How does /sci/ feel about the Simulation Hypothesis? Y'know, the theory that our universe is a simulation done by a supercomputer and programmed in a 4th dimension. It's been able to answer a lot of questions that materialism cannot.
Thoughts?
i think it's plausible. a few years ago it would've probably been dismissed as total bs but now it can actually be taken seriously. also OP your file name is gay.
>>7795035
At best an extraneous, unprovable idea about reality.
At worst an extraneous, unprovable idea about reality that causes a lot of shitposting.
>>7795035
debates about solipsism are like fleshlights for pseudointellectual philosophy majors.
>>7795035
Probably false. The structure of the universe doesn't seem very "algorithmic" but very mathematical.
>>7795035
If tha'd be true, infinitely continuing numbers wouldn't exist
ex: pi
>>7795070
This, it would make much more sense to program physics without NP complete algorithms, not to mention the (computational efficient) difficulty in computing seemingly basic things like the flow of water.
it can be proven that we cannot prove whether we are[nt] in one
Video related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas
>>7795086
>computational efficient
The only reason why these things are computationally inefficient is because of the hardware limitations. We have the physical and algorithmic knowledge to program this kind of thing it once it's reduced to more fundamental particles, but no currently built machine could handle even a fairly small amount of technically accurate water flow.
But you gotta remember, anyone who can program a universe is gonna have better hardware than us, so this is kinda an invalid argument against the philosophy.
>>7795159
"we can't know nuthin"
>>>/trash/
>able to answer a lot of questions that materialism cannot
>materialism cannot
Like solar eclipse or rain?
>>7795295
This is circular. It requires the premise to be true (the universe is programmed) to refute the other guys conclusion. Perhaps presuppositional is a better word, like theology.
>>7795046
>unprovable
Joking, right? This IS after all /sci.
If Bostrom thinks it's highly unlikely we live in a simulation, then I believe him
