>'One In Billions' Chance We're Not Living In A Computer Simulation
What did he mean by this?
>>76087077
When he said that he ment " One on billions chance we're not living in a computer simulation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jVc8coAUhc
>>76087077
If we all have 1 in a billion chance then together we have 7 out of one chances to not live in a simulation.
He meant that he can spout as much bullshit as he wants and people will eat it up because hurr durr Elon Musk
>>76087077
Too many drugs taken while overthinking a thought exercise.
Just contemplate the misery of your own personal life - what sort of creator would waste processing power to simulate your fucking life?
>>76087077
Lol how would this idiot know?
It's like saying, "high likelihood half of the population are actually aliens disguised as humans". I mean, maybe? It's unknowable, but any sensible person doesn't believe it.
He meant that his hair transplants worked out really well
>>76087077
>White people ran a what-if simulation to answer the greatest question of their time: what if Hitler had lost WWII?
>>76087200
you dont understand how 1 in a billion works, do you?
>>76087355
One that wants to know ALL the variables
>>76087077
We have a one in two chance we're not living in a simulation.
>>76087077
I came to the conclusion that it is possible we are a computer simulation years ago.
Think about it. There are so many scientific questions that remain unanswered, like why gravity exists and what happened before the big bang.
>>76087355
>what sort of creator would waste processing power to simulate your fucking life?
OP BTFO
>>76088315
Those questions are unanswered because our approach to them is predicated on human logic which the universe has shown to not work on. See the Uncertainty principle, double slit experiment, and almost anything in quantum mechanics.
>>76087374
exactly, this idea that aliens are slowly replacing the population of earth with fakes is ridiculous
>>76087077
"This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed."
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
If humanity reaches post human super intelligence and run ancestor simulations they would probably do it more than once. Probably million or billions of times.
So assuming that there would be billions of simulations and only one real one, it is most likely that we are not the real one.
And looking at the current world and where computer games and virtual reality is moving it seems very likely that we will reach the point where we are capable or running ancestor simulations.
Why would anyone simulate the universe? What purpose would it serve?
>>76088315
What kind of computer would be required to run a simulation like the known universe? The entire concept seems insane to me, yet it is supported by very intelligent physicists.
>>76087355
You're thinking too small and Elon Musk is just exposing the tip of the ice berg.
Consciousness is an emergent property and thus cannot be simulated; therefore we aren't living in such a programme.
>>76088685
So they can shitpost on message boards about how their universe is better than everyone else's universe.
> there are people who actually believe he's intelligent because he's convinced the government to give his companies billions of dollars in free subsidies and the drawings to old nasa technology
> many of them are ITT
>>76087077
when science pioneers get old they go insane
see: stephen hawkings
>>76088685
By all means, it doesn't even have to be the universe. What evidence is there that anyone except you is a sentient being? What if YOU are the only AI in the simulation and everything else does not truly exist?
There is absolutely no requirement for them to simulate the entire universe.
Is Elon Musk as based as Peter Thiel?
>>76088685
why would they not if they could? Imagine we had the technology right now to simulate human history and watch it all, 100% some billioaires would put the mone together to amke it happen. As I said above, we are slowly moving in that direction with computer games already.
here is a great interview with the guy who came up with the philosophocal concept. It's great because it's very easy to grasp for normies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs
>>76088747
>emergent
>not coming out of numbers
>not thinking of labels as programs
>>76088689
A computer with power that we can't comprehend currently.
I'm sure 100-200 years down the line we could feasibly simulate a small universe with technology. We're only 15-20 years away from reaching technological singularity.
>>76088953
You sound like a lunatic right now
>>76087077
How did Elon get his hair back?
>>76089027
Cogito ergo sum. If we're going to go focus on pondering the nature of reality, might as well start from the base up.
>>76089027
we always sound like lunatics in these threads
we're not replacing scientists here. Anyway, you don't think most scientists and mathematicians have pet theories?
>>76087355
>what sort of creator would waste processing power to simulate your fucking life?
That's not how a simulation works. The creator sets the stage and then lets the simulation run its course. Whatever amazing, beautiful, ugly or pathetic shit happens within the simulation is not directly influenced by the creator. It's basically the science version of believing in an omnipotent abrahamic god who set the stage, gave us free will and then fucked off and observes without intervening.
>tfw god is actually a fat alien NEET who live's in his mom's basement. our entire existence is just a program on his computer.
>>76088953
>There is absolutely no requirement for them to simulate the entire universe.
but now you're just describing the "brain in the vat" argument
>>76089233
>free will
>>76087355
Ever played The Sims? For fun, obviously.
>>76088689
Posthuman super intelligence could turn an entire planet into a computer.
Once we reach the point of mashines with human intelligence, these mashines will then invent even smarter mashines and then these mashines will invent even smarter mashines etc.
There would be a technological revolution every five minutes. We would make the technological progress of 10 years in 10 minutes.
It's hard to say how exactly it would work, as we lack the intelligence to imagine all the stuff these super mashines could invent etc.
>>76089265
>yfw his single alien mum bought him a backdoor to our universe's logical consistency so he would leave her alone
>>76088584
It's pretty silly I agree, we would never do something like that.
>>76089265
>he's not a child he's 34
>>76089378
>Once we reach the point of mashines with human intelligence, these mashines will then invent even smarter mashines and then these mashines will invent even smarter mashines etc.
Why? Why wouldn't the advances get more distant the more advanced we become?
>>76089290
Not really. The brain in the vat requires a brain, whilst I'm implying that humans would be AIs.
>>76087077
any device which performs calculations is a computer. ergo, the universe itself is a computer. it's all just chugging along proceeding in an orderly fashion from some initial set of conditions, similar to old-fashioned analog computers.
it's not so much that you're living in a simulation, you ARE the simulation. and to top it off, it denies you even have free will. everything around you is a physics problem, sorting itself out in an orderly way.
basically, he thinks we're all clockwork oranges.
>>76087200
10/10
>>76089299
This is a very old and outdated study that was done with technology that was highly inaccurate in measuring brain waves.
>>76089611
Because we can create AIs superior to humans, which then would create AIs superior to them, which in turn would continue the cycle until we've got a dyson sphere of quantum computing around our sun.
>>76089233
>free will
>>76087077
that we're not living in a simulation
subtly telling the guy who asked that he's retarded
>>76089611
Technological singularity. At some point, machines will be able to learn themselves. The more they learn, the smarter and more able to learn they become.
It's an exponential cycle.
>>76087200
Thanks Big Papa Pump
>>76089706
>which then would create AIs superior to them,
Why would this be a rapid process, and not something that takes 10,000 years?
>>76089233
>implying the programmer doesn't have hooks to modify simulation parameters on the fly
Yeah ok kiddo. Everyone knows a open world game this big would have tons of coding bugs.
>>76087077
Is that Elon Musk?
Did he get a hair transplant or something?
>>76089792
There's nothing to assume its exponential though
>>76089299
that only proves a time delay, and says nothing significant either way.
>>76087077
What he said isn't profound.
It's simple, if it is possible to simulate a universe like the one we live in it is almost certain we are already living in one. The reason is simply that presumably any civilisation that gains the technology to sim as universe will do so, for many reasons such as research or simple for fun.
The new universe being simulated may well have a civilisation that likewise develops such sims. Each civ will probably create many simulated universes, but even if every simulation only ever creates one then that is potentially a infinite loop of sims.
Which leaves you with the conclusion I started with: if it is possible to simulate a universe like ours then we are almost certainly in one. The numbers would be against us to presume ourselves to be the start of the chain.
>>76087355
It's not about individual life. think more on the Tron side of things. Beings have the power to create simulated universes which they themselves can exist in, the life that forms through evolution is it's own life, just part of the machine but no less alive.
>>76089717
So why are you always so angry at minorities, homosexuals, feminists and SJWs when they have absolutely no influence over what they are doing?
>>76089693
Free will is still a myth. Each and every one of our decisions is based on a combination of our genes and past experiences. Any act you perform is based on these qualities that you cannot change and even if you were to attempt, it would be because of aforementioned qualities. We are beings, completely and utterly controlled by our nature.
>>76089842
Why would it be slow? The AI is vastly more intelligent than any human being has ever been, or even could be. It can replicate itself or build more efficient AIs easily with the usage of 3d printing and AIs bringing it material.
>>76089952
So instead of us reaching singularity, we are singularity?
>>76089952
But in the end, he is only referring to the tip of the iceberg, which is just convenient anthropomorphic thinking. Many identical universes can be contained within non-identical simulators. There are infinite pathways in the structure of the numbers.
>man from 900BC says there is a great chance that we are living on the back of a giant turtle
>man from 100AD says there is a great chance we are trapped in a cave watching projections against a wall
>man from 1500AD says there is a great chance the sky is painted on like a big mural
>man from 2016 says there is a great chance we live in a computer simulation
>>76090056
Why do you assume he has free will either?
>>76087077
He's saying what every occult philosophy and most religions have said throughout history, he's just stating it from the perspective of a staunch materialist.
Personally I believe God created the physical universe and then made thinking beings imbued with a little piece of himself to experience his creation in a way an omnipresent omnipotent being never could. At death we will be reabsorbed into God so he can absorb our life experience, wipe our slates clean, then send back out to the physical world as a new being.
>>76089842
Because A.I isn't limited by biological properties. It could always be finding the most efficient ways to improve itself and create more processing power. This is happening much faster than you and I could even think. We're talking nano seconds here bro. Light speed.
>>76087077
>Chance Elon Musk isn't a creepy twerp like the other Silicon Valley autists: 'One in Billions'.
>>76088972
Not even remotely
>Elon
>Has to back the right horse in a presidential election to get subsidizes for his two businesses, neither of which have ever turned a profit
>Is one of the only white SA that likes Mandela
>Has a massive stuttering problem
>Degenerate atheist, can't see cultural benefit of religion
>Is backing Hillary
>Thiel
>Trump delegate
>Friends with iron Ann
>Chess master
>Christian, sees cultural benefit of religion
>Doesn't think women and blacks should vote
>Against non-white immigration
>>76087077
The argument is thus: think how advanced we can make computer simulations today. Think how advanced we will be able to make computer simulations in 100, or 1000 years. Think how advanced an alien civilization that has existed for far longer could make one.
Now, do you think it is more likely we are in a simulation, or even a simulation inside a simulation... or that we just-so-happened to be at the very top, outside of a simulation in the real universe?
It is simply statistically more likely that we are in a simulation.
>>76090158
My brain's jelly now. That's deep as shit.
>>76090156
I just assume if you are actually convinced that no human being ever has made a conscious decision that was their own, you would stop getting mad at the decisions of human beings that you disapprove of, because you know that they have no influence over what they do.
>>76089952
reaching that hard.
who says it has to be a chain?
unless of course you believe that we are the only intelligent species in an entire univers.
>>76087077
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg
>>76089611
Imagine you have and IQ of 200 and the processing power of a computer. And then this Computer with an IQ of 200 would invent an even smarter computer etc. They would use the physics of our universe to the most effective maximum.
This is kind of backed up by the fact that research indicates that technological progress has been exponential so far.
Processing power ( and many other meassures) seem to double every 14 months.
This kind of exponential growth will start very slowly and then eventually go almost straight upwards (like a parabel).
It's like when you put one rice corn on the first piece of a chess board, two rice corns on the second, etc. At the last piece of the chess board you would have gazilllions of rice corns.
>>76087077
Mental Masturbation
>>76089895
Just look at technology now compared to how it was 50 years ago. Even look at how things were in the 90s.
The first computer, ENIAC, had a clock speed of 100 khz. Modern processors range from ~1ghz in speed to much higher, even over 5ghz, with multiple CPUs on most of them.
Take my CPU, at 3.7 ghz it's tens of thousands of times more powerful and millions of times smaller. If you take architecture into account, it's millions of times more powerful.
>>76087077
>tfw people with tourettes are literal shitposters of this simulation
>>76087077
the chances we are in a computer simulation is actually 100%
in the future theres bound to be someone who tries to replicate the universe through simulation therefore creates this exact timeline thus we couldnt know for sure if we are living in that one exact simulation
Therefore Schrodinger's cat.
>>76088584
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO REPLACE HUMANS WITH ALIENS THIS IS SILLY
>>76090014
>>76090014
>>76090014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEVlfN060W4
>>76090388
I never said it had to be a chain. My post acknowledges that each sim could have many child sims, some made by other intelligent species in their sim. It would therefore more likely be a massive web.
But even if it was just a chain, the number of sims would still grow so high that statistically we would almost certainly already be living in a sim.
>>76088584
That's impossible hahahaha lol
>>76090445
Unfortunately Moore's Law is already slowing down and there's a hard limit on it anyways once you get to the atomic level.
>>76090535
this
>>76090158
I think of something similar but replace god with a mathematical structure and there are many caveats to what you say that I would disagree about the nature of your god.
omniscient and omnipotent statements create paradoxes in our reality
>>76089299
>the brain making a choice means your brain doesn't make choices
WEW
>>76090381
Wouldn't that be a conscious decision tho?
White males are fucking disgusting holy shit
>>76089299
This is objectively true.
We are a complex system of cause-and-effects.
>>76089098
He found out the cheat codes
>>76087077
The guy has been doing too much nitrous... but what he means is that within all the baseline (organic) universes there are perhaps thousands or millions of species who advanced to creating AI. Those AI then advanced to create simulated universes as a matter of course - they did it because they could and that's where tech advances were leading.
So theoretically there are many more times (billions, i doubt it) simulated universes than baseline organic universes, if you accept the multi-universe model.
imo, it's 50/50 if we live in a simulated universe or a baseline one. Doesn't really matter either way.
Musk's ego is way out of control and now all his followers are holding their heads because their leader told them they're not real.
We wuz dwarf fort n sheit
There is a way to test if we live in a simulation: irrational numbers. There are an uncountably infinite number of them, and each of them has an infinite amount of digits as we continue to divide and calculate them. But no computer can store an infinite amount of information... therefore, the digits of irrational numbers must end eventually. If we dedicate an enormous amount of time to it, we could focus on taking any given irrational number (say pi)... one day we might end up with something like:
2840983997 4140672353 4319030217 7521257272 1740258075 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000
Signalling that the number may have "ended". Of course this could just be an immense coincidence, since an infinitely long series of numbers should technically contain any given string of numbers eventually, but we can also test other irrational numbers to see if they perhaps end after the same length as pi seemed to.
>>76090901
what do you mean by complex system?
>>76089878
They're scrambling to implement new shit to find since our particle accelerators are getting so damn big.
>>76090381
>I just assume if you are actually convinced that no human being ever has made a conscious decision that was their own
Sure they are conscious decisions, but their conscious and unconscious mind is quite literally defined by their environment, genetics and experiences. As no human being is capable of acting outside of their own mind, every single thing a man, woman or child does in his life will be determined by the framework of his mind. With a powerful enough computer and an accurate model of a person's brain, you could predict every single one of his actions in any possible situation. That is, of course, if the uncertainty principle, or some other known factor does not affect the mind.
I do get mad at them, but if I stop to think about things logically for even an instant, I stop being mad. Not that I approve of their actions or anything.
>>76090759
Yes, but we shouldn't just sit on the couch and let Moorse Law take care anyway. Still got to work and invent.
>>76090359
Haha thanks m8.
That's one of the beliefs in western occultism.
There's no afterlife in my belief system either, after the primordial God creature has taken in every possible experience and lesson from us we will be absorbed back into his being completely destroying our individuality and consciousness. He will then eat the universe like a worm eating an apple.
>>76090759
Quantum computing? A.I could work that out faster than we could.
>>76091077
>what is quantum computing
>>76091207
I think we will always find more truths when we put energy into it. Doesn't mean we will ever have the explanations we seek.
>>76090901
it's objectivily false.
>>76090153
>>man from 100AD says there is a great chance we are trapped in a cave watching projections against a wall
>yfw 600 year old Plato
>>76090824
(you) do not control the 30 billion cells in your body.
The 30 billion cells control (you).
>>76091077
Hell, for all we know, the simulation could just create more of the numbers as they're calculated. Pop a few niggers out of existence and add a few googloplexes into it.
>>76091247
stfu autistic weeb.
>>76087077
>we have been living in a computer simulation FILLED WITH HORROR AND PAIN for thousands of years and nobody stopped it
you people are delusional
Even if a computer is so fast to simulate millions of years within just a few seconds, a world capable of that would have serious measures to prevent that kind of abuse from happening, making the odds unlikely
>>76087077
It means he doesn't understand the simulation argument.
i created all of you with my mind
>>76091509
>spede is weebshit
No. Pls go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiwgnP492oU
>>76091531
>implying numbers do not just exist out of paradox
>>76091531
But we are just a simulation so why would they care.
>>76087077
wow rly mex u tank
>>76091531
>a world capable of that would have serious measures to prevent that kind of abuse from happening, making the odds unlikely
Why do you expect unknown, superadvanced beings to abide by Western, human morals?
who the fuck really knows anything
this just seems like speculation to me, no way to prove it one way or another
i had when people pretend to know everything about the universe
>>76091091
Imagine there being no life on earth. There would still be movement from wind, volcanoes, meteorites, etc. When a rock rolls down a hill, its destination was predestined from the dawn of time, from the moment a meteorite was flung across the galaxy and hit the earth, the wind eroding it into smaller pieces, and these pieces rolling down the hill. The rock never had a choice.
Humans are the same, only more complex than a rock, in that we have the illusion of choice. We think and act because of our experiences and our genes, and all of this was predestined since the dawn of time. We have a "choice" only as far as we believe we do. Our actions are predestined.
this guy said it well >>76090077
>>76091247
So more like there is consciousness that understands what free will is but can not use because of the biology and environment,even though consciousness can influence the body you cannot know if that's your body already deciding on that.
>>76087077
I knew the matrix was a documentary the whole time!
>>76087077
Philosopher here. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Look at his assumptions- First, he's starting from skepticism (about the external world). This nullifies empirical data and moves the conversation to the domain of possibility and necessity (modality).
To do this, philosophers use possible worlds. A world in this context is an entire universe from beginning to end- and there is no connection distance or otherwise between different worlds.
It's generally assumed (in modal logic) that all possibilities are actualized in some possible world. So for any possibility, there is a world where that possibility is true. This means there are infinitely many possible worlds all varying in some degree.
So, there are some possible worlds where advanced civilizations have created video games that are indistinguishable from the real world by humans. But the subset of worlds where this is true is infinite. Likewise, the subset of worlds where there is no such advanced video game is also infinite.
Thus, the number - billions- is straight out of his ass.
More likely, the chance that we are in a simulation is some subset of infinity divided by some subset of infinity.
And intuitively, it's more likely that the subset of infinity without civilizations advanced enough to make video games indistinguishable from reality is much smaller than the subset of civilizations that do not make the simulations for one reason or another (because they die out from disease, famine, drought, war, catastrophic climate change, nearby stars exploding, purifying meteorites...etc.)
>>76087077
A computer simulation requires intelligent design.
>>76088080
You don't Europe beo
>>76088685
They might not be simulating the real universe though.
We could be in a simulation much more basic and with fewer dimensions than the real one, just like how many of our simulations are simplified and 2D.
>>76091995
>Philosopher here.
Stopped there, post discarded
He means we are playing sims 20,000
>>76091995
>Philosopher here
>>76091995
That's nice.
I'd like a Big Mac and a diet coke.
>>76092025
Not at all.
>>76090381
thats not how it works
there being free will doesn't mean people can't change it's that whether or not they will change has been predetermined since the dawn of time
>>76091995
"Physicist Paul Davies deploys Bostrom's trilemma as part of one possible argument against a near-infinite multiverse. This argument runs as follows: if there were a near-infinite multiverse, there would be posthuman civilizations running ancestor simulations, and therefore we would come to the untenable and scientifically self-defeating conclusion that we live in a simulation; therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, existing multiverse theories are likely false. (Unlike Bostrom and Chalmers, Davies (among others) considers the simulation hypothesis to be self-defeating."
>>76092226
>the sperg confuses real life with internet
>the sperg doesn't realize philosophy is more than just employment
>the sperg doesnt realize learning how to think is the best way to succeed in life
An advanced species wouldn't need to travel its own galaxy and beyond, it would just need to create an simulated universe with identical physical properties. Then they could travel to any place within it and along any point in the timeline, instantly.
They could implant their own species within a near identical planet and study either the past or future of their own evolution.
An AI species could turn an entire planet into a giant computer by converting the planet's mass into components with nano robots doing all the work.
>>76091995
>And intuitively, it's more likely that the subset of infinity without civilizations advanced enough to make video games indistinguishable from reality is much smaller than the subset of civilizations that do not make the simulations for one reason or another
Intuitively, for you and by your standards.
It's equally possible that we are, in a relative sense, extremely primitive and in the minority.
Either way, this is a stupid discussion and Musk is dumb as well.
>>76092674
>An AI species could turn an entire planet into a giant computer by converting the planet's mass into components with nano robots doing all the work.
Would be more likely to stripmine entire solar systems for resources, then build a dyson sphere around the star(s). The very lack of these structures though, implies that either sentient life is far less likely than commonly thought, or species end up eradicating themselves before they reach that stage.
>>76087077
Who gives a shit? it's philosophical mumbo jumbo
>>76087355
>your fucking life?
Plot twist: Life doesn't exist outside of the simulation
>>76091995
Agreed mostly, except the more paradoxes we expose, the more grasp we have on what our reality is. In the end though, the ultimate paradoxes of infinity and something out of nothing will never be resolved and must just be accepted.
>>76091531
there are people in this world that would if they could create uncountable simulated worlds of pain and suffering just for fun and jerk off to it
do you really think that this would not happen in a world greater than ours?
or perhaps they want to simulate many different things as part of an experiment, and preventing suffering would ruin the experiment. do you know that we test the effectiveness of antidepressants by timing how long it takes for mice in a bucket of water to give up and drown?
>>76092777
"For you and by your standards" This is irrelevant. If true, it doesn't show fault with what I've said. If false, it doesn't show fault with what I've said. Why bother saying it? Are you new to reading comprehension and argument construction?
"it's equally possible that we are, in a relative sense, extremely primitive and in the minority." This doesn't mean anything in particular, and is irrelevant. What does it matter if humans are primitive. hint: it doesn't.
>>76092226
he said he was a philosopher, not that he has a philosophy degree
the post above you is more accurate, someone who likes a lot of free time to sit and think would prefer homelessness to minimum wage service industry labour
>>76087077
viral marketing for no mans sky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBERVWYa-1Y
>>76087964
When do we wake up?
>>76094359
when you die presumably, although what you "wake up" to could be entirely unintelligible to us.
>>76087077
He meant "Give me more tax dollars I can throw down a hole."
>>76092393
It's absurd to think we live in a simulation. But it isn't contradictory.
If you aren't inclined to dismiss the possibility that we might be living in a simulation, then you wouldn't be inclined to dismiss a multiverse.
It would be like a Christian claiming an argument is absurd because it implies there is no god. If we are willing to accept that there is no god- we wouldn't be inclined to dismiss such an argument as absurd.
>>76092674
>create an simulated universe with identical physical properties
I assume by "physical properties" you really mean "physical properties and initial state", since both are required to accurately simulate your own universe.
And at that point your idea breaks down because in order to discover the initial state, the advanced species would have to travel its own galaxy and beyond to learn the exact configuration of the current universe and work backwards.
>>76089027
Where do you think we are?
>>76092393
that's dumb. he's basically saying that multiverse theory is impossible because it would suggest that something which has been proven possible is possible. it's been proven mathematically that anything can be simulated, so you can't just discount the possibility that we are simulated by saying that it's not provable. it's in a category of things that cannot be proven nor disproven.
>>76092831
we can't scan enough of the universe to prove that there is a lack of these structures, and it's possible that the design of some of these structures would make them not visible to our scanners since they emit very little.
>>76092226
Implying a philosophy degree isn't one of the most lucrative degrees you can have.
Which community college did you fail out of?
Do you think Elon Musk fucked Peter Thiel frequently?
Or the opposite?
Is Thiel a bottom or a top?
>>76087200
realy makes u thinck...
>>76091995
>And intuitively, it's more likely that the subset of infinity without civilizations advanced enough to make video games indistinguishable from reality is much smaller than the subset of civilizations that do not make the simulations for one reason or another (because they die out from disease, famine, drought, war, catastrophic climate change, nearby stars exploding, purifying meteorites...etc.)
The problem with your refutation is the assumption that the simulations do not likewise have many of these civilisations.
The original universe(s) probably did have far more civilisations that are not capable of developing complex sims. But it only takes one for us to be almost certainly living within a sim. Because said sim may also have a bunch of civs incapable of creating their own sims, but it doesn't matter, they are already within the sim and therefore count.
The idea that there is an infinity of civs incapable of creating universe sims to balance out the ones that can ignores that the ones that do produce sims will spawn a load more civilisations within the sim, some of whom may also produce sims potentially causing a near infinite chain. Whereas the ones that don't cannot spawn more.
So I maintain, if it is possible that a universe can be simulated then we are almost certainly living in one right now.
>>76094914
Kek, my philosophy degree actually made it harder to get work then when I had nothing. So I did a comp sci conversion masters degree. Now things are more comfy.
>>76095129
Law school, bro. You think those polysci fags can construct an argument better than a philosopher?
>>76094914
do you have any good data on this? self-reported income of ~100 people isn't any good. philosophy majors who make 10 grand a year aren't likely to report their income.
>>76095023
We need to stop talking about sims and talk in terms of numbers as labels. Or else we just spin our tails talking about what ifs of our microcosm. Like I said in another post, there are infinite approaches to the same number, and that infinity links all to 1.
>>76087077
> But i cant find the interface to enter cheats
> Cann soeone help ploxy
>>76095467
Well it's different in England, law is undergrad here. So doing philosophy here was almost totally pointless. I guess it got me onto the conversion degree, but then again I'd have been better off just doing comp sci as an undergrad from the start.
>>76091484
I don't believe they'd go through the effort. The creator would be satisfied to let the inhabitants assume it is an incredible coincidence.
We live
We die
We have emotions
We feel
We think
This is our world in a nutshell - emotions
Why Im here, I don't know.
Why Im who Im, I dont know.
But I will die, so will you.
This "life" is just a waiting process. You are born and wait for death.
These two things are certain for most of us, we are born and we die.
>>76095914
>german
>talks about cheating in video games
how surprising
>trapped in some autismo's hyper-realistic realism simulator
>not the Mario Bros simulator
>>76095023
>The problem with your refutation is the assumption that the simulations do not likewise have many of these civilisations.
Nope, I'm using basic modal logic. Assume all possibilities exist. Quantify over a subset of those possible worlds where a given proposition is true. Bingo you have the set of worlds where X is true.
The simulation is true in a subset of possible worlds. The possibility that you are in one of those possible worlds does not increase with the complexity of the simulation. Even if the simulation was a simulation of all possible worlds- it doesn't matter it still counts as one possible world (because the simulation occurs within one world).
Here's a simple way to look at it Let's assume there are only two possible worlds W1 and W2. W1 (no simulation) and W2 (crazy big simulation). You are either in W1 or W2. Right? that's a 50/50 on which world you are in- by definition simulations aren't worlds (although indistinguishable by humans playing the simulation).
Therefore, having a simulation in a particular world doesn't increase the possibility that you are in that world.
>>76087355
This right here.
>>76095467
Actual practicing lawyer here. Philosophers can make better arguments in law school and certain limited areas of practice because they are arguing to other smart people. In real world scenarios poly sci can make better arguments because most people respond to pathos and ethos more than logos. Being logically correct doesnt matter so much when a decision maker doent necesarilly use logic to mske their decision.
Tldr you need to learn how people feel.
>>76088903
>he's convinced the government to give his companies billions of dollars in free subsidies and the drawings to old nasa technology
That's exactly why I think he is a genius kek
Smart motherfucker to do it, lets face it. He's profiting off the ignorance of others, he's smart for that
>>76088903
ur a cocky whore, but youre right
>>76089879
That's called deja vu
>>76096888
You better have a sauce on that.
>>76087077
he may be a little biased by his extraordinary life. there's a one-in-a-billion chance you found companies like PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX, become a billionaire, and eventually terraform Mars.
being a great business man, or even a great scientist, does not make you a philosopher. he should stick to what he knows and stop embarrassing himself.
>>76087200
Are you drunk again Danmark?
>>76097764
Actually bong, it is you who stick to what you know. I almost hate to do this to you son, but it's best that you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcPNiworbo
>>76087200
>>76089800
>>76098065
Saved
>>76096988
What makes you think a civilization advanced enough to simulate the Universe would create only one simulation?
Look at video games publishing. Millions of copies sold globally every single day. Expand that universally and you are talking about trillions of trillions of trillions of simulations, just in the host verse.
If, IF just one species on one planet did it, then we are living within a simulation right now.
>>76097946
>Actually bong, it is you who stick to what you know. I almost hate to do this to you son, but it's best that you know.
Actually it's camper killer that should stick to what he knows.
>>76087355
>he's never played the Sims
>>76099165
That's not an argument.
The more we are examining the foundational 'matter' that our reality is built upon the more we realize that this is all fake as hell.
It's do fake that we ourselves will be able to completely simulate it very soon.
There are 3 options.
1. Either no civilization has ever advanced high enough for their simulations to be confused with reality by the players within.
2. They reached that point and for some reason decided not to.
3. You are living in one right now.
>>76097946
I'll debunk 2 points: 1. Quantum entanglement doesn't imply action at a distance. If you disagree, tell me what is the action.
2. It's impossible for any civilization in our universe to simulate our universe. Hence, any people that are simulating our universe would have to exist in a radically different universe from ours.
Its the brain in a vat thing. Its not new. Other people have claimed it before
>>76099526
>4. We are just a numerical label contained within a larger string all of which is defined by a mathematical divine structure of numbers in perfect paradoxical contradiction to the void of nothing.
>>76099526
>1. Either no civilization has ever advanced high enough for their simulations to be confused with reality by the players within.
This is the option. It's not even clear that it's possible for other kinds of universes to support life.
Our universe cannot be simulated by any civilization in a universe that's like our universe.
>>76087355
You are your variables. The simulation doesn't care if you are a loser neet
>>76099816
>perfect
harmony is a better word
>>76099083
Doesn't matter how many simulations are in a particular world.
It still only counts as one world. Worlds are the only relevant number when calculating the probability that we are in a particular world. And that probability- as I mentioned before is some subset of infinity divided by some other subset of infinity.
(note: when I use "world", I'm not talking about one planet. I'm talking about an entire universe from beginning to end. This is the standard use in metaphysics. When I talk about possible worlds- I'm talking about possible universes from beginning to end.)
>>76099640
>>76099907
Yes, exactly guys.
We could NOT perfectly simulate our own universe but we could certainly create a knock-off advanced enough to be confused with reality by the players within.
Which is what was done to us. And they come and check in and tweak things. Like the formation of RNA for instance. We have never once sewn anything remotely like primitive RNA forming.
What explains the fact that we can’t find its creative path here in our reality? It was put here, suddenly and deliberately.
>>76100574
>What explains the fact that we can’t find its creative path here in our reality?
It's the same reason we have uncertainty in quantum mechanics: It's because we're measuring a very noisy system.
>>76096666
germans are shit cheaters, someone has to take those swedish cunts down a peg
although it was funny when the favelas beat them down (brazil)
also sick quads
>>76100574
The problems you're highlighting are inherent to every universe.
In order for a universe to not be like that, it would have to not have atoms.
It's not clear that such a universe is even logically coherent.
>>76100931
How does a self-replicating RNA molecule form by chance, and why can't we see other examples of this?
Like humans ourselves, there is no precursor for RNA. It showed up fully formed with all it needed to self-replicate.
We have found no human bones in the pre-human fossil record. This isn't controversial. Not one tibia, not one human jaw bone, not one single finger bone exists before 150,000 years ago when we appeared out of the Cambrian fully formed. Something put us here, just like RNA.
It patched Earth.
>>76101396
Atoms are nothing but positively and negatively charged energy.
Positive and negative, 1 and 0. It's binary code. At the lowest levels, everything we see behaves like computer information.
Tay proved our AI VR status
>>76098065
>some of the behavior we observe looks exactly like a simulator conserving computational resources
example?
>>76101401
>How does a self-replicating RNA molecule form by chance, and why can't we see other examples of this?
Some years ago, there was a science article that said they found dust replicating itself in a helical structure on some space rock.
The reason we don't see RNA popping up, is because it's very small, and very rare, you have to be looking in the right place.
>Like humans ourselves
Lol no.
>We have found no human bones in the pre-human fossil record.
Wait, there were no human bones before humans existed? Sheeeeit.
>>76101688
It's all just positivepositively and negatively charged particles. Out entire reality is a binary system of energy.
Nothing tangible exists as we previously understood it. And if you change the charge of the particles in the right way, you create something else.
It's all fake as shit. Think of a seed like a computer program.
The seed I'd just software familia. It contains all the coded information necessary to reorganize matter and self replicate.
It's all fake.
>>76101504
>Atoms are nothing but positively and negatively charged energy.
That's not true. Not all atoms have charge.
I agree that everything behaves like information. How else could it behave? Uninformation?
>>76088685
I can think of hundreds of reasons why we WILL run tons of simulated realities.
I won't get into them, but I think what confuses people is machine time. Our time might be billions of years, the time out of the machine might be 10 seconds, and I think thats what sticks people the most.
>>76101779
That's a huge problem actually. We have no transitional evidence for human evolution in the archeological record.
Thus, as far as we can prove, Homos (the humans) appeared with no precursor.
Wat
>>76087077
it's the hologram theory.
It's not new. The idea is that our universe is a projection of a program in higher dimensions in this dimension.
Basically, it's a nihilistic idea. That everything is in your imagination. That you are not really a human on planet earth, but something else, hooked up to a computer simulation,where everything is computer-made.
Much like the Matrix.
This guy says it's a sort of universal consciousness that reduces entropy and improves on itself by running VRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_RwcGzGurc
>>76087200
2 digits to show your IQ --->00
6 digits to show how dumb you are.
>>76088584
how silly is this really. Of course there is no scheme to replace humans with aliens.
>>76102080
>Thus, as far as we can prove, Homos (the humans) appeared with no precursor.
What about neanderthals?
>>76087077
>that hairline
How did he unJUST his shit?
>>76102183
Also that quantum mechanics proves we're living in a VR because particles proves to be just probability distributions
>>76101981
>Not all atoms have charge.
No net charge. A neutron, for example, is composed of both a positive and negative charge, giving it a net neutral charge.
>>76102360
Money
>>76087200
layer deep
>>76088584
Anybody who believes in that is an idiot.
>>76102183
>>76102378
Though be careful, he goes into cult leader territory when he starts talking about eliminating the ego
>>76102424
His transplants look decent. Not perfect though. Wonder how much it costs.
>>76102151
>Basically, it's a nihilistic idea.
That's a trap for weaklings. Fuckheads who believe determinism and free will are incompatible.
>>76102410
Also positive and negative energy is just the direction it is spinning and it is arbitrary to call one positive and the other negative, they are just complimentary
>>76102410
>of both a positive and negative charge,
not exactly.
It's composed of a positive and TWO negative charges. Giving it a net neutral charge.
>>76088584
Absolutely ridiculous, I agree
>mirrors, lazors, superposition and shit. WE MAXTRIX NOW.
>Theories are wrong
Pick one.
I just had to solve three captchas; this is why a scientific utopia will never come about. God bless humans
>>76102336
Exactly so.
We have zero transitional evidence for the shift. Their bones were massively dense, so much denser than our bones. Their musculature had to be incredible, much more like a chimpanzee, to need that density of bone structure.
Their skulls are nothing really like ours, and much more like the pre-humans. Their gate and how they carry themselves is drastically different as well.
We have as much physical evidence that we transitioned from neanderthals as we do that we transitioned from cats.
They were a different creature that we lived side by side with, conquered and replaced.
>>76102985
>They were a different creature that we lived side by side with, conquered and replaced.
But we share more DNA with them than we do with cats. No?
Isn't it true that modern humans are the offspring of neanderthals mating with some other relative of ours?
>>76087077
That waifus are on a different level of reality
>>76087077
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
>>76103184
No, that is not true.
There is no sign of the missing link, our common ancestor. There is no transition. Neanderthals existed, then 200,000 years ago we showed up along side them.
That is an incredibly small time frame and prior to that there is not one single human bone in the fossil record.
>>76088584
I agree, the idea the aliens are slowly taking over the human population is a xenophobic lie. Anyone that believes in such nonsense is a racist and should not be listened to.
>>76091531
>people should care someone somewhere is playing simUniverse by NotMaxis.
>>76087077
The reason the "big bang" happend was because someone started up the simulation.
Whenever you start a game it seems like everything comes out of nothing if the people in the game was concious.
There is your proof.
>>76103346
>not one single human bone in the fossil record.
You keep using the word human. Do you mean genus homo? Or do you mean humans as in homo sapiens?
There are certainly bones of human-like creatures before 200k years ago. I don't want to look up their names, but can you clarify why they don't count as the common ancestors you're looking for?
>>76102629
so you are saying that free will is an illusion?
That every choice you have made in your life so far was predestined to be that way?
Because determinism and free will are mutually exclusive.
>>76103346
have you considered the possibility of natural selection?
>>76103869
>Because determinism and free will are mutually exclusive.
The nature of a person's will is what determines the future.
I wish whoever's running this sim would play Doom instead.
>>76104027
in that sense isn't the future already determined?
If nature made it so that a person has will,everything they do is already been determined. No?
>>76104172
No respawns in this dimension senpai. Are you sure?
>>76104273
I wouldn't have it any other way.
>>76101668
HIDDEN R A R E
>>76087077
>'One In Billions' Chance We're Not Living In A Computer Simulation
Allow me to translate
>"I'm a fucking retard who's grasp of physics doesn't extend past the operation of motors and magnetic flux, COMPUTERS & AI LMAO"
>>76104451
>a britcuck calling Musk a retard.
gee, you better get that arab cock out of your mouth,George. You are getting too progressive.
>>76104273
>in that sense isn't the future already determined?
>If nature made it so that a person has will,everything they do is already been determined. No?
Yes. Everything they do is what they were always going to do. But it doesn't mean that their will isn't real. Their will exists, and it affects the universe.
It was set in stone what I would choose, but that doesn't mean I haven't chosen.
>>76103239
Great kino btw
>>76104273
For example: Take an extreme case. Imagine there's a man who decides he will always play chess according to some guide book.
Because of this another person can always predict what the man will choose.
The fact that the outcome is inherently predictable, doesn't change the fact that the man who's playing chess is choosing.
Hence determinibility doesn't imply a lack of free will.
>>76104711
but you are not free to chose. So, you don't exactly have "free" will, do you?
>>76105076
Rare.
>>76105266
>but you are not free to chose. So, you don't exactly have "free" will, do you?
When you say "free" do you mean random?
The antithesis to determinism is randomness. If my choice is random, would that make it free?
>>76105077
In that case, you are playing with percentages. You can't be 100% certain what the next move is,especially in a dynamic system like chess, where the variables change as you go on.
So in this case, determinism fails.
Determinism means to know what the next move will be, without having to guess. And if you do, the fact that the opponent made a choice does not amount to free will in any level beyond his own conscience.
The player thinks he has free will, but really, he doesn't.
>>76105589
yes, it would. But there is no randomness beyond the molecular level.
>>76105076
R A R E ?
A
R
E
?
>>76091531
If their society has transcended to that level of technology and existence, why do you expect that their morals and philosophy haven't transcended as well?
>>76089025
Can't wait
>>76087200
Giv mig noget af det du drikker mate
>>76093124
>When you realise they all died but our simulation is still running
>>76105750
>yes, it would.
So if I carried around a clump of uranium, and used the radiation rate to determine a dice roll, then I could ensure that I have free will by doing whatever the dice tells me to do?
Is that free will to you? My actions would always be random.
>>76101668
RARE
>>76087077
So if simulating the universe is possible, and it looks like it is
then by that logic we're already in a simulating, several simulations deep
but then you have to apply that to just virtual reality
if it is AT ALL POSSIBLE to create perfect virtual reality
then isn't there almost a 100% chance that right now you're sitting in a chair, with a virtual reality headset or similar helmet on, maybe doing some sort of test while you're friends watch
in other words
if you accept that this is almost certainly a simulated reality
then you also have to accept that you, yourself, are almost certainly in a personal virtual reality for some unknown reason, because if ones possible then the other is possible
So basically what im saying is your friends are standing behind you watching you play this game & seeing you look at porn & waste your life
you're basically not getting the the futuristic government job you were applying for
hell, considering the shit you've done & the behavior you've exhibited in this virtual reality test, you're likely going to prison as soon as you die & the simulation ends & they take the helmet off
Posting this since its somewhat related
>>76106948
>Die
>Wake up in real world
>Get killed because of my actions in the simulation
>Wake up
>It was just a dream
>Live your life until you die of old age
>Wake up
Dude.. We could go on forever..
>>76097529
Deja vu is probably based on interference from our 4th dimensional selves that can freely travel through time.
Do you think it matters if we are a simulation, or a brain in a vat? If at the end of your life you realise it was all some simulation like the Star Trek episode The Inner Light, does it make your life less meaningful?
>>76088584
Right, they'll never replace us, right? Even if they're among us, they're probably just a minority population doing the jobs we wouldn't want to do anyway lol. I'm sure they'd help the economy!
