How do we know we aren't living in a simulation? Is pic related's argument valid?
>>891358
we dont
it's actually quite likely imo, but we might never find out even if we are
Does it matter?
>>891368
Does it not? If we are indeed a simulation, then what is the point of anything?
>>891365
>actually quite likely.
Not really.
>>891375
Is there a point of anything, even if we're not in a simulation?
>>891378
a universe can contain many advanced civilizations who can each create many simulated universes hence it's more likely than we're in one rather than being in an actual universe
>>891392
And what houses those civilizations? Another simulation? You bring up a good point, but Occam's razor for me dictates that a non-simulation universe is more likely than a simulation universe.
There's no evidence to believe we are in a simulation. We can't disprove the notion, but you can't actually back up the simulation hypothesis as a positive assertion. It's an interesting thought experiment that hammers home the fundamental limitations of human perceptions and nothing more.
>>891392
You assume the odds of living in any of these universe is the same, and so you'd have one real universe vs. thousands, millions, billions or trillions of fake universes.
However, why is that? Because of computational limits, each universe must be smaller, easier to compute, than the one that contains it. So, you can assume the "least" fake universes + the real universe would have a greater probability of popping you - if you had an equal chance of being any person in any universe.
Of course, most universes would be "faker" than the average universe, as each universe could contain several, so who knows, I should be working right now.
>>891358
OP forgot about the second part of Descartes arguement
If we live in a simulation, someone has to be controlling that simulation
Either some person or just some other thing, and that is where you begin understanding what reality actually is
>>891375
Let's say we know with 100% certainity this is a simulation.
Well in order to make any statement about whether a non-simulated reality is preferable we would have to experience it.
So any attempt to compare our simulated reality to the non-simulated is utterly nonsense. How can you even say the non-simulated reality is "meaningful" when you havn't fucking experienced it?
what does the 'give her the dick' man have to do with anything? lol
>>891505
boltzmann brain
>>891358
It doesn't matter.
>>891358
see
>>888505
>>891792
Not so much a case for "simulation", more like like a case of "quantum soup ghost hallucinating a full life, for short bouts of existence before fading into oblivion over and over again forever".
>>891358
We are incapable of knowing anything beyond the scope of our own observations of space and time. Descartes' argument is still valid, however, because even if your thoughts are not your own and are being supplied to you, you are still a being that is capable of having those thoughts, and thus you exist.
>people discussing philosophy without knowing what 'valid' means in the subject
>>891358
problem is he wasn't arguing in favor of our nonexistence.
>>891358
We're not in a simulation, but you and me are the only humans on this site.
The rest are bots
>>891375
a simulation of reality is still real you know, because it necessarily exists within the reality it simulates.
like a ship inside a bottle inside a ship
>>891848
That's a simulation. It's simulating something that isn't actually there.
>imitate the appearance or character of.
You're falling for the creator fallacy. It's a simulation, so it must have a cognizant creator. The universe exist so it must have a creator. Of course, the D is out to prove god exists and is biased in that way.
>>892128
Are hallucinations simulations, then?
>>892150
It is questionable if just altering reality is simulation, but a dream-state is a simulation yes. That's your mind simulating an alternate reality.
>>892150
Yes, albeit simulations performed by your brain. Hallucinations occur when your brain is receiving sensory input it doesn't know what to do with, or is experiencing a lack of sensory input and creates images that you perceive as real to make up for it.
>>892150
Technically, everything that you're aware of is just your brain simulating reality out of it's attempt to make sense of the limited sensory data afforded by the nervous system.
maybe think of your neurons as meat circuits running on salt ions that can be anywhere from halfway between on and off depending on the approach intensity of their action potential.
Fucking hell.
This shit does nothing but make people talk in circles. It never leads to any new conclusions. Move the fuck on.
>>892235
So, have you ever read any philosophers on the matter?
