Will his simulation argument ever be disproven?

Study some epistemology bro

because honest atheists know this shit is impossible without some kind of outside force

The fact that those who would get this would also probably not actually laugh will be the marking point for the rest of your life as that moment when you came to know you were not good with humour, you were not good with wit, you were not funny.

And this, because of the content of your joke, said something about your intelligence. Mainly that you aspired to seem witty and to seem intellectual.

But your failure unravelled both so that only one person was left in view, a lifeless corpse that had no reference to who it was or that it was - only the rot left to observation.

Most atheists are pious science worshipers.

Virtue-signaling faggot

how is that virtue signaling

Not assuming you are an atheist, but you clearly have a stake in the "outside power" bit because you say only "honest" atheists believe in it. So you're either a pious atheist looking for identical intellectual peers or a non-atheistic religious person doing the same, but in any event you are someone who neatly categorizes persons who disagree with you as either "honest" or "dishonest." Attributing a commonly positive quality ("honesty") to people who agree with you may be indirect virtue signaling, but it is still virtue signaling in that by assigning honesty to your own belief, you assign honesty to yourself.

or, just here me out here, I was fucking around.

You pseudo intellectual Neanderthal

supreme faggotry

>thinking neanderthal is an insult

What's even the difference between calling the universe a simulation with a "creator" and deism?

Omnipotence in an absolute sense, the creator of the simulation might as well be anything

it's based on the assumption that the only possible reasons why a civilization wouldn't eventually attain the technology for an ancestor simulation is that it either is somehow destroyed before that point or it is simply not interested in it.
that is to sat, that is to say, it assumes that it is inevitable for any civilization that doesn't get destroyed to eventually become at least capable of developing the technology for an ancestor simulation, even if they don't choose to make one, and that ancestor simulations are technologically feasible.
it ignores the possibility that technology will inevitably either peak or plateau long before it becomes capable of producing ancestor simulations as diminishing returns on technological development are reached, or that certain aspects of our reality (sentience, most iportantly) can't be a produced by a simulation

Atheists prefer the universe to be some sort of simulation so they can hold on to relativism. They need to have their cummies.

Garrote yourself with piano wire

This is making the assumption that a simulation as complicated as reality is possible. There's no reason to believe that humans will live to create such a thing in our own reality though.

As far as im concerned, the whole idea rests on the assumption that the technology to create a simulation exists, which is absolutely speculative, and if the ability did exist, it would certainly exceed even our wildest science fiction ideas.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a simulation of the universe have to encompass the entire original universe it's produced in? As in, in order to create an exact copy of the universe, which is implied in the theory, you would need to simulate and encode information into every single atom and molecule and subatomic particle. How would that be possible? Any plausible explanation basically boils down to "magic"
The whole thing just reeks of postmodernist relativist ideals, etc. Apparently, not only is the universe completely meaningless, but also, completely unoriginal, a meaningless replica of another meaningless universe. How convenient...

>Will his simulation argument ever be disproven?
Only as much as it will be proven.

youre implying that our simulation must exist in a universe functioning just like ours. this only shows your limited intelligence

The argument the op is talking about is explicitly about ancestor simulations, for which the simulation must necessarily be as close to the original universe as possible

Far more likely that the world is a dream than an ancestor simulation

i would think a form of ethics and rules should be applied before the creation of a simulated reality. if this is a simulation the creators seem to be unethical unless this life continues till death transforms us to transhumanists via the omega point.

>This is making the assumption that a simulation as complicated as reality is possible
It doesn't though, maybe the real reality is much more complicated. No mostly lifeless observable universe, for example.

Maybe the Fermi paradox is about render power.

This is why physics starts making less sense when you examine the smallest particles. The simulation isn't powerful enough, so it just fudges the details.

It only makes less sense if you build your definition of the word "sense" on the predication that determinism is absolutely correct. We're reaching exponentials of pseud that shouldn't be possible here.

it makes less sense to us because it's a level of reality your mind didn't evolve to be able to contemplate, not because there's anything objectively illogical about how it works

>The whole thing just reeks of postmodernist relativist ideals
What the fuck

that's a teenage brain on too many jordan peterson joe rogan episodes

>Muh simulation
This expression indicates the nihilist edgelord's confusion and lack of understanding. When confronted with something he can't understand or respond to, nihilist edgelord's mumble "Muh simulation"or "Muh simulation theory". This is usually followed by grabbing sci-fi quotes and Rick and Morty references.

Whom'se dream?

It's not something that can be proven or disproven. It's the same as saying, "well, I have this theory that there's a man living on the moon, but he doesn't leave any footsteps and always lives on the dark side, doesn't need to breathe air or drink or eat food to live, and avoids contact with our probes and astronauts, also he can turn invisible and the second he leaves an area no traces of him remain". There's no way anyone can refute a claim like that, and there's no way to prove it either since all the evidence either way is just nonexistent.

>There's no way anyone can refute a claim like that,

are you really so lazy you couldn't be arsed to put it in the picture?

based beardless himself

Yes.

The fact that those who would get this would also probably not actually laugh will be the marking point for the rest of your life as that moment when you came to know you were not good with humour, you were not good with wit, you were not funny.

And this, because of the content of your joke, said something about your intelligence. Mainly that you aspired to seem witty and to seem intellectual.

But your failure unravelled both so that only one person was left in view, a lifeless corpse that had no reference to who it was or that it was - only the rot left to observation.

...

Only people who belong to the church of the real could come up with the idea of the matrix. Most atheists have simply replaced God with Reality.

>psuedo-intellectual
>Neanderthal

Oxymoron.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a simulation of the universe have to encompass the entire original universe it's produced in? As in, in order to create an exact copy of the universe, which is implied in the theory
Nah, that's unfeasible. You'd just do Earth with some starting parameters, probably. Of course it could be increased in complexity, we could probably do narrow versions (as in, certain variables in play) right now.

>you would need to simulate and encode information into every single atom and molecule and subatomic particle. How would that be possible? Any plausible explanation basically boils down to "magic"
Not necessarily, in fact such things may just be irrelevant zoomed layers. We can simulate different liquids live, using a lot of mathematics. You can get around things through efficient algorithms and adjustments depending on local need. Though you obviously reduce accuracy.

>The whole thing just reeks of postmodernist relativist ideals
What the fuck.

But yeah, the whole thing is retarded, it sets a premise and then justifies it. It is baseless and pretty useless to even think about. No one would ever do a comprehensive "ancestor simulation" anyway, you wouldn't be able to do it to the accuracy required to derive anything useful.