What's the actual probability this life we live in is a simulation?

What's the actual probability this life we live in is a simulation?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/J0KHiiTtt4w
youtube.com/watch?v=AATA0TzZf0A
youtube.com/watch?v=cYdpOjletnc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

100%

in a machine generated way or through some type of God-like entity?

There was a formula stating this but i don't know what it was or how it was

Maybe /x/ knows, just ask kindly

occam's razor says no

If we are a simulation what are we a simulation of? When a simulation gets complex enough that it can potentially simulate itself is there a meaningful difference between the simulation and the "real world" that it was created in?

i simulate in ur mum

What's the difference?

inb4 retards reply with "nothing can simulate itself"

...

>when you play the sims and your sims are playing the sims while you're actually a sim
>wabba do borsh

100%. Our relationship with computers is analagous to our relationship with the creator. It's just another way for the universe to know itself.

Now you've seen The Matrix, it's time to see The Thirteenth Floor

It's not exactly a simulation, it's like an escape from reality. We cannot perceive reality as it is because of our own conditioning.
Top tier movie.

I believe this life is some form of Hell. Heaven is not like this. With all this pain and suffering. Separation from heaven is in some extent, Hell. A simulated alt-reality might actually save us.

>believe
>hell
>heaven
Being this bluepilled

If you consider the fact that simulating a universe is far easier than creating one physically, then I think it's fair to say that there would be many more simulated universes than real ones. Given that fact, by sheer probability, we are much more likely to be living in one of the many simulated ones.

This.
Occam's razor gives me nausea, if it was for occam's nazor earth would be flat and god would exist.

You are retarded
Inb4 u hurt my feelers, ergo this is hell, ergo im right.

The scales are mind boggling. We can keep going smaller (Planck) or bigger (Observable Universe) till our brains and technology collapse. Regardless, we can never truly observe out the basic building blocks of matter and the abnormal behavior of time at quantum level all suggests that we have reached the edge of this simulation.

thanks for shedding some humor in this grimdark thread

0%

That's only if you presuppose a uniform distribution.

Perhaps it's not possible for simulated beings to actually be conscious (like i know i am). Perhaps it is. Who knows?

occam's razor says your mom's fake and gay

100%
>WAKE UP user, WAKE UP!

You're assuming it's easy to simulate a universe. We can't even simulate weather patterns reliably.

...

Don't be retarded. How does Occam's razor suggest the existence of God?

>is there a meaningful difference
Somebody could disable/interfere with the simulation so yes

52%

100%, although the term 'simulation' is misleading imo. It implies that reality is less 'real' and some 'actual' reality exists/can exist, when in actuality who gives a fuck we're here, we're queer get used to it ie we still must adhere to the laws of this reality, simulated or not.

0.00000000001%

First explain how Occam's razor is even relevant as an atgument to anything.

Occam's razor is about the minimum set of rules possible to describe something. Invoking a god just introduces more and more questions.

youtu.be/J0KHiiTtt4w

>Vox
>nasally faggot narrator
closed within 2 seconds

It solves them you dipshit, that's why mysticism was prior to philosophy, and then science was born, you can think that occam's razor is applicable now that you already have our culture and knowledge, but applying Occam's razor won't lead you to any of our past discoveries, the universe is complex, not simple, aplying a simplistic logic was never the solution to anything and in the absence of science people belived in god because it solved most of the mysteries of our existence, it is naive to think that now is applicable.

It is just you being unaware of how counterintuitive and complex most of our knowledge is.

It wasn't until very late in out history that people realized that god wasn't solving any question, but was it cause no one notice until that point? No, it was because all the other questions that justified his existence had been answered over thousands of years, and at some point people noticed that it wasn't necessary it was actually more of a problem than a solution.

Now take out all of the existing knowledge, look at the universe and apply Occam's razor again, all you got is god.

>First explain how Occam's razor is even relevant as an atgument to anything.

I can't speak about "atgument"s, but Occam's Razor is a scientific principle, so it is only relevant to science. And this is Sup Forums not /sci/.

user you mentioned the textbook taught Occam's razor example.

Not even a single proof on the god side so Occam's razor more than ever is applicable here.

Life is just a social construct. You're nothing more a miserable pile of pathetic cells chucked together so you might have the chance of creating another pile of miserable cells until the sun inevitably explodes dooming us all. Even if by some miracle we do survive the sun the universe will ultimately end making everything pointless.

There's the paper from a few years ago that claims that we're almost certainly living inside a simulation.

If I recall correctly, the fundamental premise is something like this:

1) Civilization probably destroys itself through wars or cataclysmic events.

2) Future people would probably want to simulate the past in order to understand historical events, or for fun.

3) Thus, we're almost certainly living inside a simulation.

Personally, I think the premise is idiotic. It completely leaves out ethics. What kind of madman would build such a detailed simulation with so much fucking suffering? Due to the "virgin AIDS myth", there are *literally* babies in the world who get fucked to death. What sort of society would have the technology to execute such a vast simulation, yet such horrendous ethics as to allow it?

No, fuck that. We aren't in a simulation. We're just a rock in space where sentient life forms came to be, and we spend all our time thinking about ourselves. We're never going to meet any other civilization, because the universe is just too fucking big and too spaced out.

Our species is inconsequential. We rose from the muck and we'll die off eventually. At best, we'll leave a shitty mark on our solar system that some alien race will stumble across hundreds of billions of years from now. And they won't be able to report it to anyone, because it will be further billions of years before their information makes it back to any other civilization.

Ain't nobody gonna simulate this bullshit.

It's 50/50, either it is, or it isn't.

>What's the actual probability this life we live in is a simulation?
Depending on your definition of simulation, anything from 0% to 100%

>What kind of madman would build such a detailed simulation with so much fucking suffering?

>Ain't nobody gonna simulate this bullshit.

What if that's the point? What if we are a simulation on some GodChan user's PC and he is showing this fucked up simulation on GodChan's version of Sup Forums in their /dpg/.

And it's full of shitposting between edgefags who approve such a horrid simulation and moralfags who don't.

No you fucking normie.

Life is just the right combinations of atoms that allow us to be what we are on this shitty planet.

Nothing more, nothing less.

But the big questions are:
- why is the universe so structured
- what existed before the big bang

Which leads me to think that it could be a simulation after all.

>imblying some chan-fag could ever put this shit together

That sort of behavior will be eliminated from the organism long before we're capable of any significant amount of simulation.

By the way, I find it funny that Musk cites the progress in video game graphics as if that's relevant. Video game graphics are all about estimation and tricks. Walk close to a wall and you're suddenly presented with the blocky texture. It's like a dream. The amount of processing power that would be necessary to simulate the level of detail we see day to day is incomprehensible.

Unless, of course, you want to get into the "are you even real" bullshit which is why I hated philosophy class.

>- why is the universe so structured

It isn't.

>- what existed before the big bang

Nothing. The Big Bang was the creation of the universe. Nothing existed before. It was the beginning, period.

Somewhere between >= 0% and

It doesn't look like anything to me.

Heh.

Goddamn that was a good reveal.

>It completely leaves out ethics.
You are implying this species evolved with similar ethics to us.

What if they are of the opinion that life is not sacred, just the actions said life performed.
That would mean simulating a species would be highly prized for them, to experience the lives of trillions of complex lifeforms over its lifetime.

We kill fucking rats all the time.
A species capable enough to build planets and/or planetary systems is almost certainly more intelligent than we are. By fucking miles.
Our human brain is actually really shitty compared to what it could be.
Our brain evolved with low energy limits in mind, which is why it has so much redundancy and why we suck at doing sequential operations quickly.
Similarly to any standard computer with a multicore processor is shit at doing sequential tasks, the more simple your cores get, the worse per-core performance becomes.
Very few humans can do the sorts of calculations that computers can do and in the speeds that they do them in. And we still don't know shit about how that happens.
Whoever finds out will probably discover a whole new method of maths for sure, something that will make multicore processors good.
So why would they care about some measly little planet dwellers? With all their petty resource wars, politics and rationing of resources, greed and general shit.
Some (them) might say they deserve it.

>mfw somebody interferes with muh simulation
That would mean that your medium of execution would be the "higher level" with the idiot who spilled fruit punch in the servers, as the only way to predict with ABSOLUTE certainty is to use the "higher" reality.

>"disable" the simulation
As for disabling it, if you paused a simulation, made a copy of it, deleted the original copy and then restored it from the backup and ran it, would simulated and consious beings in this "copy" percieve anything different from continuing to run the "original copy"? And if there were some error in the bits that were copied, see above.

Also, if you stopped running and deleted a simulation this instant in defiance of the morons in this thread (self included), what would the beings in said simulation "feel"? Seeing above response to notion of messing with muh simulation, wouldn't any form of entropy (even quantum) lead to an infinity of possible outcomes where we simply stop being?

First part agreed, but don't tell me how to live my life.

Just because we can be simulated doesn't nessecarily mean that we are. A better and simpler, if arguably lamer solution would be simply to say that "All algorithms are universally valid, regardless wether they are executed" and call it at that.

Which opens up the ideas of afterlives, but that ISN"T VALID TO THIS DISCUSSION,

The main argument he's trying to make is basically that god would be an infinitely complex being so it's nonsense to suggest that introducing something of such complexity would make anything simpler. Once you include a god in the universe you have to include it in the analysis of that universe. The view you're making stops short of that last inclusion.

>A simulated alt-right reality might actually save us.

FTFY

:^)

What kind of dumbfuck civilization would simulate a gigantic universe filled with 99% empty space for billions of years?

Happiness and joy can only exist with pain and suffering to compare it to.

>Nothing existed before. It was the beginning, period.
Wrong. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang didn't just occur out of pure nothingness. That would violate the laws of physics. There is no start or end. The universe is just an infinite cycle of birth and death.

High probability. However, what would be the point?

You'd be implying the whole universe is simulated and not just a massive dynamic spherical skybox a lightyear across.

We can already simulate decent physics on supercomputers just now.
Imagine some sort of hyper ultra mega supercomputer capable of running the solar system. That is already more complex than simulating the physics needed to display a simulated universe on a skybox.

If we were in a simulation, for all we know, the voyager probe will just be simulated at a point.
And in however many centuries time we get to the edge of our simulation, the world simulator has probably already bought a new computer to simulate more.
This single ship only needs to have a separate dynamic skybox around it when it leaves the confines of the solar system skybox.
Any stars, planets and whatever else it comes to can be contained in another instance only.
As we reach more and more planetary systems, more resources added to it.

Or they could just turn off the simulation. That's a thing.

...

>The Big Bang didn't just occur out of pure nothingness.

How the fuck do you know? You are merely a mammalian brain that exists only to reproduce its genes in a Newtonian world. Really, we have absolutely no idea

>Wrong. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang didn't just occur out of pure nothingness. That would violate the laws of physics. There is no start or end. The universe is just an infinite cycle of birth and death.
The laws we know to be fairly accurate likely did not exist before the big bang.

String theory does sway me more to the belief that the universe is a simulation rather than pure randomness.

String theory (in my opinion) says that fundamentally our universe is purely information.

I find it it sad that our brains are still so primitive and naive that we will never know the answer

Because it's fucking paradoxical.
You cannot create 'something' out of nothing, because there's fucking nothing there.

>tfw you are the link between low- reality and the upper-reality and with your death low-reality dies with it and you awake.

Relevent to this thread/Big Bang - youtube.com/watch?v=AATA0TzZf0A

Quantum physics and the sheer amount of computing power needed to simulate a universe disprove that theory completely, so 0%

The problem is that you're thinking that there's necessarily anything _before_ the universe. You need to disregard notions of before when you're thinking about the beginning of the universe, since that's (as far as we know) the beginning of time as well. It's not that the universe comes from nothing but rather that the universe always was and simply became larger.

Jewish trickery meant to spread nihilism.

>thinking you as an individual are special
>7billion shits on the planet and rising
>but somehow your death results in this move to 'upper-reality' or whatever the fuck that means

sorry, but youre just the result of a series of complex chemical reactions. once you die you will never exist again or be aware of existing.

>The Big Bang didn't just occur out of pure nothingness

No one ever said that, in the "begining" the universe was a singularity

Far greater than the probability we are not.

Close to be honest.

Stupid.

>Future people should care about the suffering of virtual """people""" living inside a simulated reality.
lol

>what existed before the big bang
time is a physical property, so there was no "before" to speak of in the first place, since time only exists relative to matter

That's just how your brain works. I agree that what i am saying is paradoxical. My brain functions similarly to yours. What I'm saying is that these questions go beyond our capable abstract thought.

Explain to me why is there something (your existence) rather than nothing?

As complex and powerful as our brains are, they are simply not capable of answering questions like this as definitively as you seem to think you know

>Video game graphics are all about estimation and tricks. Walk close to a wall and you're suddenly presented with the blocky texture. It's like a dream. The amount of processing power that would be necessary to simulate the level of detail we see day to day is incomprehensible.
You're getting closer, user. It's not the universe that's the simulation. [spoiler]It's you.[/spoiler]

only the visible portions are emulated
actual clock rate of emulation is not discernible
quantum mechanics fits -- entanglement (shared memory location), decoherence (when visible only), double-slit experiment (no interference if viewed)

>Just because we can be simulated doesn't nessecarily mean that we are

Good point. I guess what I mean to say is that simulation or not we're still bound by the laws and rules of this reality/simulation--physics, math, and all that jazz--that make this reality/simulation work in the way that it does.

Also, I've got a running theory that I've posted around Sup Forums before, and I'm sure others have thought about it. Reality is an airtight simulation of the 'real' reality to preserve the record of the universe. I'll try to explain this further below with a scenario.

Imagine you were the 'true' reality and your universe (and, I guess, your reality) is in its death throes after an undefined amount of time. The universe/reality will be dying soon (assuming those two are entwined as we believe them to be). To preserve the universe, a perfect, "airtight" simulation of the universe is created in which 'true' reality and the newly created simulated reality are indistinguishable at any instant in time. Between the time this simulation is created and the end of the universe, the entire universe and all time within the universe is simulated perfectly (or replicated, rather).

And in every simulation, the universe approaches death, but is re-simulated just in time to spawn a new simulation and, therefore, a new universe. An infinite series of universes are created and, because of the proper timing of the creation of the first simulation, can continue without convergence to the point in time in which the 'true' reality/universe dies.

tl;dr true reality simulates reality exactly to preserve the universe and the simulations simulate their reality exactly to preserve their universe

...

True wisdom is knowing what you don't know

its impossible to simulate the behaviour of a single particle
the so-called visible portion entails millions of galaxies and increasing as techonology allows human to see beyond
besides, physical reality is too perfect and consistent to be a result of simulation

So everything including time and space gets sucked up into a tiny area as all those black holes get bigger and turn into one singularity which eventually becomes another big bang? And this process repeats forever?

its 1 to 4,294,967,295
not a single one more.
Pleasy. Dont try.
The Simulation crashed the last time someone said a higher number.

...

the more accepted estimate for the heat death of the universe is that entropy causes everything to degenerate into fundamental particles like protons and eventually 'sizzle out' through radiation

Would your life being virtually shit make it any more bearable than being actually shit?

Well, for ordinary people like you and... like you then perhaps.

youtube.com/watch?v=cYdpOjletnc

>Or they could just turn off the simulation. That's a thing.

and they havent done it for a billion years
who the fuck would do this

Since i was young I've thought that the entrail of a black hole could be another universe.

The collapse of a star that creates a black hole is awfully similar to how our universe formed (the collapse of a star gets so dense that rips a hole in space/time and all matter that enters is 'lost')
This matter could really be forming a new universe possibly with different physical laws than ours.

Another thing to add. A black hole is a singularity.

The big bang was also supposedly a singularity (infinite density and mass compared to space/time)

not conditioning, its physics you dip. There is literally no way to directly perceive reality. At best we can have a highly accurate model which is a 1:1 replication

As for OP, the universe likely is a simulation, but it also likely doesn't matter. With all the possible worlds, what can you even really call 'base reality'? Even a simulation exists in its own right as a representation. And can so-called base really really be perceived as anything but a representation of itself? Literally logically impossible so no. So essentially, unless we live in a simulation where those running it fuck with us somehow, our universe will continue indefinitely without ever any evidence to it being a simulation. It is most likely that we are such a universe.

>a billion years
to them, it's only been 5 minutes

bb-ut dark matter? dark energy?

>Explain to me why is there something (your existence) rather than nothing.
Ok.
Because it is possible. Out of an uncountable infinity of infinities of all algorithmic possibilities, there is a possibility that an algorithm's data set would allow some of its data to act and interact with data outside itself in a vaugely algorithmic way.
Basically, it is possible for self-aware beings to emerge because the rules and data allow for it to be one possibility out of infinity.
As for why you were born HERE, in this place at this time, consider that you're statistically more likely to be born on an overpopulated planet than a very underpopulated one.

Why is it possible? Why is there the mechanism to allow possibility in the first place?

This, coincidentally, would be a great end-condition for a simulation. If there are no more particles left in the simulation, then stop.

t. God

It's either one or zero, don't fret about meaningless values in between

I agree with everything you've said. None of it explains why something can't come from nothing.

I know there a scientific papers stating that something CAN come from nothing, not that i agree with them, i haven't read them. I was simply stating that we can not know.

...

>Why is it possible?
Because it is a pattern?
Let's say that 2 + 3 = 5.
To zealously generalize it, an addition algorithm used on something that means "two" and something that means "three" will always yield something that means "five".
If we were to run this in, say, a computer, it would be in binary, 010 and 011, but it would still result in something that means five, or 0101.
Could we not say then that what we call addition is a "true" algorithm, one that is universally constant?

>Why is there the mechanism to allow possibility in the first place?
Why is there something, and not nothing?
Because if there was nothing, we could not percieve. If we could not percieve, why would a sapient entity exist there in the first place?
We cannot exist in a absence of space.
We could be emergent algorithms, or simply sub-algorithms in a simulation designed to extract something from one or all of us, but we cannot simply "run in a void".

So, to answer your questions, because we are observers of our parent algorithm in some capacity.