consciousness. Consciousness plays a huge fucking role in the whole simulation debate. The PC games we currently have, and probably also the PC games we'll have in a hundred years have NPCs, which are just pixels on our screen and zeroes and ones in the progamm, but they dont have consciousness. So, for our reality to be a simulation, somebody would be able to simulate consciousness in the simulation. I think simulating consciousness in a simulation is doable, "Brain In A Vat - Hypothesis" for example (en.wikipedia.org
Consciousness. Consciousness plays a huge fucking role in the whole simulation debate. The PC games we currently have...
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
The next thing which is kind of illogical, if we're thinking about our reality being nothing more than a simulation is. Why are there fucking billions of stars being billions of light years away from us which have basically no impact on us? (You could say these billions of stars dont actually exist and they are also just an optical illusion to us, which was simulated by a scientist for example, But let's just say they likely do actually exist besides our on observation, because they seem to make mathematical sense and play a big role in our scientific model of the universe). So the Scientist simulated a fucking TON of stuff which he could likely just get rid off and easily just simulate our earth, which would be enough. Wouldn't the simulation be way faster and be way less likely to crash then? the thing about "crashing" is the next point. How come our simulation runs so fucking smooth that there are never any laggs or crashes? I mean its basically fucking PERFECT, (yes yes you could argue an intelligent civilisation would also be able to do this, making such a perfect simulation like our reality that it will never have any laggs or crashes) But it's very unlikely a intelligent civilisation is able to do this.
Another point is the "Simulation in the Simulation thing" If we're saying our reality is nothing more than a simulation, Is the reality running our simulation base reality then? Or is just another simulation in a simulation, which might also just be another simulation, and so on and so on, we can go like 10 layers deep, 10 layers of simulations until we reach base reality. Wouldn't it be very fucking lately that atleast one of these simulations will crash at some point? or atleast lagg? And I mean if just one of these simulations crashes or laggs at one point, every simulation behind its own will also have to crash or lagg. And since we didnt have any crashes or laggs in billions of years, (Well probably we cant even fucking know when our reality is crashing or lagging because TIME doesnt really exist outside our own mind and perception) So they reality behind our simulation just easily reboot our simulation after an lagg our crash, without us noticing, but if we're going on the point that there are actually multiple layers of simulations, and a simulation which is quite a few layers behind us crashes at some point, We are also very likely to crash, without us ever comming back or getting re-booted again. And our reality crashing hasnt happened in billions of years (Well this doesnt really matter because as I said time doesnt really exist outside our mind and perception, but I think you get the point) SO, IF we're still going on about the point that our reality is nothing more than a simulation we have to be quite close to base reality, probably we're even one of the only simulations existing. Let's say we're actually the only Simulation existing, and behind us lays >>>BASE REALITY
for what do they simulate us? pure fun? experiments? They're probably not doing any expirements because they already good enough knowledge and dont need us as simulatin if they're able to simulate such a reality as ours. So are they just simulating us for their fun, maybe as a movie? They've probably could've better now. Do they want to create pleasure? Like are they following a hedonistic philosophy and try to create as much pleasure as possible? (Read this wikipedia for more information about the pleasure-machine en.wikipedia.org
But do they really get anything out of that? does that serve them anything? They could've done way better simulations than our reality then, we got fucking wars, child rapists, and so on and son. Another problem is how Free Will is possible in a simulation. I mean even without our reality being a simulation we got this fucking problem of Free Will which seems to be so unsolvable, so unsolvable and mind-boggling that its very likely that we dont have any free will. OKAY IF WE STILL FUCKING say that we're living in a simulation we would have to ask ourself the questions, why we're being simulated, and why the simulation is happening just like this, and not a nicer world with more pleasure and without any pain and disorders.
what's it like being 13 years old
You could philosoph a lot about why our simulation was done like this and not differently or why we're being simulated at all. AT THE END it seems to have a lot of logical errors if we're going on about our reality being truly nothing more than a simulation. We cant know if we're a simulation our base reality, and we will never know. So there's really no point discussing but because of the arguments I mentioned above I doubt we're a simulation, or maybe we are, BUT I DOUBT THAT THE CHANCES OF OUR REALITY BEING BASE REALITY IS ONLY ONE IN A BILLION!!!
Dude please stop talking to yourself, your "points" are fucking shit bud.
Just refute my argument if you seriously think that we live in a simulation.
And a lot of people on Veeky Forums do actually seem to think that we live in a simulation.
BTW this was meant to be a response to
youtube.com
>it's a philosophy thread
>our reality
kek. first of all understand special relativity
going further...
There is no such thing as a subject independent reality—each person has their own unique cognitive mapping and what we call real is arrived at socially. Anything beyond that is a cognitive mechanism.
Take your pedophile cartoons back to .
the problem i think with the computational complexity argument against simulation is that the physics of the next universe up the chain (there may be more than one) are impossible to know. who knows if things we take for granted like conservation of mass/energy, thermodynamics, entropy etc even exist? it may be possible for there to be a reality where everything is infinitely easy, in which case the complexity of any "under-universes" is a complete non-issue. from our standpoint simulating a universe of this scale (even assuming that there are some computational shortcuts like abstracting things that aren't being actively observed) is hard, but who knows what bizarre physics or medium the simulation is operating on?
of course it's all conjecture, but the way physics behaves always struck me as bizarre, and especially how very small things behave differently when they are observed or not observed. that always seemed to me to be emblematic of a 'programmer's shortcut' if the universe exists on it's own you would think that it would have no need to be so strange in the realm of the very small and very fast.
...
...
...
>And a lot of people on Veeky Forums do actually seem to think that we live in a simulation.
Welcome to the internet. They pretend to be flat-earthers too. Some of them are underage (like you), most of them are trolls.
...
> double slut meme
> current year
You don't even have a good working definition of consciousness that can allow it to be known whether or not those NPCs and the computer running them is conscious unless you hinge that definition on the physical existence of a brain which then completely invalidates your simulation argument.
Lag is something someone outside experiences when trying to interact with the internal workings of a simulation, it can't be perceived when you are trapped in the simulation.
Maybe god does have lag and that is why everything created seems like such an incoherent clusterfuck and is constantly falling apart.
That doesn't have to be the case if only having one slit means the probability wave has already collapsed because its the only choice.
How do you know how many servers your simulation has been tried on or what version you are even on at this point, you don't even know how you died yet that could have calculated trillions of cycles ago, maybe its even why you had that weird dream about it.
> I dont know anything about wave-function collapse : the post
>it's another anime watching kid philosophy thread
Literally kill yourself
>could've done better
People have made better simulations than Runescape, yet hundreds of thousands of people still feel compelled to play Runescape, in fact, people still play the shit out of Diablo II because its comfy even though its so terrible and outdated.
>it can't be perceived when you are trapped in the simulation.
Correct.
>Maybe god does have lag and that is why everything created seems like such an incoherent clusterfuck and is constantly falling apart.
Non sequitur.
You're all dumb.
The flaw in all your points is thinking they are simulating us specifically. They will most likely be simulating the entire universe(i.e. All particles and all the forces acting on them. Concioussness emerges from that, so no extra computing power is needed, its just another piece of space with particles interacting). We just happen to exsist in it. So will billions of other concious beings probably.
Except it follows directly from the premise, dummy.
Lag is something that cause a gamer to perceive delay which creates an experience of dysfunction.
If creation were a game, then god, is the gamer, and any resulting dysfunction in the experience could only be blamed on either the gamer's incompetence or the gamer's lag, so I was giving god the benefit of the doubt it blaming all the incoherence on lag.
>If creation were a game, then god, is the gamer, and any resulting dysfunction in the experience could only be blamed on either the gamer's incompetence or the gamer's lag, so I was giving god the benefit of the doubt it blaming all the incoherence on lag.
What, input lag caused him to fuck up what he intended to do? That's one hell of a silly analogy. He should have written an interface that isn't garbage (separate thread!) and/or scripted the big bang prior to starting the simulation rather than trying to click on shit during stuttering like an impatient child.
The benefit of the doubt would still be incompetence. Am I a smarter programmer than hypothetical God?
Third Party Interface stall and the minimally laggy script at a crucial starting point is likely what got the gamer into this pickle in the first place, but maybe you already knew that because you are channeling something else straight from the source code.
Implying someone is 'playing' the simulation.
I think it's way more likely they will just be exploring the possibility space of their own laws of physics. Just observing what happens/can happen in their own universe.
If our laws of physics are at all similar to theirs, the whole topic of simulation is bunk because the information density required to run such a simulation would form a black hole. You could scale up low-density computer components in a much "larger" universe, but the large beings inhabiting said universe would collapse under themselves unless their density was high enough to form a black hole.
Why, when most instances of people using modern interactive simulations are in games with simplified physics?
If they were doing it to simply passively analyze potential, there would be no need for anything but the raw data since the scale and volume would be indecipherable to any individual anyway.
>scientific realism
>an date
Consciousness is like a computer game you know, it is said my undergraduate courses. !!1
And why would you think there's something more than raw data what is being simulated, the image is created in your brain.
Sure, its not like simulated consciousness is the entire premise of this thread, great thinking, thanks for your valuable well thought input.
You are describing a bunch of individual processing and emergent properties of perspective that apart from being exactly the opposite of raw data would be unnecessary to understanding the objective happenstance of physical law.
yaaa
>So, for our reality to be a simulation, somebody would be able to simulate consciousness in the simulation.
Maybe the consciousness is not simulated, but simply arises in the machine used for the simulation, and the consciousness in us is simply the machine used for the simulation experiencing itself.
>But it already gets kind of complicated if we're talking about simulating fucking 7 billion consciousnesses
7 billion consciousnesses does not require infinite computing power, so it's something that's conceivable to do. Who's also to say that all of them are being simulated at the same time? It's pretty ignorant to assume that the time we experience is absolute and is running paralell with the time in the universe simulating ours.
>So the Scientist simulated a fucking TON of stuff which he could likely just get rid off and easily just simulate our earth, which would be enough.
Why do you assume the life on earth is at the center of simulators purpose? All stars and galaxies in the universe would be as much part of the simulation as our planet, along with the life on those.
>Wouldn't the simulation be way faster and be way less likely to crash then?
It wouldn't require infinite computing power, and since you don't know how fast and efficient their machines used for simulating is, you can't make any assumptions. If the simulation did crash, what's to say that we even notice? There are probably backups constantly made and if it crashed it would just restore and we would go on as nothing happened.
Backups would make nested simulations safe as well.
You're assuming the things you accociate as "bad" in this universe is unwanted or considered bad by the simulators. They probably simulate us for reasons similar to us simulating. To get a better understanding of the world and create mathematical models based from statistics gathered from the simulation, otherwise too complicated to calculate.
>Veeky Forums
>Philosophy
...
tld mother fucking r. State your point in 200 words or less.
We don't live in a simulation. If we did, then Neo would have already saved us.
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS.
How can you argue that a reasonably complex ai in a video game wouldn't have a rudimentary form of consciousness comparable to something like an insect?
Neo is a dramatized fictional caricature of Jesus.
It doesn't have the rudimentary forms of organic and biological conditions that are always known to precipitate all verifiable forms of consciousness even in insects?
what is the criterion for consciousness?
A functional biological nervous system including a brain that can process environmental feedback.