Let me see if I understand this correctly. Nick Bostrom posits that eventually a species will create a simulation advanced enough to be confused with reality by the people within.
Some say that we will have created such a simulation within 30 years, some say within 500. Anyway you look at it, that's a small chunk of time.
He posits 3 possible outcomes for such a species;
1. The species for some reason refuses to create such a simulation.
2. The species dies before the simulation is created.
3. I am absolutely, without a doubt, 100% living within such a simulation.
If just one planet in one solar system in the universe created a simulation which could be confused with the real universe, then there are trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of such simulations. And this is highly likely.
Which gives me a zero chance of being in the real Universe.
This process couldn't recurse forever. Each succeeding simulation would have a much, much smaller universe than the one simulating it. We would not be able to accurately simulate a universe as big as our own
>>7735575
>If just one planet in one solar system in the universe created a simulation which could be confused with the real universe, then there are trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of such simulations
Uh no? There is exactly just one simulation on one planet in one solar system in the universe?
>>7735584
Why not?
![2710466-agentsmith[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/z6w6www.jpg "2710466-agentsmith[1].jpg")
> le simulation meme
go back to bed Mr Anderson
>>7735593
They have the right to know...
>>7735593
The thirteenth floor.
The crux of the argument is what is meant by a simulation which contains people that have an awareness at all. Who's to say it's even possible to create awareness in a system with less information then our own? We don't even understand how consciousness works, so saying that we will somehow simulate it without having to create full scale copies of ourselves is a large leap. Talking about as "likely" when it depends on so many unknowns is foolish. It's just as possible that such a simulation is impossible, and that we can only replicate, not simulate.
>>7735591
Even if we could store a particle's worth of information onto a single particle, we would have to use all the matter in the universe to make our simulated universe as large as ours. We wouldn't be able to compress two or more particles' worth of information onto one particle either. This is just a guess, so I could be missing something/talking out of my ass. But it seems like this would defy basic laws of information theory
>>7735605
With the exponential technology growth saying it is improbable within the next 500 years is, in my mind, saying that human flight would never be achieved 500 years ago.
I'm not a simulation expert by any means but chew on this;
Everything in the universe that we could ever see or touch, all matter and time came from a point when there was no matter and there was no time.
Thus our own model of our own universe practically screams simulation. That was the moment the switch got turned on.
>a single point when there was no things and there was no time
>>7735606
im not quite sure either my friend
but what if we store the information through combination rather than in the particles itself?
>>7735606
Unless of course the "parent" universe has totally different physical and mathematical laws. We have no way of determining the veracity of these kinds of hypotheses, so frankly I can't see a reason to discuss them.
>>7735596
A simulation is far from any physical possibility that universe can hold. You can observe the tiniest subatomic particle that makes up what we are and the reality as we know it, which operate on an infinitesimal time scale. It is simply not possible for any kind of machine or entity to run such simulation with such complexity.
The reality you experience is what there is. No more, no less. Theories you base it on is the result of the temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose.
>>7735616
>We have no way of determining the veracity of these kinds of hypotheses, so frankly I can't see a reason to discuss them.
That is the very worst reason not to discuss something. We didn't have a way to verify a LOT of things until we did.
>>7735619
More on the subject I am no expert.
https://youtu.be/7KcPNiworbo
>>7735612
Human flight is not analogous. The problem of human flight was simply one of scale. We knew certain things could fly, we just had to make a bigger thing fly. We have no concept of what an aware simulation even means.
>a single point when there was no things and there was no time
Both of those are wrong. There was energy, which matter is just a form of, and there was time. The big Bang is not the beginning of time, it is the earliest point at which we can deduce from physics what the universe was like. We don't know what, if anything was before the Big Bang, but that does not mean there was nothing before it. There certainly was something during it. And anyway, why would a simulation need to start out that way? It could have begun yesterday, putting everything in place including our memories. So no, the Big Bang has nothing to do with simulations.
>>7735619
>It is simply not possible for any kind of machine or entity to run such simulation with such complexity.
I hope you realize yourself how retarded and wrong this sentence is.
>>7735614
What does that even mean?
>>7735643
pretty good argument you got there g4m3rk1d
>>7735621
Perhaps you're right. Can you think of an observation that would disprove the hypothesis that our reality is a simulation, given that the "parent" universe can be governed by totally different laws? I can't.
>>7735646
>g4m3rk1d
no need to be uspset just because you are a narrow minded faggot
xD
>>7735665
another amazing argument
>>7735665
>complains about name called
>calls someone who disagrees a faggot
>>7735651
It's an incredibly hard to prove or disprove hypothesis.
Mathematically speaking, there could indeed be hundreds of trillions of such simulations right now.
>>7735675
yeah, coz reality is a videogame right ?
simulated reality is the memest meme in the universe of memes, perpetuated by the same illiterate retards who play videogames all day and wanna believe their life is a game too
>>7735682
I'm telling you what the brightest minds in science are saying right now.
Think universally to species which could be thousands to hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than we are. And this is highly likely.
>>7735687
Thats not even an argument...
>>7735614
>but what if we store the information through combination rather than in the particles itself?
Obviously, this universe can't contain a machine that contains more information than the universe itself.
>>7735575
>zero chance of being in the real Universe
Near zero, but it obviously can't be actually zero since somebody must live in the parent universe.
>>7735575
>If just one planet in one solar system in the universe created a simulation which could be confused with the real universe, then there are trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of such simulations. And this is highly likely.
I think you skipped a step.
How do you get from one simulation to trillions of trillions etc?
>trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions
That's 48 zeros. There aren't nearly that many stars in the observable universe.
Stars in our galaxy, 11 zeros.
Galaxies in observable universe, 11 zeros.
>>7735689
All you said was derision and insults.
How much effort do you expect me to put into my reply to that?
>>7735690
Because if the simulation is advanced enough then it logically follows that the people within it would also create their own simulations.
Think about a video game release today. 1 single game can sell millions of copies world wide in one single day. And that is 1 game on 1 planet in 1 solar system.
Now think universally.
>>7735692
> wat if there are super duper aliums
> wat if they made an impossibly fast an accurate machine that simulate the universe
> wat if they for some reason decide to put humans in it somehow
> wat if wat if wat if
> How much effort do you expect me to put into my reply to that?
a bit more effort than you put now
What is the net energy content of the universe?
Here is a neat article describing an offshoot of the affirmative of this hypothesis:
http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html
>>7735696
I'm not saying what if.
I'm saying that unless every species which could achieve the capability of such a simulation dies or decides not to, you are in such a simulation right now.
>>7735666
You wrote something without even thinking one fucking second about it. All you wanted was to sound smart and edgy on an anonymoose internet hacker board.
There is no reasoning, no argumentation, it's just your retarded narrow view of our world wrapped together with hollow phrases and a picture out of Matrix.
So why the fuck would I lower myself to bring arguments now?
>>7735704
>All you wanted was to sound smart and edgy on an anonymoose internet hacker board.
Now THAT is projection lol
>>7735690
>Obviously, this universe can't contain a machine that contains more information than the universe itself.
So it's impossible to create Information? Why?
>>7735704
You are the one that claims the reality is actually a simulation without trying to back it up with anything, and I addressed a few questions which you simply skipped.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>>7735695
>Because if the simulation is advanced enough then it logically follows that the people within it would also create their own simulations.
But assuming the simulated universe must be less complex than its parent, there's got to be a limit to the recursion.
And since we can't know how complex the ultimate parent universe is, we can't really put a number to it unless we assume we live in the parent universe.
>>7735715
Which means you think its possible for a machine or entity to run such simulation with such complexity. In which case you should have proposed an argument instead of shitposting
>>7735695
>1 single game can sell millions of copies world wide in one single day. And that is 1 game on 1 planet in 1 solar system.
Yeah, but an XBox can't simulate a very large universe.
To simulate a universe like ours would take a universe more complex than our own.
Your analogy would require millions of devices each more complex than our universe.
Obviously, there's no limit to the size of a hypothetical parent universe, but still, that just makes any number you want pull out of your ass unfalsifiable, and thus meaningless.
>>7735707
>So it's impossible to create Information? Why?
I didn't say you couldn't create information, I said the information in the simulation must be contained in the parent universe, so it follows that the parent universe must have more information than all simulations combined.
If your simulation makes new information, that information is contained not only in the simulation, but also in the parent universe as well (since it contains the simulation).
>>7735722
Think of a species hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than we are.
And that is highly likely.
>>7735730
Aside from you having zero evidence of such a thing existing, how does that even magically make it possible for them to create an impossible machine which can simulate the entire fucking universe ?
>>7735732
It doesn't have to simulate or recreate the entire host universe. It merely has to be advanced enough to be confused with reality.
>>7735718
>diarrhea guy posts mental diarrhea without proposing any fucking arguments or reasoning at all
>wants others who disagree to propose arguments
love it diarrhea boy
>>7735730
>Think of a species hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than we are.
>And that is highly likely.
It has nothing to do with how advanced a species is.
It has to do with how complex that parent universe is.
Forget for a second the question of how many levels deep we already are.
Assume some species in our universe wants to make the most complex simulation possible, given the entire resources of this universe.
Skip the part where most of the observable universe is forever unreachable (because cosmic expansion).
Let's say they assemble a machine containing every single atom in the universe (about 10^80, give or take a few zeros).
No matter how clever these people are, there aren't enough atoms in the universe to simulate a similar universe with twice the number of atoms.
If the ultimate parent universe had (let's say) only enough atoms to make up a single solar system, there would be no way to create a simulation as complex as our universe.
>>7735741
Talk to Silas Beane about it my lad.
It's a theory you're right. One I find incredibly applicable.
>>7735730
>And that is highly likely.
Based on your experience with how many ancient alien races?
>>7735726
>I didn't say you couldn't create information
And I didnt say that a universe can contain a machine that contains more information than the universe itself.
You just answered it yourself here
>If your simulation makes new information, that information is contained not only in the simulation, but also in the parent universe as well (since it contains the simulation).
If we can create new Information, then why is it not possible for the simulation to be more complex than the ORIGINAL parent universe? The complexity of the PRESENT parent universe would obviously just grow with the complexity of the simulation in it.
>>7735575
A simulation that you cannot distinguish from reality is ultimately just, reality.
>le meaningless pseudo philosophy meme
>>7735738
>our observable reality is far too sophisticated for any machine to be able to simulate
which is again the original diarrhea claim we already got the pleasure to read
> if you disagree you have to post some kind of source to back up your claims
and here we fucking go again
>proposes a claim without backing it up
>'if you disagree YOU have to back it up otherwise my claim is true xD'
god i love you diarrhea boy
>>7735760
> spam diarrhea when you can't form a single argument
> universe is now magically a simulation :D :D
kek
>>7735575
>We are not in a simulation, a priori.
What Bostrom and his kin do is create arguments based on a series or assumptions and propositions that, if accepted, lead to a conclusion. However I disagree with both his assumptions and propositions so dismiss any conclusion that is drawn from them.
>>7735755
I know that you think this is real and that you exist in a physical form.
But what does science have to say about that?
Science already says that there is no hard matter, no physical form and that everything is made up of vibrating energy. And that our entire reality came crashing into existence from a null point in space and time.
>>7735763
So you are denying that such a simulation is possible.
OR
You are saying that any species capable died or decided not to do it.
OR
You're not thinking rationally.
>>7735767
Yeah. I'm also denying the existence of flying purple unicorns near Alpha Centauri
>>7735770
Come on, tell us your train of thought if it's anything other than denial for the sake of denial.
>>7735762
>spam diarrhea when you cant form a single fucking argument
>attach funny Matrix meme pictures to posts
>universe is now magically NOT a simulation xD xD
you are glorious my friend
>>7735775
Start somewhere if you can. If not, sit back and see what people who can think critically about all this have to say
You're so sure that you're not in a simulation yet you are made up entirely of vibrating energy and live in a reality which sprung without apparent cause from a completely null state.
Why are you so sure that you are real?
>>7735783
Because all scientist from from Hawking to Einstein believe so. And there is absolutely zero evidence to back up anything even remotely related to simulated reality
>>7735746
>It's a theory you're right. One I find incredibly applicable.
In /sci/entific terms, tt's a hypothesis, not a theory.
>incredibly applicable.
How would you apply it? It's entirely unfalsifiable, you might as well be arguing for God's existence.
There's no real-world application.
>>7735775
So OP made the claim that the universe could be a simulation. (WITH actual arguments)
You said 'No thats not possible' without proposing arguments, reasoning or anything usefull at all (apart from hollow phrases and a matrix picture).
Then you just kept telling everyone your opinion is the truth and everyone who disagrees should propose arguments.
I have another question: are you just baiting here or just mentally limited?
I think the expression the other anon used is quite fitting for you, diarrhea boy. :)
>>7735785
>because all scientists say so
That is NOT even remotely correct and you should not be so ignorant or make such uninformed statememts.
Wow. You need another board to play on.
I'm not being mean but you are stupid and willing to remain stupid.
>>7735785
>Because all scientist from from Hawking to Einstein believe so.
[citation needed]
also
rofl
>>7735753
>If we can create new Information, then why is it not possible for the simulation to be more complex than the ORIGINAL parent universe?
If this isn't obvious, you don't belong here.
>The complexity of the PRESENT parent universe would obviously just grow with the complexity of the simulation in it.
What? I don;t think you follow me at all.
There's a maximum amount of information the universe can contain.
That's a hypothetical maximum that's based on the (limited) number of atoms, etc that make up the universe.
Since you can't just magically make more atoms, any given universe can't exceed it's own maximum amount of information.
>>7735767
Have you read his actual paper? He estimates the probability that we're in a simulation using a very naïve frequentist model. We could just as easily construct a Bayesian model that would tell us that the probability of us living in a simulation is 0.
Do I understand it correctly, that the simulation Bostrom and people in this thread is talking about, is projected inside our universe? Or from outside of its boundaries, maybe from other dimensions?
>>7735795
>>7735793
if only you had an argument, people could take you seriously...oh well
>>7735792
3 outcomes right ?
> 1. The species for some reason refuses to create such a simulation.
Like they had any reason to begin with in the first place
> 2. The species dies before the simulation is created.
Yeah, considering they have no reason or capacity to make a simulation that simulates the universe
> 3. I am absolutely, without a doubt, 100% living within such a simulation.
Zero evidence to support such a childish retarded garbage "theory"
There.
>>7735753
>If we can create new Information, then why is it not possible for the simulation to be more complex than the ORIGINAL parent universe? The complexity of the PRESENT parent universe would obviously just grow with the complexity of the simulation in it.
Because information must be physically encoded. It takes up space and energy. You don't get to just stow it in simulated space, all that simulated space has to be accounted for out here.
>>7735811
>all scientists from Hawkins to Einstein say so guys
Now you're just doubling down on your gaff lol step back from that ledge my friend
>>7735764
>I know that you think this is real and that you exist in a physical form.
His point is that the term "physical form" is defined in relation to our own universe, simulated or not.
If we're just lines of source code, or the collective state of some circuitry, than THAT'S what we mean when we say something has "physical form".
>>7735764
>Science already says that there is no hard matter, no physical form and that everything is made up of vibrating energy.
[citation needed]
Science says we're made up of atoms, which are made up of bosons and fermions, and that these DO have physical form.
>>7735800
>Since you can't just magically make more atoms, any given universe can't exceed it's own maximum amount of information.
But you just said
>I didn't say you couldn't create information
So you can create information but only so much until eventually the universe is... full?
You are right i cant follow you at all.
Also all I said was that the simulation could be more complex than the original universe, not bigger (referring to amount of information here).
>If this isn't obvious, you don't belong here.
It's still not obvbious to me. Sorry.
>>7735811
>Like they had any reason to begin with in the first place
Hogwash tho. Creating models is intrinsically useful. Mapmaking, for example, booms in wartime. When you want to get anything done you make models.
> thread full of shitposts and nothing to back up simulated reality
typical /sci/ manchildren
>>7735783
>Why are you so sure that you are real?
Cogito Ergo Sum
I definitely exist.
The underlying details of my existence have always had some unknown aspects, and always will.
The nested simulation hypotheses doesn't change that.
>>7735811
you are doing it over and over and over again
telling people to propose arguments without proposing any yourself. What is your problem bro? If you are just baiting can u piss of to /b/ where you belong? Please?
Jesus
>>7735831
> aliens creating models
> that run for humans for some reason
makes perfect sense :^)
>>7735838
0/10
>>7735836
>I definitely exist.
Do you though? As far as I can tell you're just a post on the internet, for all I know you could just be a chatbot that's gained sentience.
>>7735838
This tbqh
People commonly don't like the implications of the Simulation Argument and become quite upset when it is discussed.
>>7735840
There are untold reasons why a species would make simulations.
We make them all the time.
>>7735845
1. The species for some reason refuses to create flying purple unicorns
2. The species dies before the flying purple unicorns is created.
3. I am absolutely, without a doubt, 100% sure that flying purple unicorns exist
I don't understand why people get upset when flying purple unicorns is discussed
>>7735817
So what? I still dont get it guys sorry.
When i say complexity i really do mean complexity and not size (and total amount of information).
>>7735848
>I don't have to justify, explain or demonstrate my ontology
>J...just accept it guys.
>>7735850
Here you go. Absolute proof that people have made flying purple unicorns.
It's a prototype. One could absolutely be installed into a simulation or video game.
Are you getting this concept?
>>7735858
Now you won't even accept that we make simulations?
Wtf are you even doing here lol smdh
>>7735840
We make lots of models with nonhuman agents in them.
ITT: everyone gets baited by the matrix guy (multiple times)
I really like the original topic so can you guys stop getting baited into replying to this faggot? Thank you.
>>7735866
and ?
>>7735872
Guys stop responding to this time waster.
He's a shit bag playing stupid intentionally to waste your time.
And? And? And? What are you 7 years old?
>>7735872
And aliens are presumably out there making lots of models with nonalien agents in them.
>>7735872
And that basically proves that the reality is a simulation and anyone who disagrees is a diarrheaposter :^)
>>7735865
Making a simulation of the evolution of the universe, for example, is one thing. It allows us to test current theories by spiting out values that can be compared to the actual universe, they're useful. Why then would some species make such a detailed simulation of humans. It would be a massive waste of computational resources with no conceivable gain.
>B..but they could be many reasons why, were just too stupid to understand.
In which case seemy previous post.
Also I'm not whoever you were previously arguing with, just wanted to point out your retardation.
>>7735885
>intentionally playing dumb
Lol what is the point?
Just say "I am not willing to entertain this concept" and be done with it.
It doesn't make you more or less intelligent than those who consider it.
>>7735896
but thats the only argument have for simulated reality, to call my opponent names :D
>>7735826
>So you can create information but only so much until eventually the universe is... full?
>You are right i cant follow you at all.
You can create all the information you want, right up to the universe's maximum storage capacity.
If we're a simulation running on a machine, it has some maximum storage capacity, which must be less than the maximum storage capacity of the universe it exists in.
>Also all I said was that the simulation could be more complex than the original universe,
Since the simulation is contained by the parent universe, it's a PART of that universe.
The parent's universe MUST be more complex than the simulations.
>>7735906
Ladies and gentlemen i present you, THE THERE-IS-NO-SIMULATION-ARGUMENT:
>Because all scientist from from Hawking to Einstein believe so.
I chuckled and will still stick to namecalling, mr diarrhea.
>>7735844
>As far as I can tell
Cogito Ergo Sum only tells ME I exist, it can't help you.
>for all I know you could just be a chatbot that's gained sentience.
Then I still exist.
Do you even philosophy?
>>7735921
> I'm smarter than Hawking and Einstein
oh kid...
>>7735917
>You can create all the information you want, right up to the universe's maximum storage capacity.
>If we're a simulation running on a machine, it has some maximum storage capacity, which must be less than the maximum storage capacity of the universe it exists in.
I can agree on that one now.
>Since the simulation is contained by the parent universe, it's a PART of that universe.
Also understood.
>The parent's universe MUST be more complex than the simulations.
Mmhh. Nah I still cant see why this one has to be true. Sorry friend i appreciate your effort for trying to explain it to me though. Maybe im not smart enough for this shit
>>7735927
>Then I still exist.
Not in Bostroms argument you don't, he explicitly states that the so called "simulated people" don't exist on any fundamental level of reality.
>>7735933
Well Gauss, Newton and Plato believed otherwise. And there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence to back up anything even remotely related to that the world ISNT a simulation.
>Hawking and Einstein are smarter than Gauss, Newton and Plato
also einstein said quantum theory is wrong, which has been proven to be accurate up today
oh diarrhea kid, looks like a checkmate right there ;)
>>7735937
>Mmhh. Nah I still cant see why this one has to be true. Sorry friend i appreciate your effort for trying to explain it to me though. Maybe im not smart enough for this shit
It's really not hard.
The parent must be more complex than the sim because it contains the sim as well as something that isn't the sim.
Our universe contains lots of copies of Homer's Odyssey.
The parent has all these in some hard-disk equivalent.
The parent therefore contains all these copies in some sense.
Now think about the entire universe.
Every blade of grass, every grain of sand, every atom in every star has a "real-world" analogue in some form in the simulation apparatus.
Simulating even a single electron would take far more than one electron's worth of equipment.
>>7735944
>he explicitly states that the so called "simulated people" don't exist on any fundamental level of reality.
He's arguing semantics.
If I can question my existence, SOMETHING is asking the question, regardless of how prejudiced Bostroms is against simulated people.
>>7735958
>also einstein said quantum theory is wrong
No he didn't retard. He thought that it was correct in so far as it goes, but thought that it was incomplete (since he thought it raised troubling questions about causality and locality). Anyway he was a proponent of hidden variables theories.
>>7735968
>regardless of how prejudiced Bostroms is against simulated people.
Check your non-sim privilege, shitlord.
>>7735960
>Simulating even a single electron would take far more than one electron's worth of equipment.
Lets say you need a quantum super computer the size of the sun to FULLY simulate an electron. Now you build a quantum super computer the size of our galaxy and simulate not only an electron bus also some new laws and behaviours how the elctron interacts.
Isnt the simulated electron then more complex than all the other electrons in the parent universe?
Cant you then not build a gigantic computer that simulates an incredible small but even so more complex universe?
Thats what i meant with 'not size, but complexity'.
Or am i being foolish here again?
>>7735970
>No he didn't retard. He thought that it was correct in so far as it goes, but thought that it was incomplete (since he thought it raised troubling questions about causality and locality).
I know. But diarrhea boy is also throwing around shitty claims left and right so im just playing along here.
>>7735979
>Check your non-sim privilege, shitlord.
kek, I thought we were assuming we are sims.
Although there must be a hierarchy, based on how deeply each sim is nested.
It's impossible to say, of course, but the scale of our universe compared to the imagined usefulness of such a simulation suggests we're fairly high up on the ladder.
>>7735979
>Check your non-sim privilege, shitlord.
giggled
>>7735987
>Thats what i meant with 'not size, but complexity'.
>Or am i being foolish here again?
I think we're just defining "complexity" differently.
I mean the sum total of information in the universe.
If our parent universe has something altogether different than electrons, neutrons and protons, their physics might be easier to learn than ours, but if our universe has fewer total particles than theirs, our universe as a whole could still have less total complexity (as I'm describing it).
>>7736007
I got it now, thank you
well,actually the universe is 'pixelated' in many ways including, time, space and energy (thus matter, because of it being a form of energy). Since as stated before. in a determined universe there cannot be a machine that simulates a universe which exceeds certain limit given by the size and quantity of energy in its own universe. I'm not of the deterministic point of view but in most of the cases the universe acts as a reacting machine (or a multivariable function if you like), given the identity, position (which is quantifiable), and state of every particle, you can certainly compute the next 'step' of the system (because time isn't continuous it is divided in Planck time 'fragments'). And if we asume the original universe of the machine works the exact same way and as we've said before there exist a certain limit for that simulation the coefficient between the size limit of the simulation and the size of the original universe would predict what would happen if we nested simulations. If that coeficent is less than one, every universe consecuently siulated would be smaller and smaller until it reached the limit where you can simulate another universe because it would be smaller than a planck length (but, probably there would be a limit far before that point because of obvious reasons). If the coefficient is more than one every universe simulated has the potettial for being bigger than the original so no one would ever perceive a difference in that and probably this problem wouldn't be ever noticed. And if the coefficient is exactly equal to one all the universes can be as big as the original one.
>>7736059
not on topic, only shitposts or bait is allowed
reported
>>7736059
> Universe is pixelated
Yeah. You're totally not making that connection because you're used to seeing man-made electronic systems.
>>7736099
So you are saying planck lenght doesnt exist? Mind publishing the papers of your research and theory disproving it? :)
>>7736118
>The Planck length implies quantisation
Hahahahahahaha >>>/trash/
>>7736118
> disproving planck length
show me the papers where it proves the existence of the planck legth as a scientific law.
>>7736133
>Except it fucking doesn't
>It literally has no physical significance
Hahahahahaha >>>/r/etard
>>7736135
> proving anything to diarrhea boy
almost got me
>>7736059
>you can certainly compute the next 'step' of the system
No, you can't.
What is it with /sci/ and this 19th century deterministic concept?
"free will is impossible"
"QM is a hoax"
etc.
>>7735606
>winrar
There is a strong counterargument. It is rooted in ethics, a branch of philosophy.
If we simulate something which contains life and we surpass a certain stage of real personality, we are inclined to give that simulation rights, like we give rights to a growing count of animals. We grow responsible. If this grows, so has to grow the simulation. Which at some point in time makes even one simulation unaffordable. This insight leads to the rule: "Don't simulate life beyond stage X." ("X" being "apelike" for example.)
This indicates for us to be in the real universe.
I made that up and this is the first time I publish it.
Dear /sci/,
Keep your threads >>>/x/17111440 on your own boards, thanks.
With love,
> >>>/x/
>>7735614
>combinations
I actually agree with this anon
>>7740001
That produces much less information density per particle than 1 simulated particle per real particle would. Whichever anon pointed out that information is lost in every nested simulation is on the right track. The real answer is that the engineers who design a universe-scale simulation are going to be deeply aware of these issues, have a firm understanding of what things would look like if they were the simulated version of themselves, and will explicitly scan the universe for simulations so that they can avoid wasting time computing the simulation strata itself. Compression occurs at the exact moment that simulation turns on and not a single second sooner.
A better question would be how long you expect the simulation to run before it catches up to itself. Even being generous and giving it 100 thousand years or so, that's 100 thousand years for any simulation-capable economy's computational resources to collapse. Multiply this by the probability that we are the first simulation-capable civilization in the universe and you have a much more realistic estimate than "Oh there would be infinitely many lossless simulations because durr."
But tumblr already exists
seems like a lot of bullshit to m
>>7735575
Let S be the amount of generalized computational resources required to simulate, to a degree indistinguishable from reality, one cubic meter of universe for one second.
Let A be the total computational capacity of the entirety of the real universe in one second, divided by its total volume.
In order for outcome 3 to be reasonable, A must be at least on the same level of magnitude as S, if not greater: A >= S. But the amount of sustained processing power which that would require is so mind-boggingly large, that any entity or entities that achieved such would be god or gods, and the whole argument becomes moot.
In the apparently realistic universe where A << S, any simulation would necessarily encompass a smaller virtual volume of space or span of virtual time (probably both) than the size and duration of the real universe. As such, a given observer is likely to be in the real universe.
>>7740529
Finally. Some magnitude reasoning. If simulation theory is literally an example of fractal wrongness, addressing its fractal dimension is the best way to show its wrongness. This is the reason I'll come to /sci/ when I'm done with /x/.
>>7740529
>As such, a given observer is likely to be in the real universe.
This conclusion, I fail to understand it. What if our host universe were greater and could afford a simulation we are in?
>>7740553
Then it ceases to be a theory, ceases to be based on mathematics, and enters in the discrete realm of metaphysical reasoning that doesn't make for a constructive /sci/ discussion. This thread was posted on /x/ too, so if you want to address that nonsensical hypothetical, go there instead.
Alternatively, read http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ and start figuring out how we can actually observe the outer world to do proper science with it.
>>7740565
So I guess you count >>7738778 to 'nonsensical hypothetical'. That is ok as this board discusses science while ethics is a different and rather small branch of philosophy and therefore a lesser thought-about issue here.
Nonetheless, from my POV this >>7738778
is a comparatively-high-probability answer.
>>7740584
The reasoning in that post is based on something we know is real from observation, ie., reality. If you want to discuss things other than us simulating us then it becomes pure science fiction. Simulating a universe is not a commutative operation. The reasoning in one direction does not apply the same way to the reasoning that goes in the exact opposite direction.
>>7740553
Consider the utter fuckton of individual ants on Earth (1-10 quadrillion according to wiki). Now consider the total number of ants in all ant farms in the world. If we select a single ant at random, the probability that it is in an ant farm, while clearly greater than zero, is very small.
>>7741139
>everything else can be abstracted until
This isn't known. It isn't even verifiable with current technology. It's not even a hypothesis, let alone a technical specification.
>>7735575
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q--detM3whg
![iu[3].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6s6XIBc.jpg "iu[3].jpg")
