>>8074919
People hate it, but Wikipedia would be a good start to see the ideals and have some sources for further reading.

>>8074919
>iq of 120
People still fall for the iq meme? IQ != Intelligence
IQ is just pseudo-scientific bullshit

>>8074954
Was just using it as a reference point to state I don't fully comprehend the intracies of a lot of stuff you guys talk about on this board.

I am well aware of the meme argument people have about IQ not being viable.

>>8074919
Well we can gather information about the Universe to quite a high level of detail, mostly just constrained by heisenbergs uncertainty principle and the fact that we can only see that part of the universe from which light has had time to reach us, which may or may not be the entirety of existing things. A computer or a similar piece of machinery simulating this would have to be of comparable complexity at the very least if it is made out of matter as we know it, so that would seem quite unlikely. If anything, the simulation would only extend to what we can immediately see and experience and create the rest as required, or the computer would habe to exist in a reality vastly different from ours. That would imply that either it would model a reality similar or based upon the one in which the simulation was designed, or it is purely made up. Of course it would be quite difficult to ever find out anything about such a simulation due to our inability to measure anything outside of such a simulation should it exist. So how come you think that it is likely that we do live in a simulation? Or just you, and the rest of humanity being merely simulated as well? In any case if that hypothesis neither makes predictions nor is testable it isn't much of a scientific theory, so maybe try to figure out how some of the implications of such a reality would differ from one were things are not just simulated

>>8074954
>IQ is just pseudo-scientific bullshit
BUTTMAD LOW-IQ FAGGOT DETECTED

>>8074963
In my narrow view of things, this is why I feel it is likely.

Of course the technology needed to create such a supremely powerful simulation as our entire universe seems almost unfathomable, yet I believe it to be entirely possible. Just look at our level of technology 200 years ago. Now imagine what will be possible 200 years in our future.

Now say for instance, the state of affairs of our world. Many countries hold nuclear weaponry that could annihilate all life on earth at any given moment. Then there's always the possibility of other extinction type events that could take place at any moment, although vastly unlikely.

Say we could build a simulated universe, and in our reference, one minute of time in our universe is 10,000 years in the simulation. Say we create 1,000 of these simulations.

Say out of those 1,000 simulations, 10 develop the ability to create their own simulation with the same rules, 1 minute = 10,000 years.

>>8074995
Continued.

Basically as there becomes more levels upon levels of the simulation, you have ensured a continuation of your intelligence across a terrifyingly vast multitude of universes for a tremendous amount of time.

Even if the progenitor universe suffers a nuclear holocaust completely destroying all life after just two years, the simulations will continue for an eternity.

>>8074997
So in a sense, the creation of such a simulation would be a sort of "failsafe" against extinction of the species. Sure you could attempt to colonize the universe after completion of the simulation, but no matter what happens, you would know that upon catastrophic events leading to the entire species being erased, your legacy would carry on in a sense.

>>8074995
>>8074997
First of all, the simulation would still just exist in the computer of the first world, which then simulates the computer in the first simulation, which simulates the second one etc. That means that if the non-simulated computer in the "real" world gets destroyed, so do all of the subsequent simulations. It is unlikely that such a computer would keep running after life is destroyed as it requires electricity etc. Also as I mentioned before you cannot physically create a computer that small that fully simulates reality, only parts of it, or simplifications. The computer in the real world would have to calculate all of the subsequent ones, which would go to infinity in terms of calculating power very quickly. Also time cannot be slowed down indefinitely in the simulations. Apart from it greatly increasing calculation power requirements there also is a physical limit to how low you can go in terms of time. Just like there is the planck length for space, there is also a smallest unit of time before you get into trouble with uncertainty. Space and momentum are linked due to the uncertainty principle, and so are energy and time. This means creating a computer such as the one you described in our world is physically impossible, which would of course not allow for such an infinite progression of simulation. If there is a chain of simulations, it would end with this reality.

>>8075010
Agree with everything you said except one thing. And you do make very good points against my claim.

The one thing you say : if the computer in the "real" world was destroyed, all other simulations cease to exist. This is true 100%, however as you go deeper and deeper into layers of the simulation, time would stretch to such a wild extent that the "moment of extinction" would literally never come.

At some point a few thousand layers deep, .0000001 seconds in the "real world" would be billions of years in that simulation.

>>8075010
The only point where you have to suspend belief a little bit, is that the computational power (nearly infinite) can never be obtained.

>>8075016
That is not possible due to time not being that stretchable. As I mentioned before you can only go so far before the realities you simulate start to behave very strangely and have gigantic quantum effects due to the original computer not being able to simulate them at that speed without experiencing these effects itself.

>>8075019
You can of course simulate just parts of it, specifically what most humans experience. The only times reality is ever examined in a great level of detail is during scientific experiments, the results of which could always just be generated by the computer. Hence the computational requirements are more of a technical challenge than a preoblem with the laws of physics so long as you don't create an actually infinite chain.

Also if you were to create a simulation, why the hell would you make it just like your previous reality? The laws of physics might be different or things like that. If you just want to make people happy at that level of technological development you could just have machines inserted into their brains that can regulate their dopamine levels etc. Those are just some practical reasons why that theory is implausible