Are we living in a simulation?

Are we living in a simulation?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0g3QKNlBMMs
youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/07/roko_s_basilisk_the_most_terrifying_thought_experiment_of_all_time.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Are we living in a stimulation?

Are we living in an emulation?

Hey vsauce, Michael here. Now are we living in an simulation

Does it matter?

To whoever is simulating this... stop fucking with my life ok?

Are we living in a nigger, tho?

technically yes, our bodies are just shells for this low dimension and our brains acts as a filter to limit our consciousness through the limited amount of senses we are provided with.

Says who?
We have no method to determine whether we are living in a simulation or not. There is no reason to believe that we are.

Either human life is the first known sentient system able to create simulations (barring the existence of yet-to-be-discovered intelligent extraterrestrial life), or we're a sentient system that arose inside a simulation capable of creating systems complex enough to create their own simulations. The second option is way more probable than the first.

simulate my dick you faggot
youtube.com/watch?v=0g3QKNlBMMs

be more woke and do a bit of research and you will come to this realization.

Probably

The Fermi Paradox and the speed of light as a speed limit for information transfer are both strong indicators of our living in a simulation.

Hopefully

I'm woke as fuck and the only way that your statement makes sense is in how our brains construct a map of reality using input from our senses.

If we are someone needs to reboot the server.

Yes I think we are. But "we" aren't humans plugged into a super VR machine, we are nodes of consciousness.

This. Its highly unlikely that we are not in a simulation but that doesnt really change anything, does it

Nigger no they aren't.

Everything you experience is a simulation of sorts. You're brain doesn't see, hear, taste, or smell. We are just a reasonably complex thought sitting inside a fleshy meat jar. You are a simulation of yourself.

Expound, preferably without being a racist sack of shit.

Construct an argument to show that the Fermi Paradox and the speed of light "indicate" that we live in a simulation and I'll show where it fails.

Actually it's just you. We are all bots.

But the creators of the simulation that we're in had to be the first known Sentient beings, barring the undiscovered intelligent extraterrestrials.

Chicken or the egg.

Fun fact: the answer to chicken or the egg is egg.

Nice. Source? Or explanation.

Evolution. Chickens evolved from egg laying animals.

> Occam's razor: our living in a simulation is a much simpler solution to the problem of existence than our living outside of one because the possibility of creating simulations of systems capable of self-awareness is already being demonstrated. To assume that this hasn't happened before and we're not a product of that result is incredibly anthropocentric and isn't a simple solution.

>The Fermi Paradox
By all reliable accounts, intelligent alien life should have arisen by now and spread out across the cosmos given the age of our universe.

>The speed of light
You're right, this doesn't point-blank prove shit, but the fact that information can't be transferred through quantum entanglement or any other means can't be coincidental. Any sentient being that emulated a reality capable of simulating its own sentient life with the physics programmed by the math that the sentient being creating our reality wrote would write in a theoretical limit to information transfer so the emulation doesn't lag.

you mean dinosaurs?

reality exists because the universe itself is conscious. everything that exists and will exist is just consciousness expressing itself.

>reality exists because the universe itself is conscious
Prove it.

Yep.

There's an infinite regress here. Infinite series appear all the time in mathematics, so this actually isn't a problem. Yes, the beings creating our reality probably had a reality created by someone else. That doesn't make their existence any more or less existentially important than ours or the existences of the beings they simulated because existential significance is an illusion.

We don't live in a simulation. We are being fooled into thinking we are by a mass of computers that are projecting the appearance of a simulation around us.

the very act of being conscious involves "having" a brain which is basically taking input from the eyes, ears, nose, etc., and constructing a simulation of the "outside world" based on that input, allowing you to better navigate the world around you.

So yes, we are all living in a simulation, but we're not all "in" the same one.

>Occam's razor
No. You are adding on extra complexity by introducing the simulation, as you still need to explain the simulator.
>By all reliable accounts, intelligent alien life should have arisen by now and spread out across the cosmos given the age of our universe.
They aren't "reliable accounts" they are probabilities based on various assumptions. Even ignoring that, that something has not apparently occurred even with a high probability of occurring does not indicate that we live in a simulation.
>the fact that information can't be transferred through quantum entanglement or any other means can't be coincidental.
Why can't it?
>Any sentient being that emulated a reality capable of simulating its own sentient life with the physics programmed by the math that the sentient being creating our reality wrote would write in a theoretical limit to information transfer so the emulation doesn't lag.
Or it could be fundamental that information transfer is inherently limited in any reality, simulated or not.

That made perfect sense to me. I didn't look beyond the question. Thanks Sup Forumsud.

you are fucking retarded and there is no scientifically verifiable information that supports any of your claims. "the universe is conscious" is just a modernized religion: a set of made up "reasons" and "explanations" for the things nobody knows or are impossible to know.

well it created you and me and we both are conscious beings. that should be proof enough. it gave us all the opportunity to be conscious but have separate bodies and a individual personality. if you're pure consciousness (before and after you die) there's no such thing as personality.

>turtles all the way down!
babby-tier logical fallacies

The fact that infinite series appear in mathematics does not validate them in reality. In fact, if you start trying to apply infinite series in a literal mathematical sense, the correlation with reality breaks down.

youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww

We were not created but evolved

>that should be proof enough.
It isn't though. Emergent properties are a thing. Just because you and I are conscious does not mean what we came from is conscious.
>if you're pure consciousness (before and after you die) there's no such thing as personality.
...okay? Why would you think you are pure consciousness before and after you die?

Go to / x / fag

If have any experience with programming you would know that bugs are unavoidable. If you told me that someone managed to program a whole universe inside his computer that always works, no bugs, never, I'd you you're a fucking lying son of a bitch.

Simplicity is subjective, which is a big problem for people who use Occam's Razor as an argument (hence why I didn't use it originally and greentexted it). Still a lot of people made the same argument against the heliocentric model. We didn't understand the sun or the planets or the moon when that model was constructed, but it more easily explained the motion of the heavenly bodies than the geocentric model. I think that, given our ability to simulate systems currently and Moore's Law, emulated systems of reality and the simulations of consciousness that they produce are much more likely than actual reality.

The Fermi Paradox plays into Occam's razor here, and you contradict your first rebuttal with this one. It's much "simpler" to base a theory on what's probable than on what isn't. So yes, something not happening despite its high probability of happening does support theories that explain it.

As for the speed of light thing, you got me there. The physics of whatever hypothetical reality the beings emulating our reality are unknown. The behavior of gravity suggests something very aberrant, though If our reality is emulated, it's possible that gravity is the key to discovering that.

>scientifically verifiable information that supports any of your claims
cause it's not something that's scientifically verifiable, you just know it. for some people using mind altering drugs can also help to come to this realization.

>The physics of whatever hypothetical reality the beings emulating our reality LIVE IN* are unknown.

Sorry for the error.

what if there was but they make us forget

Are you being facetious or something? Because you know it's not really about egg and chicken? It's about egg and x. If you say dinosaurs were the first that laid eggs then what came first an egg or the dinosaur.

Im living my own dream which i chose before birth some of the choices had needed unforseen circumstances still im where i want to be today although getting here was one fine mess, what a blurry noisy yet perfect cacophony of turbulance cause it is

I don't know mean we measured stuff with all kinds of shit all the time. We use microscopes, telescopes, even the fucking gravitational wave detectors, and it's all documented on paper, cameras, computers, etc. Seems awfully elaborated. It can't have been programed by Microsoft, that's for sure.

Yes.

slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/07/roko_s_basilisk_the_most_terrifying_thought_experiment_of_all_time.html

no

obviously yes, but what I meant was consciousness provides the preconditions for conscious living beings to even exist.

No we're living in a stimulation!

>Simplicity is subjective, which is a big problem for people who use Occam's Razor as an argument (hence why I didn't use it originally and greentexted it).

Occams Razor actually has nothing to do with simplicity, although it is often abbreviated (falsely) in that manner.
It actually states that entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.
Although how you see "The universe + external computer running it as simulation" as a simpler system than merely "The universe" in the first place, I would be interested to know.
This is also why god(s) are cut away by the Razor, although you've replaced god(s) with 'a supercomputer of capabilities beyond our imagination'.

Not at all. If you reverse those two statements it's still perfectly valid.

But why?

The egg. The first dinosaur was necessarily hatched from an egg laid by a protodinosaur that wasn't quite a dinosaur. That's how mutation works.

Eggs are haploid organisms, the first eukaryote was haploid before cell fusion in colonies of them created a diploid organism which is the origin of sexual reproduction, eggs are haploid, hence the egg came first.

No we are merely just vibrating atoms, nothing is real and life is but a dream. Wake the fuck up by killing yourself, faggot.

I'm gonna need to see some papers, Bros, because I've read papers supporting both camps.

Does this mean Jesus was simply a moderator/admin?

if you "just know it," how can you prove that it is anything but the makings of your own mind with no dependence on the actual "real" outside universe? You can't. The only reason why this idea seems self-evident to so many people is because everyone is running the same "hardware."

I've done my fair share of mind altering drugs and there is no reason to believe what you experience when you're tripping justifies some ridiculously overblown delusion about the rest of the universe. You're trying to claim that the way in which fluids slosh around between your ears somehow justifies a proclamation that applies to everything else. It just doesn't make any sense.

They're not beyond our imagination, though. Neural networks already outperform human brains at certain tasks, and computing power is growing exponentially. What makes you think that the consciousness isn't an operation that a neural network isn't going to be able to eventually outperform us at?

More like a janitor

I'm living in a constipation right now.

>Simplicity is subjective
Sure, but by any reasonable definition I do not think you are simplifying anything. You are attempting to explain our reality by introducing another one. I do not think your analogy with models of the solar system holds.
>you contradict your first rebuttal with this one
I do not see where.
>It's much "simpler" to base a theory on what's probable than on what isn't.
Sure. However, I feel I should point out that Occam's Razor is not the end all-be all of determining what is true or what should be believed. An important point here is that your solution needs to be testable.
>So yes, something not happening despite its high probability of happening does support theories that explain it.
The issue here is that many other "theories" explain it as well.

This thread is like reading the QR codes on the walls in Talos Principle.

"God" is the root admin faggot, whoever the fuck he is. I just mean whoever wrote the program that runs the Universe.

what don't you get about my statement

fuck this thread

Why would you say that? All known instances of consciousness rely upon a physical medium (a brain, or a brain-like thing) to sustain it.
Remove the brain, you've made consciousness impossible for that person.
Therefore, consciousness is predicated upon there being non-conscious matter around for the consciousness to operate from.
The reverse is not true - we have no known instances of a functional consciousness without a physical medium, or inert matter emerging from a phantasmal consciousness.

Thus, since a consciousness cannot exist without physical matter, physical matter had to come first.
As in, a universe must exist, before consciousness can exist.

If you have evidence of any consciousness absent physical matter, please provide it: you would have just proven god.

We're not "running the same hardware" at all. Our bodies and brains vary from person to person, hence why some people excel at shit and others, like yourself, fail at life.

kek

I am.
I'm 97.3% sure that I'm an AI created by Elon Musk to fulfill his terminator 2 fan fic prophecy.

Basically Moot is god

Cuz whoever wrote Sup Forums could theoretically have written the Universe.

>Sure, but by any reasonable definition I do not think you are simplifying anything. You are attempting to explain our reality by introducing another one. I do not think your analogy with models of the solar system holds.

I think my analogy holds very well. We used to think we were the only planet, then after we found out we weren't we used to think we were the only solar system, then after we found out we weren't we used to think we were the only galaxy, then after we figured out we weren't you think we're the only reality? What makes you think we aren't? The onus of proof is on you.

>I do not see where.
You invoked it invoking the simplicity of "one reality" over the simplicity of "multiple realities emulating each other" despite my point that multiple realities emulating each other explains more observed phenomena.

you should look into dmt breakthrough experiences and near death experiences then. I'm pretty certain at this point that consciousness is just a radio signal that's broadcasting to our brains. and if you die you go back to that source of consciousness which is in a way higher dimension than we are currently at where time doesn't even exist.

Any system that can simulate the universe must by necessity of computing be at least as complex as the universe it is simulating.
So you are postulating a supercomputer more complex than what we perceive as reality.

We learn new things of the universe every year, with findings that challenge our very modes of thinking, from gravitational singularities to the fundamental nature of particles, that we have only in fairly recent times just begun to approximate with mathematics that tend to invoke anything from 6-12 dimensions curling on themselves.

What other mysteries are still yet to be found?

To quote J. B. S. Haldane, "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy. "

To believe we can imagine the capabilities of a computer necessary to simulate something so large, interconnected, intricate and mysterious as the universe, smacks of hubris of the worst sort to me.

Ugh, I hate this spiritual, psuedoscientific BS. Serotinergic drugs like DMT, psilocybin and LSD do their thing because they cause crosstalk between the parts of the brain that perceive reality and the parts of the brain that integrate them. Saying you understand reality because you take these drug is like saying you understand light because you pointed two mirrors at each other.

Bro like what are you talking about. As an experiences psychonaut I can promise you that all those experiences are in your head. It's just drugs messing with you. I mean have had almost exact same thoughts and experiences as you hand have over time seen that it's not real.

>I think my analogy holds very well.
Then we are in disagreement.
>We used to think we were the only planet, then after we found out we weren't we used to think we were the only solar system, then after we found out we weren't we used to think we were the only galaxy, then after we figured out we weren't
Exactly. The point is that we actually discovered these things though testable methods.
>What makes you think we aren't?
I see no good reason to think we are.
> The onus of proof is on you.
False, the onus of proof is on the one making the claim. In science we work under the assumption that there is no correlation until it has been demonstrated otherwise. The null hypothesis here would be that there aren't other realities. Your alternative hypothesis is that there are, and it's on you to show that.
>You invoked it invoking the simplicity of "one reality" over the simplicity of "multiple realities emulating each other"
>despite my point that multiple realities emulating each other explains more observed phenomena.
You lost me. Where is the contradiction?

>To quote J. B. S. Haldane, "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy. "
>To believe we can imagine the capabilities of a computer necessary to simulate something so large, interconnected, intricate and mysterious as the universe, smacks of hubris of the worst sort to me.

This is why I don't use the world "simulate," I use the word "emulate." You can emulate a system less complex than the one in which you reside and emergent phenomena can still arise within it. Look up Conway's Game of Life.

>My captcha was "selected all vehicle" and it was an ambulance with a placard of an ambulance on it. Should I have selected the entire ambulance or the depiction of itself on the placard?

>you should look into dmt breakthrough experiences and near death experiences then
I have. Controlled experiments involving hidden information yield negative results. There's nothing to indicate that there's anything more than a brain "malfunction" occurring.

>Why would you say that? All known instances of consciousness rely upon a physical medium (a brain, or a brain-like thing) to sustain it.
wrong. as I stated here consciousness is a universal force that's completely independent of the brain. our biological bodies merely have the ability of receiving consciousness.

I think there's more hubris in assuming that the emergent phenomenon of consciousness is so special that the computing power necessary to create an emulation that gives rise to it will never exist.

Prove it.

>do their thing because they cause crosstalk between the parts of the brain that perceive reality and the parts of the brain that integrate them

Just to be more specific they actually reduce the activity in the part of brain that regulates the flow of information, which in turn makes information flow more freely from different parts of brain. Kinda like giving some alcohol to a traffic cop.

I have done these drugs over the years and can promise you the experiences seemed very real. But in the end you realize it's just drugs causing it...some people obviously don't realize it.

Well put. It would be interesting to explore the Serotonergic pathways of people with synesthesia and the ways in which you can model them with drugs.

how do you explain most near death experiences then

the release of endogenous DMT from the pineal gland.

This is true, but notice your own words:
>You can emulate a system less complex than the one in which you reside
This is exactly what emulators are commonly used for: Simulating a less-complex system on a more recent and complex and capable system. This has all the time been my primary point of contention. Any computer running TheUniverse.exe, must be at least as complex as the universe we appear to experience.
Any events and interactions in The Universe must be calculated by the supercomputer. Yes, even those emergent properties, which cannot by themselves become more than what the system can handle. If at any point the emergent behaviour becomes more complex than the system it is operating on, the system fails to calculate it and the emergent behavior either
1) reaches a plateau of complexity it cannot exceed
2) causes a system error, potentially crashing the program.

This is because all emulators, much like consciousness, based on all evidence are tied to physical platforms. And those physical platforms are the ultimate limiting factors.

Take the human brain for example. It is a complex system of interconnected neurons with support and feeding structures for those neurons ensuring presence of nutrients and oxygen, as well as transporting away and dealing with the waste.
Try to 'overclock' the system, and it breaks down.

Thus, human intelligence, is very much tied to the complexity (and to a lesser degree, size) of our brains.

Pretty much this^

Prove it.

>have a dream that i am trapped in some underground shelter
>all humans are drugged by some weird psychedelic that makes them walk around like zombies while tripping
>try to escape
>find ways to communicate with the outside
>in the end get caught and drugged
>wake up
>go to work
>start wondering whether the dream was the real world

>mputer. Yes, even those emergent properties, which cannot by themselves become more than what the system can handle. If at any point the emergent behaviour becomes more complex than the system it is operating on, the system fails to calculate it and the emergent behavior either
>1) reaches a plateau of complexity it cannot exceed

Consciousness is not special, it is an emergent phenomenon of a sufficiently complex system. Our universe is order of magnitude more complex than consciousness, so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that we could fabricate a simulated reality with new "physics" based on math capable of producing consciousness inside it.

Perhaps the stress releases cocktail or hormones in the brain to deal with the imminent prospect of death.

Like I said doing these drugs I can promise you my experiences seemed very, very real and I would keep saying it to everyone that they are real. But in the end I managed to break through and see it for what they were, fancy illusions.

dumb