What are some arguments against the simulation argument? If simulating a universe was possible...

Simulated universe doesn't equate solipsism, we could all be simulated together. Besides we are plenty "real", and things still have consequences, it's just that from outside of our perspective it's all a simulation.

>If simulating a universe was possible, isn't it very likely that we are living in a simulation?
How would that make it likely?

why don't I instead tell you to shut the fuck up and stop shitposting about nonsense in a science and math board?

>>>/reddit/

Fuck off

>you don't understand probabily
>a-actually just fuck off

actually I'll say ONE thing.

countable sets in [0,1] have lebesgue measure zero (which is a probability) and are infinitely bigger than singletons.

69% because your a faggot

>please show me the error of the argument
>fuck off, why don't you know it?
Well this was a fun thread.

look at your mouse OP, you see your hand? you have a hand yeah? ok well now you have a hand, and you having a hand makes it very unlikely that you don't have a hand. since its unlikely you don't have a hand, you probably also have the space around you and the air within it and your body and brain generating your consciousness. There done, if you'd like to know more Mooreanism is for you brianlet

Not only is this stupid premise unfalsifiable, there's no point to it. So what if it's a "simulation". You're still in it and it's your life. So what.

It being a simulatuon does not advocate that it is not real.

giga brainlet
you're almost as dumb as OP, STEMlords shouldn't be allowed to talk about philosophy ever except when asked to speak. keep fucking quiet and go back to your fucking petri dish nerd

Explain how something being a simulation conflicts with reality within the simulation. What's 'real' is determined within a universe. If a simulation is a perfect simulation of a universe, what's within it is as real for people within the simulation as is reality to us.

And a simulated consciousness within a simulation does the exact same thing and concludes that their simulation is reality. Because of this, it is irrelevant whether we are in a simulatuon or not, but it is still unsettling and I want to know if it really is more likely that we are in a simulation than not. Work with the argument above and point where it goes wrong please.

>"my argument is fish + fish = good"
>it doesn't make sense
>"Work with the argument above and point where it goes wrong please."

your terms aren't well defined

I mean, maybe you aren't doing it on purpose.
>If a perfect simulation of a universe can be made, such a simulation could also create a simulation within it
ok
>so you have this infinite chain of simulations,
ok
>so it is very unlikely that you are at the very start of it
no. what does unlikely even mean?

>worst that can happen is someone hits "reset" and you don't even remember jumping
That's the best thing that can happen. The worst is if no-one ever hits reset.

The real truth is realizing that it doesn't matter

That's the best thing that can happen. The worst is if you idiots keep flooding the board with ridiculous nonsense.

You could be anywhere within the chain. There is nothing you could possibly ever find out that would prove that your reality isn't a simulation. Whether you are in a simulation or not is just a random guess. If you're choosing a random number between 1 and 100, isn't it more likely that a number is between 1-99, then it being a 100?

>Also, look up Boltzmann Brain
Wow this is some heavy shit. I like things like chaos theory and cellular automata so this is up my street to an extent.

galactic accretion is the product of supermassive black holes

This would explain, among other things, why we can find a supermassive black hole in every observable galaxy.

There's not any information to be able to say either way desu

you are choosing a very specific (finite) set, with a very specific (uniform) probability measure, and trying to extrapolate that to how probability works in general. it quickly becomes nonsense.

Would you be able to expand on this?

what do you want me to tell you? what a probability measure is? that not all probability measures are uniform? that there's no way to assign a canonical probability measure to something as ethereal and nonsensical as "all possible universes"?

Who's talking about all possible universes? Out of a set of 99 simulations and 1 non simulated universe, it is more likely that we are within the 99, since we can only make a random guess. Explain how this is wrong. Again, please underatand that I am not choosing to not understand your explanation. It's simly all buzzwords for me, and you seem as nonsensical to me as I do to you. As someone who probably knows more than my, try to drop to my level and explain in a way that I can understand you.

It might be the case that a simulation of our reality is impossible. There's no way of knowing whether it is possible or not, so there's no way of knowing how likely it is to occur.

This seems like it could be fruitful. Why is it impossible to know whether it is possible or not, tho?

My thought is that it doesn't matter, it's just an extra step added to the clockwork universe idea and even then you might aswell not care (not that you could choose) because it'll all happen anyway, just enjoy the ride

mate, I can't. your standards for what constitutes an argument are too low. you just say stuff, without thinking if it means anything or how the implications go.

>Out of a set of 99 simulations and 1 non simulated universe, it is more likely that we are within the 99, since we can only make a random guess.

you have picked a finite number of events, then assumed it is uniformly distributed "because we can only make a random guess" ???????? and then somehow that implies the full distribution gives more likelyhood for simulated universes?

take N with the measure given by p(n) = 1/2^n. for any k you give, I can always grab 1 event and k-1 events such that the probability of that 1 event is higher than the others. in fact, p(1) = 1/2 is already higher than any other finite set of events, and p({1 u 2}) is higher than any other infinite set.

How can an entire universe be simulated at the subatomic universe in such a universe?

In terms of computational density, you'd basically need something that can compute the behaviour of a particle, but itself takes up less space than that particle.

If you have an array of particle-computing "modules" that are each half the size of that particle then the computer will take up half of the space in the universe.

Or you could look at the universe as a giant computer already, albeit one that takes 1 second to compute its state 1 second in the future.

I don't see how you're gonna get performance equal or greater than that with a machine taking up much less space that the environment it's simulating.

This is all assuming massively parallel processing (could a 'real' universe even exist as long as to allow for the simulation of even a year's worth of activity inside a machine that processes every atom serially?)

>If simulating a universe was possible, isn't it very likely that we are living in a simulation?

Of course. There's always that chance. All laws of physics would be a sham specifically for the simulation so who knows what it would really take to make the simulation and run it. The entire idea completely upends everything if true.

>argument that applies to "all possible universes" (?????) based on how computers work
fuck you OP
this kind of idiotic thread attracts the worst retards on Veeky Forums

>Philosophee

This isn't philosophy. It is /x/ you fucking retard. Your piss poor watered down philosophy degree failed to bless you with basic critical thinking.

>then assumed it is uniformly distributed
What does this mean?
>and then somehow that implies the full distribution gives more likelyhood for simulated universes?
What does this mean?

look at my dubs guys

you can't even be bothered to google, for fuck's sake
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_uniform_distribution

the second thing means that if the restriction of P to some finite sets is uniform, that says nothing about P

So your response is "we cannot be sure what the chance of being in a simulated universe depends on, so we cannot say how likely it is that any of this is the case". Am I understanding you correctly?

>all possible universes
Well, virtual ones anyway.

However a computer works, it still has to compute. That is, to manipulate symbols in a way that yields a meaningful, coherent output.

If we're talking about possibly being sims in some ET's experiment then we must be basing that on some basic axioms? Like the existence of some kind of computing device for a start. And physical laws that allow computation.

We've already assumed the existence of some supercomputer behind all this, so why not also assume it works finitely (like we understand any computational mechanism to do)?

But you could be right - if we are a simulation, then the laws of physics in the 'host' universe could be identical to ours (because the operators chose to replicate what laws are known to them), or so completely different that we couldn't comprehend it.

Even in that case, the laws still have to allow for principles of computation of some kind to exist - or there would be no simulation.

it's not even that. you don't even know if there's a meaningful way to talk about what the "chace" is for a universe to be a simulation.

I see. So since we cannot determine what the chance is that a universe is a simulation, we cannot determine how likely this is to be the case, regardless of how long the chain is.

It's Platos cave. Our experiences are subjective and we can never know for sure whether they are valid or not. We can agree on consistency but that's it.

We could define and agree that we are in one, but that's not what you want to hear.

you don't know if you can talk about chance at all. you might as well replace "chance" with "potato" and it's the same.

you have no idea if it means anything to say something like "our universe is likely to be a simulation". just because you put words together doesn't make it something. it's nonsense.

>Why is it impossible to know whether it is possible or not, tho?
Same reason for FTL and the singularity. If it hasn't already happened and we can't use our current understanding of the universe to prove it possible then it might as well be impossible.

Thanks for the explanation. Is there any way to save the argument from your argument against it?

there was no argument. the only thing I said is "that doesn't make any sense". only in a long winded way so you'd believe it.

Was your argument not "we have no way of determining what the possibility of it being a simulation is, so we have no way of determining how likely this is"? My question could be rephrased as this: can we make the simulation argument have a clear definition of its terms?

>My question could be rephrased as this: can we make the simulation argument have a clear definition of its terms?
No. It's like asking the likelihood of a black marble being pulled out of a bag when the only thing you know about the bag are it's dimensions.

Thanks for this conversation user, I've learned a lot about probability.

Oh sorry, that but the bag is on your head and you are asking dumb questions about what is outside the bag.

these
weren't me, but no problem I guess

advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758
In short it is mathematically impossible to simulate a quantum phenomenon found in certain metals. Since we clearly see this phenomenon we are either not in a simulation or the "real" universe can contain a computer with infinite processing power.

shut up

There are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0. Therefore the probability of a real number number that I pick being between these two points must be infinite.
This is the same argument as yours, but applied to numbers. If you don't see the absurdity here, then you're retarded.

>If simulating a universe was possible, isn't it very likely that we are living in a simulation?
Yes and?
A perfect simulation would be just as real as real.
So the only thing that actually matters is how you play the game.

Guys does god exist?

Explanation missing 404

the concept of "likelihood" is only useful if you have some idea of the respective numbers of non-simulated and simulated universes. So if you already know that there are 10 universes in existence, 9 of which are simulations taking place inside a non-simulated universe, then you could say that the likelihood of us living in a simulated universe is 10%.

But games get boring once you figure out the rules. What to do about existential boredom?

well according to simulation argument, our universe might be the fantasy of some god who invented us

The question is not of how and is it possible but the real question is to why?. Why would their even be a reason to do so of which their really is none, don't waste your time on stupid questions.

>Am I missing something?
Ockham's razor

You could put away your infinite regress of universes and simply deal with the one you're in.

According to some, it could also be the work of ancient aliens.

Irrational numbers.

This.
There is no point in talking about theories that are improvable.

The simulation idea is just intelligent design with more steps.

actually i think the aliens in pic related simply shaped the course of human history. but the aliens themselves are just as much a part of the simulation as the humans

>look at my dubs guys
Simulated

yes! i love how when you strip away the surface appearances of ideas, you see parallels between things that appear very different from each other.

Yes and no. It's true for every subsequent universes, but not for the base universe.

This is the only answer to people who make this argument. Anyone with a basic introduction to real Probability theory will understand that you can't make such simple intuitively based arguments.

Doesn't this apply to the alien argument too then? This argument is so mindnumbing and boring.

sounds similar to that whole universe inside a black hole and black hole within that universe with a universe within it "theory" that people go on about

if that's the reality then there's no real way of knowing how many levels of simulation we're in so why don't you just download dota 2 and then you'll soon realise that it aint true becausE WHO THE FUCK WOULD SIMULATE SUCH A STUPID FKIN TEAM STOP PICKING TECHIES AND I SWEAR TO CHRIST IF THERES SOMEONE OUT THERE SIMULATING THESE FUCKING PATCHES THEN TURN OFF THE MACHINE HOLY FUCK I HATE U ICEFROG

the earth is on the back of a turtle

>Ockham's razor
fuck off with this gay leddit meme

Yeah of course this is what it comes down to but the idea behind it is that we assume that making a simulation of our universe that can replicate the complexity of our universe is possible. If we take this axiom as true then it would follow in a universe where it's possible to create a simulation of that universe just as complex as itself, that any simulation created that fits that description would be able to also have a simulation of a universe just as complex as it inside of it. Each simulated universe is eventually would host another, or multiple. That doesn't mean reality is fake or something stupid, the rules of nature we contend with every day don't go away unless we can somehow effect the simulation by currently unknown means. I find it likely that such a simulation can't be made.

motls blogspot co uk/2017/03/aaronsons-delusions-about-universe-as.html

You're retarded

It's not /x/ you Brainlet, no-one is claiming that the universe being a simulation makes everything fake/less real. No one is arguing that it's lizard Jews running the simulation. It's simple logic. If you accept this axiom as true then what does it imply? That axiom being that a universe as detailed as our own could be perfectly simulated in our universe. If that's true than What? We're not talking about if it's true but rather the implication of it being true under the assumption that it is true.

I dont think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw. At best it only puts it one step away. People would simply claim that the universe that created the first simulation was created by god.

I don't follow your logic! Anytime you bring God in as First Cause, it's intelligent design.
Either He did the job directly or He created beings which would do it. Sort like building tools. If you want a computer from scratch you mine ore, hammer metals into shape, makes lathes and drills, manufacture a chip fabber.
It's Intelligent Design -- just with more steps.
ID is nonsense from the get-go. It claims a complex system could not arise naturally and "solves" the problem by postulating an even _more_ complex system.
How would God know _he's_ not a simulation?
Robert Heinlein had fun with this in "Job". Jehovah is just one level up from us and he had a creator and that creator had a creator and the hierarchy runs upwards forever.

It's a problem of recursion.

Imagine being such a loser that you were bullied by STEM nerds of all people into developing this much of a complex about it

the continuum refutes every simulation argument.

> perfect simulation

The simulation already is, user.

if its true then creationism is correct, there is almost certainly a deity and there is almost certainly a reason to be god-fearing. its not tho at all. we live in a dead universe with no god and no love and no hope. there is no reason not to nuke this planet and exterminate all sentient life other than cowardice

The simulation theory doesn't work, for it implies that there's a base reality, from which all simulations emerge from infinitely. The problem is that infinity cannot have a beginning, nor can it have an end. A base reality would imply the beginning and the end, which is logically incompatible with the simulation theory.

STEMlords are the definition of power hungry psychopaths with no imagination who retreat into advanced psychological architecture for security and safety. the smartest STEMfaggots ive met are the most pathetic human beings ive ever come across and some of the most immoral ones too! If the average person knew what the higher level STEMlords wanted for this world there would be an overnight blood bath

shut the fuck up and stop bumping a retarded thread with idiotic nonsense