Do we live in a simulation?

Do we live in a simulation?

Other urls found in this thread:

link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epja/i2014-14148-0
youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88
arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes

Maybe.

Sure

I don't know

What was the question again?

What was the question again?

if so i want to start over and i want to be a hot female from a wealth7 family i want to be a kid again pleases reboot now

Start smoking weed if you wanna feel like a kid again

watch?v=tlTKTTt47WE

Good start on the topic

you must be the poor guy that lives in farming simulator 2017

the universe is probably just a way to try to make something truly "random" It failed I'd say since we have laws of physics and stuff.

Yeah and it's full of bugs

No. The computing power needed to compute the existence of irrational numbers such as PI or the square root of 2 would have to be infinite, yet these numbers exist. A simulation would not be able to do these things.
/thread

we re living in a simulation

Why not be a hot male and fuck hot females from wealthy families?

NO. But we are overpopulated so if you want to find out KILL YOURSELF.

No. There have been no significant glitches.

At least not one of OUR simulations. For all you know pi is truly impossible outside of our simulated universe.

>/threading own post.
We all live in a simulation created by our own brains. It's an attempt to make sense a universe that basically only contains different colours of light and electromagnetic fields.

ugh.
the universe never computes it. The universe makes shapes. We derive pi from shapes and concepts related to shapes.

*...make sense OF a universe...

Oh God no, I hate this theory. Reality being a simulation is not a very good explanation of quantum observer phenomena. The double slit experiment shows that an observer has an objective effect of reality. Comp. Sci folks have noticed a similarity in that, in video games and other reality simulations, areas of objective reality do not necessarily exist without an observer and areas must "load" as you explore the simulated world. This spun off into all kinds of theories, such as the speed of light being a universal constant, because it is the maximum speed at which reality can "load". It is all rubbish. They are looking at it backwards. Instead of using the framework that reality mimics a simulation, they forget that the simulation is created in the same reality it is said to mimic. Then are flabbergasted to notice that even a simulation of reality MUST obey the same constants and confuse reality for a simulation. I roll my eyes at this every time I see it. Science types have a bad habit of overlooking the obvious.

we live in/ are part of a double-3d-field interference.

Never heard that hypothesis for the speed of light before. Interesting idea.

It is an interesting idea, but there are better explanations. Simulation theory, many-worlds theory, etc. are all trying to give an answer to the same question. Everyone wants a quantum theory of relativity, but at the rate we're going, we just end up with more questions than answers.

I wish.

Agreed. Interesting doesn't mean real.
Checked.

no unfortunately life is very real and not a simulation

If you mean all conflicts are planned with free forums and 'new' trends shilled then, yes, yes we do

There was a paper written on Simulation hypothesis a couple of years ago -
link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epja/i2014-14148-0 Long story short, it is 100% possible, but there are still no evidence we live in one as the experiments to prove so are still running and will need to run for decades until we accept or reject the theory, (unless the program running is aware we are trying to mess with it and reprograms itself and changes certain calculation parameters to keep us unaware or crashes and reboots another universe) or even worse, each parallel universe is just another simulation on a computer inside a more complex universe. Heavy stuff.

Even if this were the case, which it's not, the computer still wouldn't need to calculate it all. As is the case seen in quantum fields, the simulator would only need to calculate "what's being observed." Everything else could easily be an approximation that one gets more precise as the observation dictates.

youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88

Thanks for the link user. I'll look on Sci-Hub for it.

thesis.

3D space 3D time (call them both 'objects')
measurable/observable reality = interference of these objects
limits: Js^3 kg/m^3 for interactions
connections: general/special relativity and of course the fundamental interactions as the inteference pattern

Nope. The fact is that we live in a world where perfect circles are real, yet their circumference cannot be calculated rationally as a function of their diameter. A right triangle with with two legs of one unit each exist in reality, yet their hypotenuse cannot be described as a rational number. In a simulation, circles and right triangles with legs each of one unit would not be able to be reproduced. The computing power would have to be infinite to make these geometric shapes.

look no further
arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf

If we lived in a simulation, do you really think we would be smart enough to figure it out? We can surmise but we can never prove it definitively. Also if we did, don'tcha think they'd shut us down for becoming self aware?

just bought 100k neo

If we live in a simulation then were did the dinosaurs come from?

OHHHHHHHH
ATHIESTCUNTS
BTFO
T
F
O.

You're a gent, user. Many thanks.

even if so. how do you want to fight 'them' ?

Time is one-dimensional

I have heard this argument but it doesn't really work. It doesn't have to be perfect, it can be rounded most of the time and more precise solution can be calculated on demand when someone is actually testing the number. Functional programming works like this on our computers.

if you can break atoms apart and put them back together then yes

Of course. There’s a group of kykes out there who are simulating reality around us so that we stay docile and passive. Don’t let (((them))) have the power.

It doesn't really matter. We know it ends at some point and this is a shitty sim save file anyway.

>time is one-dimensional
Not op but
I tend to think of it as 2 dimensional, at least, tbh.
Theres the conventional "time", the 'offset', and then the Y axis, which would represent other time lines. Branching paths, etc. But that's just a thought

no
a simulated person is no more a real person than a person in a painting is a real person, but we are real, ergo we cannot be simulated

Modern 3D engines can reproduce circles and right triangles without the need for infinite power, by rounding at the resolution of the observer. If the observer zooms in, they recalculate the object (the object is described by an equation) and improve accuracy. No infinite computing power is needed.

which is totally enough to explain those thrashy things like dark energy, dark matter, the tunneling effect, quantum fluctuations,...

better stay away from the edges, where it is no more save for your antiquated opinions.

Even if we are, what difference would knowing that make? We still feel pain. We can still get sick, paralyzed, or die. Our lives can still be miserable. We’d still feel emotions. So if we are a simulation, then we’re still as real as we’ve always been. Nothing changes.

The double slit expirament and even the holographic principle have been sensationalized for click bait in science publications. The word simulation I feel also is misused a lot because it creates intrigue.

Modern video games are not a good argument. Modern video games have increased the polygon count that can be processed, but as you imply, they never really give you what the real universe can give you -- i.e. a perfect circle or sphere. In classic and modern video games, the more you zoom into a circle, the more jagged it looks. You can see this when looking at digital weather radars on the news. As the digital radius meter rotates upon its axis to form a circle, it becomes jagged. The more polygons, the less jagged it looks, but it still doesn't mimic reality.

Nope.

what if the forms of cancer are popular due to nuclear testings done by U.S. in 1950s to present?

impossible to tell --- this is a water-tight theory

define "simulation"