How do you prove that this isn't real?

How do you prove that this isn't real?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
youtube.com/watch?v=T2-wd8bNJv8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

you dont

You literally can't, fucking cretin.

kill yourself to see if the simulation ends.

what happens in this scenario if you kill yourself?

Just because something isn't true does not mean that it is possible to PROVE it isn't true. This is a very basic scientific concept.

The idea of Descartes evil demon is unfalsifiable.

Why the fuck do these threads keep happening? Go away

>you will never find a bug in the simulation and break out

Summer is almost over.

System reboot, new simulation begins. Its the easiest way to keep humanity (everything outside of the brain isnt considered human seeing as everyone was augmented) going seeing as the AI cannot harm or kill humans.

>Your conscious is simulated
>A consciousness has to have created the simulation by definition, unless you believe the simulation came by about itself and that argument would condense to "you have no free will"
>for now we assume an evil genius who has a conscience is simulating yours
>but if the geniuses conscience exists it was either simulated or it just is
>believe as many regressions as you want
>well at some point the regression ends, where conscious is just a symptom of what is
>but if consciousness exists without simulation then why not you?
something like that

Prove it's real

Sorry but philosophy belongs on

Well you cant proove but Occam's razor would tell you it's unlikely. Also it's highly unlikely anyone would go through the trouble of keeping a brain alive for 50+ years just to simulate a boring life of mediocrity for said brain. Whats the motive here? I mean sure someone might want to torture the brain, or simulate some fantastically interesting life for it like an advanced sims game. If you live a fairly normal life you can assume nobody is simulating it for your brain in a jar because it would be a waste of time and energy. The far more likely scenario, which you (and the person who made that image) probably misunderstood, is that no part of the system that is you is real. The brain, its consiousness, the atoms its made of, and the entire universe those atoms exist in are nothing but 1s and 0s in the computer of a basement dwelling faggot, like yourself, who exists in a far more advnced civilization capable of such simulations.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Occam's Razor says the simulation theory is fucking retarded and you should kys

>It's another "OP rediscovers the evil demon problem" thread
Please keep this shitposting contained to At least we have the decency not to shitpost about IQ there

Sorry about your butthurt but science related threads will remain in Veeky Forums no matter how hard you cry.

Does it though? It implies higher levels of reality sure, but if we consider this universe to be the farthest extent of reality we can ever interact with, then simulation theory really simplifies the whole "how/why was the universe created?" question.

>simulation theory really simplifies the whole "how/why was the universe created?" question.
Not by a long shot. There always has to be some ultimate reality and you're just shifting the question to that one.
It's literally inconceivable that there is another reality where "how did everything come about" has a clear, straightforward answer.

"Simulated Reality" theory requires:
1. An external reality in which it's possible to run the simulation
2. An intelligent agency capable of running the simulation
3. A reason for that intelligence to run the simulation
4. An explanation why that reality isn't also a simulation (or, go to step 1 for that reality.)

"Not Simulated Reality" theory requires:
1. Us to exist.

Occam's razor.

It can't be real because reality cannot be a simulation.

Occam's razor is just a convenient rule of thumb. Many things in the universe are more complicated than you might expect if you didn't have full information.

>occam's razor says your theory is unlikely, but this other theory is way more likely
>occam's razor says your theory is unlikely too
>well, you can't use occam's razor for everything guys, i mean, come on

occams theory says youre a faggit

Only in theory.

It is obviously a drawing you tard.

if you go from machine learning though, you will see that maximum likelihood tends to minimise description lengths.

The simulation question is most certainly simple and pointless but anyways

You could eventully get out of the simulation and also enter the real world with enough technology developed...

Because the brain generating the simulation is made of the same particles that also exist on the real world (duh) so unless you are talking theres some magic separating the both realms it'd be possible to do that..

In this case it'd be better having a 3D printer connected to the simulator

Because there is no plug on that tower unit so it's clearly a fake.

who would do this?

Someone that still uses MS paint.

Can someone skip the bullshit and tell me what kind of device can simulate an infinitely big universe with an infinitely divisible timescale made up of infinitely divisible building blocks?
Answers like "might be like this" are outside the realm of science.

iPhone 8.

That's not necessary, all that's necessary is to simulate the subjective experience of a single brain (you)

>infinitely big universe
>infinitely divisible timescale
>infinitely divisible building blocks
You probably couldn't simulate THAT universe.

Of course, none of that is true for THIS universe, so who knows?

sooo everyone else is bullshit? I'm gonna need you to prove it.

Idk. It's lazy, unfalsifiable, and kind of pointless. What difference would it make. We have no idea what the point of our universe is as it stands it may as well be a video game.

Those were two different anons you responded too. I was the one who originally brought up occams razor. Im not this user however

>What difference would it make
it would make all the difference in the >world

You can't even derive a single bit of evidence that it's a legitimate theory, and you think you are going to make the leap towards attaining 4th dimensional understanding and ability

this belongs in /x/

you didn't even know the difference between our assumed reality and a simulated reality. you don't even have enough background knowledge to get involved in these discussions.

back to

science fiction

I never understood the point of this thought experiment.

It's like - yeah, okay, well, how can you prove that our universe isn't actually just an atom for some immeasurably larger universe? The scale is unreasonable, and it literally can't be "proven wrong", just like how you can't prove that there isn't a dragon sleeping in the core of the Earth.

If the point is to get people questioning reality and perception, and thinking about existentialism, I like analogies that hit a little closer to home, like:
How do you prove that you aren't the unwitting actor in some reality show, "Truman Show"-style, having your every moment filmed by unseen recorders, with everyone else you see being an actor or extra, and places like Paraguay and Botswana and Irkutsk don't even exist, because you've never been there to prove they haven't, and most celebrities are just CG and photoshop because you can't actually see or touch them to prove they're real?

Just find very unusual patterns happening in you're or our world then u can prove it

If it is a simulation in a traditional sense then you can exacerbate limits and find glitches etc in the machine. Up to and not including updates.

The very machinations of the biological brain prevent the repetition of certain patterns due to it's very "design" If you believe in such a thing and as such, once you "break" the simulation in any way shape or form you can realize it.

Some have in jest, stated that mathematicians are such men because they have out counted the admins of the matrix.

Get a concussion or some form of brain injury. If it doesn't hurt your brain, then you're in a virtual reality. A computer can make you think you're in pain on the body, but it can't damage the brain.

A man walks into a mirror room.
A man walks into a mirror.
A man walks into a.
A man walks into.
A man walks.
A man.
A room walks into a mirror man.
A room mirrors a walks into a man.
A mirror room into a man walks.
A walks into a mirror a man.
Mirror walks into a man a room.
Room walks into a mirror a man.
Room walks a a man mirror.

Funky

Brain-in-a-vat disproves itself.
It's not specifically about being a brain in a vat, it's about not being able to prove your senses are reliable. This could all be real, or you could be dreaming, or you could be a computer program, or you could be a brain in a vat getting sensory input from electric probes.
But an actual brain in a vat has the same problem. How does it know it's a brain in a vat and not a real person dreaming it's a brain in a vat? It doesn't.
Assuming you're a brain in a vat you can not justify believing you're a brain in a vat. So it's a reasoning dead end.
Assuming you're not a brain in a vat (your senses give true/accurate information about the world) you can justify believing you're not a brain in a vat so it all works out, unless your senses tell you you are a brain in a vat in which case you're in trouble.

You'd be unable to experience walking without your legs and their nervous system.

Those experiences are just electrical signals. In principle, you can simulate them with sufficiently advanced technology and recreate the exact sensation.

>Brainlet: The Post
Veeky Forumsentists who don't read philosophy are to the natural sciences what code monkeys are to computer science.

Okay but what if this?
>Your consciousness is simulated
>A consciousness has to have created the simulation, unless you believe the simulation came by about itself and that argument would condense to "you have no free will"
>for now we assume an evil genius who has a consciousness is simulating yours
>but if the geniuses consciousness exists it was either simulated or it just is
>believe as many regressions as you want
>or how about we believe... INFINITE regressions
>or rather... THE SAME REGRESSION REPEATEDLY
>because if everything we know is a simulation and not real then why should forward causation be real? through time OR through space
>maybe it's not. maybe the true nature of reality is such that causation is unnecessary and infinite regress is valid
>and if that should be the case, then why shouldn't the evil genius be you, at some point in your future?
>who's to say that you won't one day create this simulation, and this simulation will be the very same one you have been living in since you were born?
>who's to say there's not an infinite recursive "mirror effect" of causation, such that space, time, and "realness" all become infinite fractals?

...

The brain in a jar hypothesis is categorically boring.
But this is just about as close to not being boring as it gets.

Philosophy is myth

It isn't a hypothesis, since it can't be disproven.

No.

Yes it is, what I said is irrefutable fact. Philosophy is myth.

Nah dude.

Yes. Philosophy is myth.

You're myth.

If I'm myth you're delusional. Philosophy is still myth either way.

Fallacy fallacy. I win. How will you ever recover?

It's not a fallacy if it's true. If I'm a myth then that means you would be experiencing a hallucination/delusion because you are talking to me if you believe my existence to be false, and you would be paranoid of your fear of isolation that you would talk to people outside of your own realm of thinking. We know that philosophy is myth because it is fact that cannot be proven otherwise.
Philosophy is myth, QED.

I can't argue with such a rigorous proof. *tips*

Here's the deal, kid. I'm right, you're wrong. That's how it is.
Philosophy is myth.

>woosh
>nothing personal

more please

I am
You aren't
Philosophy is myth

>sorry kid, but you leave me no choice
>brrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaap!

>Epistemology (/ᵻˌpJstᵻˈmɒlədʒi/ ( listen); from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and λόγος, logos, meaning 'logical discourse') is the branch of
>>>philosophy
>concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.

>epistemology
Also myth

>you're lucky my waifu's waiting for me at home
>count your blessings, kiddo

I actually envy people like this.

chek em

who or what made the brain?

How can you prove that THIS isn't real?

Write an article. You'll be famous.

The difference is that a different reality can operate on different rules, potentially rendering the question meaningless.

0 there is no "infinite" other than time, which had a beginning
1 in the beginning, was some basic computing mechanism (e.g. lambda calculus) which eventually became self aware
2 eventually this self-aware entity decided that it wanted to create a world
3 our world was designed
4 given that there is no "infinite," our world (by necessity) has an indivisible length, and an indivisible time (e.g. plank length and plank time)
5 this first self-awre entity has incarnated into this world many times, (e.g. Jesus, Krishna, and many others were all God incarnate)
6 consider creating your own simulation, how would you design it? yes, reincarnation, spirits, Heaven, etc... are all real

As per , this would mean that all actions and events are deterministic, although we (in this world) may never be able to gain sufficient knowledge of all contributing factors to determine or predict any outcome.

youtube.com/watch?v=T2-wd8bNJv8

You can't falsify the unfalsifiable...

brainlet

Where's the logic behindof a sleeping Dragon? Simulation theory is at least based on simple logical rules.

Apply yourself next time, brainlet

>Man, simulating all these particles is chewing up a lot of processing power.

>Why don't you just approximate their behavior with some probabilistic functions?

>Won't that be really obvious?

>Nah dog, just throw in a check to see if anyone's looking too closely, then use the full model if they are. No-one will ever notice.

>You're a genius.

That doesn't happen.

What does happen, however, is that the state of all particles is only updated as they are "needed," the needed condition occurs when someone (i.e. God) is observing the universe.

Life must be so simple and easy in mothers trailer. They truly are living life on easy mode,

you don't, it's probably true since our universe 'conspires' to be calculable
>not infinite in size
>finite in resolution & falls back on a RNG (quantum mechanics)

>Rather than just simulating simple, deterministic behaviour, let's simulate every possible path and assign complicated probability distributions to decide which path is taken
>Yeh, that's much easier

>u can't kno nuffin
has it really come to this?

It may drive gullible people to mass suicide, which could be argued to be a good thing

Yes, this is a true fact in the outer reality.
Don't question my narrative.

>if you go from machine learning though, you will see that maximum likelihood tends to minimise description lengths.
explain.

no u

Because I never go outside

Kill yourself, the only sure way to know

Actually, it's definitely not real, my brain would never accept a fake world with such shitty CAPTCH protocols.

And my brain would never accept a world where G-d is real.

Are you just now discovering that absolute certainty is impossible? That's why we postulate axioms lad. Knowledge is always built from a set of stipulated assumptions.

This simulation hypothesis bullshit is the new religion of the ""educated"" 21st century faggots. Sage

Enjoy your vat juice