Thread 16737927

Are we living in simulation

Previous thread >>16733775

Physicists believe simulation theory to be a far more likely variable than aliens from outer space, which I do find quite curious.

It is likely. But simulations are real things so it makes no difference to being "real"

>>16737927 (OP)
Your mind/consciousness is the brain's simulation of its sensory inputs and reactions to them, so yes.

Technically yes.
[Certainty 1] is ability to make observations
[Certainty 2] is the limitation of the scope of observation
[Certainty 3] would be our observations being the scope of observation

Yeah but it's a unique simplified one so not really.
Simulation or not you're still in reality.

>>16738140
>Simulation or not you're still in reality.
Not necessarily, if you are in a subsimulation portion of your simulation known as a dream, you are entirely in imagination, not in the actual reality of the simulation.

>>16737927 (OP)
does something exist after death?

sorry, I though we were asking intractable questions

>>16738156
Decomposition is what happens to existing organisms after they die.

>>16738150
No, this "dream" would be real hardware running real logic in the base universe. That's not a dream, that's a real video game.

>>16738245
Those are both examples of simulations and neither are in reality, since as you said, reality only serves as the hardware for the logic, rather than the concrete source of real objects that are physically interacted with.

>>16738164
What about the consciousness?

>>16738903
Does consciousness exist during a dreamless sleep, can it be reduced along the lines of levels of alertness, is it intrinsic to all animated physical bodies that its loss only has to be considered after death?

>>16738903
Your consciousness 100y from now
will be exactly the same as what
your consciousness was 100y ago.

Lol the big brain in the sky writes these threads dude he treats 4chan like it is a magazine from the store dude. He writes like all the posts and shows us his new magazine page where he pretends we r reading real ppls writings. It’s kinda offensive since he has bumsex with all my friends even the men. It’s pretty scary actually, I am not sure if these posts r going out. An alien has tons of bumsex with humans n most of it is rape probably becuz he isnt totally honest that he is an immortal alien incarnated in the bodies of men n women who live in castles filled with riches who have tons of bumsex while we put it all down on the grindset for money which goes into his savage coffers dude. But, the tricky part dude is he also is omnipotent but omnipotence probably meant he had to settle with a type of creation. Dude so we dunno. If the big brain in the sky is stealing from us or if we just suck ass, but he’s definitely been having lots of bumsex and then coming online and calling us incels.

>>16737927 (OP)
Yes. Probably.

Yes but the simulation is just the universe as it is.

>>16737927 (OP)
If we are living in a simulation, are the simulators also living in a simulation? Where does it stop? Is it simulations all the way down? What is the base reality, and why does it exist?

ok, make a simulation then

>>16737927 (OP)
Consciousness is a simulation. What you feel, see, touch, hear, learn, know, think of, are simulation. Your conceptual framework is a simulation. Particularly its a simulation that creates something from nothing.

>>16740888
the base reality is saars in hyderbad

>>16737927 (OP)
The prevailing /x/ narrative is that this world is a co-created simulation much like a session of D&D tabletop game with agreed upon game rules (physics..etc.) at a higher level.
The base reality is the Void with no form and only pure conscious awareness much like a black monitor. From this blank canvas simulations within simulations are created by souls for their own eternal entertainment/growth.

>>16737927 (OP)
If we are, it's a shitty simulation and I want my money back.

>>16737927 (OP)
OP? a megafaggot

>>16740888
This is just the turtles all the way up and down problem. It’s probably a self reinforcing loop consisting of possibilities that roll into each other.

>>16741537
All the hares just took the money published and ran

Why do people call it a simulation? What exactly would it be simulating? It would make more sense to call it something similar to a virtual reality or a construct. What supports this choice of words that implies that this is all for testing purposes?

>>16737927 (OP)
This question has been answered in philosophy already. The conclusion is, essentially, that if you can't prove the simulation exists, then it's better to just assume it doesn't exist until you can prove otherwise

>>16740900
I already have over 9000 The Sims save files.

>>16741658
>What exactly would it be simulating?
The thing it is approximating which is usually pretty apparent when interacting with a simulation.

>What supports this choice of words that implies that this is all for testing purposes?
Simulation doesn't mean testing, it is based on a philosophical concept of replication and imitation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

>>16741658
Yeah they never define what a simulation is, basic error.

>>16742143
If you would actually read Simulacra and Simulation he gives the idea that a simulation can be indistinguishable from the thing it simulates, and therefore the distinction between them becomes meaningless, unless in a very literal sense of a simulation of some planets or something like that, the whole thing is a syntax misunderstanding resulting from popsci nonsense, first define your terms to have a serious conversation.

>>16742198
>the idea that a simulation can be indistinguishable from the thing it simulates,
Why else do you think I said *replication* and imitation?

>first define your terms to have a serious conversation.
I gave you the source of the definition, it has been defined, but it has also been bastardized to mean "testing" effigies, but there is nothing about the original definition that means OP doesn't mean simulation when asking about simulation.

>Why else do you think I said *replication* and imitation?
You can change the words but you still haven't fucking defined it.
>I gave you the source of the definition, it has been defined, but it has also been bastardized to mean "testing" effigies, but there is nothing about the original definition that means OP doesn't mean simulation when asking about simulation.
Schizo word salad, define your terms or fuck off.

>>16742205
>You can change the words but you still haven't fucking defined it.
I gave a wiki link outlining the original philosophical definition and I didn't redefine anything from that, I was just showing that I was already taking into account that simulation can aspire to replication.

>define your terms or fuck off.
>durr me no know how to read books or click the wikipedia summary that was provided

>>16741298
>for their own eternal entertainment/growth.
I mean...you can't grow forever. but you can probably iterate/reset. one thing is for certain, we have no say in our growth, that's set in stone by our structure. genetics. nothing changed for tens of thousands of years. as far as "lessons" go. we're the same pieces of shit that we always were, we never learned anything, because there's nothing to learn, or if it is, it's pissed in the wind, or irrelevant. because we keep doing the same shit over and over since forever, and in 10k years we'll still be doing this exact same shit if we'd have the same genetics (current_form).
if anything, current form is more of a sentence, to be experienced. like "go see what it's like being a human, having to be a piece of shit". like a theater play, you experience a shit play, collectively determined by our form.

>>16737927 (OP)
Worse, we're living in the stimulation

>>16742321
if we are simulation beings, is it really a simulation tho? it could be that the ones who made the simulation come and go, their universe goes out and pops back again, their universe could be utter shit, or their form of existence. we might be bound to this type of simulation. which eventually always gets created in those shit universes. and we always pop back up, in the various simulations that are inevitably constructed by entities living in shit universes. maybe they can never exist here as we do, they can only observe, forever seething at me drinking choccy milk

An uncontacted, isolated island like the one off the coast of India can be argued to be a simulation. We’re not contacting them we’re just leaving them be.

>>16737941
>simulation theory
what if we were already dead without knowing it. but we can see the green gass and blue skies so yea simulation.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, what do you see when you look at others.

>>16738126
>is ability to make observations
cowards are very observant >>16738156

>does something exist after death?
your silly soul has to go somewhere

>>16741658
>Why do people call it a simulation?
well, have you been around other men. they're blind as a bat. we're creatures of light. everything you're seeing isn't real.

>>16742196
>Yeah they never define what a simulation is,
have you been around men that are cowards. some people aren't real. like imagining taking a bite out of cheeseburger and knowing right away it isn't real. just something that looks like a cheeseburger

>>16742376
>I know what real reality is and I can clearly tell this one isn't
meds

>>16737927 (OP)
We are living in stimulation.

>>16742320
>I mean...you can't grow forever
Only if there are unbreakable limitations; but since all limitations ultimately are self-imposed at the soul level, you can therefore grow infinitely.
>we have no say in our growth, that's set in stone by our structure. genetics. nothing changed for tens of thousands of years
10k years is nothing in the span of eternity. We are at this very moment at the end of the current Great Cycle. For certain segments of the population, genetics is already undergoing major changes, specifically within the so called "junk" DNA.
Things will start to become very interesting very fast in the coming years within this Earth construct.

We're ants in a farm

>>16742320
>we have no say in our growth
Wrong, Paul Wight has the exact same pituitary disease as Andre the Giant where they never stop growing, but Paul chose to get a surgery that stopped the perpetual growth, so all your other retarded nonsense about being the same is bullshit too because we have figured out how to modify genetics and make major changes to our physiologists via surgical intervention.

>>16743476
You wish, if you were ants, you would have mastered agriculture and architecture and antibiotics millions of years before the smelly apes even learned to throw their own shit.

SIMULATION probably. It would be wasteful to have so many star systems. And it's far more likely there is logic gates preventing all stars from loading in from every place in the universe. Stars themselves may be these logical gates. Making locality sink in but not far away reaches, that would be simulated in full only if you got to their locale.

What does it being not a simulation even mean? Does it mean everything is loaded in at once?

>>16744254
I prefer efficient loading to one big load.

>>16737927 (OP)
I like to think so, purely for the lulz

>>16744066
but that doesn't make you behave better than a piece of shit. that's set in stone by your limitations and genes. biology itself. you want more for less. you're petty, egoistical, weak, revengeful, you lie, you cheat and hide it. this won't change. we'll always do whatever is possible to be able to pull it off no matter the setup. bribe, coerce, blackmail, for petty reasons. or hide your actions behind some greater ultimate purpose. we always played these games, that won't change anytime soon unless we change our biology.

>>16737927 (OP)
Not much that says otherwise, and it would explain the beginning of the universe.

>>16737927 (OP)
Bush, Obama, Trump -> BOT
And then we get an actual bot as a president right down the middle of the T.

>is transhumanism a glowie psyop?
yes, yes it is

>>16746745
You being unable to distinguish yourself from shit has nothing to do with what was said about people being able to affect their own growth.

No, genetics don't set anything into stone because epigenetics exists, you don't have to keep fucking over other people, you just get more out of it than not for now, so you keep doing what works.

>>16738124
>the brain's simulation
midwit

Saw a study that suggest that to simulate even a single planet down to the atomic level you'd need pretty much all the output from every star in the galaxy. If you wanted to simulate the observable universe down to the atomic level then even all the energy in the universe isn't enough

>>16749574
So what, atoms aren't real and neither are their energies and the way they transfer energy if they are just simulations, and infinite amount of energy is the same as 0 energy if they are just addresses and values stored in some higher memory space.

its probably stranger than that

>>16748584
>No, genetics don't set anything into stone because epigenetics exists
epigenetics doesn't change greed, fear, shame, guilt.
>I know someone who
doesn't matter, large scale we're dominated by our genetics. just because few manage to act proper doesn't mean shit large scale.
I'm not even getting into engineering your population, where policies make sure you get what you need out of it, which is basically condemning part of it to a certain life, to making certain choices. because "it's better for the group". that fucks with their choices, basically condemns them, statistically speaking. and you cannot point to individual cases because again, statistics don't work like that. large scale they are determined by those policies, into making certain choices. you don't know which one of them will make which choice, but you absolutely know a certain % will, which is exactly the point of some policies. to determine they make those choices. based on known human weaknesses, and needs, based on their biology.
cut the bullshit anon

>>16737927 (OP)
Lookup conjure on Facebook try it then repent lmao

>>16750143
>epigenetics doesn't change greed, fear, shame, guilt.
Yes it does, twin studies have proven so.

>large scale we're dominated by our genetics.
No, without the right nurture, the nature takes over by default and you can make people more greedy and fearful and all that stuff with some simple lead poisoning.

>large scale they are determined by those policies, into making certain choices
Which is the exact opposite of your earlier claim:
>large scale we're dominated by our genetics.
Since policies trump genetics and extended social shame reduces instinctive urges.

>cut the shit
According to you I can't because it is entirely genetic, unless a policy were made, then I would have a certain % chance of changing or something.

>>16737927 (OP)
yes but it's from within the universe

>>16737927 (OP)
yes
But better question is who made it, and if they also live in simulation?
How many layers of this simulation nonsense are there ?
Is there way out at all ?

>>16737927 (OP)
so? so fucking what if we do? besides, simulating *what* precisely? the computer or whatever the simulation is running on contains your brain and what the programmers apparently call a faithful simulation of a living entity so much so that are we not all just a collective entity multiple personalities existing in the same bounded system? sure, our minds are fragmented from each other somewhat, but if it were simulated in some sort of hypothetical non-physical process, then a reasonable assumption is that if you were to hop out of the simulated environment and into the reality containing it, then you would be reasonably prepared. additionally, why not get a video and communications feed with "them"?

it doesn't matter in the end if you, me, all of us are a simulation or not. the same computational, linguistic, and all other sorts of nonphysical facts exist for them as they do for us.

go watch the classic 60s (iirc) flick World On A Wire/Welt Am Draht by Fassbender. it is the matrix before the matrix. qrd and spoilers

>be an executive working at an advertising company in the 60s
>write a program to simulate reality to better advertise to real people
>make a recliner with head apparatus to 'enter the simulation' which the matrix ripped off
>interact and have conversations with simulated people who don't know it, except for one.
>it is heavily implied that the simulated people have made their own computer and have made simulated people of their own.
>simulated person trying to hijack the body of the "real" main character
>simulated people start glitching out video game style in the flick 50 years before video games were even a thing, walking into walls nonstop, sort of T-posing, locking up
>main character eventually learns he is a simulated entity in his real reality, now he has to escape "upwards" to the more real reality, while also escaping and fighting the efforts of the other simulated people to escape

1/2

>>16752091
2/2

I took from Welt Am Draht that it is arbitrarily easy to make a simulated reality. it may not be arbitrarily easy to make a good one, or even one that works, but Philip K Dick wrote extensively about that. the gist of it is that why not just allow that simulated realities can create their own simulations, and most likely be able to create a network of them, able to communicate between each, move around, etc...

there probably isn't any top level reality in that hypothetical structure, just a giant rhizomatic mess of simulated realities operating on a substrate which we will likely never be able to see unless we are extracted. besides, the word "simulation" is just lazy and imprecise. simulation is too synonymous with imitation, mimicry, mockery.

instead of a simulation, it might be good to ask about living in an imitation reality, not a simulation. we can also be living in a completely artficial reality which has no other reality we could point to and say it is what is being simulated.

the simulation question is ill-formed and bostrom is a shithead.

>>16737941
>theory
hypothesis

>>16741702
>This question has been answered in philosophy already. The conclusion is
A pile of opinions from a bunch of dingleberries philosophizing over a deliberately ill-formed proposition with zero evidence or connections to knowledge outside the human domain.

yeah, real good work there philosphers and scientists. real fuckin top notch.

>>16737927 (OP)
are the fish in an aquarium living in a simulation? or do we want to argue the degree of simulation? an aquarium, we could say, can have some degree or percentage of simulation. add some fake, or real, plants, some rocks, and some extra shit and you have done everything up to some limit to simulate reality for those fish.

no computers involved, no wacky matrix paradox, no wild computer programs running around. just a box which looks alot like their world, keeps them alive, and totally dependent on their simulators. hell, a zoo could be called a more simulated reality than a farm, while raw nature would be what? 0% simulation?


isn't that just an elaborate fencing operation?

>>16737927 (OP)
Are we living in a god? Lol. Retard.

What's your Roy score?

>>16749574
Is that explanation just within the scope of human understanding?

statistically the odds sa yes because we simulate things

wake up, the google has you
https://deepmind.google/api/blob/website/media/genie_exploring_locations_4_oZjNQYu.mp4

>>16737927 (OP)
I’m inclined to think so