>this is what singularity fags actually believe
They gon' trap us inside VR, once you put Oculus on, when you think you took it off you're actually still inside the simulation.
>>54348002
dude the matrix lmao
Singularity is already here
You're living in it
Say Thank you. Or don't! We wuz rite
>>54347892
Do you think they're going to be nice or something? Your laptop's/desktops have been watching you fap for years
>>54348002
Sounds like my last dxm trip, did I ever actually wake up?
>>54348987
Degenerate
Having enough processing power to simulate a human brain doesn't mean much if we can't figure out how to simulate the human brain in its entirety in the first place.
>>54347892
The singularity curve is a continuous curve. you don't just go from laptop to sentience, things have to snowball
You are now aware that tablets and VR are precursor techs to AI and it shows you how far we have to go. You better hope Fusion isn't.
>>54351846
It's an S-curve, like the development of any other branch of the tech tree. The big controversy is predicting the slope.
Also, you mean sapience, not sentience. We have sentience already. It's pretty easy to program.
>>54348002
So long as its better than this hell, I wont be complaining.
>>54348987
>dxm
>not tripping on LSD or shrooms
You fool.
>>54352742
Seriously, seems like odds are to me it will be the favorable option, I honestly can't wait
>>54352755
this desu senpai
>>54348987
You can't actually know the difference between a "perfect virtual world" and the "real world" so thinking about such things is pointless.
>>54352821
We might be in a simulation right now.
And I'm not trying to be funny, there are people out there trying to figure it out.
Basically, if a universe can be simulated, chances are a civilization has already done it and we're that simulation.
>>54352936
It's an unfalsifiable claim so it isn't worth thinking about. That's what I was trying to say.
>>54352969
There's been some mathematical theories I'm not even going to pretend to understand that can be proven either true or false and depending on that would imply we do or don't live in a simulation.
>>54353090
>I'm not even going to pretend to understand
Don't worry, from your post we can tell that you don't
>>54353199
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf
The paper in question. It is stated that even if proven, it would require different methods to verify it being the case and it could very well be disproven.
My point was that it is quite possible to prove or disprove whether we are living in a simulation in reply to >>54352969
>>54353353
The paper is also available in shitty dumbed down youtube video form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcPNiworbo
>>54348987
Just kill yourself you fucking druggie.
>>54348987
No, you're still asleep. Just like me.
>>54353353
I read the abstract, and it sounds like:
“Here are some potentially observable consequences of one particular type of simulation in one particular type of universe that *might* mean we're living in a simulation, if we can detect them”
Pretty fucking different from “mathematical theories that can be proven either true or false and depending on that would imply we do or don't live in a simulation” if you ask me.
HEY FAGGOTS, IF SINGULARITY IS POSSIBLE, THEN WHY HASN'T IT BROUGHT HUMANS FROM THE FUTURE?
>>54356682
maybe time travel is impossible, faggot
>>54356631
After skimming through the whole paper, let me change that description to:
“Here are some potentially observable consequences of one particular type of simulation in one particular type of universe that *might* mean we're living in a simulation, if we can detect them (but we probably can't)”
>>54356631
>that would imply we do or don't
Doesn't mean
>Prove we do or don't
If this particular test implies we live in a simulation, we'd still need to do more tests to prove it beyond doubt.
My point was that we've worked out it's entirely possible to prove or disprove it, starting with this. It's not an unfalsifiable claim as >>54352969 stated. It's just so far been neither proven or disproven. And as these experiments are done, in time, we will discover whether we are or not.
>>54352742
>>54352757
What if it already happened and it is in fact this hell that is your prison
>>54356797
I guess you don't know what “imply” means, funny for somebody posting on /g/.
>>54356797
>we'd still need to do more tests to prove it beyond doubt.
Also, the irony in this sentence is absolutely ridiculous.
“tests” and “prove beyond all doubt” are mutually exclusive.
I can tell you aren't a scientist.
>My point was that we've worked out it's entirely possible to prove or disprove it
What the fuck? Were you on smoke while reading that paper? NOWHERE did it get even remotely close to claiming something this absurd.
>>54356937
In particular, let me quote these bits from the conclusion:
>In particular, we have explored a number of observables that may reveal the underplying structure of a simulation performed with a rigid hyper-cubic space-time grid. [...] Given the ease with which current lattice QCD simulations incorporate improvement or employ discretizations that preserve chiral symmetry, it seems unlikely that any but the very earliest universe simulations would be unimproved with respect to the lattice spacing. Of course, improvement in this contect masks much of our ability to probe the possibility that our universe is a simulation, [...]
>>54349693
>Having enough processing power to simulate a human brain
We can barely muster up enough processing power to simulate a tapeworm.
>>54357030
Where's your can-do attitude son?
>>54356682
>implying it hasn't
>>54356902
Might as well virtually try again
>>54356937
>I can tell you aren't a scientist
*tips fedora*
