Prove to me with 100% certainty that you are not in a fully emmersive simulation right now

Prove to me with 100% certainty that you are not in a fully emmersive simulation right now

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jqLY96_zezc
topdocumentaryfilms.com/simulation-hypothesis/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.Sure I feel the burn, and I see the glitches but until either or neither can be proved both are more or less true.

Cuz that doesn't exist you fucking moron.

Have you ever seen one?

>emmersive

Well... since that word doesn't exist, I can't.

But otherwise, I'm nearly 100% certain we are living in a simulation. Or I am, at least.

Surely if I was voluntarily in a fully immersive simulation, it'd be something more interesting.

Like being a space ninja fighter pilot or some shit.

Unless you're saying its like the matrix and its a form of control, in which case fair enough.

Actual retard detected.

You haven't seen the innermost 100km of the Sun, but I'm pretty sure it's there.

Prove to me with 100% certainty that you and everything else did not just appear out of nowhere right now

It almost certainly is not voluntary.

>emmersive
Pretty fuckin immersive when it's got spelling mistakes made by galloping faggots.

The graphics are not as good as all that.

"We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism? "

Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467

TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED"

youtube.com/watch?v=jqLY96_zezc

This is like the same argument as religion. You just want to sound smart believing this shit, when there is no realistic way to prove it. Sure we all MIGHT be, but there's no point in arguing a topic which can't be proven either way. Good luck with that faith in the Matrix

If we are in a simulated environment, then what would you describe dreaming is? A simulation inside of a simulation?

A) I can't.
B) You're a moron.
C) I want to build a computer simulation of the universe so that if we are in a simulation it will crash.

Maybe they invented an infinitely complex computer

No sentient being nor a powerful machine would be sadistic enough to create this hell.

MOARRR

Quads never lie

I'm not trying to be a philosophic asshole here, but there's nothing wrong with questioning issues for which we are specifically barred from finding incontrovertible proof. As has always been the case, as knowledge grows so will our understanding of this (simulated) universe.

Cutting off discussion because there is "no realistic way to prove it" is dumb. Like you.

...

If I am please put me out of my misery.

It's not possible

Why would a simulation in a simulation crash? Most likely that's what this universe is; multiple layers of nested simulations.

IT'S SIMULATIONS ALL THE WAY DOWN

Hmmm... you cannot prove that the universe exists and is not a hallucination. You can prove that you exist, but only to yourself. However, you cannot know what you are. That's because you always rely on your own senses.

This some real shit nigga

what if you dreamed of someone dreaming inside you dream

Cogito ergo sum

Ancestor simulations to explore their past?

Who cares about hell? How many of us put a Sim in a swimming pool and deleted the ladder? It's the same thing.

It could be both voluntary and involuntary, or in otherwords we chose to enter know we wouldn't know it was real once we did.

It would make the facsimile much more bearable.

Yea

Quotation from the best vidya ever.

Not the same user, but just because Descartes thought it was a good idea doesn't mean it was. We all know you can't prove it either way. Everything you know is based on your senses telling you things. We can go deeper. What is the meaning of 'you'?

It's good to know about these things and question them a bit, but then again, if you can't handle the existentialism of all that and instead seek to question it forever, you might as well end it all now and save yourself the hassle.

The full quote is:
"Dubito, ergo cogito. Cogito ergo sum."
I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am."

Déjà vu that's as real as it gets

No, dreaming is an artifact of evolution, just as we understand it in "real life." It's one of the mechanisms of our wetware assimilating information as learning.

that doesnt prove anything about you, only that you are

if OP stood true and this was a fully immersive sumilatition then you would still be you, so "Cogito Ergo Sum" has no meaning in this context

Yup.

One thing is certain, if humanity ever creates a fully functioning infinity simulation then we are infinitely more likely to be in a simulation ourselves.

Someone just came across the "brain in a vat" in philosophy 101. How cute. Hope your... "emmersive" dilemma gets you that A+.

I can get passed captcha
>robots will never understand how it works

Baby's first hard solipsism?

The universe began last thursday. Look it up.

Agreed, to a point, but simulation theory does offer explanations for some real-world effects that go beyond "my senses tell me so."

See paper: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

I can kill myself with actual results.
A simulation wouldn´t allow the premature death of a specimen.

Checkmate, faggot.

I'll give that a read

no simulation can replicate this misery.

no computer can properly create such clusterfuckery that occurs to me in this life.

only an infinitely powerful force or being could create such a perfect hell

it looks like she has a really tiny penis

You're not the focus of the simulation.

Also, you don't know you can kill yourself. You're operating on a learned assumption based on years on Sup Forums with no first-hand experience.

What? Why do you think that your human logic and rules would apply to the logic and rules of a simulation?

Because if I was in one, there'd wouldn't be posts like this to suggest that was the case.

There is no end to irrational decimals like pi. To maintain an infinite and nonrepeating sequence would require infinite computing power. Since there is no source of infinite energy, and resolving all of the sequence would take an infinite amount of time anyway, we cannot be living in a simulation.

Why not ? There's more than enough specimens and who says that "premature" deaths aren't necessary for an accurate sim?

Nigger did you even read my post?

have you tried? if it is YOUR simulation then it doent matter that OTHER people are killing themselves

you know what you have to do. You have to test this. You have to KYS faget

Sweet quote bro, Alpha Centauri is always relevant.

This is correct. Best vidya ever.

'There are only two ways in which we can account for a necessary agreement of experience with the concepts of its objects: either experience makes these concepts possible or these concepts make experience possible.'

Immanuel Kant, "Critique of Pure Reason - Datalinks"

On the contrary, self-discovery of the simulation might be exactly one of the goals creators might have for the inhabitants.

See the work of James Gates in superstring theory

just because you can't concieve of it doesnt mean that it doesn't exist nigger

If we were in an immersive simulation, we'd have no ability to debunk short of violating causality.

funny that this would explain the quantum fluctuation and observation of the wave function. Instead of the atoms changing due to being observed by "Magic" Instead it changes because now the computer has to render the microverse.

Because logic is mathematically pure, it's not just something we think.

Fill cache - data overflow

Counterpoint: in Eve Online you can fly your ship infinitely in one direction. Certainly the simulation doesn't create infinity, nor does it crash the shell simulation of this universe; you can programmatically account for "infinities" through scope.

Maybe you should let the adults talk....

Is that fucking Descartes demon or whatever?

Shit. Whatever. The whole point of those meditations is that one cannot prove ANYTHING other than that they are a "thinking thing" in this very moment.

It'd be awesome if immortality is granted to the species that can escape first.

There is no way of proving it, but what would be the benefit of knowing anyways? There is no way of proving we are in an immersive simulation for sure, so Ill tale murphy's law on this one.

Maybe that's the whole point of this simulation..once you off yourself then you wake up and get your results on this test...

U smart

Even with today's theories about quantum computing, it would be possible to simulate the entire universe inside the entire universe.

Imagine a computer with a trillion qbits?

Dreaming is a simulation

I reckon that if you flew far enough the server would crash as it wouldn't have enough memory to continue to hold all the data from the randomly created map. Maybe that's a long way because most of space is empty, but there's still a theoretical limit.

Also, why the fuck am I responding to this? OP where the fuck are you?

That doesn't account for suicide.

If I'm in a simulation, i'm there for a reason, someone or something has spent time, energy and, if sentient, wealth to put me there.

Death would be rather counterproductive, and as such, the simulation would not allow for things like suicide, lethal accidents or even accidental poisoning yourself with Jack Daniels.

Wether it's a human invention or sum alium shit, it would still follow basic logic, because it's literally impossible not to.

would fucking love to see such a movie with such a cast
tilda swinton as the redhaired ecovegan haha, makes sense

would it matter?

cause you're a faggot

The edge of the visible universe is just the max render distance

>the goyim know
>shut it down

No. The absence of evidence means that until evidence is found, belief in is without value.
Do you seriously not burden of proof?

But the map has to be saved somewhere, otherwise if you move further than the circumference of the current render distance, then move back again it'll be different.

You don't have to imagine it, with it's peers it is simulating every neuron in your brain imagining it simulating every neuron in your brain.

Fuck the topic, post moar of that impossibly tight skirt.

After smoking weed and playing Prey I can't be sure anymore

Seriously, the world just feels wrong and fucked up sometimes

The flaw in your argument is self importance. Who says you're the one being simulated? The entirety of this universe could be the point of this simulation; your inclusion in it is the results of a lucky roll by a few RNGs.

lets roll for this guoise

it's comming

I can't and I won't but if such a thing exists I'm going to score 4%, you bunch of twonks.

get

Right here I've been reading all of these

That defeats the question of the thread, the question was ''how can you prove you're not IN a fully immersive simulation''

Not ''how do you know if you're PART of a simulation.

There's a big difference between being real your surroundings being fake, and you yourself being fake.

Fuck this shit

This all basically boils down to the age old question of 'what is consciousness?' If it's a tangible, empirical thing then it can theoretically be simulated. If it isn't, then it can't.

It was linked earlier and is certainly not perfect, but this is worth the watch:

topdocumentaryfilms.com/simulation-hypothesis/

if you have a computer simulating the universe you need to simulate that simulation. And that simulation. And that simulation....

...

OP demands deductive proof, but there doesn't seem to be the possibility of providing any. However, most smart people have moved past this.

If you want to get any work done you'll have to turn to induction and things like empirical adequacy. Realism is super outdated, people tend to be perspectivists these days. So, suffice to say there's something real out there. Definitely don't make the mistake of trying to characterize it. Maybe it's a simulation, maybe not. Better to concern oneself with developing accounts of error, robustness, convergence/divergence, measurement, theory, and models. Work within a "paradigm," or "repertoire," get your theoretical and observational methodology as coherent as possible, and proceed with successful inductions.

tl;dr set aside metaphysics and focus on pragmatic epistemological virtues.

Agreed to a degree. Fair point.