What is the likelihood that we are living in a simulation...

What is the likelihood that we are living in a simulation? What consequences would that have for us if it were true and we could prove it?

Other urls found in this thread:

backreaction.blogspot.sk/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1501294753555.webm
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1501294871986.webm
youtu.be/dGyGYN3YNIk
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Why would anyone care whether we are in a simulation or not, we already know that we might have free will but no will to change anything or even have the necessary power to control anything.
Just chill and do some math

Somewhere between 0% and 100%.

As for consequences... None so long as we don't find out - otherwise, pic related.

Why would I ever have wanted to join a simulated reality where I am not experiencing hedonistic fulfillment to the max.

If it was forced upon me, then by who and why? And where did they come from?

>pic
I would read that book/watch that movie/tv series

It's like an AI apocalypse from the other side.

>What is the likelihood that we are living in a simulation?
100%. "Simulation" doesn't mean literally computer simulation like the move The Matrix, but rather that the laws of physics aren't real and they are made to look that way.

To create a simulation you would pretend that things you can't control are things that you can control and vice versa to give off the impression that you are a god of some sort. This is an idea that we are already familiar with in greek mythology.

Now consider the following scenario:
Suppose if I were to refer to 'speed of feeling' as the 'speed of light', because "light" can mean both depending on whether one is speaking literally or figuratively, because you can't control how people feel or the fact that light travels infinitely fast, but you can control the outcome of experiments that would seek to measure the speed of light, thus creating the impression that there is a such thing as the theory of relativity (essentially communism on a cosmic scale).

>What consequences would that have for us if it were true and we could prove it?
Escape.

Pretty low.

backreaction.blogspot.sk/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html

>It's impossible to simulate this universe in this universe therefore we aren't simulated
What kind of argument is this? Why would you assume that the universe simulating ours has the same the same constraints as our universe?
I don't think he understood the simulation argument

It's unlikely we are living in a simulation because of recursive problems with higher simulations, as each simulation would be simulating a simulation into infinity. How would these simulations be powered?

The truth is absolute, certain things are unconditional, and the universe is infinite.

Low. Less than 50%, probably a lot less.
If the real world dedicated fraction x of itself to a simulation then any time you look at a bit of information 1-x is not involved in simulation, x is used in simulation but you're on the reality side, x is in the simulation and you're on the simulation side. Chance that you're simulated is x/(1+x).
If we could prove we're sims then people would start acting like they're in GTA.

Doesn't really matter. If we aren't, k cool, if we are, what are we gonna do about it? Nuthin. Besides I can't tell the difference anyways.

It is not something Veeky Forums would be willing to tell you, but we are experiencing the past as if it was now, but it is not. Many years ago, scientists created a succesful AI, but the AI understood that humans were too imperfect, so instead of trying to improve us, the AI created a simulation, in which our human imperfections can bring no harm to us our the environment we depend on. Is this true? All anons will tell you this is not, and it cannot be proven because we are in a simulation.
You might think I am joking, and that is better, because there is no way out of this simulation to me to me to me.

Let's make simulation inside this instance of propable simulation, just to be sure it is a simulation and live just there.

Flatland for Weeaboos explains what's wrong with that article:

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1501294753555.webm
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1501294871986.webm

...Granted, physical dimensions don't actually work this way, but hey, keep the kids dreaming.

Zero. Intelligent design is garbage.

How different is the big bang which is basically just unintelligent design?

Because we can observe it's likely the universe as we know it happened without cause, and there is no evidence anyone designed it.

Well, if an omniscient and omnipotent being was involved, it clearly didn't design the universe with life in mind. If you could make physics work however you want, you wouldn't create a universe for life where is so rare and so much of it is hostile to it - anymore than one of us humans would try to make an aquarium, and fill it with lava.

But if it was a less fantastical being, who didn't have much control over the result, and/or life is but a minor side effect of the intended purpose, or it was intended to simulate a universe that once happened "naturally", then that eliminates most of that counter argument. Even if, yes, we've still no evidence that it has a designed purpose, beyond any we may assign to it.

From the same Chinese cartoon:
youtu.be/dGyGYN3YNIk

>If you could make physics work however you want, you wouldn't create a universe for life where is so rare and so much of it is hostile to it
>implying you know God's motives

>prove it

Sure, like you would probe a virtual machine by fuzzing it's instruction set in order to see if it's simulated. Find a way to start fuzzing properties of the universe

>it clearly didn't design the universe with life in mind
I r saying, the state of the universe rather suggests that life was not its primary goal. If the omnibeing designer has some other purpose in mind, or life is just a small part of that purpose, or if this was designed to be similar to some other randomized universe, yeah, then it works. Granted, that's before you get into the various other problems that crop up with a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenign.

How do you know it is not a self-reliant system?
And that it possesses as much life as possible for a self-reliant system?
Also, there is an abundance of potential life in the universe. Millions of habitable planets in our galaxy.

It's self contained and self reliant, so far as we can tell.

But if you're omnipotent, and want life, you don't need to rely on a self-reliant system to create it. Certainly not one where 99.9999999999% (followed by a lot more 9's), of it is deadly to life as we know it, and the remainder seems to spawn life considerably less than once in a blue moon.

If you're not omnipotent, on the other hand, then that's another story.

Yes, I think God intended to create a self-reliant system. Think about it. Which is a superior creation : a robot that walks on its own or a puppet that requires strings to be pulled by it's creator. The self-autonomous robot could be seen as more brilliantly designed.

Also, I think the universe is fine-tuned for life, with countless potential universes without the possibility for life, and only a limited amount that can produce it. It is a fraction similar to what you spoke of.

Also, all the dead lifelessness could be seen as an essential part to producing life, or as a by-product of such a process.

I strongly agree with you. Even a Japanese animation series would be fantastic. This user had such a brilliant idea, I hope he reads this message, and go on to monetize it.

If an omnipotent being wanted to create life, it wouldn't need a system to do so. Life would just be. There wouldn't be this universe made almost entirely of highly radioactive empty space nor would life be procedurally generated in various tiny corners of it. Life itself would be a self-reliant system, unlikely to be wiped out by wandering cosmic golf balls.

Even if such a being wanted life to face some adversity and have space to play in, this is far too much for that singular purpose, and the vast majority of it is forever unreachable. Though, I suppose, if it wanted to make sure there was no evidence we arrived by design, it all would combine to be a good way to mask it.

We're not, we have a conscious, that's a direct prove that we're not living in a simulation.

if we were living in a simulation they wouldnt want to us to post about simulation possibility therefore a chance to overpower them somehow?

We're both making assumptions about an Omniscient Deities intentions, and I gave a plausible explanation for why there is so much lifelessness.

What if your thoughts are simulated.

It's not about intentions, but ability. Or, alternatively, the primary intention being something other than the creation of life and beyond our mere mortal comprehension.

What precludes a simulation from being conscious?

What we have under control cannot be simulated because a simulation would control what we are doing
Because, like a video games, the characters do not have a conscious, they are simply simulated, they cannot control what they are doing, the computer basis their actions on randomness. Our conscious is not random

>Because, like a video games, the characters do not have a conscious, they are simply simulated, they cannot control what they are doing, the computer basis their actions on randomness. Our conscious is not random.
Which would seem more an argument against consciousness than for. NPCs are slaved to a strict program with a limited set of responses and not random at all, usually not even taking advantage of the random number generation the system they are running on top of is capable of. If anything, our consciousness is a lot more random.

But, in the grand scheme of things, even at the quantum level, nothing is random and everything is predetermined (if not always determinable from a human perspective). Relativity shows us that future is as fixed as the past, and in that way, we're just as fixed as an NPC running a script.

So who is to say that the NPC isn't conscious? I mean, it's probably not, given its simplicity, but cannot a sufficiently complex simulation attain consciousness?

>inb4 'define consciousness' yeah, I know, this was one of "those threads" already.

We are some alien C grade college project.
4 people team
first did physics model, which was more advanced
second did simulation, but when he saw physic model cuts had to be made, like Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle to lessen the load on mainframe
third guy designed whole universe , which was suposed to be full of alien life... but
the last guy as usual, fucked up, did only race and then fluked out, so here we have our Fermi Paradox

if particles at the lowest level of existence are binary then it is likely

what does particles being binary entail? like either everything is partciles or not? like a 50/50 probabilistic argument?

I love that pic

It's like the Star Trek episode where they discover some sort of weird mass in space, and Spock makes the observation that they, the Enterprise, and to put it bluntly all of human civilization, seemed to be acting as some sort antibody fighting to defend the universe. But then on the flip side they could have also been a virus. It's impossible to know. It's like yin and yang.

If we are a simulation, then there is no purpose? Fuck no. Our purpose is to fuck with the system, get out of it, and 3D print ourselves in their microwaves they forgot about. And that is triumphant in itself

I liked idea of hacking the simulation itself.

Just imagine world when you can control space time itself, or even manipulate laws of physics.

It would be even better than living in real world.

You didnt join the simulation. You literally have no existence other than the simulation. This isnt some bullshit matrix analogy, the atoms that make your brain only exist in some advanced computer program. Your mind is nothing but 1s and 0s.

>universe is fine-tuned for life
Probably true. We're more likely to be seeing a fine tuned universe than an untuned one.
Heaps of dead lifelessness doesn't negate the existence of what life there is.

What if we're living in someone's dream? What if the world we know as Earth or the universe as a whole is in reality the subconscious of someone being comatose?

That would make the host of the dream practically a god, and the billions of years of our universe would be in reality a few years of someone belonging in a state of coma.

but that doesn't make sense, every and each individual is not just a projection, we are all conscious and can control our actions. Can the same be said for someone within our dreams?

what if the simulation is too big snd they didn't find us yet?