If we can take a look at current or "base reality", all sorts of simulations are present in our daily lives, VR, movies, video games, etc.
With current advancements in technology and AI, we can extrapolate 100, 1000 or even 1,000,000 years and basically assume that post-humans will eventually reach such advancements in technology thanks to exponential developments in AI that will not only allow them to run infinite simulations but basically run them, re-run them with variations, go backwards in time and so on.

Statistically speaking, what are the chances that this is the case? Personally, I find it hard to believe that humans wont have the technology in 500 or even a 100 years and if they do get there (which everything seems to be pointing that way) theres is NOT A CHANCE that we are not in some sort of simulated reality right now

>>16733775 (OP)
This is a simulation, but not one created by something external. You created this simulation.

>>16733777
>but not one created by something external.
and how do you know?

>>16733790
I'm not fooling around like most of those "scientists" here. I have a goal in life.

>>16733793
>I have a goal in life.
so do movie characters, whats your point?

>>16733795
You're in the dark by your own fault. Do your homework.

>>16733775 (OP)
>post-humans
why do you assume the creators of the simulation are (or were at some pont) humans? I hate that when someone says simulation theory they immediately think of a Matrix like simulation where everyone inside the simulation is hooked up to a computer and has a real physical brain and body somewhere. for all we know, and which is more likely is that we could be purely simulated, just like NPCs inside GTA don't have a real body in our world. also, the "real" world could have completely different physics with a trillion dimensions and we're just in a fuck huge cellular automaton and the reason they created this simulation is simply because they were bored. or that we're inside a video game and we just don't know it.

>>16733799
its also plausible that if there is some sort of simulation, the ones who run it might be ultra advanced humans in a million years or more that have evolved in such ways that we cant even comprehend or think about

>>16733803
sure, it's possible, but also unlikely because why the fuck would they simulate early 21st century earth?

>>16733797
>by your own fault.
nigga I didnt even decide to be born, we dont have autonomy over 99.99999% of the things that happen and possibly 100% of things that happen. You dont control the country you were born in, the time period, etc etc. You cant even control the cells in your body, you cant control the microbes in your gut affecting your brain and therefore the decissionsyou make and so on.

>>16733805
>but also unlikely because why the fuck would they simulate early 21st century earth?
why would we simulate anything at all of all the things that we have simulated? theres millions of books, movies, video games etc, all simulations. Why?

Also your assuming that this is some huge effort from their end or that they would be spending lots of time and resources in order to simulate this reality. In the 1940-50's hard drives were the size of entire rooms and they could barely store 1 MB, now these data centers powering all the AI networks are storing billions or trillions of gigabytes. Perhaps them running our simulation would take the equivalent power of some computer or phone that runs some background process that barely consumes any bits here and there, insignificant in other words. Also, theres billions of phones and computers right now so it becomes exponential.

>>16733799
Probably because most of the vr, movie, and game simulations op referenced are about people.

>>16733805
To compel you to ask why they would every want to simulate you.

>>16733775 (OP)
There is no distinction between reality and simulation. A ”simulated” world runs on real hardware in base reality, making it fully real. The question is what substrate is running the logic, and that’s a kind of uninteresting question.

>>16734121
>A ”simulated” world runs on real hardware in base reality
The difference is that the simulated sensory input does not come from real physical stimulus, it is virtual stimulus that is entirely invented by the hardware for the sake of the simulation unlike the real world.

>>16734127
>the simulated sensory input
it's all real in your instance of reality. why is this concept so hard to grasp for midwits?

>>16734127
Simulated sensory input is real sensory input experienced by a real machine in real reality. Just because it is roundabout or odd or whatever does not make it less real.

>>16734131
No, in a real physical brain there is actual external stimulus moving through an actual external physical substrate that has actual time delays and physical limitations creating the mind whereas in a virtual simulation it is all in the same substrate and all the delays and limitations are imposed by the same hardware that is generating the mind instead of there being brain hardware isolated from the rest of the physical world by a skin and bone barrier.

>>16734136
The external hardware and internal hardware are the same in a simulation, the thing simulating the environment is also simulating the mind where actual biology is massively parallel so the mind hardware is on a brain physically isolated from the outside environment.

>>16734139
>fucking word salad
also define "actual"

>>16734141
I basically did, when a real physical brain is responsible for the simulation calculations of the mind instead of some other virtual thing that is simulating both the brain and the mind as well as the external environment that provides the stimulus for the brain to be mindful of. Don't blame your poor reading comprehension on the words.

>>16734136
Machines don't experience or sense input, they process input, they aren't trying to make sense of some external signals according to their own past experience, they are generating signals in accordance with some predetermine algorithm to generate the approximation of experience that have been quantified in the past.

>>16734146
>Carbon neural net… LE SENTIENT
>Silicon neural net… LE NOT SENTIENT
STFU /x/-tard schizo

I doubt we are actually in a simulation though it is very much like one. However we create in the creators image so it only makes sense we would develop the notion of what a simulation is. This is not a new idea, the Greeks discussed all of this 1000's of years ago. Determinism is "simulation" theory before computers were invented, There is no way for us to ever until we die however and even then we cant be sure the answers will be given to us. Hell you could be dreaming right now and actually be a 5 yo child and wake up at some point back in your 5 yo life. You are incepting yourself right now

>>16734149
I didn't say anything about sentience, though. I said in simulations on biological substrate with sensory organs they are really sensing external stimulus that comes from outside of the substrate to generate the mind where purely logical simulations on silicone substrate with virtual organs the brain is not really separate and it is not really calculating anything, the same thing that is generating the environmental stimulus is receiving it and the generating the response instead.

But yes if the virtual character can never actually be aware of anything that is actually external to the hardware it is running on then it can not be sentient of it, so it is not as sentient as one that can actually perceive an environment that is really external to itself.

>>16734149
>101 level logic and computer science is le /x/!
he is correct and you are retarded.

>>16734161
1. The brain does logical operations, we understand how neural nets work very well.

2. If the stimulus is external to the machine does not matter. It’s stimulus all the same, there is no difference. Although the machine in base reality could recieve external stimulus for all you know.

>16734165
The resident /x/-tard arrives to defend his kin.

>>16734178
>1. The brain does logical operations, we understand how neural nets work very well.
Not if its a virtual brain in a computer, in that case the computer is doing the operations, not the brain, the network of neurons are contained in a computer not the physical brain.

2. No, in one case the stimulus is physical and actually originates outside of the brain logic, in the other it is virtual and shares the exact same virtual space with the brain logic instead of actually being sequestered inside skin and bone.

>>16734179
>durr its hecking x to claim I am not just a magically advanced computer faking all of reality instead of one small person trying to make sense of a larger reality

>>16734184
Put your faggy name back on + you can’t read basic english

>>16734189
You can't do basic thinking if you believe some alien computer controlling reality is less /x/ than just biological people trying to figure things out as science has discovered over time.

>>16734194
Nobody said that hence the
> + you cannot read basic english
Dumb namefaggot new age retard

>>16734179
the resident gigabrain with an actual degree in information you meant I am sure. You are an idiot so stop posting now mmmkay

the resident gigabrain with an actual degree in information science you meant I am sure. You are an idiot so stop posting now mmmkay

>>16734178
>we understand how neural nets work very well.
Yes "we" as in computer scientists, of which you are not included but I am. you are a psued drooler

>>16734181
There is no virtual/real distinction. Virtual things are real physics doing a bunch of things.

And the external/internal distinction is also meaningless. Internal stimuli like when you dream or hallucinate are just as real. And the computer doing the simulation can recieve external stimuli for all you know.

>Appeal to authority
Retard moment

>>16734194
it is probably the NPD psycho. He is generally the only person on this board who is so stupid he doesnt understand basic scientific concepts and resorts to calling everything he doesnt understand schizo or /x/ in a belligerent manner . You will never be able to fathom the depths of retardation of people who are actual schizos so dont even try

>>16734212
>Virtual things are real physics doing a bunch of things.
No virtual things only the calculations associated with real things.

>Internal stimuli like when you dream or hallucinate are just as real.
Sure, you totally pulled freddy from your dream that time because there is no difference at all.

>>16734214
>bro, computers - who lack any kind of sensory organs or context - can totally have sentient experiences

>calls the other person /x/

this is on levels of stupid I can barely comprehend but I would gladly be willing to argue the point on its merits rather than my laurels. You are incapable of thinking rationally however due to your crippling mental disorder so it is just a waste of time for us both and anyone having to read it

>>16734220
There are no virtual things. Everything is real physics, the calculations are real physics interactions (be it transistors or neurons).

>Freddy example
It’s real, a real experience. Internal stimuli like dreams get you real experiences.

>>16734223
>I would gladly be willing to argue the point on its merits
Which I have already done countless times on this board over the years btw and is easily found in the archives. You are more than welcome to go through it and post any counter arguments you like to any previous points I have made. I highly doubt you will however so I will bid you adieu

>>16734223
It’s real discussion whether or not a silicon neural net can be sentient. But you are a spiritual schizo who believes in le magic carbon a chakras and whatever, so of course you lash out at the mere hint of someone not holding the same position as you.

>>16734230
>ad hom attacker says the person who responded to his outburst is "lashing out"
>projection
yep its troontime!

>>16734233
Scroll up to find your meltdown filled with ad homs, schizo

>>16734235
you are actual NPC so it only makes sense you would argue for the sentience of inanimate objects but alas you are just a epic psued and moron incapable of rational thought

>>16734235
btw this is the same guy who will call you schizo for saying entities without a brain are conscious and that in fact, concsiocnuiess doesnt even exist. This is the inconsistency of the schizo mind, there is no logical connection or consistent foundation between their disparate and sporadic ideas and thoughts. Their minds are just a mish mash of magical thinking

>>16734238
Awesome argument
>It’s inanimate because… It’s inanimate
The brightest new age mind

Fastest way to a bodhi meltdown: Ask him to explain his stance

>>16734243
>10 years of easily searchable archives and an entire website that explains "his stance" in myopic detail
The easiest way to spot an actual schizo is they make easily dispelled accusations and assertions that make actually sane people scratch heir heads in bewilderment at how out of touch with reality they are

>>16734246
>myopic
microscopic

stupid auto correct

>>16733775 (OP)
We are not in a simulation bro.

Your gay sci fi fantasy isn’t real. And never will be

>>16734246
So explain your stance shortly

>>16734257
there was a thread that literally just ended where I am sure you were in it or at least knew of its existence where I made probably 75% of the posts dunking on morons like yourself. You wont make a counter argument for a single point I have made in that thread. However, being the schizo that you are, you WILL act like it never happened and start back over at square one, because you incapable of actually learning, because logic, reason and facts have no relevance in your schizo mind. You believe whatever is convenient for you to believe at the time to get what what you want, truth is inconsequential to you hence why people with your condition have been given the label of "magical thinkers"

>>16734261
Summarize your points

>>16734265
I shan't

>>16734266
Don’t engage in discussions then. I summarize my points, everyone does.