of course the simulation premise is COMPLETELY unobservable / testable so it’s no different from make-believe. It’s straight-up pataphysics.

>>16689464 (OP)
it's actually guaranteed that we don't, since that's an abuse of the word simulation

>>16689496
it doesn't seem likely because we know little about the universe, it seems likely because we use computers very often and it feels like a natural analogy because of that

>>16689464 (OP)
I'm convinced no being can artificially create a world so deeply rooted in suffering. This is an impossible simulation to achieve, it's all real.

>>16691307
Or maybe it’s not real and the God creator is evil.

>>16691307
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

>>16690959
He put it out there to bait christians into using the same arguments atheists use to refute god against the simulation argument.

>>16689583

>>16691566
Bait is inherently disingenuous. This demerit is forgiven when the goal is humour.
For that matter, redefining something's parameters doesn't change its identity.

>>16691589
>For that matter, redefining something's parameters doesn't change its identity.
If that were the case, you wouldn't have christians feverishly arguing against it

>>16691617
Oh, is that how it works? I was sure that the actions of individuals had no bearing on the truth.
>state the obvious
>attempts to refute with person engages in pointless discussion

>>16689464 (OP)
P H E N O T Y P E
H
E
N
O
T
Y
P
E

>>16690727
No, if you can't even make the case, then it clearly has no merit.

>>16689464 (OP)
i don't buy it, the simulation is too high-resolution but the gameplay fucking sucks and the quests are shitty.
if it this a sim i want to speak to whoever designed it. this fucking sucks.

>>16689517
sharpie in pooper

We can't prove it for sure, so no.

>>16689496
>I don't know
>Ergo it's simulation

The question is, what makes a simulation, a simulation? Is it simulations all the way down? Who was the first simulator..

no its quite unlikely we are living in a simulation because the amount of computational power required is far greater than the sum of the computational power of all black holes.

We live inside a hologram, quite literally. The Event Horizon is the holographic film, timespace is the composite projection of Infinite Potential (the actual "reference object"). Primordial awareness is the laser beam.

Plotinus explained all of this 2000 year sago.

All is Holos (= interconnected). All is quite literally One.

>>16689464 (OP)
>almost
So its also not then. Kek

>>16690965
Kek

>>16693324
the superior tits or gtfo

>>16689464 (OP)
I think it's more accurate to say that we live in a computational universe. Actually, all universes capable of hosting consciousness are some degree computational. There's no "outside" though. It's a fractal tower all the way up and all the way down. It's not like we're running on someone's cheeseball quantum computer somewhere. Well, maybe. But it's just as likely that they're a nested simulation, too. It's entirely possible that there is no "original world" and never was.

https://iceni.substack.com/p/noetarchia-suprema-a-manifesto-that

>>16693360
You can't even prove for sure that things can be proven, the best you can do is make assumptions, test them, and see what might result from those assumption, so your criticism doesn't even stand up to its own scrutiny.

>>16693387
Only if you assume that 1 simpower = 1 realpower, otherwise, the game The Sims would be unlikely to exist according to your reasoning.

>>16689464 (OP)
albeit a very good one, it could have been minecraft

>>16689475
>It’s clearly impossible to simulate a universe with his much detail with current computing technology
Wave function collapse
The assets are loaded as needed lmao
It's all there in the physics, that's literally why this shit is so fucking weird

>>16696014
ToE

https://www.my-big-toe.com/

>>16691307
if any less suffering existed, the world would collapse. if any more suffering existed, there would be no life. We are in the goldilocks zone of pain

>>16689503
Yes. And?

>>16691271
>Of course the simulation premise is COMPLETELY unobservable / testable
Short of making active observations of "glitches" or someone stumbling on a developer window, anyways.

>>16689464 (OP)
what happened in the late 20th century to make geniuses instantly unsettling and bugman-esque?

It's not even about attractiveness but being able to tell through physiognomy that there's some underlying decency of character that's now lost.

>>16696228
They am become death.

>>16689464 (OP)
When you say simulation, what do you mean? Do you mean some retarded literal interpretation like a computer? Or are you talking about the philosophical idealism which has been the worldview of most philosophers for thousands of years?

>>16697420
Those are the same thing, but digital logic instead of just pen and paper.

>>16697435
worst fucking argument I've seen today

>>16697443
Most basic ad hominem I've seen today.

>>16689512
If simulating reality is possible (why shouldn't it be), then by murphys law it will happen eventually. Then in the simulated universe people will recursively start their own simulation.

The chance of you being in the one true reality in this infinite recursive cascade of simulation approaches zero.

This obviously fails to negotiate the fact that simulating all the information in the universe with less than all of the information in the universe shouldn't reasonably be achievable.

>>16697451
Nah, that's not ad hominem, you don't know what ad hominem is, which is not surprising at all. Study logic. Literally thousands of books online for free. Here's three.

https://www.juristpanel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Rulebook-for-Arguments_compressed.pdf

https://racionalistasusp.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bowell-kemp-critical-thinking-a-concise-guide1.pdf

https://lms.yic.edu.et/library/index.php?p=fstream-pdf&fid=943&bid=1180

a video

https://youtu.be/U3Jm8zF7bJ8&t=2543

>>16697454
>If simulating reality is possible (why shouldn't it be),
If a simulation can be 1:1 with reality, why can't a series of drawings? Why bother to simulate reality if it can just be drawn?

>>16697462
Ok, it wasn't even ad hominem, just basic name calling and the most basic I have seen today.

>>16697468
No it wasn't. You literally know jack shit about logic. Click one link and read it. You need it.

>>16697469
Sure, comic book guy, you are master of logic by just calling arguments you don't like bad names.

>>16697469
You didn't even read your own sources close enough to cite which pages were relevant since you didn't even have a real argument, so I wouldn't chastise others about not reading when you are the one in the position of being a fallacious retard who can't back up your derogatory name calling.

>>16697472
It wasn't even an argument at all. Just a proposition. You don't know the difference. A retarded proposition with nothing to back it up.
>but digital logic instead of just pen and paper
Means jack shit.

>>16697473
Stfu idiot. I even bothered to timestamp the video. The books you can fucking check the table of contents or search for ad hominem for the part dealing with it.

>>16697476
Only to people who don't know anything about digital logic or classical logic that has been done on pen and paper by philosophers for "thousand of years".
My argument was that logic is logic, when its done on computers it is digital logic, when it is done by philosophers on pen and paper it is classical logic that anon was describing.

You are just kind of angry and retarded and don't fully understand what you read.

>>16697478
Which has nothing to do with reading sources since your whole argument was to read more not to watch more youtube.

>>16697479
No such thing as digital logic. Plus I was talking about living in a computer simulation vs the idea of a simulation in philosophical idealism such as what Plato already talked about. Retard.

>>16697481
Just fuck off retard, I wasn't even talking to you.

>>16689464 (OP)
>Reminder that it is almost guaranteed that we live in a simulation
No such argument has ever been supported. The actual "simulation argument" only establishes that we're either in a simulation (with a high probability) or that humanity never gets to the point of making one. This second part just gets ignored by mentally ill troons like you.

>>16697499
>No such thing as digital logic.
Its literally the thing you are utilizing right now to show the world how retarded you are with dumbass internet posts.

>>16697506
There are already numerous digital simulations of various universes, though, so we are past that point.

>>16697514
>There are already numerous digital simulations of various universes, though, so we are past that point.
Nonsensical reply. The actual Simulation Argument hinges on the ability to simulate a universe indistinguishable from the one we observe. This has not been done and according to the sane branch of the argument, will almost certainly never be done.

>>16697499
Yes you did, you just angry when your logic broke down and you had to resort to ad hominem and name calling because you don't have a real argument and you clearly don't understand logic if you don't get how it has been digitized so you can make retarded posts about your own ignorance.

>>16697516
>The actual Simulation Argument hinges on the ability to simulate a universe indistinguishable from the one we observe.
No, it depends on simulating an agent that can't distinguish between reality and the simulation and we could do that on x86 with the original Sims, it doesn't have to have the same fidelity as the universe that made the simulation.

>>16697513
You know jack shit about logic. I gave you links. Read them. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying it to help you. Take it or leave it.

>>16697525
>No
Yes. This isn't up for any kind of discussion. It's simply a premise of the original argument. I like how every single member of your cult is explicitly mentally ill and in denial about basic reality, which allows me to immediately shut you down solely on that basis and save a bunch of time. Come back when you understand what the Simulation Argument even is.

>>16697517
>>16697529

Kek two retards having a fucking schizo breakdown just because I said an argument was bad. Study logic and you won't be this fucking emotional.

>>16697529
I have done significant studies in logic and read a lot and learned from other people and even anons about it, but I am certainly not taking logic advice from some retard who doesn't even know digital logic exists even while using it to surf the internet.

>>16697530
>Yes. This isn't up for any kind of discussion.
Because you are wrong, you can look at the wiki page yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

>>16697533
>retard is mad because "argument bad" is not a logical argument, its just name calling and people are pointing it out

>>16689464 (OP)
Is the simulation discrete or continuous?

>>16697538
>wikipedia
Kek. Not opening this garbage. But ok, I concede that I'm wrong and that your actual "argument" is not the logical argument I was referring to, but the baseless fantasy that you insist it is, with absolutely no grounding in logic, unlike the Simulation Argument I was originally referring to. You win. I was wrong. I assumed we were talking about something marginally interesting but we were talking about something utterly cretinous and I'll leave you and the other 80 IQ troons to that.

>>16697535
>I have done significant studies in logic
Kek

>>16697544
That is how it was originally stated, you can put your head in the sand, but it wasn't about exact copies of the universe, it was about simulating agents that don't know they are simulated.

>>16697548
I already conceded that your actual argument is the baseless nonsequitur that you insist it is. I had something else, roughly approaching a valid argument, in mind.

>>16697549
You didn't concede that is how the simulation argument was originally presented, you just don't have it to present because it was presented a different way than you remember.

>>16697541
No that's not name calling. Yeah just saying an argument is bad is not an argument. But neither was his post, it was just a proposition. Stop being so fucking easily upset. I thought
>Those are the same thing, but digital logic instead of just pen and paper.
was a fucking dumb thing to say, it's really fucking unclear what it means, it adds nothing. Instead of having a fucking meltdown and derailing the thread he could have just elaborated on wtf it was supposed to mean. And you could have just kept your mouth shut because it wasn't even your post. You both need to study logic and I say that to help you. Stfu both of you.

>>16697555
>Yeah just saying an argument is bad is not an argument.
Correct, its name calling.
I am not the one throwing out bad language because I am so mad I got btfo.

>>16697555
>it adds nothing.
It adds that if you can make people alive by putting them in computers you can do the same with drawings.

>>16697554
Ok. Let's suppose the original argument was the pants-on-head-retarded one, which falsely asserts that being able to simulate beings that observe a universe different from this, tells us something about beings who experience a universe that looks like this one. The bottom line is that this variant of the argument is plainly moronic and I don't care to discuss it because it's a simple nonsequitur.

>>16697557
No it's not name calling. You know jack shit. It's appeal to the stone. But what I meant by it was that he needed to elaborate because his few words said jack shit. Stop being so fucking easily offended. And stop fighting for others like some fuckimg social justice warrior, nobody asked your fucking opinion.

>>16689464 (OP)
That is a meaningless statement. Like saying everything is made of fairy dust.

>>16696014
There is no evidence that the wave function or its collapse are physical phenomena. Might just be a thing that shows up in the math, because QM is incomplete.

If it were a simulation, you'd still get in contact with the "real world", since the simulations is running on computers in the "real world".

If this "real world" were deterministic, so would have to be ours, as there cannot be randomness. If the "real world" were not deterministic, however, then that would mean that there would have to small "errors" in the computation of our physics than can easily "snowball" into a very big errors that would be easily recognizable to us. Especially, when there are simulations within simulations.

The concept the way it is at the moment does not make a lot of sense to me.