/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12678331

2MiB, 1920x2560, 9ada8def-89d8-417a-bfa7-fb8b18242726-ff7740c3-f802-4d54-afd4-5729a71c9a6e_RGB_SD._RI_V6XT1ZQiWwsC0C33bi4On98AroL7wM6GO_TTW_.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 17:28:53 2021 No.12678331 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12678363 >>12678391 >>12678395 >>12678847 >>12679029 >>12679049 >>12679051 >>12679560 >>12679785

Are we living in a simulation, scientifically speaking?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 17:38:39 No.12678363 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678331
If we are living in a simulation, it certainly won't be like in there Matrix.
It would be a full simulation down to the subatomic particles.
Consciousness will be an emergent property from particles' interaction.
Our brain and mind would literally be inside the simulation, not outside

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 17:40:39 No.12678366 Report

Quoted By: >>12678387

The likelihood is 99.999...%

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO xrbrIjwyMI.jpg, 100KiB, 1151x548

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 17:44:13 No.12678383 Report

Quoted By:

yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 17:45:38 No.12678387 Report

Quoted By: >>12678407

>>12678366
Wrong. The actual likelihood is 0.00001%.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 17:47:24 No.12678391 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678331
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 17:48:05 No.12678395 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678331
Scientifically speaking, it isn’t falsifiable by any known methodologies, and therefore a moot question that can never exceed past being a hypothesis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 17:51:25 No.12678407 Report

Quoted By: >>12678933 >>12679755

>>12678387
Have you read the trilemma?
If you accept the first two premises, the chance of us being in the original existence is infinitesimally low.

Or do you think that:
-civilizations stop before reaching a certain level of advancement
-civilizations stop running ancestor simulations at some point
?

If so, what is your basis of negation?

A logical proof, however scientifically invalid and nonfalsifiable, is still a compelling argument towards reality

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:01:53 No.12678847 Report

Quoted By: >>12678952 >>12678953

>>12678331
No
Fundamental particles being continuous instead of discrete, and there being no errors or glitches or bugs whatsoever in physics, completely disprove the idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:24:01 No.12678933 Report

Quoted By: >>12679018 >>12679033

>>12678407
What is the original existense? What makes it evidently different from any other existence

The truth is there is no ground level. As above so below. Its turtles all the way both directions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:28:17 No.12678952 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678847
>and there being no errors or glitches or bugs whatsoever in physics,

after production its very rare that we see those kind of stuff especially in recent years, so imagine how software will operate 50 years from now, 100 years etc...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:28:33 No.12678953 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678847
>almost the entirety of physical goings on untracked, unrecorded, nearly entirely unobserved
>glitches have never happened ever bro
>says this as the air around him imperceptibly glitches into brief nuclear fusion due to a memory error in the simulation, but it was behind his back so he didnt see it
>concept of reality glitches exist and obviously theres no evidence, all the people who have crazy sounding stories of various weird shit are 100% certainly just stupid crazy people and theres no way they've actually seen glitches in reality.
What the fuck

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:34:43 No.12678975 Report

Quoted By:

If we cannot escape the simulation and cannot influence anything outside the simulation, what difference does it make?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:52:24 No.12679018 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678933
>infinite recursion
Wow you’re so frikken hekkin smart bruh

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:56:03 No.12679029 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678331
Mathematically speaking, if we assume that simulations as detailed as our own universe are possible, then we are likely living in a simulation.
The problem is the universe is far too complex to believably compute. You would need a computer the size of the universe to do it. The only way it's possible is if our universe is a dumbed down, simplified version of the true universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:57:10 No.12679033 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678933
Congratulations on reinventing the concept of curved space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 21:03:09 No.12679049 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678331
Probably, but this doesn't change anything.
Since you can not know if this is the one, singular, basement universe, an ancestor simulation, an educational software you put yourself into willingly etc, you just gotta live your life as if it's the only one you will get.
If there is a technological afterlife, great, if not, then you will not be around to care. It's the modern version of Pascal's Wager.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 21:03:22 No.12679051 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678331
Amazing that this theory only came into existence after we invented computers and started spending most of our lives on them. Its almost as if spending that much time on computers has influenced the way we think about reality, and really we're just a bunch of slightly intelligent monkeys not even close to understanding the nature of reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 23:37:57 No.12679560 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678331
Yes, and it uses 3D euclidian space like database and happens in time...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO freaks and geeks simulation dog (...).jpg, 174KiB, 524x1620

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 00:45:20 No.12679751 Report

Quoted By: >>12679885

https://youtu.be/SHN-sOgQrjI?t=213

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 00:47:02 No.12679755 Report

Quoted By: >>12679875

>>12678407
>If so, what is your basis of negation?
There's 0 fucking evidence that it's possible, even in principle, to simulate a human being.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 01:00:35 No.12679785 Report

Quoted By:

>>12678331
How would we obtain an example of how a bona fide non-simulated universe would look? We could run a simu- oh wait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 01:31:23 No.12679875 Report

Quoted By: >>12679879

>>12679755
There is 0 evidence that it isn’t possible, even in principle, to simulate a human being

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 01:33:15 No.12679879 Report

Quoted By:

>>12679875
Our continual striving for this specific goal and failing is evidence that it's not possible, albeit weak. We don't even know how to do it in theory

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1607056396002.jpg, 86KiB, 886x720

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 01:35:42 No.12679885 Report

Quoted By:

>>12679751

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches