Prove we don't live in a simulation

There´s no way candlejack could exist in a simu

Really activated my almonds

Please don't bring this stupid candle jack meme ba

There's like, shitloads of unnecessary parameters which are being simulated when there's no need for that.

You guys are stupid if you think candlejack is tha

You are a faggot.

If we live in a simulation, what's the point of being aware of that? How can we potentially exploit this?

you can't simulate time because it's infinitely divisible

It's refreshing to see people candlejack'ing corre

Solipsism is inconsequential. There are still phenomenon before me and I am experiencing them in some capacity. Whether or not it is """"fake"""" does not change that.

come on little babby hit me with a harder one

Your reality is part of an experiment. Nothing is real.

Nick Bostrom's simulation meme relies on assuming video game-like simulations as opposed to some sort of brute-force physics simulation of every single particle in existence, to reduce the computing power needed to simulate our universe, and to make the whole thing more believable. Of course, such a simulation would have noticeable glitches, which he acknowledges, and only addresses by saying that there would be some AI overseeing our thoughts, and correcting things when it detects that a human has detected a glitch in the simulation, which sounds a bit hand-wavy to me. Of course, we could still be living in an actual brute force simulation, but the "simulation argument" is a bit overrated in my opinion, and it does not help that memes, like Musk, fell for it.

>There are still phenomenon before me
prove it

I can't wake up

I'm witnessing them. That's all I can say. I can't prove whether these phenomenon are real or of my own creation-- but they still occur before me and I am reacting/rationalizing them.

isn't that what the bible says?

that an omnipotent creator basically made an environment and did a big experiment with consciousness and free will?

What is the candlejack meme? Is it like sniper meme where you-

A better response: There's no need to prove it since any ontological arguments are, in a unprovable concept, false. The better question is if why the doubt exists, and on a phenomenological aproach, if the doubt is something really necessary. Pro-tip: It's not.

It's a philosophical question, not physical. Philosophy only asks questions that you cannot prove absolutely.

What OP is asking is your thoughts on the matter, for and against.

I did give my thoughts on the matter, user. The doubt on itself it's something unecessary. Existence by itself it's existence, and There's no possível way we van even discuss if it's a simulation or not. It's just false.

The answer is not false. The question is loaded. All realities are a simulation. As above so below.

Nonsense. It's incredibly complex and interesting question. Think more about it.

I'll give you examples that relate to simulation-hypothesis
>When we create AI, is it conscious?
>Could you yourself enter a simulation with drugs/brain-devices and you couldn't tell the difference?
>Where are we in our sleep?
>What does our pet dog think about us?
>When we come and destroy ant colony, what do they think of us?
>What kind of system in our Universe ensures that all physical laws are followed? If it were a computer it would require spectacular processing power even to simulate one drop of water perfectly
>Does our Universe have infinite resolution?
>Are there any ways to oppose physical laws? Like break them with some device or alter them?
>Why are the physical laws tuned just at these values? For example, why is the ratio io
>Is there multiverse?
>Could there be advanced alien species that observes us constantly while being absolutely invisible to us (their observers wouldn't couple with our known four fundamental forces)
>How can we ever know of a system that there is not MORE to the system that is just invisible to us, because everything we do gets processed through human mind?
>When we die, do we feel time? If not, are we instantly reborn or is the reformation of our identity an event with a zero possibility?

Yes agreed. Relegating all works through derivatives of the common 5 senses is short sighted. If one does a bit of research and you find the human form is designed like a living antenna. There is a cosmic or perhaps galactic "song" and living is matter dancing to its beat. Consciousness is information processing plus novelty. Novelty is new combinations of information ergo dark energy expansion. The fact that there is more dark energy than scientists can account for is a good sign that there is a shit ton of intelligent life out there.

>dumb newfags who say Candlejack because they say it on ED trying to fit in
Are you all fucking retards? Does he go on your computer, solve the captcha and submit your unfinished p

>costumer support
Aw shit there's nobody to help me with my costumes!

Basically yea. Genesis was a shitshow

WAKE ME UP INSIDE

>prove a negative
Lrn2proof fgt pls

cogito ergo sum

prove you're not a faggot

>implying proof of negatives is not possible or not required
hope you're trolling but I think that's giving too much benefit of the doubt

>no evidence at all to suggest anything of the sort, the concept is purely just making up shit, the exact same thing as religion
>prove my religion to me Veeky Forumscucks
???
Leave.

If the "outside world" can affect the simulation (i.e. the simulation has sensors) then it is not really a similation and just a part of the outside world.
To elaborate, you could say you are just a simulation running on your brain but because things outside your brain influence you that doesn't make sense.
If the simulation is completely closed off then the matter if it is a simulation or not is completely 100% irrelevant.

but we do have evidence.
We have run simulations on our computers.

How about the existence of irrational numbers as an inseparable part of our reality? There's no way a simulation could contain an infinite amount of information.

...

this guy get's it. Try simulating π to the last number. Oh that's right, you can't, because there is no last number...

not an argument

This sounds retarded but I am too brainlet to disprove, someone help?

if you can't even disprove it, maybe it's not that retarded.

U CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN

NUFFIN

Pi doesn't exist, and your inability to calculate it demonstrates the limitations of the system you inhabit

where does our universe store the "information" of all the irrational numbers?

You cannot observe anything from the inside out unless it has a reflection.

>yfw existence itself is a reflection of its outside

It's possible to simulate a universe
simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

>biocentrism has been proven
You act as if it's an uncontroversial fact.

Also, with the high ratio of anti matter to matter, I'll implore you to ponder if we're not in fact the strange ones

Intelligent design is retarded. Just google any criticisms of it. Any creationist idea is unfounded.

What is your definition of something "existing"?
Pi and e, both irrational, are parts of some of the most fundamental laws of nature. They help define the existence of most things. So how come they don't exist to you?
Pi can't be calculated accurately. I guess you can define a number system that has Pi as a rational number, but it can define all of the irrational numbers as rational.

It doesn't need to store irrational numbers precisely, it can easily round it to several duodecillion significant values or more and we'd be none the wiser

It doesn't have to store it anywhere. That's the whole difference between a simulation and a reality. A reality doesn't have to "define" anything, it just contains it (without falling into tautology).

Have you googled any arguments for it though?

But some of those irrational numbers exist in fundamental laws of nature. If they were somewhat rounded (even to a huge decimal place), over time those laws of nature would start to act chaotically.

>over time
How does just over a trillion years sound?
Our universe isn't infinite, so the numbers wouldn't have to be either

>irrational numbers
>implying

I waited way too long for the door to close.

It literally does not matter, you play the game by the rules and with the cards you are dealt either way.

this

That is literally what I've read though, and he clearly says that it's not possible to simulate an entire universe down to the subatomic level, the best you can do is trick the people inside the simulation into thinking they are in a real universe. I mean it's pretty fucking obvious that you can't just disassemble a couple planets and then properly simulate an entire universe down to the smallest particles, that would be like simulating an i7 on a pentium 3 to have a faster PC.

pi is something we created, an attempt at describing something we observe
the fact that we still call it pi should tell you something about how well we understand it

holy shit

user my neurons just overloaded

he made a case against irrational numbers you brainlet.

How can a simulation store infinite irrational numbers?

Protip, it can't. Irrational numbers don't exist thus our reality is a representation of a finite simulation.

But real-time rendering is possible. Like in advanced video games, not everything is always loaded, but rendered as you approach it

Interesting. It's like how perfect circles do not exist in nature because that would mean pi exists in real life and not just in written math.

The Bible doesn't say anything about it

The biggest problem for people arguing against a simulation is that they forget hardware constraints don't matter.

If you are the subject being simulated then no amount of "simulation slow down" or "speed up" will ever be visible to you. Time units are how you measure reality so it taking more "time" outside doesn't mean time inside slows.

You could simulate the universe on a pentium 3 if you were okay with waiting fucking trillions of years for each tick. But for the people inside the simulation it would appear constant time.

it's a big book. maybe you just missed out on that part.

With how low the rate is that life forms and survives on planets in space it's more likely we're in a simulation of the .00000001% that got to the point in scientific progress where they had the technology to simulate life.

It's obvious why we don't see aliens everywhere, nothing exists yet outside our the outer limits of our solar system. Everything is just a holographic projection and wont be finished rendering until we reach it- but we will never reach it, because the human race annihilated itself in 1956AD.

An alien civilization 28 million years into the future (the present) rebuilt us from what evidence and archaeological record remained on our burned out planet. The genius who managed to recompute us into this simulation is now under heavy scrutiny by his governmental and various galactic ethics committees.

He claims we are sentient and deserve to live, be freed, have a second chance at being a species.

They claim even if that were the case, and it isn't since we are just machines in a computer a distant and incomplete memory of our past, given what they know about our history we will just destroy each other again, and maybe their own kind if allowed to exist in a corporeal form.

He has tried entering the simulation numerous times to plant sufficient clues so we can change our ingrained pattern of behavior, so that we might pass the test for survival. Each time he has failed to make us more peaceful and cooperative. Even his gifts of technology, which were supposed to be used to generate endless energy and feed and shelter all of human kind were turned into weapons.

One day we will understand our situation intitely and how it works, at that point we could hack our way into the main system and project ourselves into reality and can save ourselves from the simulation.

Shit argument as whoever runs the simulation would also have to have that probability, and then you'll assume they're also in a simulation and then whoever simulates them etc

You're not supposed to put the hyphen, you brai

You're dumb as fuck

...

> Impliying this simulation runs in a digital environment
> Falls to the simulation meme

You didn't even say candlejack you mon

Yes, and saving on processing power by making a video game-like simulation leads to a glitchy simulation. If we lived in a video game, we would have a quadrillion ways to prove it. Btw, I addressed this in my original post too. If you ever played a video game, you know how limited video game engines are, by their nature.

The simulation could still be precise enough that we could never tell it apart from an actual infinitely precise reality, because the difference would be below the measurement errors. It would be interesting to devise an experiment that would work reliably in an actual reality, but would have accumulating errors in a simulation that would produce retarded unpredictable behaviour, if such an experiment is possible.

Yes I thought so too... God aliens using digital processors lol. It doesn't even have to be one or the other in fact. This could be the "real" existence and still be a simulation. Matter is under constant vibratory influence from somewhere, either the milky way supermassive black hole or something grander. That influence determines much of how matter interacts with each other. Who or whatever could be playing our reality out like a sad song, no less real than anything else.

>rare Earth hypothesis motherfucker

There are some massive assumptions being made in Drake's equation. First you must prove that Earth isn't one of a tiny handful of civilizations that exist in the universe now. Sure, there will be plenty of opportunities in the future for advanced life to evolve but the universe is still young. The metallicity necessary for complex solar systems only began existing about 4 billion years ago and it took more than that long to form life on Earth (our sun is unusually high in metallicity)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

Convert it to standard form.

Prove that simulationism has even a shred of consequence

Where does reality contain all real numbers?

>hardware constraints don't matter
They do, though. If the simulating universe is similar to ours, the slowdown would be so significant that you could barely simulate the first second of our universe before the simulating universe dies a heat death, not to mention that there would be no incentive for anyone to run such a slow simulation. And if the simulating universe has different laws of physics, then computing power is not an issue at all, since we can just assume that its laws allow much more powerful computers to be built. Also, you can use tricks to save computing power, but you can't use tricks to save space. For example, if you can turn a planet into a computer that has N bits of storage capability, then simulating a planet of that size would also require at least N bits of storage, so you would need to turn at least as much matter into computers as the amount you want to simulate.

The simulating universe isn't relevant as you can't interact with it.

It is quite relevant, since it is mathematically impossible to build a computer capable of simulating our entire universe within our universe (and therefore the universe doing the simulation can't be similar to ours), however it may be possible to build way more powerful computers in a different type of universe, that would be capable of simulating our entire universe. I never talked about interacting with the simulating universe, just about its limitations on computing power.

I just remember watching freakazoid when I was a kid. I don't know how candlejack became a me

What's a candleja

Woah, I remember watching a movie in the late 1990's that was based on this assumption. Can't remember the name though...

this desu