If space is a hologram, then isn't there reason to believe
You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math
We respect your right to privacy. You can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Your cookie preferences will apply across our website.
If space is a hologram, then isn't there reason to believe that our hologram is a hologram within a hologram? Wouldn't the hologram theory be subject to a fractal continuation of holograms within holograms within holograms and so on?
cogito ergo sum
>>7943416
you are what? you don't know the body you know isn't a hologram
the real answer is: we don't know. we can't know. we don't care. these questions are useless. we could be in a dream for all we care, it doesn't matter
>>7943410
>and so on?
That's where your stoner bullshit hits its limits.
I have a laptop.
No matter how "virtual" our reality is, the computing power of my laptop is real.
If we're living in a simulation, computing power of my laptop is a subset of the computing power of the simulator.
If we build a holographic universe, its inhabitants might build a simulated universe of their own.
But the ultimate top-end simulator MUST possess a limited amount of processing power.
Shit can only be nested so far.
>>7943470
>Implying a civilization advanced enough to simulate a universe 10^120 bits would be limited by computing power
nice meme
>>7943470
>the top universe works according to the laws I want
>universes inherit properties
>if this isn't real it must be nested
assuming tons of shit, concluding nothing. 10/10
you can't know shit
>>7943481
any knowledge requires base assumptions, no shit
thanks for philosophy 100 lesson
>>7943479
It could be trivially possible if physical constants such as the speed of light is different.
>>7943490
>that's obvious!
then act like you understand it and stop making useless conjectures about fake universes that you can't even know shit about
>>7943509
i wasn't even posting in this thread before that post you colossal autist
>>7943649
What's wrong with perpetual motion?
>>7943479
>>Implying a civilization advanced enough to simulate a universe 10^120 bits would be limited by computing power
>implying all 10^80 atoms are fully simulated, and distant galaxies aren't just "painted on the ceiling" like the sky in COD.
Besides, no matter how much computing power our "parents" have, it must be finite.
>>7943481
>>the top universe works according to the laws I want
We're not talking about physics.
This is CS, allegedly the "dumb jock" of sciences.
Try to keep up, Anon.
>>7943470
>But the ultimate top-end simulator MUST possess a limited amount of processing power.
Why does there have to be a limit?
This reminds me of that one argument for the existence God that asserts that there must be a final cause in an infinite chain of causes and that final cause is God.