Elon Musk Says Life Is Almost Definitely A Simulation

>Brb trying to cut dick off and coding it back on again

and ?

>a literal fucking meme degree...
Just km senpai desu

But that puts you in the extreme minority. Did you think this through?

>reality we live in is a simulation, and we're not living in the actual world.

Define an "actual world" and "simulation" and how do they differ?

>Where is your god now Veeky Forums ?

Running the simulation.

>Talks about not talking about while he's in the Hot Tub with his brother.
>He says the reason is because it isn't Sexy.

Why the fuck is he going in a Hot Tub with his brother then having Sexy conversations with him.

That is the real mystery here.

Real world would be like our world we live in.

Simulation would be putting a baby in a videogame where all the babys sensory inputs are read from the videogame. Since the baby never saw the real world, his norm by default would be the simulation since he can't do a comparison between whats real and whats virtual.

And if the simulation can provide enough stability with physics, interactions and some more, he will grow up and die thinking he lived in the real world. Just like us right now :^)

Strange

>Occam's razor
>(there is no such thing as nothing, even empty space is filled).

Take this 70 cent Ikea glass filled with water in front of me.

I can remember buying it 5 years ago, I still remember it because it was an impulse buy at the counter when buying a mattress and bed, and I had nowhere to put it.

I have used it thousands of times to drink water out of, held it, washed it, looked at and through it, occasionally thought about how it as manufactured generally after accidentally dropping it and marveling at how it had not chipped or broken.

I am looking at it now. I just took a sip of water from it.

From all of my senses, past experiences, and general intuition I must conclude that it does in fact exist.

Occam's razor seems like a good way to eliminate it not existing. Given that I would need to invoke a more convoluted and intricate system of complex structure and scope (beyond my ability to enumerate let alone show evidence for) which would simulate the glass in front of me and all of my prior experiences with it.

There is a certain simplicity to shape and structure which leads to desirable outcomes. There are laws which govern fundamental particles which leads to atoms which leads to spherical shapes of planets and stars. It does not lead to naturally square or rectangular shapes, the circle is simpler and therefore more often observed in our universe. This bias for simplicity should give you a hint, that if your idea is complex, infinitely so, it probably is wrong as a simpler one would explain your situation better, without having to invoke a deus ex machina or in this case a machina ex deus.

If you want to be a successful scientist, don't commit logical fallacies, actually prove him wrong.

Who else among the popular scientific icons considers the possibility for the simulated reality theory ?

>smart computer scientists

kek

A real meme degree and not an internet meme degree would make sense

that's called "Marketing"

If you tried to do that with everyone who disagreed with you then you would run out of resources. It would be nice if we could just reason through everything, but trust has an economic utility. It's starting to feel like a giant crapshoot.

>Given that I would need to invoke a more convoluted and intricate system of complex structure and scope (beyond my ability to enumerate let alone show evidence for)
Where is your evidence that this statement is indeed true? Occram's razor is not sufficient to promote this argument as the system would be outside the bounds of reality and therefore possibly outside the bounds of all logic and certainly outside the bounds of physical laws.

I don't give a fuck about this goddamn businessman or his ideas. Fuck man, the guy himself isn't annoying but the cult-like fanbase that he's acquired is something new on the autism scale.

Simulated reality theory is just a non-religious anthropic principle, and it's just as useless at actually explaining reality or acting as a functional theoretical framework for new investigation.

Not that user, but always:
>Empirical Foundationalism
>Epistemological Analytics

Fallacies used in this argument:
>Argument from Assertion or "Could, therefore is" [similar to the Ought-is problem]
>Appeal to Probability [although even the setup is a bs... baseless assertions]
>Argument from Ignorance [we don't know therefore it's likely]
>Sophists Circular Logic [everything could a simulation in a simulation in a simulation, etc]
>Shifting Burden of Proof [can you prove we're not X? then we automatically are!]
and many many many more.

If your theory sits outside the entire universe and cannot be tested how is it different from the Demiurge?

Life is too perfect. Look at our History.

Who the fuck cares? He's a science enthusiast who happens to be a millionaire. He's probably a smart guy but that doesn't make him an expert on everything he decides to talk about

And it's exactly what religions said. True life is after life.

I feel like this is from something but I'm not too sure.

What difference does it make if we are or not? I mean I understand it's an interesting thought and all, but as of now it makes absolutely no difference. Virtual reality is virtually reality.

He's probably right. Doesn't mean much for us though.

Its interesting to me because it means if we are a simulation, whatever is running our simulation is also almost certainly a simulation, and so forth. But the more interesting thing is that this means that somewhere up the line there is some actual hardware running EVERYTHING, and every simulation running computer within each simulated reality is essentially a virtual machine, a computer ran inside a computer.

What this means is interesting in two ways.

1. You would think that each successive simulated universe would be necessarily less complex than the one before it, meaning the 'higher' simulation have more elaborate rules governing them.

2. Since the boundaries are just isolated VMs within vms, and not physical, we might be able to figure out ways to manipulate the higher simulations by finding bugs in our realitys programming, since we are all actually being ran on the same hardware. It is possible right now for viruses ran in virtual machines to sometimes escape into the host computer. This means we might very well be able to 'ascend' to the next reality up somehow. It also means that we should be careful about simulating our own realities, since they may be able to escape into ours.

What are you waiting for talking to us? Koolaid parties aren't hard to find.

i mean to get where he's got, you have to be a little crazy so this is basically expected

>it means if we are a simulation, whatever is running our simulation is also almost certainly a simulation
No. It is not "almost certainly" a simulation because the existence of infinite simulations does not follow from the existence of one simulation.

You've taken crackpot to a new level. None of your logic is sequential. You are just layering assumptions on top of assumptions.

>vox
>popsci
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The sort of people who think this man is a demigod are the sort of people who read those godawful sites. Also, the argument is flawed and based on conjecture.

>mfw wannabe scientists say philosophy is shit but gobble up this poor excuse of a philosophical argument because it came from ebin scientist meme-man.

Watch the youtube video buttnipple. He says what the article on popsci and vox says he says

>not getting the fact that I was attacking the sorts of sites that report on this crap and their readership rather than the accuracy of their reporting.

>Also, the argument is flawed and based on conjecture.

That's not a rebuttal. You don't even know what the supporting reasoning is and are just being a contrarian because Elon Musk is a popular public figure.

It is not conjecture that intelligent, evolved beings create computer simulations for research purposes. Humans have already done that. Given that much, the rest follows unavoidably unless you're a creationist or something, who believes we are alone in the universe and always have been/will be.

...

>the rest follows unavoidably
This is the flaw in the argument I was talking about. The rest does not follow unavoidably. Just because we will eventually manage to create simulations indistinguishable from reality doesn't mean that we are living in such a simulation created by another advanced civilisation.
>It is not conjecture that intelligent, evolved beings create computer simulations for research purposes.
Yes you're right but it is conjecture to say that we are part of a simulation created by such a civilisation.

kek

>instructions not clear, dick go caught in a syntax error

>the existence of infinite simulations does not follow from the existence of one simulation.

It pretty much does. While certainly its possible there's only one simulation, that would be quite peculiar, because if a simulation such as this is possible then nested simulations are also possible

i think he's aware that it's a theory and he's not advertising it as the truth

Sure, they're possible but that doesn't make them certain.

>theory
You mean conjecture.

no I mean theory.

But given the nature of this, if its possible its almost certainly true.

The real question is whether or not its 'really' possible. When i first heard about this idea some years ago i figured that there well could be some hard rule that prevents us from simulating a reality perfectly, like.. the amount of energy required to do that would be equal to the amount of energy in the entire universe already, or something.

But if we are able to create a reality simulation which simulates reality and creates intelligence out of the base rules, which in turn makes its own simulation, then id say the odds of us being the 'real' reality ourselves is incredibly slim. Not impossible of course, but very slim.

Well then you're wrong.

> I'm to dumb to understand their theory which means it's not a theory.
ok. let me know when you finish highschool. Meanwhile I'll be watching more Elon Musk

one would have to wonder what would be the point?

to harvest information from the simulation? Seems like it would be useless outside the simulation.

To distract us from an unpleasant reality? Then suspecting it's a simulation would seem to detract from the goal.

to teach people things in a risk-free environment? You'd inevitably have trouble convincing them that the 'real' reality isn't also a simulation.

Just because it can be done? It's a good enough reason to try a thing, but not a real reason to persist with it.

>everyone who disagrees with me is a high schooler
> Meanwhile I'll be watching more Elon Musk
top kek

>to dumb
>to
>saying that someone dumb is an argument

Maybe to try and figure out if they are themselves a simulation by seeing if its possible to simulate.

someone is dumb*

You are dumb for failing to comprehend a single argument. Let me know when you're out of highschool.

As far as why they're conducting a simulation with us all in it, I just had this argument with some bros. I don't see the point in letting us all live lavishly if it's fake. Surely they'd have some meaning for us and would realistically experiment on us at will to get whatever it is they want. They'd be so advanced that a simulation should be easy to complete, and thus pointless.

>I'll continue to say that you're dumb without actually demonstrating why you're dumb and what you supposedly misunderstand the argument
Maybe when you're done sucking Musks dick you can actually make a proper reply.

Has it not occurred to anyone that its quite egotistical to assume that if we were living in a simulation, that we were actually even the point of the simulation?

We could just be some intelligence that sprung up off somewhere due to the simulation being a perfectly simulated universe.

The simulators might not even know or care about us. They could just be trying to get a perfectly accurate map of their own universe beyond what is observable to them by simulating it exactly from the starting conditions

This is just a rehashed version of the argument "it is very arrogant of humans to think that they are the only being in the universe and that they are the centre of a world created by a supreme being."

how does your idea explain consciousness then ?
if you're self-aware in a simulation, then it makes you a simluatee, which means you are intentionally put in there for whatever reason.

I can see that it's possible but not likely. Living in a simulation capable of replicating billions of conscious minds is only something that will be capable as we approach the singularity. So it presumes the existence of biological life first, then makes assumptions about how many super advanced biological life forms would create multiple simulations.

The argument is completely retarded.
You don't even need any empirical evidence to show how retarded and irrelevant this opinion is.

If you're willing to consider the possibility you should also probably consider the likelihood that you're the only consciousness in the simulation.

This is not a point you can argue using a scientific mindset.
It's pure philosophy.

If you are gonna claim that the universe is simulated, why stop there?
Why not go all the way, you're already denying physicalism, what's the harm in throwing a bit of good old fashioned solipsism into the mix?
After all, it should be much easier to simulate the "universe" that exists for one person instead of a virtually limitless number.

You really might as well go on and claim that only you exist, that you are just a spirit being deceived by the D's evil demon.

>philosopher says that reality might just be an illusion/simulation
>"top kek. What a retarded thing to say. Why are philosophers so shit and so useless?" " as an engineer, let me say that all metaphysical arguments are stupid, unscientific, and useless"
>ebin science meme man says reality might just be an illusion/simulation
>"I fucking love science!" "as an engineer, let me suck your dick, Musk. Please, I already have my standard issue knee pads"

>philosopher says that reality might just be an illusion/simulation
The thing is, the argument never really goes anywhere, because the philosopher realizes how pointless this debate it is.

Philosophers deal in many things that are virtually useless to the uninitiated, much like mathematicians. But they understand and accept that.

Physicists cannot do that.
They pretend that their research on subatomic particles and space and this simulation garbage is valuable.

because ?

What does assuming it is possible to simulate the universe imply?
If you can simulate the universe, you can also simulate something much smaller.

Such as a world a person is perceiving, like in .

What does considering this to be a possibility mean?
You have to consider this if you consider the "universe simulation" idea.

That's part of the reason why I have so much respect for philosophy and pure math majors (I'm a physics major myself). They do what they do purely out of love for it without any pretense of relevance or importance.

It would imply that the laws of physics that govern the entire universe works very similarly to computer simulations which would make us think about reality in a whole new way. I don't know why would anyone think this would be a retarded idea.

This is not a new claim or idea, and has been gaining traction on the Internet for the past year and half, not to mention the entire history of humanity.

Secondly, it's RETARDED to assume that we aren't in a simulation of some sort. It's absolutely mind boggling that some of you think this is some kind of crazy idea. If you think it's possible we aren't in one, please take note of the fact that you are of below average intelligence.

"Proving it" doesn't mean anything as well, just as you can't "prove" empiricism in total in the first place.

For someone say with authority that we aren't in a simulation blows my fucking mind. Aren't you supposed to be intellectuals?

What else does it imply?
It implies that a simulation of any individual's sensory input MUST be possible.
If this is possible, you MUST assume that it is true.
If this is true, as you have to assume, then any evidence you find if favor of your simulation may not exist at all.

The entire thing is self-defeating.

There is a difference between the layman use of the word theory, and the concept of a scientific theory in academia.

Often religious people confuse the two, so let me explain.

Layman theory:
A hypothesis, assertion, conjecture or idea.

Scientific theory:
A hypothesis that has been tested, either empirically or analytically [ie; it is epistemologically congruent].

I'm with you.
Not matter the number of "presumption" arguments used, without empirical foundation or analytical congruency, it's just a house of cards.
[No, I'm a different user just commenting]

Why hasn't this thread been closed since?

Because /b/ doesn't understand the argument from ignorance because /b/ is retarded... and /b/ keeps trying to repurpose the argument.

It is a simulacrum at best.

If you approach the totally unknown, then you have to try and work out what seems most plausible to create a foundational assumption to then try and disprove. Disproving things is how we create knowledge.

With out any modifying information to alter our understanding of the probability of any of the possible answers, we by default just assume that every conceivable scenario that is not self contradicting has an equal chance at being true. The potential instances of a simulation being started in an already existant universe seems higher to me than the potential of a 'real' universe being created, since the simulation running is proposed to be a property of a universe, in which one universe could potentially support many simulations ran by many different people. It is a reasonable assumption then to say that if a simulation is possible, the ratio of simulated universes to 'real' universes is greater than 1:1.

How do you explain consciousness in a non simulated universe? In a perfect reality simulation the exact same process that explains your consciousness in a 'reality', can be used, only instead of 'real' whatevers you what to attribute it to, its simulated whatevers.

There is no reason to say that an AI can not be just as self aware as we are if it was simulated perfectly, particularly if it was simulated by actually simulating with perfect accuracy the way the matter and energy it is constructed from in 'reality' behaves.

Keep in mind i dont think we are a virtual ant farm. While its possible we ourselves could be the purpose of the simulation as musk proposes, i think that it makes more sense that the entire universe is a simulation, and we are just a byproduct of it, and everything is exactly how we thought it was only all the forces and particles and rules are simulations. 'nature' and the simulation are one in the same.

Seeing his track record this is probably gonna blow up in his face.

> then any evidence you find if favor of your simulation may not exist at all
I don't know how you jumped to this at all

Nick Bostrom (or some other Scandinavian philosopher I am not sure about the name) already has an article about it and Musk is just repeating these arguments.

If your perception is being controlled by an outside entity, an "evil demon", any evidence you get from observation may be false, because you can not know if the world you see is actually that way or just an image projected into your "brain", I'm reluctant to even call it that here, by the evil demon.

but by that route, you automatically accept the notion of simulated reality...It's irrelevant whats out there to the argument, since the world you're living in is not real.

See this is the core of my entire argument.

To show that it is true, you must entertain the possibility that it is true.
If it's possible, then you have to act under the assumption that you are being deceived by the demon.
If you are being deceived by the demon you cannot find any evidence, because the demon may have planted fake evidence to mislead you.

Even considering that the universe may be a simulation makes it impossible to empirically prove it.

This is what I mean when I say the entire concept is self-defeating.

I didn't say there was any way to prove it. And it would be pretty scary if there was. But the simulated reality argument investigates the similarity between the mechanics on how computer simulations work and how reality works. Just as bits and bytes, 1s and 0s, reality have quantized matter like electrons that weight identical to each other anywhere in the universe. All the matter follow mathematical rules when they interact with each other and so.

Ofcourse just because we can simulate reality accurately to a degree, it doesn't make reality a simulation, but it shows that the mechanics and rules of a simulation is the same as the rules of reality, which has implications of another system that is governed by maths, and helps us to understand the patterns of reality through the patterns of our simulations.

Although it would be pretty amazing to discover any glitches if there are any but ofcourse this is a bonus and again, I admit it would be pretty scary to encounter one.

>Vox
>popsci

Kill yourself.

>I didn't say there was any way to prove it
If there is not there is no reason to bother thinking or talking about it in the scientific framework, is there?
Science is based on empiricism.

If reality is a computer simulation, then what kind of computer is it? The most powerful computers we know of are the biological kind. The human brain. It's more accurate to say life is a dream. Maybe that's not edgy enough though.

That's the point though isn't it? You can't make statements of this sort or apply scientific methodology and logic to a phenomenon that lies outside of all known reality. I don't think that means you stop doing science altogether it simply means that the rules you operate with loosen. To a real scientist all things are possible until proven otherwise; Demiurge included.

Row row row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily merily merrily
Life is but a dream...

>The thing is, the argument never really goes anywhere, because the philosopher realizes how pointless this debate it is.

>implying dismantling preconceived notions of what reality is and isn't doesn't improve general quality of life if one knows how to practice it

shh, lab monkey