The People Who Think We Live In A Computer Simulation

How do you prove the people wrong who bring up the comment that we all are living in a computer simulation?
I mean i know it's fucking stupid, but i don't know how to put it into words to shut that person up.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tlTKTTt47WE
youtube.com/watch?v=iL8Pkw-oegw
youtu.be/t_RwcGzGurc
phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

tell them your a virus and niggers are still niggers. gas the bytes, cyberrace ear NOOOOOOOW

you are a normie until you swallow the cyberpill

What does it matter?

Because i can't stand people believing in such stupid logic.

It's as if their ability to reason has vanished into thin air.

I MEAN.. LOOK AT THIS STUPID FUCKING VIDEO... LOOK AT ALL THE FUCKING LIKES... REEEEEEEEEEE
youtube.com/watch?v=tlTKTTt47WE

I don't mean what does it matter if they believe it, I mean what does it matter if the world is a simulation or not?
I don't see why it's even worth discussing it seems like such a non-issue

You can't because they're right, and you're too much of a brainlet to understand the simulation argument.
It's statistically more probably that we are in a simulation than not.
You're such an idiot that you even need other people to tell you why you should believe what you're believing. What you're doing is no different from some liberal cuck going on reddit and saying ''how do you deny that races are all different, obviously it's just racist bullshit they're spewing, but I really need you to tell me how to shut them up! ALL RACES ARE THE SAME REEEEEEEEEEE''

There is no legitimate argument against the simulation theory. You can only assume the position that whether or not we are in a simulation it doesn't matter since beings inside a simulation would be incapable of telling the difference.

It's like traps.. i've never seen or met one in real life, but they bother me with their logic and it makes me sad to see the world go in such a downward movement.

You can't prove it wrong, so you go on with your life.

>It's statistically more probably that we are in a simulation than not.
Explain

Op is a fag

That liberal cuck channel is a terrible example, and it fails to explain anything about the theory. That entire channel is notoriously bad and fails on every single topic it tackles. It doesn't even mention the logic behind believing in theory.
Even someone like Sam Hyde has explained the theory much better.

youtube.com/watch?v=iL8Pkw-oegw

but its a real possibilty stupidass

I believe in simulation theory

ama

...

You don't, it's their job to prove it's correct. Haven't you taken a fucking science class?

It's simple. There are more simulations of the universe than there can be actual universes.
There is only one universe. A universe that contains intelligent life is going to create multiple simulations. As the number of simulations grow the possibility of you being in the real universe diminishes.

To assume that we are not in a simulated universe you would have to accept that we are the first or one of the first intelligent civilizations to ever exist in the universe, which is a completely different argument.

>Haven't you taken a fucking science class?

What? Just "A" science class? as in 1?

You can't prove it wrong. It very well might be possible like many other things. It actually is a very good example to show that the question of the why, what, and how is quite unimportant for our lives. It doesn't matter if we are a simulation, a product of chance, or god's chosen ones. Our lives will be the same.

>How do you prove the people wrong who bring up the comment that we all are living in a computer simulation?
Can't say about a simulation, but one can logically conclude that one is not truly in "control" of one's actions.
>I mean i know it's fucking stupid
Why do you think it's stupid? Does the idea that you're not in control revile you so much?

>I MEAN.. LOOK AT THIS STUPID FUCKING VIDEO.
Stop fucking citing kurzgesagt you stupid fucking OP. These are people who advocated for refugee migration you fucking jackass.

>you're too much of a brainlet to understand the simulation argument.
Doesn't understand that the simulation argument is itself built on axioms that can be ignored and thus render the argument incomplete.
Latvian flag, checks out.
>It's statistically more probably that we are in a simulation than not.
Statistics is the science of summarizing data. You cannot statistically prove that you're living in a simulation because you cannot observe and record other so called "realities".
>You're such an idiot that you even need other people to tell you why you should believe what you're believing.
Calls OP an idiot while not realizing he himself believes in the simulation argument without much thought.
>What you're doing is no different from some liberal cuck
Projection 101
>There is no legitimate argument against the simulation theory.
Admits that the simulation argument is a theory and then says there is no legitimate argument against it. You FUCKING MORON, theories are theories until they are verified or proven with data. FUCKING JACKASS.

>This is Sup Forums ladies and gentlemen

>It's simple.
You will punch yourself in the face with your next statement.
>There are more simulations of the universe than there can be actual universes.
FUCK FUCK FUCK. How can you claim this without objectively verifying it you stupid fucking high-schooler.
>There is only one universe. A universe that contains intelligent life is going to create multiple simulations.
FUCK FUCK FUCK, citing the axioms/assumptions of the simulation argument and passing them off as facts to support your fallacy. FUCK FUCK FUCK. Where are you from you stupid fucking moron.
>As the number of simulations grow the possibility of you being in the real universe diminishes.
>Pic is me after reading what you're writing here.
>To assume that we are not in a simulated universe you would have to accept that we are the first or one of the first intelligent civilizations to ever exist in the universe, which is a completely different argument.
Fucking kill yourself user.

>built on axioms that can be ignored
Sorry to break it to you, but all knowledge is built on axioms that can be ignored. Besides, the axioms are pretty good.

It's called a devil's proof.

Why don't you just tell them you need to reboot and walk away?

Can't talk about simulation, but one can logically conclude that one is truly not in control of one's actions. It is simply observing that one cannot objectively identify the source of the origin of human thought. No scientific experiments (including the most recent experiments in neuroscience) have been able to conclusively prove that human thoughts originate in the known universe. This coupled with the fact that most human beings (you may be different) only understand their thoughts after they occur leads to the possibility of there being a single "Observer" and a Computer that simulates thoughts for the observer.

Part 2:
The first question a skeptic of the proposition with a single observer and a computer that generates all thoughts asks is who is truly in control? The answer is the computer is truly in control. The computer has in-built decision rules which act on external stimuli (human sensory data) received from the world we perceive. This is in line with evolution where only those that "fit" the environement survive. Over many years of evolution, the decision rules that drive each human are fixed.

Stopped reading at the retarded ad hominem
>heh, you are from another country
Not an argument, shitskin low IQ brainlet.

Part 3:
The second question a skeptic of the proposition with a single observer and computer that generates all thought asks is well, if the computer is control of generating all thoughts and actions, and the observer has no say in the actions chosen by the computer, then how is it that I act on my thoughts? This is remedied with the proposition that the computer has an "output" stream of data that it sends to the observer. However, this "output" stream of data is returned to the computer as a "secondary" input in addition to the "primary" input of human sensory information. Thus, it seems that the computer is self-aware, or it acts like it's self aware.

It's been known and shown for over a century that what we see is an output of non-physical quantum information. Information based reality=virtual reality=computed reality=simulation.

OP is literally an NPC, ignore & sage

>can't disprove nor even debate anyone but acts smug
Indeed, it is Sup Forums

No

There's a lot of evidence and reasoning for believing it, but these low IQ dumbasses can't even accept the basic mathematical premise.
If they can't even accept that the number of simulations is greater than the number of real universes, they're not going to listen to anything.

Sup Forums is older than this underage fag.

We are actually most likely living inside an organism. Our different lives are a way for the greater organism to learn and adapt. Said experiences are coalesced into the hive mind knows as the universe.

Death brings us back to the hive mind, where our life experience is "processed". This energy is then placed in another organic vehicle to continue the "living experience"

>Make baseless assertion that it is trivial to simulate a universe and human psychology
>Based on this axiomatic assumption, it is more likely we are in a simulation than an actual universe

I'm surprised that these people remember to breathe.

Surely this is the psychopathology of someone who both lacks empathy and has never had to manifest anything in their lives through their own strenuous efforts.

Tell them if it’s just a simulation to Kill themselves. Since nothing matters do it faggot

as a kid, how many times did you get bored and decide to kill your character?

You are god and you toyed with another life...you fucking maniac

I just don't have the want too, to try and and explain why i feel this thread is full of morons, i could sit down and type out a long comment explaining why i hate the people in this thread and why i feel that they're wrong. But what's the point? I could be God himself and you people would still argue with me.

I'll let the others bicker and communicate with you. But not me.. i'm going to be mainly silent only commenting here and there a few times.

>Gas the bytes
Kek

but user, how do you refute science ?
youtu.be/t_RwcGzGurc

t. 56 IQ 56%

Most people nowadays sort of live in the simulation in the sense that they're paying attention to their phones all of the time, as well as people that play video games all day. Your mind is drawn into a fake world.

>Sorry to break it to you, but all knowledge is built on axioms that can be ignored
Yeah, like your self-confidence is built on the axiom that you have a dick.
>Besides, the axioms are pretty good.
Why? Because you endorse them? Fucking present your arguments as to why they're good you stupid fuck.

>Not an argument, shitskin low IQ brainlet.
Nice comeback. That should shut up anyone on the internet.

Computer simultation ? No, for that you'd need visible signs such as : simplified mechanical equations, limits to certain variables such as speed or density, longer process time for objects subjected to higher speed, and so on.

The people who believe in this heard it from someone like Elon Musk and are third-tier narcissists copying from him, a first-tier narcissist.

It is a frank delusion. Elon and his ilk probably believe it because they've realized that their lives are empty on the inside despite all their supposed accomplishments, bolstered by their charlatan personas. The normies believe it because they want to be like their hero.

Anyone who listens to these tech fags on anything but tech issues deserves to be gassed. They are some of the most delusional people in the world.

>It's been known and shown for over a century that what we see is an output of non-physical quantum information.
Do you even know what the fuck you're babbling here? Or do you like to copy and paste stuff you read somewhere?
> Information based reality=virtual reality=computed reality=simulation.
This in line with Bostrom's assumptions, but where his assumptions can fail is the first point itself. It is quite possible that no human civilization ever reached the capacity to generate another universe virtually. Then what?

>such stupid logic.
its not logic its philosophy

The OP is too dumb to see what you did there.

You don't have any arguments

we have simulations now, why can't more intelligence beings make more complicated simulations, are we the first intelligent life in the universe?

What don't you understand about 1 real universe out of many simulations, is unlikely

>Here is the baseless assertion that it's trivial to simulate the universe, including human psychology, again

Please kill yourself.

You also can't prove you're not part of some beings imagination. Just accept their world view is out there but can't be proven wrong

>There's a lot of evidence and reasoning for believing it, but these low IQ dumbasses can't even accept the basic mathematical premise.
user says there's tons of evidence, presents none, but still asks everyone to believe him.
Latvian flag. Checks out.
>If they can't even accept that the number of simulations is greater than the number of real universes, they're not going to listen to anything.
Yeah why should anyone accept this you stupid fuck? Is there a reason to accept this premise other than to prove yourself correct. Fucking give people a starting point to understand where you're coming from.

>Sup Forums is older than this underage fag.
Toodly doo, time to get on Sup Forums and see what the lads are upto.
>Pic is you.

This worldview is clearly pathological because it's a denial of intersubjectivity and therefore empathy. It is on the same spectrum as autism and people who think their family has been replaced by aliens.

Christ, and I really tried this time

So long as people continue to immerse themselves in TV, movies, vidya and other immersive forms of media that are NOT REAL and have FICTIONAL stories, worlds and constructs then they are in fact living in a simulation. Not all the time but there are people whose lives are so mundane they need to check out and immerse themselves into worlds that are not real and live vicariously through them. In the modern age most people spend dozens of hours per week immersing themselves in media that is ficitonal. These are the people who just love stupid tv shows and have binge watching marathons. When they do this they are leaving their real life and immersing themselves into a simulation willingly. Same with nerds who play hours and hours of video games. They are not real they are real life simulated and formulated to be more exciting that your actual life could ever be. People live in a simulation just not in the way you think they do.

Is >1 a bigger number than 1?

I mean, while i find it annoying your comment is true. People will believe what they want to believe.

That's why i believe in lizard gods disguised as human jews infecting the world thus taking it over so that they can reap the humans of the world sacrificing them to their kin. Then the universe will be flooded with lizard gods.

Can you prove me wrong? no.. no you cannot.
Also the the moon landing was faked in Area 51.

At least I don't suck Bostrom's cock you stupid fuck. Here is my reasoning for why I think we live in a world where we are most likely not in control of our actions.

These people can believe what they want to believe, true, but that doesn't mean you can't pathologize and ridicule them for being the final form of autism.

Google "The Simulation Argument" by Nick Bostrum and read that.

Basic idea: Assume computers keep advancing. Eventually we'll be able to simulate reality with extraordinary accuracy. In the real universe, it's likely the inhabitants will want simulations modeling history, for games, for economic predictions, for scientific predictions, etc. Because there will be many high fidelity simulations and only one base reality, it's more likely that we live in a simulation than that we live in base reality.

salty as fuck

*Logical

>Also the the moon landing was faked in Area 51.
Never know man, this might be true. From what I've read, it is possible that humans went to the moon, otherwise someone at NASA would have ratted out. However, people suspect that the video shown to the public was staged at area 51. That is, we haven't really seen the actual moon landing, but one that was staged.

To choose to believe this rather than assume intersubjectivity demonstrates abnormal psychology. It can't be proven or disproven, but is a worldview that belies any pretension of having a normal personality capable of interacting with humans like they are actually humans.

You remind them that is just what they call God because they are to fucking proud to admit God exists.

>computer simulation fag argument: reality isn't real it is a simulation

These retards don't get the lack of logic in saying "reality is not really real". This whole simulation BULLSHIT is a secular attempt at explaining metaphysics with some gimmick. They have logically inferred a metaphysical structure to the universe, but refuse to believe it's anything more than another physical manifestation of another universe. This of course begs the question of what the structure of that universe is? and the universe it would be in if that was a simulation to.

The answer? There is no fucking "simulation" there is a metaphysical transcendental structure which governs the dynamics of the systems of the universe. The obvious implication of this is God exists. Which the atheist secular jewish demonic filth is afraid of admitting.

>In the real universe, it's likely the inhabitants will want simulations modeling history, for games, for economic predictions, for scientific predictions, etc
This is the main fallacy in Bostrom's approach. What if we are the first humans? Or the first universe to ever exist. Then what?

why should it be stupid? there's no way to disprove it and it's really likely we are in a simulation. do the math for yourself.
every civilization as advanced as our has the possibility to simulate the universe, every one of them has the capabilities to run multiple of them. that makes the chance we are in one higher than we are not (even if you take alien civs out of the equation).
however, that doesn't invalidate reality or make it less real.
you are a retard.

Just hit em with some Descarte that will usually shut em up/

Depends.

Science tells us there is an infinite number of universes. Under these given, then there is an almost 100% certainty that this is a computer simulation. The chain of emergence of this is long, and amounts to: more universes improve the chance of each universe being simulated; at infinite universes, then there is an infinity to infinity number of them being simulated, making it a very big challenge to find a naturally occurring one.

However, if toss out the science belief that there is an infinite number of universes, then you only have 1 data point, as there is only 1 known universe, and that means we cannot draw any conclusions about the nature of the universe from this fact.

Its not reality the problem it is the fags immersing themselves in Tv shows and movies and vidya that makes the simulation. The real world is real. SOme people dont find this interesting enough and choose to spend hours a day immersing themselves in a fantasy land.

To be fair, you cannot prove 'realness' it is always an axiomatic judgment. However, we can objectively observe that their belief is abnormal and infer what this says about their stance towards other people.

Pro-tip: it's not good or adaptive.

well the theory is that there's one real universe and millions of simulations within it, so chances are we're in one of the simulations

Humans will never be intelligent enough to simulate an entire universe. If such a simulation is ever created, it would be done by robots and ai. Not any biological creature.

It's just neo-Platonic garbage with techno-babble window dressing

>computer simulation

sheesh, it is, but it isn't. thing is, every interaction of every subatomic particle with every other subatomic particle is a computation. and what are all these particles computing? well, their own states, of course. everything that has ever happened, past, present, and future, are computations. so it's sorta fair to say that the universe is computing itself. and you and i are simply parts of this huge computer, computing our own destinies.

>falling for the reality jew

Let's learn about Langan then.

"You know what they say about theories: everybody’s got one. In fact, some people have a theory about pretty much everything. That’s not one Master Theory of Everything, mind you…that’s a separate theory about every little thing under the sun. (To have a Master Theory, you have to be able to tie all those little theories together.)

But what is a “theory”? Is a theory just a story that you can make up about something, being as fanciful as you like? Or does a theory at least have to seem like it might be true? Even more stringently, is a theory something that has to be rendered in terms of logical and mathematical symbols, and described in plain language only after the original chicken-scratches have made the rounds in academia?

A theory is all of these things. A theory can be good or bad, fanciful or plausible, true or false. The only firm requirements are that it (1) have a subject, and (2) be stated in a language in terms of which the subject can be coherently described. Where these criteria hold, the theory can always be “formalized”, or translated into the symbolic language of logic and mathematics. Once formalized, the theory can be subjected to various mathematical tests for truth and internal consistency. "

That's your universe.

>there is a metaphysical transcendental structure which governs the dynamics of the systems of the universe. The obvious implication of this is God exists.

phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

uh

The intelligent design argument may imply that there is a God but nowhere does it imply that that God is physical, or even that that God is not a computer.

yeah right

>he lives in a cheap ass simulation
>throttled speed of light
>cap on lowest temperature

THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF HUMANS

reality is nothing without the observer. we can observe a structured model that is governed by universal rules that is the world we perceive. Consciousness is universal but not in the human sense. Everything is predetermined based on a predictable and rule governed structure. the creator of all this is each part of the consciousness' observers

brilliant answer

>Doesn't understand that the simulation argument is itself built on axioms that can be ignored and thus render the argument incomplete.
The axioms are reasonable, and it's the nature of axioms to be dismissable.
>Statistics is the science of summarizing data. You cannot statistically prove that you're living in a simulation because you cannot observe and record other so called "realities".
He clearly was referring to probability, and you didn't address his argument.
>Projection 101
Projection 102
>Admits that the simulation argument is a theory and then says there is no legitimate argument against it. You FUCKING MORON, theories are theories until they are verified or proven with data.
Admits he has no idea how scientific knowledge is structured. A theory is a hypothesis that has not been shown false after repeated testing.
>FUCKING JACKASS.
Are your fee-fees hurt? :<

All that can be said about the simulation theory is that it is irrelevant. It cannot be tested given the nature of the hypothesis, and it has no useful implications. It CANNOT be said that it is an unreasonable hypothesis, or that it is disproven. In fact, given that it is unprovable, it is not scientific in nature.

If you want to criticize something, do it right. You just look like a fucking retard.

It's somewhat trivial to prove that every three-dimensional image can be represented by a two-dimensional image via a functional mapping, but that doesn't mean it is in fact the case. Nor does it have anything to do with simulations or representing the human psyche, which would without a doubt be the most challenging part of the "model".

This is just Jewish trickery to get people even more detached and alienated.

"god" is scattered across the universal consciouness that is the programmed structure of things, down to the atomic and subatomic level. you and I and everything is a division of "god". The whole structure we perceive has all the characteristics of a program.

TFW an EU fag has understood things better than some of the pseudo science fags on this thread.

Best post in this useless thread, tbqh.

>
You are "you" because the energy that was and is responsible for the part of your brain responsible for consciousness and understanding was always "you". Everything is conscious to a degree but do not confuse this with the human sense. The priviledged human consciousness we imagine for ourselves is nothing more than an illusion, we too are structures of the same code of this whole programmed construct we perceive. Consciousness is written deep in the universal code in the form of pre-determined programming.

The existence of irrational numbers such as pi, radical 2, and Euler's number put a dent in the theory that we live in a computer simulation. You would need an infinite amount of storage space for all of the digits that describe these irrational figures. If we ever find a "last number" of pi, then I would probably start to take this theory more seriously.

Because you can't and we might be in one.

Good post.

theoretical numbers don't actually exsits

there's no errors if you cut up a circle