Is there any good evidence for or against this?
How could there even feasibly be evidence for or against it? It's a mind game. A philosophical conundrum. The complete blindness of it is the only thing that substantiates it.
Did you know Hanz is a cocksucking ugly fat retard?
>>17279631
Against this being a simulation there is irrational numbers and neverending sequences. A computer can't cope with every endless digit of pi. It would eat storage or processing space like a worm until it crashed.
Terrible explanation, I know, but there should be more eloquent explanations along the same vein out there.
>>17279956
hmm, never thought about the pie thing. thanks for the thought anon
>>17279967
but what if the computer was capable of creating its own storage
>>17279956
Just arguing for the fun of it now, but isnt it possible that the creators of the simulation set the conditions such that computers anywhere could only get so powerful, or measuring instruments so precise, that all of the machines in the simulation could only ever get so far in pi, then just calculate the approximation theyre using out a few more digits?
>>17279956
>>17279967
It's called lazy evaluation. Pi is only ever evaluated on an as needed basis. The universe is definitely functional, not procedural
So, let's say the Universe is a simulation.
Now, let's also say that it somehow has no backup. It's just a big video game that's been running since the Big Bang without saving or turning off the TV. If the simulation gets terminated, and all of the data is lost, and it wasn't saved or copied in any way, would we have ever existed?
>>17279631
*spreads anus*
Yes
*closes anus*
for it be therfore > IF < If is a second definate factor therefore there is more than a constant 'blindness" and a constant Anti or holed structure plate in the current conundrum
>>17280057
Yes
>>17280071
Would the deleted universe still exist and it's deleted timeline continue?
I don't understand metaphysics. Or theoretical metaphysics.
One particle can be in two places at once. What that means is that there's a hair ball shaped volume of space where, if you're looking, you'll see a negatively charged electron for example. And the entire hair ball appears to be the same electron with the same charge.
Often, you'll hear things like 'There's a 50% chance of observing the electron in this volume of space.' But how is that estimate made? By observing something for a certain number of units of time, and taking count of the percentage of those units that include an observation of an electron. When we set up devices to look for an electron, with enough time we always see it.
So, a particle is a hair ball, and your odds of detecting it is corrolated with the length of time you're in contact with it. To detect it, it has to effect you - that is, you can detect a negatively charged electron with a positively charged particle, because the two will attact one another.
The truth is, the electron is in all it's possible locations at once, and this goes for all particles. The past is remembered, because the electron never truly leaves any position it's ever been in. Superdeterminism suggests that the electron also knows it's future, so that no FTL communication needs to occur to explain quantum entanglement - the electron knows when and where to be.
Einstein famously said that time was an illusion, and what he meant was that due to the above, it was best to assume that the electron's entire history unfolded simultaneously - it had no past or future, only an infinite number of now's. Hence, if we draw every moment in it's life, it looks like a hair ball.
In nature, the sun, other stars and black holes form centers of gravity which everything is orbiting. Matter is sucked into these places, and shot out. These centers are tied together by particle-lines.
It's not a simulation, but reality is like a computer program. But you're a sprite, and you're subject to the code.
>>17279631
No, turn off your computer and live your life as scheduled.
