are we in a simulation?
>>8170049
Don't beg the question B^)
>>8170049
"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum."
>>8170049
Yes we do live in a simulation
>>8170049
i'm skeptical. I'm surprised that Musk is so sure. Seems like a childish position to hold. Because we seem to always borrow new metaphors from our current technological landscape to explain aspects of existence.
>>8170049
No.
Only you are in a simulation.
>>8170154
>Because we seem to always borrow new metaphors from our current technological landscape to explain aspects of existence.
Said better than most.
>I'm surprised that Musk is so sure.
Don't understand this though. Personality cult is personality cult. Every human on the planet holds at least one childishly naive view. Get used to everyone being flawed.
>>8170049
what does it matter
we simulate our reality inside our "minds" from the qualia our perceptions are tuned to.
the nominal world and the phenomenal world
we are the machines creating our own simulation while living in the "real world"
but only experiencing it in a phenomenological manner.
>>8170049
>are we in a simulation?
Unless you can get the universe to go into "debug mode" it really doesn't matter.
Just look at atoms.
All solid objects are made of mostly empty space, and the bits that aren't empty space are so bizarre they don't really act like anything from the macroscopic world of our experience.
Adding "simulated universe" to the picture doesn't make things much weirder.
We view an internal 3D simulation of the external reality, in the same way that the occupants of Plato’s cave view a 2D shadow of the 3D exterior.
Is the external reality a simulation?
Perhaps, as the structure of quantum field theory is mathematically equivalent to that of a spatially distributed quantum computer.
Now, iIf the universe as we know it is a simulation, then we must consider the fact that as we are able to produce simulations ourselves (that is, a simulation within a simulation), there are likely to be far more multi-level simulations than singular ones.
This logic, coupled with the elementary laws of mathematical probability, indicates that the simulation hypothesis would lead us to conclude that we are living in a simulation within a simulation, within a simulation, ad infinitum.
I should also note that, historically speaking, infinities of this sort often precede the discovery of a previously overlooked fallacy.
However, it is important to note that apparent absurdity does not provide appropriate grounds for ruling out a mathematically viable hypothesis, especially when considering that whatever the true nature of the external reality may be, it is most definitely expected to be wholly unintuitive and absolutely bizarre.
>>8171330
The only real question is why the universe is such a goddamn nerd. Spending 100% of its time doing complex physics calculations. We're all made up of information in quantum theory anyway.
>>8171345
>the discovery of a previously overlooked fallacy
Hi, I'm the guy that will make the simulation you believe is possible. Know what that makes me?
There's your goddamn fallacy.
>>8172552
What the fuck are you talking about?
I don't believe anything is possible, I said 'perhaps' you cunt flap.
Didn't one of the physics guys say that infinite, non-repeating decimals mean that we probably weren't in a simulation?
>>8172566
I'm also interested in this.
>>8171237
My grandmother was a history professor, who married a philosophy professor. You may fill in the blanks.
Does that mean I'm not a real failure, and that my controller is just a filthy casual?
>>8172548
The universe isn't doing calculations. The formulas describe the universe
>>8172566
Never-ending non-repeating decimals can be calculated with computers
>>8172619
Not completely. Not with what we know
I have fewer doubts about this every day.
>>8170154
This has nothing to do with Musk, sillygoose. It has to do with all of the physicists he's echoing.
>>8171241
The reason it matters is that perhaps we might be able to find a way out of the simulation.
>>8170049
who created the simulation, and how is this argument different from "Did a god create the universe?"
surly its impossible to prove this on any level. if there is a bug in the universe how do we know that its a bug? physics should explain it through some method. at least if it consistently happens
>>8171255
It doesn't take too much to understand the very poor facsimile that is our picture or representation of the world in our own minds than the picture we try to paint of other people's minds. In order to understand anyone other than yourself you must simulate the other's mind within your own, which itself must necessarily be a very poor approximation.
>>8172672
>who created the simulation
That's what we're here to find out.
>>8170049
Sure, why not
>>8172712
It was an answer to this question >>8171237, so actually check the link before being a cunt.
>>8172712
My father is a philosopher. It's in my blood I CAN'T GET RID OF IT!
>>8172809
Cut your heart out.
the premise is an unfalsifiable claim, there's no point in thinking about it logically, we all just have to come to peace with its arbitrary possibility
>>8170049
A simulation is a manifold or subset of reality.
NICK BOSTROM?
matt damon anyone?
>>8170083
This
Also it literally doesn't matter wither way
>>8171330
>Unless you can get the universe to go into "debug mode"
I can, m8.
>>8176938
Either *
ignore the name and the gameplay, what do you think of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcPNiworbo
>>8177000
don't be so quick to judge, he won't talk about his opinions and shit.
yep. We are in a hologram.
>>8177000
>gameplay
ignored
>>8177000
> golden camo
> noobtube attachment
> pleb tier killstreaks
pure evil
>>8170154
he's so sure because we would literally never know and we OURSELVES will easily have the capability in the future to do so.
>>8179064
This.
There may not be an empirical way of demonstrating it (unless the simulators deliberately chose to reveal themselves) but there is an anthropic argument that states that at least one of the following three propositions is true (although it does presume either over the other):
1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero, or
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero, or
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Bostrom.27s_trilemma:_.22the_simulation_argument.22
>year 2020
>computer simulations become so advanced that they realise they are in a simulation
>implications are unsettling
>>8170049
No
SpaceX is cool, but this asshole doesn't know that he's talking about
>>8181594
Wtf does Musk have to with anything?
>>8170049
I fucking hope so. The idea of me spending my prime years in a dimly lit room posting non-sense is upsetting.
>>8172670
>Messiah complex
>>8170083
That implies one is a thought.
Direct and indirect realism.
>>8181797
Yeah so
ESSENCE AND BEING. ESSENCE CONTAINS ATTRIBUTES AND QUALITY THAT PRECEDES BEING.
"Exertnal reality" nigga what. Marerialsm? Matter seperate from the mind? >>8171345
>>8170154
He's only confident because his wealth gives weight to his opinions
"The universe is a simulation" is the exact same thing as saying "God created the universe" and yet no /r/atheist will ever call him out for it because they don't want to look bad questioning the scientific messiah that wants to take us to Mars.
Right, there is the mind, which is purely psycological. Then the rest of the brain which contains physiological which works together to provide concious awareness. Awareness allows us to see shit. Images formed in the shape of memory. Cognition.
>>8181835
>"The universe is a simulation" is the exact same thing as saying "God created the universe"
Not really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The fact that people seem to mention Musk so much only suggests that they've never even read into it before and have only heard about it from pop culture.
The simulation argument is grounded in probability. God as conceived by most people is completely arbitrary; the simulation hypothesis is not the arbitrary because at our current pace of technological progress, unless we're destine to destroy ourselves first, we will eventually be able to simulate entire civilizations. If at least some civilizations go on to run ancestor simulations then the number of technological civilizations that are simulated will outnumber the number of civilizations that aren't. In other words, civilizations that go on to reproduce themselves (i.e. multiply) will always be more numerous than those that don't.
If we ever reach a point where we're about to execute an ancestor simulation, it means we are almost certainly in one.
>>8181667
Musk thinks/KNOWS we are in some kind of sim and he's a fuking genius, but no one perfect and as said earlier everyone has that one weird qwerk that they believe in and thats his.
>>8170049
Yes, our brains turn raw sensory information into a highly sophisticated virtual world which is what we experience
Is there a way to prove that we're real?
>>8181888
>Assuming an accurate universe simulation is possible
Good luck properly simulating quantum systems on a practical scale
>>8182283
You can prove to yourself that you are real, because you wouldnt be asking the question if you werent. Cogito ergo sum
>>8171330
lucid dreams. everyone can get into debug mode m8
>>8182610
What do you mean?
>>8170049
Yes, we are trapped in a bundle of nerves that are simulating a reflection of senses as best as it can given its organic limitations.
>>8172612
Physics formulas wouldn't be consistent and ostensibly accurate if the universe was not constantly calculating a means to enforce its strict principles.
>>8180447
There are multiple government agencies according to Singularity is Near with AIs they have had to terminate because they became uncannily sentient and began to legitimately seek to escape to outside networks.
>>8181797
No it implies one is a conduit of thought.
>>8184349
I think you're just projecting your understanding of the universe onto the universe
>>8184157
Correct.
>>8181888
>because at our current pace of technological progress, unless we're destine to destroy ourselves first, we will eventually be able to simulate entire civilizations.
but if we are indeed a simulation isn't a simulation of a simulation a paradox?
>>8184402
Then project your self to saturn and fly sideways to uranus if you aren't limited by the same physical calculations as everything else is by the universe.
>>8184445
No, its recursive, haven't you ever played GTA or any other video game where there was a video game inside the video game?
>>8184445
The game is really the matrix, the matrix exactly like in the movie, thankfully neo created neopets and saved humanity from swaglordneoxan but neo is not the one but is the matrix at this point. If morpheus pops up bingo for larmatianland and those who lost the game. Except you anon you lose the game.
>>8184364
Suuuure
>>8182297
But do you need to simulate them? I mean we might aswell simulate a universe without them and see how it turns out. Maybe we are in a universe with simplified/modeled physics based on our hypothetical host universe.
>>8184674
Not saying the guys is right, but look into RNNs I think it's a legit way to make sentient AIs.
>Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
>Pauli exclusion principle
>Copenhagen interpretation
>Speed of light
>irrational numbers
Yea.
>>8170049
It's really inconsequential.
Whether it's 500BC or the current year, the answer is "maybe".
>>8184982
what if it's 600BC?
do konami code and find out
>>8186388
What do we press?
