Prove to me that we are not living in a simulation
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Prove to me that we are not living in a simulation
Prove to me that we are not living in a simulation
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Like many of us, we do not have sex
>Prove a negative
>Someone gets murdered
>I get accused of it
>I was recorded at the time of the murder thousands of kilometers away from the place the murder took place on
I don't know why morons think "negatives" can't be proven.
they get confused by 'burden of proof'. it's not that you can't prove a negative, it's that you shouldn't have to. the burden is on them to prove that you were the murderer, not on you to prove that you weren't.
You're the one who's confused. The issue is not about proving a "negative", it's about proving that something doesn't exist and THAT is the one that can't be proven.
>it's about proving that something doesn't exist
thats proving a negative
that's proof of the positive claim "I was in this place", stupid
And proof of the negative claim "I didn't do it".
You have no point.
Concession accepted.
incorrect. it proves the positive claim that you were in the location in the video, and disproves the state's positive claim that you were at the location of the murder.
Incorrect.
It proves a negative. The negative that I didn't do it.
Concession accepted.
you still could have done it. the murderer could have been someone you hired.
>deflection post
Concession accepted.
Here take this wet wipe anon. You've still got some of my concession on your cheek.
>nonargument
Concession accepted.
Prove that you don't have a clone.
Prove that you didn't concede.
You can't.
Concession accepted.
So you concede that you can't prove a negative?
Concession accepted.
Can you prove that you can't prove a negative? No?
Concession accepted.
>And proof of the negative claim "I didn't do it".
You must be moronic. Such footage proves that you were somewhere else, not that you didn’t do it.
>Such footage proves that
that I didn't do it, thus proving a negative.
Concession accepted.
Every statement is the negation of its negation in classical logic, which means every possible statement is a negative, which means if there exists a statement which can be proven then you can prove a negative. This is literal freshman-tier logic.
I didn't go to college, homie, the school was the streets.
In that scenario you are proving a positive (your location) that negates the accusation, you are not proving a negative you fricking moron
>you are not proving a negative
>(your location) that negates
>negates
>ESL tries to act smug while not understanding what the other guy said
>no argument
Concession accepted
>why don't you refute me not being able to understand English? Gotcha!
Weird hill to die on. Stay in school.
>no argument
>moving the goalposts
Concession accepted.
Sounds like you can't prove a negative, buddy. Your own argument lead yo to your defeat.
Ez 😉
Do you even understand it at first, moron. You have proven a positive such as being somewhere else when it happened. Never go full moron, leave it to the D&D autistic moron
>Here's proof that I DIDN'T DO IT
>You proved a positive
You didn't prove you didn't murder him. You proved you were somewhere else and couldn't have murdered him. There's a difference.
The argument is about proving negatives not about israeli law school spellcasting to avoid being sentenced despite doing it.
And technically you are still wrong because if I you prove you weren't there then they have to prove that you did it with some other means like hiring a hitman.
TL;DR you are moronic
Hiring a hitman to have someone murdered isn't the same thing as murdering someone. If the case says that I'm being accused of murdering someone, and I can prove that I was somewhere else, then I won the case.
Also, prove to me you don't have a small dick. You can't. Not because you have a big dick, because it's actually small, but because there's no evidence you *can* provide to prove a negative. How would you prove that something *isn't* something?
>If the case says that I'm being accused of murdering someone, and I can prove that I was somewhere else, then I won the case.
Then what the frick are you arguing about, moron.
If you're
, I'm arguing about the fact that you can't prove negatives, because proving negative things is impossible.
>you can't prove negatives
You just did by proving you didn't kill him. Stop stop being moronic.
see
See
Then we're just going to go in circles my arguments aren't willing to be understood. I understand the other side, and I gave my counter arguments, so this is where the debate ends.
You are both saying that you can't prove a negative while openly admitting that you can prove a negative. The problem is that you are fricking stupid and doubling down on it.
>You didn't prove you didn't murder him
>You proved you were somewhere else and couldn't have murdered him
The absolute state of morons.
Simulation theory is just creationism for redditors
>there is no magical sky fairy yo manchildren but there has to be a computer creator because le science Black person said it
I don't think anyone denies that.
creationism by definition is a simulation
this
If I ever see Nick Bostrom irl I'm going to rape his ass
>Simulation theory is just creationism for redditors
No it isn't. Creationism argues that god created animals more or less as they appear today.
The simulation theory implies that the entire universe is simulated, and thus everything we know about the universe (including natural selection) is true. Creationism disregards all the evidence that natural selection happened.
Are you seriously so autistic that you don't get what that statement is implying. The simulation theory serves the same purpose as creationism, providing some comfort that an intelligent being out there controls the universe. Even if the simulation is completely cold and impassionate, just knowing that it's a simulation gives you a sense of detachment from your suffering because it's not "real".
>The simulation theory serves the same purpose as creationism
No it doesn't, as I clearly explained. Creationism doesn't match the body of scientific knowledge we have, while simulation theory does.
>Creationism disregards all the evidence that natural selection happened.
no it doesn't, all it says is God created the universe and the forces inside it
>all it says is God created the universe and the forces inside it
Yeah, sure
creationism is the belief that a higher power created the universe, you know about as much about religion as the young earth morons know about evolution.
similation theorist is a Giga SS Ranked flat earther
It is not enough that space is fake and the sun is a lamp
not only were the moon landings faked but the cruxifiction didnt happen
EVERYTHING IS FAKE AND GAY!!!
>which it is btw
The burden of proof is on the person making the outlandish claim (You)
You can’t make that statement without proof of the burden of proof being on the person who made the statement. So you are sunk.
There is a dragon in my garage, Anon.
Prove it
If we were living in a simulation they'd give me a gf right?
No, you are like that sim, whom the player purposefully drowns for shit and giggles.
I am God.
We are living in a kind of simulation, but I don't think it's computer-generated.
So, we know that everything we perceive with the senses is illusory in one way or another, right? Sounds, tastes, objects... It's all a matter of how our brains process information on a granular level. The waves and particles are base reality in the temporal universe, not unlike how code is the basis for what you see on a computer screen.
But I don't think this simulation is computer generated for 3 main reasons.
1. I think in order to create a simulation, you'd need to have a perfect (or close to perfect) understanding of the nature of reality.
2. If I'm right about reality (the Absolute i.e. the source of all existence + our relation to it), it would mean the scientists will know that the universe is cyclical and eternal, and that death is nothing but a misconception (which leads to my third, and less important point)
3. Even if they just wanted to create a simulation for shits and giggles, it's not like it would be a small endeavor - it would be a massive undertaking that would require significant resources (at least according to the people who know much more about the tech than I do).
If we are in one, my question would be is who are “they”? And why bother?
>who are they?
Embodied portions of the supreme consciousness (the source).
>why bother?
Exactly. If we've always been consciousness in one form or another - and always will be - then what's the point of a creating a simulation?
>The one creating the simulation is yourself, you're God himself in his own simulation.
>Embodied portions of the supreme consciousness (the source).
These. That's all consciousness is. That's why people who say 'the voice of god' is in their head don't understand it's just their own brain generating the 'voice', and why scientists claim that reality is local. If you weren't conscious, reality wouldn't exist to you. I.e. reality is being aware of reality via brain generated signals.
We *are* the universe. Universe --> brain matter --> brain matter generates signals --> image of reality
Consciousness is essentially the universe experiencing itself through however much perception that part of the universe (the brain) has access to perceiving. If you didn't have memory or any other part of your brain, you wouldn't be 'you' or experience what you experience.
maybe it's future us and maybe in the real universe everything has expanded so much that the only source of energy is a black hole so we built a giant computer to rotate around it and harvest its energy. humanity then plugged itself into a simulation and entered stasis to conserve energy
you have a very weak imagination to think base reality is anything like 'us' with stuff like 'black holes' etc, it could literally be just about anything beyond our comprehension, inconceivable even, just as you can create a game with whatever the frick your creativity takes you
based on what you stupid moron?
>IT COULD REALLY BE UNICORN POWERED UNIVERSE CTHULHU KEANU CHUNGUS U GUISE
you would be an epically shit sci fi writer
Again, Gnosticism. These are age old ideas packaged in computer lore.
>true power is about knowing the limits that would allow eternal bliss to be possible, and then achieving it through nothing but yourself
Buddhism?
>These are age old ideas packaged in computer lore
1. I never claimed they were new
2. I don't identify as a gnostic
3. I don't believe we're living in a computer simulation.
>Buddhism?
Yes. Also Christ's philosophy, although he packaged it a bit differently.
>Even if they just wanted to create a simulation
The one creating the simulation is yourself, you're God himself in his own simulation. You decided to do this because you're all alone, you're the only real being that has ever existed
idea of fallible physical brain processing information
is product of fallible physical brain thus your statement is subject to fallibility and no more valid than any other
>is product of fallible physical brain thus your statement is subject to fallibility and no more valid than any other
We judge validity according to the evidence and logic we have access to, therefore I disagree with your assertion.
But of course the only thing we can know with 100% certainty is that we're conscious.
you assume "we"
anything outside of basic assertion of "this" is equally fallible
if your goal is "ultimate truth of reality"
Whether we're separate beings or one in the same, validity is a concept that's judged according to evidence and logic (and I suppose feeling as well).
Arguing that validity could mean the opposite or be judged by other criteria in some alternate reality/universe is just philosophical masturbation and not worth discussing.
yep
>idea of fallible physical brain processing information
>is product of fallible physical brain thus your statement is subject to fallibility and no more valid than any other
Then your argument is null too and anon's idea is good again.
Because if I were, then this is a really shitty simulation and I want out.
prove to me that we are not living in a butterfly's dream. Checkmate atheists
We are living in a simulation. A simulation in the mind of God.
Rank, load the dump program
If we were living in a simulation the intelligent designer would've given humanity infinite lifespan, wings, wheels instead of legs, and superstrength on par with Superman. The fact that we are fleshbag primates that aren't gods is proof that evolution is real and there is no god.
What would make you think humanity is important, let alone the main character, in this simulation?
the thing is if you are living in a simulation you are a simulation too, there is no real world for you to escape to like in the matrix. So it does not matter.
Depends on what you mean by "real world". Zion was pretty much just as illusory as the matrix.
Whether this is a computer simulation or not, information is information and consciousness is consciousness - and I believe it would all have to come from one source. The source is the only thing that's absolutely real, as everything in the temporal universe is a manifestation of it. Our purpose, whether we live in so-called base reality or not, is to reconnect with this source (aka the supreme being, the creator, God the Father, etc etc).
Sorry if I sound a bit preachy.
We are
it's just god for people a little smarter than catholics
No thats not how it works you have to prove something exists first for us to disprove it so whats your proof?
Prove to me that the answer to your question actually matters.
The observer effect
If we lived in a simulation I could prove it.
I can't prove we're in a simulation because we're not in a simulation.
you
no one would waste computer resources on you
you can kiss yourself in a mirror, but only on the lips.
You're not in a simulation, but everyone outside of your family is a time-traveling government agent manipulating you to either become Hitler 2 or not become Hitler 2, I can't remember.
Simulation homosexualry is just God but for the "I hecking love le science" crowd.
I've been saying that for months
>Prove to me that we are not living in a simulation
they didn't have simulation theory before computers existed
simulation theory is a social construct. 1000 years ago people would have never assumed that reality was a computer program. Yall homiers watch too many dumb movies and think there's real life aliens and superheros and shit
They did have ideas that all of life was someone else's dream which is an equivalent idea though, just to be fair
>Prove to me that we are not living in a simulation
Just jump off a really tall building. If you awake anywhere that isn't the pavement below the building then you are in a simulation.
Is suicide the way out?
I haven't played a video game in like 20 years
I literally can't. It's seeming more and more like we are living in a simulation.
The wave-particle duality of light and quantum mechanics for example have shown that things are both a wave function and a corpuscle function at any given moment, only collapsing into a corpuscle function when "observed (i.e interacting with something else). Just like how GPUs tend to only render the stuff you are looking up and keeping the rest of the world in a state of blurred memory ready to be rendered if needed.
Another aspect that points to a simulation theory is the speed of light itself - which is also the speed of information and causality in the universe. This speed limit stops observers from ever having a full instantaneous picture of the universe, essentially serving as a "render time".
We also have Planck units like Planck lengths and Planck time which further reduce the universe into discreet units - much like resolutions, pixel densities, and framerates.
Finally, when we look at the CMB (cosmic microwave background), we see patterns that can be easily explained by extrapolating quantum field theories from a 2D plane into a 3D plane - much like how a holograph is a 2D information being extrapolated into what seems to be 3D. This is further strengthened by the entropy problem in black holes which seems to show that a black hole's entropy is equal to the ratio of the black hole area to the square of the Planck length times a dimensionless constant of order unity. Typically an object's entropy is proportional to its volume, not its area. The black hole being a paradox of information loss already, its correlation between its entropy and its 2D surface seems highly suggestive of a holographic nature.
Hermetics once knew all of this through pure thought and speculation. As above so below. As below so above.
It's not just hermetics. It's Christ, it's Buddha, it's Sri Ramakrishna, it's pretty much every great mystic worth their salt.
It's kinda funny how scientists are finally catching up with mystics that died thousands of years ago.
That’s like saying it’s kinda funny a construction is mimicking the blueprints and design choices of humans. It’s not really funny so much as it’s expected.
>That’s like saying it’s kinda funny a construction is mimicking the blueprints and design choices of humans
Not really, given that the scientists aren't exactly following the blueprints and design choices of mystics. It's quite a different path.
It's to be expected, in that the system is only in reference to its source (aka truth).
>Not really, given that the scientists aren't exactly following the blueprints and design choices of mystics.
Yes they are. Both are using the human mind as their heuristical analysis tool. Both will come to similar conclusions, whether they use metaphors or pure physical analysis because both experience the same perceptions and cognitive factors (barring slight biological differences).
Whether you see the world scientifically or metaphorically it doesn’t matter, your perspective is still anchored to the human brain.
Ok, I think you're just looking for an excuse to argue here, as we're pretty much coming from the same position.
The mind produces the blueprints and designs but they're not quite synonymous with each other.
If you wanna be all neckbeardy and reduce it all to the mind, that's fine, I guess - but I'd have to point out the fact that neither the mind nor the blueprints are absolutely real.
Tell that to all the Catholics, muslims, buddhists, Egyptian priests, Aztec shamans and whatever other religious folk helped push scientific theories forward. There is nothing incompatible with science and spirituality. Only brainlets think otherwise. Science requires technology to progress while philosophy and religion can use just metaphors and logic. Of course science will always be “catching up” to huma ideas. That’s how cause and effect works.
>There is nothing incompatible with science and spirituality. Only brainlets think otherwise
Point out where I even implied this.
The very fact that you keep replying shows this. If you agreed, you’d know to stop. I’ve said what I needed to say and I don’t need to say more.
>It's kinda funny how scientists are finally catching up with mystics that died thousands of years ago
If you weren't such an argumentative pseud, you'd have realized that the statement above is implying the exact opposite of what you think I believe.
I think it's funny that scientists are finally catching up because they tend to view themselves as being above the mystics. They do all this intellectual heavy lifting with their equations and experiments, when all the mystics relied on was contemplation, meditation, and in some cases drugs.
You are projecting again my brainlet friend. You can cry all you want about science but it is an inevitable byproduct of human through just like philosophy and religion and both are tools used by humans to understand the world. You will never be a complete person by pitting one side against the other. Now please, continue your whines to someone that might care.
>You can cry all you want about science
Lol ok, now point out where I was "crying" about science.
I applaud the scientists whose main priority is not validation or material gain but rather understanding the nature of reality. I think they represent an important part in our intellectual and spiritual development, and I consistently find my faith strengthened by various discoveries in physics and cosmology.
Now please, continue responding while claiming not to care.
Good boy. Wipe those tears and keep them wiped next time.
Congratulations, you finally understand where I was coming from.
Maybe ask more questions instead of just assuming where people are coming from - it might save some you some time, and you'll definitely seem like less of a pompous nitwit.
I already know where you were coming from. You were whining about science and then got straightened the frick out. Try not to be such a dumbass next time and you won’t get embarrassed again.
*tips fedora*
>dude what if like ideas were faster than the fruition of those ideas! Dude like that btfos science!
kek bible study graduate
The idea that we're basically living in a simulation, and that the source of all existence is an ineffable consciousness that we must reconnect with is something that science will never arrive at because it's not something that can be experienced by means of the senses.
So, as far as I'm concerned, science will always be inferior to spirituality.
Yeah and because I can’t grow bananas in Antarctica that mean oranges are better than apples. Good job bible studies graduate. You’ve btfo’d science for real this time.
Look at this dude, mention spirituality and he has to get all snide
Maybe Bill Nye can help you dilate kek
I mean my first post in this thread was about relating scientific observations to hermetic mantras, but you do you bible studies graduate. I hope you win that culture war.
I don’t know, guy. I guess I’ll put faith in 1900 year old words and not equate it with some Victorian-era laudanum fiend.
It's more like "spinach and donuts" than "apples and oranges"
Science can help bolster your faith, especially if you're someone who requires some degree of empirical evidence to believe something. But spirituality (pure contemplation, meditation, asceticism) is far more important when it comes to achieving enlightenment.
He's got a point tho.
Science can't describe love beyond "a series of neurotransmitors firing up"
Yet I love Tylor Swift way beyond that
Ok, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. Please keep going.
>I aPpLaUd not looking for validation
>because it helps my validation
moron
> extrapolation /JkˌstrapəˈleJʃn,ɛkˌstrapəˈleJʃn/
>noun
>the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable.
It’s called a SIMULATION, fricker. A simulation. You simulated a future scenario, based on your current data. You’re are ALREADY running simulations, constantly.
Don’t feel too bad about it though. Even so-called tech geniuses like Bostrom have got their heads so far up their arse they can’t see the forest for the trees.
those are all non-arguments
>new evidence shows stuff out theories can't account for
>IT MUST BE [insert science fiction]
all that bullshit you spewed out is the same midwit pop-sci the black science man and japanese science man and the israeli science man spew out. Just mindless daydreaming filling holes that should be filled with research.
It’s funny because I never even said the word “must”. Your kneejerk reaction to simple observation and allusion betrays the ignorance-fueled fear that dominates your life.
Simbros, we’re so back!
Please elaborate on the cosmic background radiation and 2d to 3d extrapolation. I don't believe we're in a simulation but wave function collapse being analogous to rendering was a clever bit of "what if" to think about so you've caught my attention.
Basically the 3D shape of the universe is coded in the 2D strata of the CMB and can be derived through simple quantum field theories.
https://room.eu.com/news/researchers-find-substantial-observational-evidence-for-a-holographic-universe
You’re a moron
Have you taken the torus pill?
So sort of like normal mapping. Heh that's nice.
Meds
Why should I?
No, you misunderstood.
I'm not suggesting there was a previous matrix. I'm saying, both the matrix and Zion would be manifestations of one source (which is the only absolute reality).
Right, but I'm not just talking about the film here. I'm talking about the flaw in the film's philosophy - it's missing the larger picture.
The real world and the simulation world would be basically identical in appearance, so you couldn't verify if one or the other is true. Since we should generally believe in the simpler theory of two if the two are on a par, we should believe the world is real.
That's really the best I can think of.
he's as smart as DCEU lex luthor
What if I describe god as all powerful but not good
Would he believe innit
He would probably waffle about “the Big Bang”.
>Still seething about being a brainlet
Look, I don’t wanna be mean to you, it’s not personal. I just hate how close minded people (including me) are when it comes to being accountable for what they’re doing. You say simulation and people immediately go “Computers!”, because it’s the hot new thing. It’s not an isolated phenomenon either, you see this shit all the time with media: show them something new and it’s “oh so it’s like [related flavor of the month]?”
Just gets my goat specifically in this instance because the fricking Chinese figured this out millennia ago.
>What if I describe god as all powerful but not good
>You say simulation and people immediately go “Computers!”, because it’s the hot new thing
try two millenia. This shit is gnosticism with computers. And those fricking morons think they're too good for philosophy.
I thought Gnosticism came about as a result of Christianity? Pretty sure the butterfly dream story was recorded before that.
not as much a result, but a different interpretation of Christ, so you could say it came about with christianity as a whole but lost traction.
>Pretty sure the butterfly dream story was recorded before that
I'm not familiar and google gives nothing, explain.
Basically an ancient Chinese philosopher wrote about how he had a dream that he was a butterfly. And when he woke up, he couoldn’t tell if he was a guy who’d dreamed he was a butterfly, or if he’s a butterfly dreaming he’s a guy.
I believe it was the earliest record of recursive thinking, and often gets cited when talking about sim theory. I think the Greeks might have mentioned it in correspondence at one point.
> Total absence cannot exist.
Sure it can. Any container can be emptied, and what is a universe if not a container of every thing in it?
>Any container can be emptied
That's not total absence.
Why, because the container is extant?
>but only if nothing exists in it
Your logic was that “there can be no universe in which literally anything is possible
>in which
>Why, because the container is extant?
More like the consciousness that allows the container to exist in the first place.
>there can be no universe in which literally anything is possible
Perhaps it's not an ideal way to phrase it. I'll stick with "there must be limits in order for anything to exist"
Haha, okay I think I see where you’re coming from. Probably stems from a difference in what constitutes a “universe”.
Consider this: if a freshly-minted universe has no laws as yet defined, how can one say that something is impossible in it?
>if a freshly-minted universe has no laws as yet defined, how can one say that something is impossible in it?
I believe the source of any universe must be perfection itself for a few reasons.
In order for a universe to sustain itself, it must have a strong foundation. And like any other foundation, it has to be more stable than what's built around it - I think it has to be completely stable because the universe must function as a closed system in which the source is eternally giving birth to extensions of itself + its ideal state (aka the source itself) simultaneously - and what could be completely stable other than omniscience?
Theoretically a universe could be created and then cease to exist because it fails to set limits that would allow it to sustain itself. But I think that's another possibility that can only exist in theory.
Why would a universe need to sustain itself?
I mean sure, I can imagine a demiurge/creator conscience/whatever wanting to sustain the reality within its own, especially if that paradigm includes some semblance of time. But a universe is just.. a universe. It doesn’t need to do anything.
>Why would a universe need to sustain itself?
Because otherwise you'd end up with true absence.
The temporal universe must exist because truth, perfection, bliss... don't exist in a vacuum. Everything exists in relation to everything else, therefore the perfection must be realized by means of identifying what it's not - this is achieved by the source splitting itself off into conscious, embodied portions that go through a cycle of self-realization until they arrive at the truth.
I hope I explained this well. I'm on a phone, which is making things difficult lol
>you'd end up with true absence.
From the source’s perspective, sure. E.G., if you stop running the sim, you see the sim stop running. But that doesn’t mean the universe somehow empties itself of itself. If it contains the concept of fish fingers (and nothing else), that’s not going to change - change is undefined! 😛
>But that doesn’t mean the universe somehow empties itself of itself
What would anything be without consciousness?
>If it contains the concept of fish fingers (and nothing else), that’s not going to change - change is undefined!
What is change without perception of it?
Yeah, I’m afraid I’m not getting either of those rhetorics. What do you mean by consciousness?
Broadly speaking, consciousness is an experience of something. What would anything be without the experience of it?
You might think, what about the waves and particles that make up the stuff we experience? Well, I don't think anything that's constantly changing (or prone to fluctuation) can serve as a foundation for itself. I think the only foundation can be a pure, formless, perfect consciousness.
What is “it” in this instance?
Any object of perception or feeling.
Ah, right. Well to answer the rhetorical question: such a thing would effectively be “blind” to anything it shares an existence with. But this doesn’t preclude the universe (or in fact other things inside said universe) from perceiving the blind thing, so I’m not sure where you’re going with that.
>such a thing would effectively be “blind” to anything it shares an existence with.
My point is, consciousness is at the root of existence. Without consciousness (whether it's the supreme or embodied), nothing would exist at all.
That said, when you think about *what* the consciousness entails or *what* exists, this is really predicated on the illusion of divisions. Material things are illusory, and so is every concept and classification, whether its love or hate, light or darkness, bliss and suffering - and this goes back to what I was saying about the source of all existence being a pure, formless, ineffable experience.
Interesting.. it sounds to me like you’re describing an apex truth (aka, the container/universe).
But regardless of that, a universe is still conscious of its contents, even if it’s creator is “afk”
>it sounds to me like you’re describing an apex truth
Sort of. I think it would be more accurate to call it "truth itself" or THE truth. But whatever, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
>But regardless of that, a universe is still conscious of its contents, even if it’s creator is “afk"
Every sensory thing we experience is basically an interplay between the generative force of the source (omniscience), the limits it sets, and our actualization of those things. All of this is a process that's necessary for the supreme being to be realized (i.e. for the truth, the source, to discover itself).
Interesting.
you basically are if you believe we live in a simulated universe within a higher plane made by an uncaring creator.
>Yes. Also Christ's philosophy, although he packaged it a bit differently
No they are fundamentally different. Maybe Mormon's version but that's still generous. Stop saying crystal girl shit "Jesus was a Buddha" no real christian or buddhist or anyone with any respect for different ideas would say that.
>you basically are if you believe we live in a simulated universe within a higher plane made by an uncaring creator
I have a pantheistic interpretation of the Trinity - and I believe Christ did as well.
>No they are fundamentally different
Because you say so? No, they are not.
The primary goal of both religions is to destroy illusions and realize the supreme being. Buddhists call the supreme being Nirvana - Christians call it Heaven. Now, *simpleminded* Christians (who unfortunately make up the majority) think of Heaven as a place where you meet up with loved ones and hang out with Jesus.
Stop being a simpleminded Christian.
yeah you have the most surface level understanding of christianity AND buddhism apparently. You are describing gnosticism again.
Calling sin "illusions" is exactly what gnostics did 2000 years ago. There is no rebirth or being trapped in reality in Christianity. There is no ascension to a higher plane and becoming a supreme being, that's what gnostics and mormons believe. Buddhism believes you save yourself by enlightening yourself, you can't save yourself in christianity, period. You are free to incorrectly label separate sects (some that don't even consider themselves christians, the rest of which are universally denounced as heresies by christians), as christians but it doesn't make you right.
It's like you read the first paragraph of the wikipedia articles and fit it into your cool headcannon that
>broo it's just a universal truth being discovered by different individuals broo *hits bong*
and calling me (and I guess every theologian that dedicated their life to studying religion) simpleminded. Go smoke more moonsugar.
Wow, that's definitely a lot of... blanket statements.
Christ teaches us not to cast pearls before swine, and I'm going to follow his advice right now.
Good luck on your journey.
Lol none of those things are observable. They're concepts that allow us to predict outcomes.
>. They're concepts that allow us to predict outcomes.
The frick do you think speed of information is?
Another mere concept. The information itself is relative and illusory.
Speed of information is C, dipshit
Light isn't exactly information. Light it light. The information is another matter (no pun intended).
*light is light
>
Calling sin "illusions" is exactly what gnostics did 2000 years ago. There is no rebirth or being trapped in reality in Christianity. There is no ascension to a higher plane and becoming a supreme being, that's what gnostics and mormons believe. Buddhism believes you save yourself by enlightening yourself, you can't save yourself in christianity, period. You are free to incorrectly label separate sects (some that don't even consider themselves christians, the rest of which are universally denounced as heresies by christians), as christians but it doesn't make you right.
It's like you read the first paragraph of the wikipedia articles and fit it into your cool headcannon that
>broo it's just a universal truth being discovered by different individuals broo *hits bong*
and calling me (and I guess every theologian that dedicated their life to studying religion) simpleminded. Go smoke more moonsugar.(You)
>Wow, that's definitely a lot of... blanket statements.
>
>Christ teaches us not to cast pearls before swine, and I'm going to follow his advice right now.
>
>Good luck on your journey.
If you want to have a grown-up debate, try backing up your arguments with something a bit more substantial. It would also be nice if you didn't cram a flurry of points into one post.
I hate to shut people out, but you seem like one of those simpleminded bible-thumpers who's more interested in moral posturing and gatekeeping than having a thoughtful discussion about theology.
the onus is on your to show how my arguments were unsubstantiated. I just pointed out the most basic 101 christian principles which are in direct opposition to buddhism. You just said jesus was practicing buddhism by a different name and I showed how you are completely wrong by pointing you to matters that were resolved by the council of nicaea 1700 years ago.
Go ahead and substantiate your arguments. Quote serious theologians that say christ was a buddha. Quote the bible. Quote buddhists. The only way I am wrong is if you say seperate sects represent christian beliefs, and you're free to do as you please .
>the onus is on your to show how my arguments were unsubstantiated
The burden of proof goes both ways. Notice how I didn't say you were wrong - I'm simply asking you to back up your statements.
If you're gonna make 15 blanket statements that require lengthy arguments to properly refute, you're not worth my time, especially if you're gonna make logical fallacies like...
>you are completely wrong by pointing you to matters that were resolved by the council of nicaea 1700 years ago.
it's not a fallacy, it's not an appeal to authority. Those councils defined what christianity is.
And this is a Cinemaphile discussion. What do you want me to cite my peer reviewed sources? feel free to cite yours proving how I'm wrong.
You keep answering to other posts ITT but never adressed my claims from 4 posts ago.
>it's not a fallacy, it's not an appeal to authority.
Yes it is
>Those councils defined what christianity is
Christianity is following Christ's teachings. And since there is no way to be absolutely sure what Christ meant by every story and metaphor and parable, there will never be a system of belief that can prove itself to be the one, true Christianity.
I pretty sure I've talked to you before on here. You should hold yourself to higher standards and stop being so intellectually dishonest.
>Christianity is following Christ's teachings.
Incorrect. Christianity is fulfilling the requirements that Christians require one fulfill to be a Christian.
>Christianity is fulfilling the requirements that Christians require one fulfill to be a Christian.
You really don't understand what I just said, do you?
I identify as a Christian, as do many other people who have different interpretations of scripture. None of us can prove ourselves to be THE TRUE Christians because much of scripture is subjective.
That said, I'm confident that my interpretation and practice of Christianity can be backed up with sound logic and evidence.
>real christianity has never been tried comrade
Lol what?
There are people who've interpreted Christ's teachings the way they were meant to be interpreted, and who've walked Christ's path properly and achieved salvation as a result - but there's no way to be certain who those people are because we don't know what happens to anyone after bodily death.
That clear enough for you?
>I identify as a Christian
>That said, I'm confident that my interpretation and practice of Christianity can be backed up with sound logic and evidence.
>pic related, aka works
> John 14:6 "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me""
>“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9
you call yourself a christian yet is practicing a 2000 year old heresy. Please drop your universalism and truly accept Jesus, without Christ there is only perdition. I will unironically pray for you anon.
>“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
What do you think he meant by this? The body is illusory, just like every other material thing. He was referring to his path (his teachings and the example he set for us) - and I don't believe they're "fundamentally different" than the path of the buddha.
>For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves
True, if the writer was referring to the personal self (which is an illusion). Untrue, if the writer was also referring to the supreme self (aka the soul), which I don't think is the case.
You're a sanctimonious dimwit. Save your foolish prayers.
>gets btfo
>"I wasn't wrong about christianity because I decided your definition of christianity is wrong even though it is agreed upon by every theologian and scholar because uhhh Christ himself didn't sit down and write a comprehensive philosophical thesis therefore christianity can't even be defined :^)"
you're literally pic related. You're either baiting or 15 year old because no even militant atheists I talked to were this arrogantly dishonest. I'm quitting this conversation. God bless.
Make sure you read this
I know you will 🙂
I, personally, believe in god, and I, personally, don't care if he's all powerful all good.
His assumption for not believing in god seems like it steam from that being a necessity, I'm just asking if, for example, would he believe in my god (that doesn't require to be all poweful all good)
>What if I describe god as all powerful but not good
Depends on how you define power. The idea that omnipotence = the ability to do anything is a misconception.
There needs to be limits in order for anything to exist, so there can be no universe in which literally anything is possible - true power is about knowing the limits that would allow eternal bliss to be possible, and then achieving it through nothing but yourself.
>There needs to be limits in order for anything to exist, so there can be no universe in which literally anything is possible
This is a false assumption: a better one would be, a coherent universe with unlimited potential can exist, but only if nothing exists in it. An INcoherent universe can both have unlimited potential, AND have discrete definitions (which seems paradoxical, but that’s on us)
>a coherent universe with unlimited potential can exist, but only if nothing exists in it
Total absence cannot exist. It's nonsense.
>An INcoherent universe can both have unlimited potential, AND have discrete definitions
Only in theory, which isn't saying much.
Something is only as coherent or incoherent as our ability to make sense of it, therefore a coherent or incoherent universe can't exist in the absolute sense.
>alleged astrophysicist thinks you can't travel faster than the speed of light because we're in le video game and not because of, you know, physics
>you’re not allowed to explore ideas because of a job
Frick off polchud. Podcasts are for entertainment not education. Read a book if you want education.
don't you have a 197 hour hasan abi chair stream to donate to?
No but your moms pretty cheap so I might do her instead
Nobody can prove that the non-observable universe exists
>Prove to me that we are not living in a simulation
What is the definition of a simulation
The point is that if we are living in a simulation, the people who run this simulation are also living in a simulation, and the people above that 'level' too, and so and so, times infinity. And maybe in a few decades we'll be able to run a simulation ourselves.
I really hate brainlets like you, that only think in terms of video games. What the frick did you just do?
> maybe in a few decades we'll be able to run a simulation ourselves.
What is this, the thing that you just did?
It’s a simple comment. Nothing to get angry about (which is a brainlet thing to do btw).
Explain it, motherfricker. Use your words, articulate what the frick your brain just did.
It’s called extrapolation. The same way you’ve extrapolated into becoming a homosexual after your dad sucked your dick when you were little.
Nta, but if we create a 1:1 simulation, then that reality would make their own, so on and so forth. At that point, our chances of being real are 1/infinity.
I’m aware. Not what I was asking.
Also
was meant for
You don’t know what you’re asking because you don’t understand the answer. Try harder gigatardo
I am no philosopher but to me it seems logical that you can't make any statements about something outside of the system when any argument you make is based on what you observed in that closed system.
Like I could say that a simulation is impossible because of math and laws of physics but then you can say that life outside of simulation doesn't follow logic and our physics.
Well my friend it seems as though you have struck straight at the heart of philosophy: it’s a colossal circle jerk around questions that cannot be answered
This is true that no philosophical question can be ultimately answered (probably no question can be, but philosophical ones are the particularly tough ones), but the trouble is the vast majority of philosophers reject simulation theory, but it gets spread around in popular culture anyhow.
And by definition half the population is dumber than average, so …
What happens if I die in the simulation
you die in real life
Your program file is deleted
if (player.hp == 0) {
restartPlayer();
}
Define simulation.
Notice that you can’t define “real” without resorting to recursion, and ask yourself why that is.
>the 13th floor
>lady magically creates a tulpa at the end
>no one blinks an eye
Can't find the paper right now, but some physicists could show that simulating the tipping of light cones near black holes needs an infinite amount of energy. Hence, if the energy available to the simulator is finite, we cannot live in a simulation because we're seeing the effect of the tipping (light gets trapped, nothing can get out, no hair theorem) in observations of our universe.
LOD is a basic assumption of simulation theory, the idea is to get something that appears accurate, not to reproduce everything exactly. Near-perfect fidelity, according to the observer’s judgement.
Shut the frick up jimmy, the adults are talking. Try following a conversation instead of popsci feeds, for fricking once.
Yeah but that's the point. Just making it look like it's accurate already costs infinite energy.
Maybe within that threshold, sure. But that’s nothing a little fudging can’t fix.
Nope, you’re just dumb. Sorry bud. Just take the L with grace and pay more attention to the comment chains next time.
Gigatardo cope. Tell us again about how mad you get when you hear hypotheses.
Alright, be a dildo gaygins from gay end. But do it somewhere else, I’m not interested in hearing you mansplain basic recursion.
Not my fault you lost your tampon, Rebecca. Buy a bigger size next time.
Seething gigatardo can’t understand holographic principle many such cases
ITT bored physics undergrads
>come into thread to shitpost
>it's just philosophy of science students arguing with physics undergrads
I can easily prove that we are not in a simulation:
-The computing power needed to micromanage every atom, doesn't allow it. It's an astronomically big number.
-Simulations are run to test and do stuff, not just because. This implies also computer power to observe (and possibly record) everything done.
-Simulations are a function of a machine. Running this simulation takes energy, so you not only need an impossible machine to run it, you need an impossible world fit to power that machine
You can try and be smart and say "Simulation dude" like it's a concept so alien nobody could get it, but in reality, WE RUN simulations. We can easily calculate the power it takes to run a simulation and how taxing it is on our machines. I press B when playing Caliber and it shows it on the top left corner.
>The computing power needed to micromanage every atom, doesn't allow it. It's an astronomically big number.
What if the world outside of the simulation has some super duper computers that can handle it? How can you even argue against me pulling some magical technology out of my ass to explain it?
There is no magic, only energy
You are not only pulling magical technology out of your ass, you are also implying magical energy to power that machine
>There is no magic, only energy
how can you make these kind of statements over things outside of this world though?
Unfounded “what if”s don’t do anything to prove or disprove sim theory. Not saying this idiot’s
“proofs” are any better
because I'm fine believing in a closed system.
Your problem steams from your inability to grasp a limit on existance.
If science someday proves that there's nothing outside our universe, just a giant brick wall that we poked holes innit and post that there's just an inifinte white void, your reality will crumble.
You can't concieve reality having a limit. That's not being open minded, that's the exact opposite.
>-The computing power needed to micromanage every atom, doesn't allow it. It's an astronomically big number.
This has always been a weak argument. If we could create a simulation capable of generating conscious beings and they started thinking about their universe they'd run into the same problem. To them the idea that there was so much more outside of their world would seem insane. We might run a simulation of their world which from our perspective takes a few hours but from their perspective takes thousands of years. To them we'd be ancient beings of near infinite power living in a world of unimaginable complexity and scale.
You might be the dumbest motherfricker that ever lived
simulation gays absolutely destroyed
I love science and philosophy threads on Cinemaphile. It’s always funny watching the christcucks try to participate. Like watching those Olympic swimming competitions with the random participant from a country that doesn’t even have pools and watching them doggy paddle.
Congratulations, you watched The Simpsons 20 years ago
Want a prize or something?
The more we see machine learning progress the more I'm convinced of simulation theory. It's either that or I possess some kind of limited psychic prescience where I'm able to subtly foresee minor events of my future.
prove it yourself and walk in front of a train
i'm feeling too lazy to write a lot atm but in short yeah i do think there's a high probability that we are in fact in a simulation.
>speed of light could be a restraint caused by the speed of the simulation processor
>special relativity's lorentzian time dilation could be the simulation's way of handling heavy processor throttling
>the big bang singularity could be the simulation's way of hiding t=0
>the uncertainty principle could be the simulation's way of hiding the "pixels"
>hidden variables and spooky action at a distance could be a sign of the simulation already knowing the values generated by the algorithm
>causality and locality could be the simulation's way of conserving memory
etc
oh and ofc the physical laws are hard coded restraints and so are the universal constants which are initial conditions which generate a specific scenario
afaik it's impossible to test this hypothesis, but there are many parallels between our "reality" and a computer algorithm
so how does the universe running the simulatotion cope with these same restraints? what would their t zero be?
you have it backwards. its processors that are microcosms of the universe. our universe has physical limits, and our processors do too. that doesn't mean it's necessarily a simulation itself, though it's possible. you are very correct in noticing the similarities. we live in an information based universe. everything is just information and its transformations.
>All computing hardware leaves an artifact of its existence within the world of the simulation it is running. This artifact is the processor speed. If for a moment we imagine that we are a software program running on a computing machine, the only and inevitable artifact of the hardware supporting us, within our world, would be the processor speed. All other laws we would experience would be the laws of the simulation or the software we are a part of. If we were a Sim or a Grand Theft Auto character these would be the laws of the game. But anything we do would also be constrained by the processor speed no matter the laws of the game. No matter how complete the simulation is, the processor speed would intervene in the operations of the simulation.
>In computing systems, of course, this intervention of the processing speed into the world of the algorithm being executed happens even at the most fundamental level. Even at the most fundamental level of simple operations such as addition or subtraction, the processing speed dictates a physical reality onto the operation that is detached from the simulated reality of the operation itself.
>Here’s a simple example. A 64-bit processor would perform a subtraction between say 7,862,345 and 6,347,111 in the same amount of time as it would take to perform a subtraction between two and one (granted all numbers are defined as the same variable type). In the simulated reality, seven million is a very large number, and one is a comparatively very small number. In the physical world of the processor, the difference in scale between these two numbers is irrelevant. Both subtractions in our example constitute one operation and would take the same time. Here we can clearly now see the difference between a “simulated” or abstract world of programmed mathematics and a “real” or physical world of microprocessor operations.
(cont.)
>Within the abstract world of programmed mathematics, the processing speed of operations per second will be observed, felt, experienced, noted as an artifact of underlying physical computing machinery. This artifact will appear as an additional component of any operation that is unaffected by the operation in the simulated reality. The value of this additional component of the operation would simply be defined as the time taken to perform one operation on variables up to a maximum limit that is the memory container size for the variable. So, in an eight-bit computer, for instance to oversimplify, this would be 256. The value of this additional component will be the same for all numbers up to the maximum limit. The additional hardware component will thus be irrelevant for any operations within the simulated reality except when it is discovered as the maximum container size. The observer within the simulation has no frame for quantifying the processor speed except when it presents itself as an upper limit.
>If we live in a simulation, then our universe should also have such an artifact. We can now begin to articulate some properties of this artifact that would help us in our search for such an artifact in our universe.
>1. The artifact is as an additional component of every operation that is unaffected by the magnitude of the variables being operated upon and is irrelevant within the simulated reality until a maximum variable size is observed.
>2. The artifact presents itself in the simulated world as an upper limit.
>3. The artifact cannot be explained by underlying mechanistic laws of the simulated universe. It has to be accepted as an assumption or “given” within the operating laws of the simulated universe.
>4. The effect of the artifact or the anomaly is absolute. No exceptions.
>Now that we have some defining features of the artifact, of course it becomes clear what the artifact manifests itself as within our universe. The speed of light.
>The speed of light.
>The artifact cannot be explained by underlying mechanistic laws of the simulated universe. It has to be accepted as an assumption or “given” within the operating laws of the simulated universe.
???
we can absolutely explain the speed of light, what is that homie rambling
He's misguided, but I think he's on in the right track.
Given that light is the only observable thing that's not relative, it must be the only thing we can observe that's absolutely real. This says something about the nature of the source from which we came, but I don't believe it indicates that we're living in a computer simulation.
I should note...
*while light does exist in relation to darkness in a sense, we know that darkness is just the absence of light
>is the only observable thing that's not relative
>What is charge
>What is polarity
>What is freezing point of temperature
>What is mass
There's a lot of things that just are as is not relative to the observer or anything
please explain the speed of light in the given context
variables and spooky action at a distance could be a sign of the simulation already knowing the values generated by the algorithm
no because of the halting problem.
>My son is like me, I am like my father, therefore we are like someone who made us
you are all just nerdy theists.
>put square root of two in my TI 84 calculator
>the world doesnt end
what other proof do you need
you know guys, i fricking hate this simulation if we are being honest here, can someone from the higher ups add some flavour in my life?
Copy that, deploying fart gas SWAT clowns
Female ones, i hope?
-If it were possible for a simulation of reality, then the likelihood of the current reality being a simulation is 1 since the number of simulated realitirs would be infinitely greater then the single reality.
- If we exist in a simulated reality then it is just as likely that we exist in a nested simulation where the parent to our simulation is also simulated.
-The probability that a parent simulation to ours in an infinite stack of simulated reality has been terminated is 1.
-Combining all that, our reality can't be simulated, because that simulation would have already been terminated.
This proof is 100% accurate and correct and cannot be refuted.
consciousness has never been convincingly grounded to any physical system. you can get around this by saying whoever made the simulation has prevented us from fully understanding how the mechanics of consciousness work, but then you're stuck in a logic loop where you can only believe things based on faith. so it's just nonsensical to consider very seriously until neuroscience makes some very big leaps in the next few years or decades.
You can prove a negative.
In math you can assume something is true and then show that it leads to a contradiction. Then you have proved the negative, i.e. it must be false to avoid the contradiction.
Maths are not real
>Wake up, Neo. The matrix is all around you. You are in it. The matrix has you. You think that's air you're breathing? Wrong. You're breathing matrix. Actually you're not breathing at all. You aren't even here, Neo. I'm not here. This is all just a projection of our psyche. Indeed, this conversation never happened, and this place doesn't exist. But the matrix is real, Neo. Ever heard about the Holographic Principle, Neo? The entire world as you know it is just some shit smeared out on the lower dimension boundary of existence. Everything that ever happened is but an image coded on a distant two-dimensional surface. Neo. Are you writing this down, Neo? This will be in your quantum string theory exam. WAKE UP NEO
FRICK I have to take a fat shit. Nice chatting with you. And remember, simulators: be kind to your Sims, you are statistically just like them
There's too much detail. A simulation wouldn't go this far.
Rendering shit that's so small or so far away that it can't be seen. You have to use fancy equipment and special imaging techniques to get a look at it.
And with non-constant time that throws a wrench in everything.
And billions of years old.
If this is a simulation, the reality running the simulation would have to be nothing at all like ours. It would have to have some special trait of phsyics that allows for this level of complexity in a simulation. In which case, why are they simulating a universe like ours?
> why are they simulating a universe like ours?
I just simulated a direct copy of this universe to ask the simulated-you this question, but then I decided not to in order to not break the 4th wall, and also the answer is kinda self evident.
>Prove to me that we are not living in a simulation
We don't despawn when we die.
pi has been mathematically proven to be irrational, meaning that it never ends. Such a number would require an infinite amount of computing power to compute EXACTLY, therefore no computer can ever hold the exact value of pi.
You don’t need to actually calculate pi in full. You just need the function to derive it.
It’s like saying because 3/9 is .333 repeating forever it cannot be calculated. It can, nor does it need to be calculated to its infinite length for it to provide an approximation that is “real enough”.
except 3/9 is just a metaphorical representation of a quantity, whereas pi is a number that governs a significant portion of things in the universe. same with planks constant, etc etc...if you were to change the billionth digit of pi, the behavior of the universe would change. therefore that digit has to be stored SOMEWHERE
I cannot prove anything but I love God and I love the life God has given me
Just look at my wiener
Why must I have a 32 inch wiener? I can't even get an erection
Wow nice wiener
>select individuals are given the "inspiration" for scientific breakthrough when the server hardware is upgraded to handle more complex simulations
I hope we get the FTL update soon
The hermetics said it best. It’s not necessarily a simulation of the computer sort, but it is a sort of simulation in the sense that we are inside of a dream. This dream is created by a larger mind beyond us of which we are small holographic elements of. Each of our minds represents the entire mind itself and as the eternal living mind dreams up this universe, so do we also continue the dream. Our entire world is our own perception, just like how the entire universe is this eternal living mind’s perception. Between the Planck lengths of this world are further universes tucked away within calabi yau spaces which we ourselves are dreaming up without knowing it, and in those hyperdimensional surfaces exists more minds that dream up further universes which are all essentially part of the same dream. As above so below as below so above.
The true frontier in science is psychology. We learn what intelligence, cognition, and consciousness is and we learn the nature of the universe.
>Between the Planck lengths
There is no "between the Planck units". They're the smallest possible unit of measurement.
Only limited by our dimensions. Not necessarily true for higher dimensions.
If there weren't a smallest possible unit, there would be nothing on which to build. This goes for any dimension.
So, the question is, why have multiple dimensions when you can have one universe that's infinitely cycling through every possibility?
See:
One doesn’t negate the other. Both can be true.
I'm not saying it negates the possibility of other dimensions. I'm pointing out an alternative that would make the multiverse pretty much obsolete.
Could there be 746 quadrillion fricktillion dimensions? Sure, but why would there be? And there's certainly no evidence pointing to it.
Things don’t exist to have a why. Things exist in spite of a why. Calabi Yau spaces and higher dimensions make mathematical sense that’s all. They don’t have anything to do with multiverses though. That’s quantum mechanics that brings those implications out. I’m not even really sure what you’re talking about but I’m pretty sure whatever model you have is perfectly compatible with both multiverses and higher dimensions if it’s a model that follows the laws of mathematics. If not, then lol.
If there isn't a "ground", then you run into the problem of an infinite regression (which is a huge problem) - therefore, the multiple dimensions would all have to be traced back to this ground, which is actually a base that exists in an illusory, time-dependent universe rather than the ultimate source of existence. The question of why multiple dimensions (or anything) would make any sense is perfectly reasonable if you believe in an ultimate purpose to all this (which I do).
Ok good for you dude.
>the multiple dimensions would all have to be traced back to this ground, which is actually a base that exists in an illusory, time-dependent universe rather than the ultimate source of existence.
Care to address this?
I mean seriously, why would it make sense to have a bunch of different dimensions, all illusory, and all cycling back to the same True Source? And as far as I can tell, they would have to maintain the same basic, eternally flowing cycle as each other, all leading back to their source.
Not really.
Lol ok, I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway
But I have to correct myself. Theoretically, the different dimensions wouldn't necessarily have to be directly linked the way I suggested earlier. They could be cycling the same way
is cycling, just removed from each other - which wouldn't make much sense either.
My favorite part of this simulation is when everyone receives a software update overnight and they all change behaviourally in the exact same way you’ve changed (or sometimes this can be expressed in similar moods or activities).
Which begs the question what bugs were they fixing and could we potentially create a debug report and notice a pattern in the fixes?
If we can study a large sample of humanity from across the globe and report their cognitive and behavioral activities on a daily basis we could potentially identify those software update moments and track them against a model of our “being” based off our data and understand the delta these moments create. If we analyze all the deltas over time we could then potentially understand the development plan a little bit more.
The biggest hurdle will be identifying the timing of such software update moments or being lucky.
simulation has the ability to course correct its past
real life doesnt
What's the point of wasting all this processing power on simulating my conciousness just to have me stay at home all day?
It’s necessary for you to be home so Chad and Stacy can frick in peace. You needed to exist to help Stacy out with homework that one time.
Who cares if we are, there's nothing you could conceivably do about it.
maybe if I kiss their ass the people running the simulation will give me my waifu?
Actually one of the recent Futurama episodes dealt with simulation theory and in it they devise a plan to break their simulation by creating an event that would require so much processing power it would glitch out the universe. Perhaps this can be possible and there could be further ways to manipulate the simulation. There’s definitely weapons implications at the very least. Imagine being able to destroy the simulation. That would be a powerful deterrent tool that you could use to dominate the entire universe and all its alien life.
Forgot my pic
If this was a simulation wby make everything so mundane.
Why make shit boring.
Where are the mutants, where are the supermen, etc.
Consider the fact that you can only simulate what you can conceive, and that the simulations we run are already way cooler than our real life (we simulate fantasy races like orcs and elves in spaceships n shit). So the world of the simulators are more boring than the world of the simulation. That must make the world that's simulating us even more boring than we are.
good point
>you can only simulate what you can conceive
intuitive but incorrect. you can simulate things by accident, for one. and "simulation" doesn't mean "recreation", it means that whatever seems to be happening is not actually happening in some sense. Even a very primitive video game like Pong is a simulation because the screen is tricking our brains to make us feel like we're controlling a paddle and a ball is bouncing back and forth. In reality of course these actions are simulated, all that is really happening is some joystick-wiggling and electronic circuits that make lights on a screen go on and off in certain patterns.
wat
the world is infinitely interesting
N I G G E R S
good point
good point^C ^C
NO ONE would be such an butthole as to create this b***h of an earth.
I cannot.
The truth is the universe doesn't make sense. Why is there something over nothing? If nothing once existed, what does that even look like? Nothing is something.
So we come up with bullshit like simulation theory that doesn't do anything except kick the can down the road.
That's why you should embrace spirituality but not get bogged down on the details, just enjoy what it is we have.
EAsier, I will prove we do live in one.
How many squirrels are other critters live in a city? Now, tell me, have you ever seen squirrel shit?
If it's a simulation, why can't you escape?
Okay, I will.
Give me five numbers from 1-50, and two numbers 1-12. If those numbers win the Euromillions Lottery Jackpot on Friday 8th December 2023, then we are living in a simulation.
OP, if you're still around; give this Anon his numbers lol
it's funny how people use a recent trend, computers, to prove that the universe is a simulation
their logic is working in reverse but they don't see it that way
This is the most toxic Philosophy known to man
To condition yourself to see reality itself as a facade means you’ve full embrace and absorbed nihilism into your cognition. It means you no longer have any function to determine Truth. You firmly and fully believe there is no substance to your being or the world you inhabit, that even the foundations of the world are ethereal and constructed.
In short you have become a simulation of man, a broken facade projecting itself into the world. Want to wake up from the simulation? ACCEPT REALITY and stop living in a Dream
It cannot be overemphasized how israeli simulation theory is