We're living in a simulation and no one is real. you're all just in the simulation and so am I...

>athiests will unironically defend this

I'd like to see the numbers you crunched to get that 100% probability.

Almost 100% likely if your starting premises are true, which they might well not be.

I'm so sick of people acting like they can easily make conclusive statements about the underlying nature of reality using inductive reasoning. Two thousand years ago you would be telling me that we can be certain that the world of Platonic forms is a real thing. Get some self-awareness.

I got it from logical reasoning see here:

Not even him but you're insufferably retarded.

The almost 100% figure is completely pulled out of your ass, and just because simulations may exist, that doesn't mean that we're definitely in one.

Jesus fucking christ we need to not let stupid people into philosophy classes.

That made my head spin. Holy shit

it's actually pretty nuanced when you look more into it, I can see how you imagine it being some simple thing but it really isn't

ad hominem

that really doesn't show how the probability is near 100%, or that the probability of simulations on the scale of our reality have been done, or connect that to the probability that our universe specifically is a simulation

You don't even understand what ad hom means. You honestly belong on reddit with the hordes of average intelligence pseudo-intellectuals clawing so hard at concepts they are not capable of understanding, despite having total confidence in their own bullshit.

well I just gave a summary, like I said it's more nuanced than I'm making it out to be but I don't have time to spell it all out for you.
another ad hominem. either contribute to the discussion or leave my thread now.

MODS this thread is shit!

I addressed your points and you refused to touch them in the first comment that you responded to with "ad hominem" despite none of it being ad hominem.

Address my points or stay away from any deep thinking you trashy pleb.

I said I wanted math. Not lolgic to excuse your ass-pulled probability distribution.

Also that's not ad-hom you pseudointellectual moron.

it's my thread so you don't get to tell me to stay away, I get to do that and now I am asking you to leave.
logic is the foundation of math so I basically provided you with the math

Give me the numbers or stfu.

maybe. So what? The simulation ends when you die. Just like if this was a real thing. What does it matter what we call it?

Address the points.

A. The almost 100% probability of other simulations being made is completely pulled out of your ass

B. Even if your likelihood of a simulation being made were correct, that would not mean that we are automatically in one.

You can suck my cock, you prissy little bitch.

because the truth matters and the truth is that we're in a simulation, if you don't care about the truth that's your problem not mine.
now you're moving the goalposts. I provided you with math but now you're asking me for numbers, stop being intellectually dishonest like that.
>A. The almost 100% probability of other simulations being made is completely pulled out of your ass
no, it's based on logical reasoning.
>B. Even if your likelihood of a simulation being made were correct, that would not mean that we are automatically in one.
it means it's 100 likely because like I mentioned earlier 99.999999... is basically 100 in math

>they won't watch the quick rundown

youtu.be/7KcPNiworbo

Determining probability is the result of a math problem that has to be calculated.

Show the math you braindead retard. You of course don't have it, I just want to watch you struggle.

>it's actually pretty nuanced when you look more into it, I can see how you imagine it being some simple thing but it really isn't
I've read Bostrom' arguments himself, so I'm not just coming at it from a novitiate's perspective. That really doesn't invalidate my point, though. My argument isn't about the internal consistency of the logic, it's a more general argument about the epistemological value of arguments from induction to discern the nature of the universe.

Math IS numbers you fucking idiot. I'm shifting nothing. I'm asking for a proof. Your lolgic is not a proof.

This guy is the epitome of pseudo-intellectualism. A fucking liberal arts freshman can see why he's wrong.

The truth is there is no simulation, but I control your thoughts so that you believe there is a simulation. Every thought you ever have is imposed by me.

Not him but no one has done the math yet.

However there are many scientific reasons to suggest a simulation.

youtu.be/7KcPNiworbo

But you're asking for something that has not been done yet.

I predicted this would happen, some people don't like being told that they are just in a simulation so they lash out and attack others with ad homs and other nonsense fear tactics. You guys aren't here for an honest discussion so I won't be responding to your lackluster attempts at obfuscating discussion. For anyone else lurking this thread, take this post to heart. Don't let them prevent you from making the intellectual move to the simulation

Then he shouldn't be throwing out numbers like he knows what he's talking about without understanding why he's getting shit for it. Unfortunately he's retarded.

>because the truth matters and the truth is that we're in a simulation

The truth actually is you don't know, nobody does. The truth is also what your saying is nothing new. For thousands of years people said it was an illusion. Calling it a simulation just makes it sound more sciencey.

>if you don't care about the truth that's your problem not mine.

If the truth is there is a star out there made of tits, but we'll never find it in the timespan of human existence, does it matter?

Stop saying your math proves it. your math is retarded as well.

the .000000000000......1% is an arbitrary unit you just made up. Saying it's likely doesn't make it so.

>asking him how he calculated probability is obfuscation and ad hominem

You really are a braindead faggot.

monkey see, monkey do

>The simulation ends when you die.
Proof?

>wanting to see the calculations is an ad hom

>muuuuhh post modernism XDDD nobody knows da truf it's not like reeaalll mannnnnn lol just stop caring

Your obscurantism disregarded, you've fielded no argument to refute mathematical platonism.

Maybe. I'm more inclined to believe OP is a highschooler just getting into philosophy, letting good ole Dunning-Kruger take center stage. I hope OP realizes how dumb he's being down the line.

OP is getting btfo'd lol
I'm enjoying watching him conjure up excuses and deflection to protect his fragile ego

Simulation """"theory"""" is nothing more than religion hiding under the pretense of science. You replace GAWWWWWWWDDD with SPAACCEEE ALLIUUUMMMS or ROOBBOOOTTSS or whatever crackpot unfalsifiable hypothesis you personally field toward the nature of our reality.

In reality it's nothing more than god of the gaps. We haven't proven nor disproven simulation theory so you plug the gap with bullshit.

But I never used ad homs or fear tactics? I simply pointed out that, historically, philosophical arguments about the nature of reality have been myopic, and ridiculous in hindsight. People in medieval hierarchical monarchies believed nature was structured in a natural great chain of being, with the lion being the king of the animals, the oak being the king of the trees, etc. People in India's caste hierarchy believed in a greater hierarchy of progressively better universes. And, surprise surprise, many people in the age of computers believe we are living in a simulation. With this in mind, you'll have to excuse me for demanding more in the way of empirical evidence, and not jut inductive logic.

That's just what a simulation janitor would say.

Confirmed for robot overlords

That's not a postmodern argument. The postmodern argument is that we're living in a simulation.

Where were you when you realized OP was right?

>[ad hom]
>Okay... [ad hom], but
>You're prob one of the [ad hom] am I right?
>Get some [ad hom]
>Not even him but you're [ad hom]
>we need to not let [ad hom] into philosophy classes
>You honestly belong on [ad hom]
>stay away from any deep thinking you [ad hom]
>Also that's not ad-hom you [ad hom]
>You can [ad hom], you [ad hom]
Show the math you [ad hom]
Math IS numbers you [ad hom]
This guy is the epitome of [ad hom]
>Unfortunately he's [ad hom]
>You really are a [ad hom]
>I'm more inclined to believe OP is a [ad hom]
>I hope OP realized how [ad hom] he's being down the line
>I'm enjoying watching him conjure up excuses and deflection to [ad hom]

You guys are posting nothing but ad homs.

thanks for defending me, I knew there was someone else here with some intellectual honesty

no problem man

Arguments with insults are not ad hom, an ad hom is a character attack in place of any actual argument.

Stay in school you fucking retard.

Ad hominem means making an argument based on characteristics of the person making the opposing argument. Calling someone an idiot while also arguing against the opposition independently of the name-calling doesn't invalidate that argument being made.

It does if you're a low IQ trashbag who got an 82 in philosophy and thinks he knows his shit.

Watching you autists piss up each other's legs is hilarious.

I love this simulation

I think you would be better served by reading books and practicing argumentation so you can present your ideas in an intelligent, clear and precise manner and be able to address arguments against them in a way that actually refutes them. All you've done in this thread is reveal your enormous deficiencies in communication and knowledge. I am positive there are click-bait articles on buzzfeed that have presented the same idea you're espousing better than you are seemingly able to.

all you are saying is memes and talking in a condescending tone, and saying "I SAY IT'S A SIMULATION THEREFORE IT'S A 99.999999% CHANCE ITS A SIMULATION."

Just because you can't argue against a point, doesn't mean calling it by it's (wrong) name disproves it.

You are trying way to hard here, man.

he's not OP.

He's not OP either.

it's pretty obvious he is considering he's using the same troll tactics

Haha you stupid mong I'm not one of the ones arguing with you.

Take it down a notch before you have a stroke

Op I hope you've learned to not be a dumbass and to better understand where you are on the spectrum of intelligence.

You're much lower than you think you are.

he quoted op in his post and called op an autist. that should tell you he's not op. also I know for a fact he's not op because I'm op

How is telling OP to get some self-awareness an ad-hom? It's a perfectly valid point in the context of my argument, that we can plainly see that arguments from fairly general starting assumptions about the nature of the universe almost always look foolish in hindsight, and are invariably colored by their native culture. These arguments are a separate epistemological category from, for example, the astronomical calculations that allowed us to determine that we don't live in a geocentric universe. Arguments of the latter category pass a certain level of muster that arguments in the former category do not, based on history. OP is acting like the two are one and the same, which is why I am asking him to have some awareness of how these arguments have fared, historically, and how flimsy they are compared to actual empirical science. So no, it isn't an ad hom, it's part of a bigger line of reasoning which OP has failed to adequately respond to (saying "the argument is more sophisticated, you don't get it, is not an argument, especially when I point out that I've already read more detailed papers on this and that the specifics aren't really relevant to the larger point I'm making.)

>other simulations have been made before.

What do they have to do with our reality? Even if there were a near 100% chance that simulations have been made before, that has nothing to do with our situation. We can exist independently of simulations that have previously been made. You'd need to logically prove that we're a part of a simulation previously made, which isn't just by virtue of them existing.

It's more likely that our ability to create simulations had influenced some people into believing, by way of logical fallacy, that we could be living a simulation.

>I love this simulation

>splits the atom
>somehow this breaks reality
>tears a small hole in space
>enormous energy comes rushing through
>realize everything is made of atoms
>realize there is unlimited energy just outside our reality
>we are literally created from endless energy

Op didn't even get to the part where he calculated the probability, there's no hope that he could understand your point that's simple for you and I, but rocket science to him.

|
|Д ´)
|⊂
|

nah I understood it, he's just wrong

no its not, by virtue of the fact that it wasn't written in a book by desert people thousands of years ago

No Op, he's right. You are genuinely just an unintelligent person. By all means debate his point, and show your probability calulations while you're at it.

You won't, because you're on the left end of the bell curve and you're in huge denial about it.

Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor.

Sholom Aleichem

There are lots of different stories about him but in every one, one fact remains the same and that is that he had only one Eye, [and that] This is because he had sacrificed the other to gain wisdom in order to save the World. This story tells you how that happened. Odin lived in Asgard, the home of the Norse gods.

>fertile crescent
>desert

Money, get away
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay
Money, it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I'll buy me a football team

If in this world we can create an identical simulation of our own universe, they would eventually create their own simulation of their universe. This would go on infinitely, meaning in all likelihood we aren't the first to create the simulation. If there is a "first universe" that isn't a simulation, it's been lost among an infinite number of replicas of itself. Since each universe is identical to it's creator, besides the few billion year time difference, you could see a version of this universe at any replicated point in time. Including the future.

Billy Mays -Fallen Leaves

How can we possibly claim that we are anywhere near being capable of simulating an entire universe? If you're arguing that we can simulate the observable universe, then I might agree with that, but the existence of gravitational waves implies that after the Big Bang event, space itself expanded faster than light to a presumably infinite scale.

What this means is that, even though we can only receive light from the beginning of time and obviously not before that, that does not mean that there is no space beyond that which we can see. The light from those regions of space simply has not reached us yet. So the capability to simulate the observable universe does not equate to the capability of simulating the ENTIRE universe, which is presumably boundless space-wise. I think it is foolish to believe that it could be possible to simulate an infinite existence within a quite finite computer.

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone
All in all it's just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall

I agree, we can't even simulate an E. coli. We have some bioinformatical models capable of making predictions about certain disease outcomes based on complex biometric data such as RNAseq, but these models are not actual simulations but closer to regressions, or best-fit curves. Those are much, much easier to both program and run compared to a true simulation.

>you could see a version of this universe at any replicated point in time. Including the future
If the above is true then we don't have to create it yet, we just need to be able to see how it's done at a later time.

What I'm saying is that it can't be done. It's impossible BECAUSE we exist in the Universe. You cannot fit something infinite into something finite (unless you want to argue that nothing is finite, which opens up a whole different can of worms that might potentially derail my entire argument so I'm gonna let someone else do it).

I'm still waiting for someone to count to infinity and prove it exists.

Techno-gnosticism is BS. I think therefore I am. You cannot simulate "think" in the sense of how we think vs. how a program thinks.

Also why is our universe so shitty? It's a creative being's nature to want to create beautiful things. So why would they make a simulation of billions of people going about their daily lives, eating, shitting, lying around, etc? You'd think it'd be more interesting, ie magical powers actually exist, dragons and other mighty beasts roaming around breathing fire and electricity or whatever. This universe is so boring, so logical, not to mention so fragile. This leads me to believe we actually are in a state of chaos. It is this chaos that disproves your theories of technological divinity. What would be the point of simulating chaos? What would be the requirements? Think how small some parts of our reality are. Are there really parts of the program that turn your cells into cancer cells? Parts of it that make little virus cells float around and make you sick? How can it make every grain of sand a real, tangible thing that you can pick up and feel, get a sensation from?

Some program, if you ask me. It's almost as if the creator is some extremely powerful being. This is why I refer to it as techno-gnosticism, it appeals to the non-spiritual who are attempting to explain the complexities of the universe.

>believes the infinite universe theory

Lel

>magical powers actually exist, dragons and other mighty beasts roaming around breathing fire and electricity or whatever

Do you even read history? We killed all the wizards and witches we could find, slew all the dragons (there's even a dragon slaying Saint) and hunted all the mighty beasts to extinction.

>We killed all the wizards and witches we could find
That was just the pagan genocide of Europe. They weren't really witches, that's just like saying priest in pagan.

There are no dragon bones. Big animals from the past don't count, for the majority of history we weren't even around to fight them.

Pssshhh do you SEE any witches around cursing niggas and casting spells?

You're welcome!

If the universe isn't infinite, then you are arguing that it must be finite or bounded. Fine.

But boundaries only exist to define one thing as opposed to another. Are you claiming that something exists outside of existence?

>no dragon bones
>we find evidence of giant lizards on literally every continent

Stop

Stop talking about dragon bones.

There's room for everyone in this world,
Will everyone make some room.
Love given freely can spare this world,
Let friendly feelings bloom!

Pete and School kids:
Just give an inch, give a yard, never flinch
When the time comes to offer a hand,

Nora:
So let's all make sure we give everyone somewhere to stand,
Just the way God planned it, just the way God planned.

prove it

this is the only life you get, it's not a simulation

>Simulation

That cant possibly be the beat word to describe the nature of reality under the so called simulation theory.

I don't have a position on the debate of the theory except that word cant possibly be the best word.

Meta-Reality
Psudo-Realty
Differential-Reality
Expressionist-Reality

All these would seem better choices. "Simulation" implies artificiality and creative intelligence. It's such a loaded word in these days of virtual reality and video games that I feel like the word "Simulation" is used just to get clicks and TED Talk bullshit interest in a theory. If reality is a simulation it implies that someone creates the simulation and that the parameters and probabilities can be altered.

Just because the perceivable material of the universe may be expressions of energy rather than "real" matter, doesn't make something a simulation. The perceived simulated matter isn't any less real than the energy that is responsible for its expression. It makes our understanding of matter wrong. But as long as the expressions of energy are working independent of some kind of creator or manipulator, the process would still be natural and real in that it follows the laws of nature, even if we don't know them yet.

Do simulations happen randomly as a function of reality independent of intelligence and intention but rather according to natural law? Are there any such meta-simulations created by natural laws and not human intelligence happening in our so called simulation?

I'm not a smart man. But I really want to give this a chance.

This.