What would happen in a Scifi setting where science has definitively proven that
1) Our universe as we know it is a simulation.
2) It was created by something.
Weird shit
Also, those that posted thumbnails would be publicly flogged.
>>43803268
Then metagaming would be perfectly fine and NPCs would be second class citizens.
>>43803268
What is "Star Ocean: till the end of time"?
The Matrix.
Factions of godlike super-hackers that manipulate the reality code to give themselves superpowers
Real Answer? Pretty huge existential crisis that might destroy civilization if it got out. So they cover it up, while simultaneously studying ways to exploit the simulation and learn more. Government agents go around silencing those close to the truth. Weirdness pops up everywhere as the simulations programming is stretched to its limited. Automated maintenance programs kick in, to regulate the issue.or even reboot the whole universe if necessary - the simulation must not be compromised (another good reason for the cover up, if the simulation is fully compromised by us becoming aware of it, whoever created it or the system may pull the plug)
Think The Matrix crossed with World of Darkness (with the god machine). PCs must deal with the existential knowledge they may not even be real, exploit the system, avoid capture by the government agencies or deletion by the progs. and ultimately decide, do they even want to do anything with this knowledge, discover the truth, or just exploit it? Does morality cease to function when we aren't real? (The paladin in me says no but its something other would ponder)
>>43803918
Hacker: The Compiling
>>43803268
Depends on the setting.
>>43803855
I think what OP is suggesting is that, the inhabitants of the simulated universe are artifacts of the simulation. In The Matrix, those in the matrix physically exist outside of the matrix, their minds have just been placed in a simulation. What OP is suggesting is that people and the entire universe exist only within a computer program, possibly created eons ago by some unknowable entity.
>>43803268
But anon, we already know there is a high probability that is true.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
Probably nothing. I mean, everything would still be real, in a pragmatic sense. You and the world both exist enough for you to be able to perceive it.
Frankly, if part of your identity was based on existence being some sort of definite, falsifiable thing, you honestly deserve to have an existential crisis.
Most people will either dismiss it as science-philosophy nonsense, others won't care, an insignificantly tiny minority might act out on that knowledge. (suicide, form weirdass cults trying to hack the matrix.) Nothing would happen.
>>43804535
Some people would break down from existential crises due to existing inside a computer. Most people would realize, ultimately, that this doesn't actually have any practical implications on us or our universe. We're still in the same universe, and that universe exists for us, even if it exists as a simulation.
I mean, when the prospect of our universe being a simulation is brought up, people often go LOL THAT'D BE SO WEIRD LET'S HACK REALITY AND POST PORN, but that's really not how it works. It's not like we're inside a cartoony computer program even if the proposed simulation scenario is true. It's that we're in an universe that was spawned in a simulation, and works, presumably, in all aspects like an universe should, barring technical limitations (resolutions, maximum parameters etc).
So the answer is, more or less: a lot of trepidation and crises, not too much practical difference. We now understand one aspect of our universe completely, but probably do not know how our universe actually functions completely.
Possibly we could try to communicate with the something that created us. Depends on the scenario whether showing awareness of the simulation would actually get the creator to react. Maybe they would just restart the whole goddamn thing, which would be bad for us.
>>43803268
Spoilers
>>43804645
I don't know. If this paper >>43804535
is correct (which for full disclosure I don't agree with), because there must be hugely many simulations going on, the probability of us being the only one that figures it out are even lower than the odds we're the real ones.
Also, if these simulations are really doing a functionally perfect recreation of the human consciousness, this society doing the simulation must have made an effort to ethically resolve if it was okay to shut us down. And in a post-human society, I would think human minds not in human bodies would be considered people. Unless they were SO advanced we were just cockroaches to them. But I don't really buy that, we must be of appreciable enough complexity that they felt they needed to run a hyper-realistic simulation to better understand us.
>>43803893
at that point its elderscrolls.
>>43804728
>they felt they needed to run a hyper-realistic simulation to better understand us.
That's human arrogance talking. You think they'd simulate a universe just for humans? If 'simulation theory' is remotely accurate, then at best we're artifacts of the greater simulation. The true purpose is probably unknowable and/or related to the greater structure of this universe as a whole.
>>43804772
Then why bother simulating us at all? You accuse me of human arrogance, yet what large effect could we have that would make going to the effort of simulating billions of human brains worth it?
You could argue that the simulation is so complex that we just happened to evolve within it, but that seems like bunk too. Why would future humans simulate a past that allowed humans to evolve randomly, thus taking much more processing power, if humans weren't the primary focus?
>>43804535
It's a pretty simple idea.
1. It is possible to simulate a universe. This is obviously true as we could 'simulate' a less complex universe with arbitrary rules right now.
2. It is therefore possible to simulate a universe in a universe, at least in sufficiently complex ones.
3. Many-universe theory is true. (Well, okay.)
4. Therefore, with every possible universe being somewhere, or at least multiple universes with intelligent life, there are more simulated universes in reality than 'original' ones.
5. Therefore, statistically, we are more likely to be in a simulation than an 'original' universe.
This isn't a complete argument. There are lots of physical phenomena that also correlate with a simulation.
>>43804807
> Why would future humans simulate a past that allowed humans to evolve randomly, thus taking much more processing power, if humans weren't the primary focus?
If they're simulating an actual model of a universe, they can't *not* simulate humans (or any other intelligent entity) as the natural end product of physics. You can't model star formation or the movement and interaction of galaxies without the electroweak force, the strong nuclear force and gravity, which is all humans needed to spring up organically on a random hunk of rock.
>>43804834
I get that, but why not just delete life whenever it arose? Surely we can't have a huge effect on anything they'd be trying to measure, unless of course it was us.
>>43804807
>going to the effort of simulating billions of human brains worth it?
In a scenario like this they're probably simulating the entire universe. Every single last particle down to Plank time&space resolution (Heisenberg, who's that?). With that it matters little if shit's part of a brain or not, you still need to calculate all their interaction with everything around for every time step.
Of course, a more to the point answer here is that it's all just an old, tired philosophical cul-de-sac that some people drag up for fuck knows what reason despite it never going anywhere at all on its own, so the best you can do is go gnostic like the Matrix or something like that. As such, don't ask why, don't ask anything, you're not going to get any answers that are worth the bother of reading them.
>>43804855
I don't think you understand. If they are simulating something the size of a universe, our existence is barely a blip, not even worthy of deleting. If you go play a game like Space Engine, which models the size of (a portion) of the universe, you will see we are insignificant compared to the vastness of the cosmos.
Besides, that assumes the simulation is in real-time. More likely they simulate the entire universe from beginning to end in a single 'block' and then go back through to analyse it. Our perception of time passing may be relative.
>>43804924
>>43804868
In link anon posted, they weren't simulating the entire universe, and their explicit purpose was to study us ("ancestor-simulations").
>>43804807
The human arrogance is assuming that the simulation was created by humans who are just more technologically advanced.
You also assume we are intelligent and complex enough to be on par with whoever created the simulation, enough that they would be studying us to learn something new about how we work.
More likely, we'd just be a fairly advanced ai compared to other animals, but still tragically predictable and incapable of true adaptation and learning outside the program we are a part of.
Basically, every human like ai we try to create? That's us to them.
>>43804807
Simulating an universe with different parameters than the one they're in?
"let's try to see what weird shit happens if we change around a couple of coefficient on gravity force and electrical conduction trough void"
Lots of people start wearing "Descartes was right" tee shirts.
>>43804868
>(Heisenberg, who's that?)
Cunt physically incapable of having fun or having others enjoy theirs. Almost as bad as that twat Einstein.
>>43803268
There's a HFY screencap where Humans discover they're a simulation in which life's basic values of "love, cooperate and evolve" were repalced by into "hunt, assimilate"
It's a fun read.
I don't see why noone has yet brought up the logical counterpart to reality hacking, the obvious ultimate goal achievable by any simulated entity: dialling yourself out.
It is pretty much the most difficult thing imaginable, since you don't even know if there will be a means to embody yourself or comprehend the world outside the simulation. Where Sophie's World dealt with this prospect through some witty handwavium, you would need to basically arrange large portions of the universe around you in order to fault the system running the simulation into exporting you as a self-running program capable of migrating to other systems. It would require a knowledge of the hardware and software running the universe that might not actually be achievable within the simulated-verse.
But there is a chance that it is possible and that is all it would take for someone, somewhere, to sacrifice entire worlds of what have been proven to be essentially non-agents for a chance at being REAL.
>>43803918
>Does morality cease to function when we aren't real?
That depends on the ethical system you use.
Utilitarianism, for example, wouldn't give a shit.
Kantian ethics on the other hand would implode instantly.
Are there any other perks that let you permanently give copies of your powers to other people besides the ones found in Imaginary Friend jump?
I really don't want to put the fate of my chain in the hands of a child for a decade just to for those perks.
