What do you think is the likelyhood that we are the product of a simulation developed by some kind of advanced...

What do you think is the likelyhood that we are the product of a simulation developed by some kind of advanced civilization or artificial intelligence?

That is about as reliable as the Bible.

50/50

Here's a better question: What's the likelihood that the universe that we're being simulated in is also a simulation? What if the universe that contains THAT simulation is also a simulation?

What if the layers of simulation is endlessly recursive and there is no "reality", or the very concept of reality is entirely subjective?

it's a silly proposition and I'm annoyed that so many people take it as given

>simulation has initiated cranky.bat

I couldn't tell you the "real" odds until we make our own simulation of sorts. And when I say simulation, I mean one that goes to the lengths to simulate at least an equivalent to what is beyond the known universe;all of here. That alone presents some problems: you seemingly can't or shouldn't be able to simulate more than the universe you're already in, so any simulation we might be able to create will not be fully analogous to a universe that includes the natural occurrence of random particles popping in and disappearing spontaneously, for example.

In other words, if you have to turn the entire universe into a computer to simulate an entire universe, stop while you're ahead, because you won't have any other resources to fuel the rest of the exactly similar universe simulation. If not, go nuts.

Probably greater than our universe being a simulation in a real universe. But, there has to be a reality, purely with respect to the quality of identity and the assumption of causality; there has to be a point of origin, no matter how far removed. It had to have at least existed. Even if there's 0.0000000000000(...)001 seconds left in that universe, being stretched out to a virtual infinity, here. And then, of course, you'll eventually have a simulation of the beginning universe, with the only distinct, intrinsic difference being that it is universe #9001B, instead of #0A.

But again. Odds are, without evidence to suggest otherwise, we're not in a simulation. At least not according to the majority of things we think we know right now. If the field of physics decides a few things regarding the finer nature of what nature itself is compromise of, what the hell gravity is, and other fun questions and apparent logical paradoxes, then its possible that "other universes" or "simulations" might be valid in some sense, thanks to whatever the hell black holes are.

The thing is, that's all based on logic that we run on as simulations. Our AI is likely limited in comparison to the minds that have simulated us, and so on. There's no guarantee whatsoever that any simulated universe is at all similar to the universe simulating it, following the same logic, etc.

Maybe the universe simulating us doesn't have gravity in the sense that we know it. Maybe it doesn't need to have a beginning or an end like ours does. Maybe eventually nothing needed to create the simulation, it just exists out of nothing because that's how their rules work and we just can't fathom how that makes sense because we operate on a different logic entirely.

That's all conjecture of course but I feel like we just can't use logic to determine whether or not we're in a simulation, because it could very well defy logic. It's like a religion, essentially. You either believe in it or you don't.

>Even if there's 0.0000000000000(...)001 seconds left in that universe, being stretched out to a virtual infinity, here.
That's an interesting idea, though. Like, if there is a universe at the top, what if they started this whole recursive simulated realities thing in order to find a solution to stopping their universe from ending that they never could have figured out on their own? What if every problem they ever solved involved massive computational simulations like this to provide as many solutions as possible and then select them by effectiveness? That's just how enormous and complex their problems are because they're just that advanced?

Or maybe they're just trying to extent their lifetimes as much as possible by jumping into the endless rabbit holes of simulation to ride out that last second of existence of their original universe, inhabiting our universe and countless others alongside us?

First of all, gravity: not that hard. It's an effect of the net charge of all particles in a system. There I solved all our problems.

Second: Even without the resources to simulate an entire universe equal to our own, we could still have the power to full simulate a PORTION of the universe. In the simulation this becomes the OBSERVABLE universe.

>that's all based on logic that we run on as simulations
That's an assumption.
>Our AI
Speak for yourself. I know for a fact that I could eventually construct a being far greater than I capacitance wise, given enough time. Where there's more gravity, there's more mass, and where there's more mass, there's more complexity, and where there is more complexity, there is more interaction- and then, there are more attempts for the matter to reach the most stable state. Intelligence. Given the apparent nature of intelligence, even if we are in a simulation, I sincerely doubt that human beings are the peak of all possible agency.

>There's no guarantee
Sure, if it's any old simulation. But, there would have to be some guarantee if you're simulating your ancestors, and that would likely be the concern of anyone trying to simulate a simulation with limited resources they can't afford to spare- at the very least, the solar system, if not just Earth.

>it just exists out of nothing
Us suggesting it came out of nothing is suggesting nothing is something, so we can't realistically discuss that scenario without invalidating it with our scope. If that's the case, we can't meaningfully attack that problem.

Okay, user. Explain what specifically causes gravity, clarify the existence or nonexistence of gravitons, how gravity affects galaxies, why gravity is so weak, how gravity should work with quantum...
>oh wait a minute

>Second:
Well, duh. That's a portion of a universe, not a universe in full. Hence what I typed, and apparently what you suggest- you're going to run into problems trying to simulate an entire universe within an entire universe. But there's the problem. Does it really make sense to simulate a vacuum with only 8 photons in it, when you want some odd trillions of hydrogen atoms? Wouldn't the simulation be woefully incomplete without calculations/data on the unrendered or unsimulated parts of the system?

I remember MY 10th grade honors physics.

Your memories of your 10th grade honors physics doesn't yet solve the problem of trying to quantize gravity, though.

>quantize gravity
See, now you've identified the wrong problem

Explain.

probability clouds, bro. all of them. it creates a far-reaching harmonic both positive and negative due to the net superposition.

So I'm going to ask you what a probability cloud specifically entails for something like an electron, when we're talking about gravity, specifically, how it relates to something like general relativity, which highlights the problem of a singularity.

Because I'm not sure invoking probability clouds solves the problem. What happened to gravity? No gravity?

dude you're not getting it.

gravity IS the attraction of the collapsed HARMONICS of these probably clouds. Are you unfamiliar with wave functions?

No, I'm not unfamiliar with wavefunctions, but I don't, or can't consider what you're saying here. Gravity is the attraction of collapsed wavefunctions of electrons in the probability cloud via decoherence, via the superposed gravitational fields, is that correct?

That still doesn't solve the problem of a singularity. We need a better model for quantum gravity to explain that if we keep working with what we think we have.

Singularities have no place here, man. Get your mind off of that shit and take this one step at a time.

Singularities do have a place here. There's debate if they exist in nature or are exactly just placeholders for "I cannot predict what will happen next in nature", and so my mind is exactly on them, because they are literally logic hell-holes.

They just eat information, and its gone. Is that alright with you? Because if we're talking about simulations, it's not alright with me. That's a huge memory leak.

>They just eat information, and its gone.
I just read this to my entire lab and they laughed until they shit their scrubs. Keep it up.

That's nice.

I'm perverted. My main fetish is rubbing my penis on a woman's penis. the clitoris. and the clitoris feels much more pleasure than a penis, say the bad tongues, and giving more pleasure than receiving is incredibly exciting. woman has clitoris pussy vagina urethra asshole small lips big lips hood of the clitoris, the complete package. and I do not have a woman for me, sex with me is rare. I wank too much instead of sex. I'm a man. it is so wrong, woman having penis, the clitoris in the case, and I wanting to rub my penis on a delicious clitoris, I feel gay. and I can not let a woman stick her clitoris in my asshole, as some men have already let, there is even videos. I do not know what to do. I'm dying of horny...................

I thought about it, so what the hell, let me type it too.

The notion that they just eat information, and it's gone isn't to suggest you just outright delete something from the system, but that you're either not getting it back in any meaningful way (a specific sequence vs random radiation), or, you're just losing/transfering information to what would essentially be "another universe". In either scenario and those that might fit between them, you're still not going to be able to retrieve that information.

You can't. Not according to the majority of accepted things within physics right now.

So if it's funny in a ridiculous way, explain why. Because otherwise I'm left to sit here and either give credence to the idea that a simulation is naturally or intentionally going to give rise to other "holographic" universes/etc, or quite frankly, take up more computing power than would ever be desired. Think about random number generators- you have to store all of that random data even if you're "deleting" it an exact moment later. The latter results in a problem not dissimilar to trying to simulate more than the known universe, as in, all of it.

The idea that what we call reality is an illusion is older than many civilizations.
The idea that it is a technological simulation is about as old as technological simulations.

I 90% agree

>humanity
>Sup Forums
>Sup Forums
>the product of an advanced civilization
lolno.

>athiest posts on Sup Forums or leddit
>what if we IN A SIMULATION BRUH!
>shits on religous folk simateunsly

>the net charge of all particles in a system
physics fail, gravity is independent of charge and cannot be a particle-mediated event (like electromagnetism) because its measurable effects are as great or greater at extremely long distances than at very short distances.

It's the result of the presence of mass stressing the fabric of spacetime. I can explain:

Imagine a trampoline as the fabric of spacetime. When you place a bowling ball on the trampoline, the fabric is distorted around it. That distortion is a gravitational field. When you place a second bowling ball on the trampoline, the two bowling balls will invariably move toward each other because the closer they get to each other the more their gravitational fields overlap and the less distortion is exerted on the fabric as a whole. The tendency of gravitational fields to overlap is gravity.

These graphics suck
Human God's respond is lagged
Too easy to hack/glitch the sims we live on.

the only thing I'm worried about is when we start running our own reality simulations, the simulation we are in might run out of RAM.

Cars the movie

As likely as this

...