Are we living in a simulation /his/?
Elon Musk said we are in one.
Which is disheartening because I had a lot of respect for the man.
On the other hand.
Shouldnt we be more content with the possibility of us being no simulation because all life that would have been capable of making one went extinct before as this safes us from the terrible implications of life being a simulation?
Would morals still be somethign to adhere to if we life in an inferiour simulatated world?
>>1233931
I think therefore everything is reality is exactly as I it
>>1233931
*perceive it
>>1233931
Say that the matrix in some form or another is possible. How likely would it be then that we would live in a simulation rather then the real world?
Very high.
Say that sometime in the future we use some extremely powerful quantum computer to simulate a world similar to our own. And with that simulate all intelligent beings inside as well. If we create just as many virtual humans as we have in our own world, already 1 in every 2 humans that we know off certainly live in a simulation. We could make many more of these simulations and make it so that there are definitely more humans living in a simulation then living in the real world.
The real question of course is, has this already happened in some shape or form?
>>1233961
That's up to the individual, but as far as I see it it's kind of stupid to think that morals don't matter all of a sudden just because you're in a simulation. You'll still go to prison and you'll still die. It's really mortality that drives our morals and in a simulation you can still die.
>>1233961
Morality is something that humanity created based on emotions.
>>1233983
For what purpose would you waste so many ressources?
We just cant know if anyone ever managed to pull it off.
Why does it matter? If this were a simulation we still couldn't perceive anything outside it, so whatever this is it might as well be real to us.
>>1233991
This.
It's like a supra-logical God. If it's beyond the scope of our ability to comprehend, why bother guessing?
>>1233983
This is only an argument you can make if you don't understand how processors work. The processing power would be enormous to process a world. It would be far more likely we would simulation ONE person having sentience. More than one at once would be wildly unreasonable. Imagine all the things you have to perceive during the day. Multiply that by everyour sentient thing on the planet and you would need a processor larger than the planet.
yes we´re dealing with a technology far beyond ours
>>1233961
>Elon Musk said we are in one.
>Which is disheartening because I had a lot of respect for the man.
As a physicist it's certainly possible. Saying with certainty we are in one is indefensible but so is denying we are in one. And honestly the evidence is all circumstantial but fairly worrisome given that I don't want to be in a simulation. When you get down to it reality has a lot of EXTREMELY weird properties that would make PERFECT sense if we were in a computer model of some kind.
I honestly don't feel like being a "simulation" matters much in terms of ethics. Since we can't know for sure we should take the safe view. Even if we are in one it's extremely complex to the point I don't think it "cheapens" lives or anything like that.
>>1234018
I've always thought this of the "simulation" thing, what does it change? It's not like the Matrix where we can get out by any means we know. If we are just data in a computer then what else can we do but move on? What is reality relative to our experience? It tastes like steak to me.
>>1234042
>It tastes like steak to me
Nice reference. But yeah, you hit the nail on the head. And also it's not like the "computer" would be anything recognizable. It would be some sort of awe-inspiring higher dimensional physical object that would be beyond comprehension.
Or it could be that our universe is indeed the computer itself in a way. Really wonky stuff.
>>1233931
Yes. You should give me all your stuff because none of this is real and it will allow you access to the cow level bonus round.
>>1233961
I heard what he said; I'm not sure he said we're living in a simulation.
I believe he said that we are either going to progress to a place where realistic simulations will be indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will utterly collapse.
His example was gaming; from Pong to what, COD4 in 50 years.
>>1234042
>It tastes like steak to me.
what's this reference phamme?
>>1234117
The Matrix. A traitor was going to betray his fellow rebels in exchange for a higher status in the Matrix world, embracing the simulation while dooming reality.
>>1234105
Listen to courage wolf. Eat bones, shit ghosts. Put your money where you autistic shit talk is. Give me your fucking stuff.
>Be in outer layer of reality
>Sign up for hardcore earth simulation
>Become NEET gamer
>Die
>Come out of the simulation and get forever bullied that all you did in the simulation was play simulations
>That one spot in DayZ where people jump to get a new spawn
>>1234123
I don't usually say this but you really, really need to fuck off back to r*ddit
>>1234254
This guy is right. I fucking hate it when people fall for the "the meme was not from 4chan" meme. Almost every fucking meme originated from 4chan. Only a few predated 4chan. Places like knowyourmeme.com spread this garbage.
>>1233931
reposting because the thread I posted this in on /lit/ seems to have died and its the wrong subject to talk about on /lit/ anyway
I think the mistake of this view is that it assumes that a simulation would be anything more then data on a machine. Even if it was sophisticated enough to simulate every single molecule in the universe that doesn't mean that the simulation has any physical basis to it. The simulation of single-celled organisms evolving into intelligent life would still just be a mathematical system and just because some math formulas ended up making parts of the program act as though they had free will doesn't mean that they are conscious because its still just a bunch of numbers being calculated by a machine.
Since we seem to experience consciousness ourselves it seems unlikely that we are in a program IMO because mathematical formulas can't be given consciousness. A program that allows a component of the simulation to function in a manner intended to represent consciousness doesn't mean the component actually is conscious.
Some people rely on the argument that "you don't fully understand how sophisticated the simulation by this future supercomputer would be" etc but all of that distracts from the point that its just a bunch of code in a computer.
When you play Age of Empires and your soldiers kill other soldiers and are killed by them nobody believes the soldiers are conscious of what is going on.
If the game improved and gave each solider a program designed to let them have math systems representing memories, hopes, dreams and fears most people would still not think they were conscious.
If the simulation were so complex that it could perfectly simulate a virtual being's brain down to the last atom and have that virtual brain cause the virtual being to take certain actions its still just numbers in a mathematical system on a computer.
>>1233983
The amount of work and planning spent into such is beyond belief. There's no way anybody would be willing to put so much effort to attempt to create some pointless simulator.
>>1234415
>If the simulation were so complex that it could perfectly simulate a virtual being's brain down to the last atom and have that virtual brain cause the virtual being to take certain actions its still just numbers in a mathematical system on a computer.
I was with you until this line. From the perspective of someone who understand that processing is just 1's and 0's of electronic spark on and off in different patterns, the human brain works just like a program in that sense. We don't have anything that makes up work besides ones and zeroes.
>>1234477
except if the simulator isn´t pointless and you get something from it
>>1233935
Idiot
>the universe is an experiment by highly advanced beings
>they left it with basic algorithms and decided to see what kind of shit is generated
>initially various bugs keep appearing in the universe
>these bugs are interpreted as miracles by simulated humans and inspire every spiritual and occult system
>the experiment is or thoroughly bugfixed several centuries ago and natural laws work as intended
>they're still observing
>>1234521
>they're still observing
and maybe getting food
>>1233987
I read that wrong as "mortality is something that humanity created based on emotions"
makes me think that mortality would go in the sense that no, we are not in a simulation.
Why would things age in a simulation ?
>>1233931
If we are living in a simulation, and have no reliable way of knowing so, it is indistinguishable from reality and the question is meaningless.
>>1234538
>Why would things age in a simulation ?
Because aging is being simulated?
Maybe you are just simulating a physical universe. Living, conscious beings were just an emergent propriety.
>>1233931
no
even if we were, would it matter?
(no)
>>1234546
Minecraft in a thousand years - UniverseSim
>>1233931
We're in a simulation in the sense that everyone will start referring to the world as a simulation instead of a universe. It's just a meaningless semantic argument that's caused by us disappearing up our own assholes.
We should be worried about what happens if we are in a simulation and someone proves it to the general public.
Whom ever is running the simulation might not like his experiment to have gained such a variable.
>>1234691
If they are simulating an entire universe we may be ok considering our little spec of existence may not have even been noticed yet.
I think the better question is that if this is a simulation, what specifically is it supposed to be simulating?
Is it a more solipsistic simulation where the main point is just to simulate your life and everyone else is a more heavily scripted and consistent part of the program designed to record your personal development?
Is it intended to simulate the actions of an entire population of intelligent beings on a planet?
Is it intended to simulate an entire universe and we're just a small part of what it's supposed to be simulating?
How much is part of the main purpose of the simulation and how much is the accidental and insignificant side stuff?
>>1234491
I'm aware of that and I agree with it but the point I was to articulate is that I believe that consciousness is the result of what you described actually occurring in a physical non-virtual brain and thats the only way it can occur. Even if that occurred in a simulation in a manner that was identical to real life I don't think the simulated being would be conscious because its not actually happening and is just information on a machine.
Because we are actually conscious and are aware of whats going on in my mind that disproves the simulation hypothesis because the beings that were simulated would just be programmed to act identically to actually-conscious beings but that itself would not cause them to be conscious.
This conversation could easily happen in a perfectly simulated world but because I can tell from my own immediate personal experience that I am alive and conscious I can only assume everyone else is as well and that its not a simulation.
>>1233931
no because there would be nothing interesting to observe if you can build a simulated universe.
>"why are they acting in such a way?"
>"I don't know, maybe because we programmed universal laws in to force them to act in that way."
>>1233931
Yes. I am almost positive there was a science related article about this recently, on how quantum scientists are realizing how everything is happening at once, and everything we know about reality is essentially an illusion where everything "falls into place" as we perceive it.
As far as philosophy is concerned this is a very old idea. The word "simulation" is new, but the idea is very old. The Vedas knew ages ago that this world is a transitory illusion. The Greeks knew it. The whole fucking occult world knows it.
By the way, The Matrix is stupid. Don't bother citing those movies in this discussion. You can cite Baudrillard though, the man behind those movies, who himself said those movies missed the point of his philosophy. Baudrillard did not intend to imply that there was a reality behind this one. More like, everything is a simulation, and simulations are real — the separation from reality and simulation is an error. Nietzsche implied this already before him when he criticized Schopenhauer and his emphasis on appearances, that the appearance and what it supposedly conceals are not separate, it is your poor judgment that separates them.
>>1235171
What a really dumb argument.
>hehehehe why run a complex simulation, not like we know all the basic laws.
Maybe to know what these laws would create ?
>>1233961
He said a good chance.
If you were given a 1 in a billion chance, would you bet with that or against?
Yeah.
>>1235188
What law has ever created anything?
>>1235188
the simulated universe will always act according to your inputs. there's nothing for the simulator to be gained, it gives insight into nothing other than what inputs might do what. even then, when you gain the ability to simulate something as complex as a universe, chances are you will have the knowledge of your own universe to understand why something might act a certain way to a law. all a simulated universe would give insight to is the universe you're simulated and not your own. does this make sense?
>>1235218
Yes. The only conclusion a simulation can come to is that reality is a simulation.
the fun part is that if we're a simulation, there's a better than average chance whatever created us is a simulation as well
>>1235183
Maybe you should re-read that article because the simulation hypothesis isn't something believed by most quantum scientists
The Matrix was primarily based on a comic book called the Invisibles and not Baudrillard.
>>1235225
>I saw The Thirteenth Floor too.
>>1233931
if we are, the knowledge is useless without the ability to hack the simulation and go all holodeck malfunction on the creators of the sim.
>>1233931
You know when you boot an realistic game, and you walk around and see the stars - the sun, the moon and everything seem like it been like that forever - or has the apparence of development.
Well God made our world like that - with his Word He said let it be - and it was developed as a whole in its entirety already mature - first animals just poped into being - mature and without death just like man, stars, earth and everything else - there's just the appearance of age and maturity- everything was put in balance in order to sustain man.
>>1235421
Back to /pol/ you faggot
>>1233931
Not likely.
If we are in a simulation, you could quantify how big the program is running it, how much memory and running time it would need and so on.
But the universe is so big and there's so much shit happening that you would basically need a computer the size of the universe to run it real time.
Because it is unlikely that someone running the simulation would have an entire universe worth of computational power to back it up, it is unlikely that we are in a simulation.
>>1235183
>More like, everything is a simulation, and simulations are real — the separation from reality and simulation is an error
That doesn't make any sense though. That's just semantically changing "the universe" with "the simultion"
>>1235392
I actually haven't, what's it about?
>>1235440
Sort of. You're assuming whover or whatever running our simulation inhabits a world similar to ours/run by our rules. They could be 43-dimensional beings or some shit and our universe is an insignificant amount of energy to simulate.
I realize that by this logic anything goes and its not an argument for anything, but I don't know why every time the simulation theory is brought up its assumed future humans are responsible when it could be literally fucking anything
>>1233931
A simulation is an "Imitation of a situation or process"
If everything is a simulation, then "simulation" has no meaning, because there would be no "reality" with which to contrast the simulation, and nothing being imitated.
Unless!
We conceive of Nothingness or Void, as Infinite Potential, that which is being imitated by the simulation, and the means by which the simulation exists. In which case, yes, we live in a simulation, reality is Nothing, which abides forever, and phenomena are all fluctuations of the void which go back into the void once they finish running.
This is it.
>>1236314
Well if nothingness is unlimited potential it should always be something at least be something for eternity since it can.
But nothingness is just nothingness - there is not anything there nor any change.
>>1235441
It makes perfect sense if you read Nietzsche and follow where he's coming from on his idea of perspectivism. Take the idea to its end conclusion and you just might break through to the light at the cave's entrance, a light that returns you to darkness, eternally.
>>1236381
What if Nietzsche never existed - nor his philosophy - would you suicide because you were not having viewpoint in life?
>>1236737
I'd more or less think the same, I just wouldn't have arrived at my conclusions as quickly or as neatly without him. Many others have said what he said. My affinity with his type and familiarity with such a value system precedes my reading of him.
>>1233931
This is the same shit we've been doing to describe the universe since time immemorial:
>animals and plants are the things humans interact with the most
>the universe is a living thing, man...
>clockwork machines and industrial engines are the things humans interact with the most
>the universe is like a big clock, it works mechanically, man...
>computers become the things humans interact with the most
>the universe is a big computer, it's like the matrix, man...
>>1233931
Yes.
http://theawakenment.com/theoretical-physicist-james-gates-finds-computer-code-in-string-theory-equation/#sthash.PHEFVhvu.dpbs
https://www.sott.net/article/301611-Living-in-the-Matrix-Physicist-finds-computer-code-embedded-in-string-theory
>>1234149
Who says we signed up? Or even exist? This might be a computer in space for a billion years with an immense amount of data running a program, maybe not even, maybe its just checking its a data. And replicating the lives of humans is just a side-effect of analyzing the data it has. Who knows if it could be true ...?
[spoilers]Its not[/spoilers]
I simply cannot believe it.
On my calendar at work (I'm a chemist) there's a statistic.
There are more atoms in a teaspoon of water than there are teaspoons of water in the entire ocean.
There are an incomprehensibly large number of atoms in the known universe. Even with a computer powerful beyond human imagination (millions of orders of magnitude stronger than current supercomputers???), it would be virtually impossible to simulate even the number of atoms that make up our planet, let alone an entire universe.
Of course it's never impossible to rule out, but even if you turned the entire mass of the universe into one huge computer, it still sounds impossible to simulate a single planets worth of atoms.
>>1233990
>>1233999
>>1234477
With conventional computing it is completely unthinkable of course, but if quantum computers can be really as powerful as I've heard people claim it ought to be possible.
The code for the program would be in large part written by bots of course. Just give the bots as much information you can about your own world and tell them to make a rough copy.
And of course it would be a useful thing to make, ethical problems aside just think of the social experiments you could perform!
>>1233931
It's strange to think; we went from barely understanding that the earth was round, or that we belong to a solar system-- to understanding that we are in a galaxy and in a universe. Now we are far enough along to contemplate our own reality.
I lean toward the idea that we are in a simulation and I have said this and held the belief for several years. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. I feel that many people are scared of the idea much like those scared of the world being round rather than flat. It doesn't matter if your perception is wrong or right, it's more about understanding what is actually happening. Fear only stands in the way when it comes to finding the truth. Simulation or not, I am excited to see where science takes us within my lifetime.
>>1237224
>It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Why? If we're in a simulation, something must be doing the simulating. If there's a reality beyond ours, why does that help explain our reality? Is that one the ultimate reality, or simulated as well?
>>1233999
>This is only an argument you can make if you don't understand how processors work. The processing power would be enormous to process a world.
You're under the impression that processing power will remain the same. The first silicon cpu was made in 1971. 45 years ago. Do you think that we can even remotely comprehend processor computation based on 45 years experience? It's true that we have hit the transistor limit currently but new advances will surpass that and quantum will break through. Eventually it may be in every home. I don't see why not. We know virtually nothing in terms of computation power, so we're better off not acting like we know when we don't.
>>1237239
It makes sense to me because of the dramatic growth in computer technology overall. My post here: >>1237248 somewhat explains this.
It's not a question of "if we're in a simulation then something must be doing the simulating", it's "if we're not in a simulation why aren't they simulating.".
As for why something would simulate us, what the benefit would be, what the outcome will be for us as humanity, etc. I do not know. I can guess but there's really no point to that. We likely won't see an answer within our lifetime.
>>1237256
>if we're not in a simulation why aren't they simulating.
That doesn't make any sense. The nebulously defined "They"m y very well be simulating something, but it doesn't flow logically that our reality should be a simulation because of that.
>>1237261
The only chance that we're not in a simulation is that this is the first run of intelligent life. It is very unlikely and far more likely that this would be another run of the program for whatever reason.
Eventually technology will get to a point where simulation will be commonplace, much like how espionage and peering into the inner workings of every person's life is commonplace. It may seem outlandish but it really isn't.
Simulation technology and computing technology will grow and eventually a great simulation is inevitable. That great simulation will evolve and become even greater.
A basic idea of this is google data mining to see trends throughout the world. Analytic data like this will influence the input for simulations to see the outcomes of specific circumstances.
I hope this helps you understand.
>>1237280
>The only chance that we're not in a simulation is that this is the first run of intelligent life.
Why should that not be the case?
>>1237297
It very may well be and I can't rule it out. The ideas that pushed me toward simulation theory is the fact that science knows very little about consciousness, so little that we can't explain what it is or where it comes from.
Have you ever had a dream so vivid that you have seen, smelt, touched, communicated and then abruptly awoken into our reality? Who is to say that you didn't wake from one simulation into another. That is the real existential question.
>>1236871
*Aber, mein freund*, a simulation only needs to simulate the atoms that can be seen by each person, if it needs to simulate reality on that small a level at all.
>>1237307
>The ideas that pushed me toward simulation theory is the fact that science knows very little about consciousness, so little that we can't explain what it is or where it comes from.
We are limited there because of the complexity of the human brain, and even still, there are structures identified that seem to code to "consciousness". I think what we're limited in is our willingness to accept that there are material, observable occurrences in an organ for every feeling or thought we have, and our instincts tell us that those are somehow separate from our bodily functions. We are trying hard to think "body" and "mind" are two separate things, when they actually aren't.
>>1233983
nigga what?
>>1233931
Te other 2 options seem less probable imo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs
>>1234018
>we are in the age of computers and simulations
>the world is a simulation!!
What a cincidence...Man, physicalist scientific thinking has really become boring.
>>1233931
>>1233931
i could use ur help /his/
I gotta write a short argumentative essay on this
"If the world is a sophisticated computer simulation, then there is no way to discover this from inside the simulation."
Any suggestions for arguments I could use?
>>1238000
For or against the world being a simulation?
>>1238000
Plato's allegory of the cave, except we can't do any more than discuss the shadows?
>>1233931
The axioms, or premises (whatever you want to call them), that it is predicated on are dubious. You'll noticed that there are a lot of 'ifs' thrown around when deducing the conclusion.
>>1238010
Either for or against.
>>1237854
>What a cincidence...Man, physicalist scientific thinking has really become boring.
It has nothing to do with science. It is a philosophical argument. You can thank philosophy for burdening the world with yet more bullshit.
>>1238022
>It has nothing to do with science. It is a philosophical argument.
>>1238030
It has to do with the prevalance of physicalist thinking in the contemporary world.
The idea of reality as a machine/computer/simulation is a direct result from thinking of the world as the equivalent of all matter.
>>1238042
>The idea of reality as a dream/illusion is a direct result from thinking of the world as the equivalent of ideas.
Nothing new under the sun.
>>1238042
It's the result of anyone paying attention to philosophy, particularly weirdos that would use a label like 'physicalist' to try and dump responsibility for yet another mess created by philosophers onto scientists.
>>1238050
Don't forget to make your sacrifices to the climate gods this week, and atone for disrespecting Earth Mother. With you devotion, we can ward off superstorms, tornadoes, floods, and droughts.
>>1238079
>Don't forget to make your sacrifices to the climate gods this week, and atone for disrespecting Earth Mother. With you devotion, we can ward off superstorms, tornadoes, floods, and droughts.
That's not possible, anon. There are no climate gods.
>>1233931
No, but an evil demon is deceiving us into believing that we are living in a simulation.
>>1238079
>that image
Fug we've come full circle :DDDD
>>1238104
It's the Roman goddess Diversitas
>>1238058
>scientist
>science
OMG, you used the holy words, do not carry the lord's name in vein.
>>1238111
Looks like Elon Musk
>>1238123
What holy words?
If the world is a simulation, what's the point of exploring?
>>1238184
For the same reason autists play Minecraft
>>1238184
What is the meaning of life.png
Thus we see that if we take solipsism seriously — if we assume that it is true and that all valid explanations must scrupulously conform to it — it self-destructs. How exactly does solipsism, taken seriously, differ from its common-sense rival, realism? The difference is based on no more than a renaming scheme. Solipsism insists on referring to objectively different things (such as external reality and my unconscious mind, or introspection and scientific observation) by the same names. But then it has to reintroduce the distinction through explanations in terms of something like the 'outer part of myself'. But no such extra explanations would be necessary without its insistence on an inexplicable renaming scheme. Solipsism must also postulate the existence of an additional class of processes — invisible, inexplicable processes which give the mind the illusion of living in an external reality. The solipsist, who believes that nothing exists other than the contents of one mind, must also believe that that mind is a phenomenon of greater multiplicity than is normally supposed. It contains other-people-like thoughts, planet-like thoughts and laws-of-physics-like thoughts. Those thoughts are real. They develop in a complex way (or pretend to), and they have enough autonomy to surprise, disappoint, enlighten or thwart that other class of thoughts which call themselves 'I'. Thus the solipsist's explanation of the world is in terms of interacting thoughts rather than interacting objects. But those thoughts are real, and interact according to the same rules that the realist says govern the interaction of objects. Thus solipsism, far from being a world-view stripped to its essentials, is actually just realism disguised and weighed down by additional unnecessary assumptions — worthless baggage, introduced only to be explained away.
>>1238288
That's actually a good argument.
Mind if I save it?
>>1238184
Immersion.
>>1233931
Yes and you personally live in mine.
>>1238322
It from book - Fabric of reality by David Deutsch.
http://jake.freivald.org/deutschOnSolipsism.html
>>1238288
That's not even a valid argument, the author is full of shit.
t, solipsist
>>1238380
What's wrong with it?
>>1238288
Concept of simulation =/= solipsism
>>1238410
He's just bitching for sake of bitching, reality was shaped solely by mind and you can't prove it wasn't.
What would be the point of being in a simulation? To live in a world better than the one you're in. If we are in a simulation then the world simulating it is even worse than this one. So much worse the simulators considered all the problems of this simulated world acceptable enough to go into the simulation.
>>1238473
The "world" outside of the simulation is nothingness.
Does it matter?
>>1238473
that's true. the world simulating this world of simulation is much worse.
>>1238473
>What would be the point of being in a simulation?
To be part of the simulation.
You simulate something to see what would happen given set parameters.
I spend my life watching movies, listening prerecorded music, reading books, playing video games, dreaming... etc, and all this things is a simulation of material reality, . Everything that I love in this life, it is a virtual things. After all, my world(including myself, my "I") is a simulation generated by my brain, colors, feelings, emotions it all just an illusions. For me it does not change anything. Only one question, why our simulation so suck and boring, even I can create something more interesting. As soon as I get access to the virtual reality, I'll forget about this world and I will live only in a simulation. Only scientists can have problem here. For me material reality interesting only in terms of survival.
>>1238650
>inb4: shit grammar
>>1233931
It is possible but we'll probably never really know.
As for now we know that time is likely quantum and so is energy but there are other things like spatial dimensions for instance that at least seem continuous(there wasn't a proof for them being quantum) which would be hard to simulate using typical digital circuits.
Let's just all rush Japan or something and crash the server.
>>1236344
>>1236344
But is the basis upon which all existence rests, in the same way that a canvas is the basis upon which all paintings rest.
The closer something is to Nothingness, the better it serves as a basis for Thingness.
;-)
>>1238650
Is that Doc Manhattan?!
HOLY FUCK DID THEY MAKE NEW WATCHMEN?!
>>1236871
/thread
>>1234018
Why don't you just say intelligent design or god the architect?
>>1233931
Of course there is the possibility. Any remonstrations toward this fact are ill founded.
But it's also entirely missing the point. As a hypothesis it is just like any other religion. The hard questions come after accepting it as the truth.
Personally I would be thrilled if it was proven we lived in a simulation.
A possible life proven after death.
Beats having your existence fucking obliterated forever.
>>1237887
if our universe is a simulation and we have no evidence of the other universe, then our universe is the most complex universe known to exist. presuming the existence of a universe running the simulation of our universe is unsound since the premise is unproven.
>>1234415
>Even if it was sophisticated enough to simulate every single molecule in the universe that doesn't mean that the simulation has any physical basis to it
To the simulated being inside of it it would feel as if it is physical, whether it is really physical is entirely not important.
>because mathematical formulas can't be given consciousness
How do you know? We aren't even sure what consciousness means and you are speaking like some sort of expert.
>its just a bunch of code in a computer
And you are just bunch of neurons
Sorry
You are just bunch of carbon and electricity
>>1233931
maybe we are, maybe not. So what?
People in this thread just don't get what this topic is about.
The question of this world being a simulation or not is not meant to make you ask other questions like, who is behind the simulation? Why are we in one? How does it work? etc. The real reason behind the topic is to ask you: if all things in this world were an illusion, what would you do about it, how would you live?
It's a question about your values and it exposes the type of person you are. Are you able to be immersed in the illusion, or are you going to neurotically search for the "reality" behind it? Are you going to become a pessimistic advocating antinatalism or feel-good nihilist advocating drugs / base hedonism, or are you going to become an egoist focused on power, creation / self-Godhood and self-overcoming? Can you still love a thing in this world even when all of it is illusion? Does it make you love it even more?
What does everything mean to you now, with the knowledge that the world we are living in is no more than a dream?
>>1233931
in a sense our brains ''simulate'' or construct, most of our conscious experience
>>1233961
>Elon Musk said we are in one
Yeah, like he said he wanted to retire on Mars as an offhand joke and it ended up in two dozen headlines.
>>1233931
I for one would like to welcome our simulation overlords
Hyper-dimensional aliens use the human simulation as a kind of soul calculator.
how long until someone turns on the cheat codes
>>1233999
1. It might be using advanced processors that are billions of years ahead of our time.
2. It might not be processing everything and is doing a great deal of abstraction. As it would only need to process stuff for the observes and abstract anything in between. Which is kind of what quantum mechanics says.
>>1233961
Those at the top of the tower are absolutely mad. Simple enough.
