Chalmers had a real mind-boggler: "We're not going to get conclusive proof that we're not in a simulation...

>Chalmers had a real mind-boggler: "We're not going to get conclusive proof that we're not in a simulation, because any proof would be simulated."

What is the official Veeky Forums consensus on the simulation theory? What are the chances we're just in a simulation.

If we are in a simulation, how would that change things?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_universe
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>simulation theory
not science or math, literally just the fedora tipper's alternative to "god"

>consensus
collectivists need to gtfo

The difference is that simulation theory has actual merit and substance behind it, while god is just a dumb person's wishful thinking, with no coherent supporting argument.

It's not an alternative to God. If the Universe is a simulation then whomever created and/or controls it is God /period.

No, they'd be a creator/operator of a simulation, not a god. The great thing about language is that you can differentiate between two separate things, no need to call them by the same word.

It's possible, there's no way to tell, there is no way to know the "chances", so just make the assumption for now that everything is real and don't worry about it. You'll find out when you die, possibly.

And from our point of view, this creator would be all powerful, (possibly) all knowing, invisible to us, and whose true motivations are unknown. Yeah, that's essentially a God, just with a fresh coat of paint.

not true.

Sure, the creator would have a large part in saying what happens in the universe they are simulating or whatever. The same could be true for this "creator" as well. OBVIOUSLY CMON BRUH how u not come to that conclusion before pressing submit?

I mean to say is.. If we are being simulated by a "creator", the same situation could be applied to our "creator" in which their reality is also being simulated.

If that is the case, our creator is not totally omniscient of all future events in our creators reality/simulation that could have an affect on our simulation in turn

there's no merit nor coherent supporting arguments for the simulation either

Simulation """theory"""" confirmed for nigger opinion

the meme scientist becomes a believer in meme pseudoreligion hypothesis.
perhaps if he knew shit about physics he'd known why the simulation argument is fucking insane, lol.

So what you're saying is that simulation "theory" is the 'smart' man's wishful thinking?

>consensus on the simulation theory?
It's unfalsifiable, just like creationism.
Hitchen's Razor

Nah, by (my) definition, God is supreme, and not just some undergrad working on their thesis project, living in a wold created by t he "true" utlra-divine being.

>Simulation """theory""""
This A theory is an idea that's gained widespread acceptance because it is BOTH:
1) thoroughly tested through experimentation
AND
2) fits well wit other scientific knowledge

"muh holographic universe" will never qualify as an actual scientific theory

>This A theory
*THIS, a theory...

sorry, a little drunk atm.

The exact same logic that supports simulation theory also supports God. There is no difference.

>Creator of our universe
>Exists outside our physical reality
>Has unlimited power to change our universe or alter it's parameters as he sees fit
You're splitting hairs. Any creator of a simulation almost perfectly matches the criteria of God.

There's substantial statistical probability behind it. If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones, which means that, if it's possible AT ALL, we are very likely to be in one. It should be pointed out to your mind that it isn't needed as an explanation for anything. It's just something that is possible, which is more than can be said for the existence of a god. Either we are in a simulation, or we aren't.

lol

Start a straw poll for something like that. Simulation theory is unfalsifiable and is a pretty old philosophical idea. There are some pretty cool responses to the notion that the "external world" isn't real, which is essentially simulation theory for people back hundreds of years ago.

Statistically, if a god exists that had the power to create a universe, it would have created a universe. This means that in the case of there being a god, there is a 100% chance a universe is created. We live in a universe, thus there is a god.

wtf I just proved god exists

>If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones

I hate high schoolers talking about "statistics" when they mean baseless intuitions.

No, it wouldn't. At least it would be nothing like the inconsistently written biblical god that christians, mulsims, and jews think of. Those weren't even the first religions, either. They were just ones that rose to prominence because of memetic evolution. Tenants that compel the followers to follow the religion and be rewarded after death, the promise of suffering in death if the religion is not followed, and to convert others by aggressive means, etc. Many older religions with multiple gods existed beforehand. Their stories of how the universe was made are all as ignorant as the big religions of today are, and all of them don't fit with the logic of a created simulation. None of them get anywhere close to reality. Big Bang. Gas condensing into stars, etc. They all have dumb shit explanations, like a snake painting stars on a glass dome.

Simulation or not, the universe was formed in a certain way and followed certain rules to get where it is now. Humanity's pre science attempts at explaining the universe are wrong and ignorant, regardless of whether the universe is simulated.

This is the mind of the human brainwashed by religion. In the fact of overwhelming logic, his only recourse is denial without logical retort.

Evidence for biblical god's existence is a flat zero. Evidence for the possibility of virtual worlds existing is already everywhere.

You mean like how you "intuitively" deny overwhelming evidence that the bible is a load of shit? Fucking hell I love being right.

There's no empirical evidence of any god being real. Literally all of them are dreamed up by humans. Meanwhile we could feasibly live in the matrix already. A brain that was connected to even a world with PS3 tier graphics for all of its life would be unable to tell that it wasn't living in true reality. With no means of accessing the programing of the world, it could even grow up to be a scientist in this world (which could be populated by nothing except for turing test programs) and create mathematical explanations to explain the physics of its reality.

>this thread
Veeky Forums is getting more cringeworthy every day

>the simulation is so badly put together that a retard like deGrasse figured it out

patch when?

Cringing is something only feminine minded people do. Masculine people frown.

If could have been blown open multiple times and reset without use knowing it, assuming we get reset with it.

I don't give a shit about your internet manliness, this thread and this whole board as of lately is cringey as fuck. It's like almost everybody is a redditor arguing about religion and meme popsci topics

>If it's possible to make a simulated universe with self aware programs AT ALL, then there would be millions of fake universe per real ones
You're ignoring the possibility that it may be possible to create physical universes, .
Do the simulated universes outnumber the physical universes?

Who the fuck knows?
Besides the number of universes is meaningless.
Oh, sure, if you were a universe, speculating on the nature of your origin it might help to know the ration of physical universe to virtual universes, but you're a person, not a universe.
We're completely in the dark as to the relative population of physical vs virtual universes.
But even if we ignore nested physical universes, if each level n universe has a population at least double the population of the level n+1 universes, most people will exist in the top level physical universe.

>Cringe

Literally a woman thing. The first time I ever heard it was in a woman's blog. They were talking about panties, and how the word made them cringe.

Man up.

Supposing a god powerful enough to create a universe is vastly different from supposing it is possible to simulate a universe or a part of it.

>Evidence for the possibility of virtual worlds existing is already everywhere.
>
Sure! Every X-Box and PS4 running a copy of Call of Duty, GTA or even FIFA 2018 is creating a "virtual universe".
Unfortunately, the total population of these hundreds of millions of simulated universes is ZERO.
At least, none of the "people" involved can wax philosophic about the nature if their existence,
We're still waiting for ANY evidence of artificial people (sentient, sapient possessing a "soul", choose your criteria).
Come back when you've solved the hard problem of consciousness, loser.

>You're ignoring the possibility that it may be possible to create physical universes

What possibility? The only model for the creation of the universe that has any evidence at all is the Big Bang, which does not require any external or sentient creator. You are so dumb, goddamit. The reason the simulation theory gains traction is because it IS possible, while your biblical bullshit is just that.

>Fucking hell I love being right.
Nigger, you need one of these (pic related)

If you believe in souls you are already wrong. There's no soul. Your consciousness is created from the physical structure of your brain. If someone was to take a shotgun and blow apart that medium of consciousness, you would cease to exist. You don't float away from your body and go to heaven.

nigga you're the one reading women's blogs and you tell me to man up?

>What possibility?
If we're going to just assume someone might create a virtual universe so "complete" that the people within it we capable of philosophical y examining the nature of the universe, why not also assume someone can create new physical universes?
Both are neat ideas based ENTIRELY on my/your willingness to believe anything is possible,

>There's no soul.
[citation needed]
see also:
>sentient, sapient possessing a "soul", choose -->YOUR

You're just as ignorant as your ancestors and your beliefs will be mocked as uneducated and silly when enough time passes. Stop placing yourself on a pedestal, you know nothing about reality.

>There's no empirical evidence of any god being real
But there is? We exist, thus God must exist. It's impossible for anything to exist without God as God is the first mover by definition.

>There's no soul
You know we have scientific evidence for the existence of the soul right?

>You know we have scientific evidence for the existence of the soul right?
PLEASE STOP, you're not helping.

...

...

>Simulation theory is unfalsifiable
I would argue that until we create a realistic simulation of our own that it's inherently false. It's a toggle rather than an actual unfalsifiable idea like religious faith.

"Statistically if God exists" doesn't make sense as there is no proof or precedent to base any statistics off of and no means of attaining such. Simulation theory only requires that we create our own realistic computer simulation to create logical precedence of a realistic statistical probability of near-infinite nested simulations.

...

...

...

I really hope these people are just memeing and aren't actual evolution deniers.

...

>aren't actual evolution deniers.

a-dorable

No, only your idea is based entirely on your own imagination. One idea is based on what is possible in reality and is independent of what we think. The other is based on what you believe in your mind. There is no evidence of matter being created from nothing in this universe after the big bang. Not once, as if the rules were set right from the start. When someone has the ability to create matter from nothing on command... no, create a region of space time with it's own physical laws on command, then it is possible that a sentient being can create a real custom universe. Remember, there is no need for a sentient creator to explain the existence of our own universe. It's likely that it may not even be possible for one to do so.

>You're just as ignorant as your ancestors

Nope. Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. We have access to far more knowledge than our ancestors did, so by default we are less ignorant than them.

If you accept the axiom it asks you to accept it seems reasonable, the biggest problem j have with it is that it just doesnt seem like it could matter unless we some how are able to use it as a predictive model, i dont see how we could.

>One idea is based on what is possible in reality and is independent of what we think. The other is based on what you believe in your mind.
Call me back when you (or anyone) is actualy capable of creating a simulated person that can ponder the nature of it's existence, and I'll post again when someone creates a pocket universe.
BOTH are 100"% speculative (if plausible).

Ignorance is refusal to utilize knowledge, not a lack of it.

People aren't ignorant if they're utilizing the knowledge available to them, even if it's less knowledge than a more "advanced" group of people.

Troll response.

>it just doesnt seem like it could matter unless we some how are able to use it as a predictive model,
THIS!!!!!
If simulation vs physical universe had ANY practical implications, we'd be able to devise an experiment to check that shit.
Since we (you simulation 'tards in particular) haven't come up with a falsifiable test, it likely doesn't matter in any real sense.

In both of these hypothetical situations fallible humans are the creators, so neither of them support the idea of an omniscient "god" either way.

Where?

>the technology doesn't exist, therefore it will never exist!

>so neither of them support the idea of an omniscient "god" either way.
Like I give a fuck.

Reminds me of DarkMatter2525

then what are you arguing against? which of your two plausible hypothetical models of infinite universes might be correct? that neither of them are or ever will be? what?

>>the technology doesn't exist, therefore it will never exist!
Let me know when you produce an experiment that will settle this issue.
Until then, it's 100% philosophical masturbation.

I got satan quads, does that mean im actijng as satans mouth piece? Be afraid.

>Until then, it's 100% philosophical masturbation.
I agree, but the conclusion here isn't to outright deny the possibility. This isn't magical sky magician tier faith.

satan doesn't exist.

Get your shit together, user.
Are you thinking I'm somehow arguing for the existence of God?
Then you're mistaken.
Do you think I've picked a horse in physical vs virtual universe?
That's also wrong.
I'm just saying it's 100% stoner-level speculation about a question we will likely never actually answer.

Get a job, hippie.

>I got satan quads
Go back to /b/.

>a question we will likely never actually answer.
circling back around to "because it doesn't currently exist it will never exist" level retardation there, user.

>t the conclusion here isn't to outright deny the possibility
We could be living in the fever-dream of a hookah-smoking caterpillar.
Picking one of a million stupid unsupported speculations, and holding it up higher than the rest is a willful act of ignorance.
Please don't ever reproduce.
I'm outie.

>Ctrl + F
>"occam"
>Phrase not found

The reason I could never get behind simulation theory is occam's razor.

Sure, it's possible that our entire existence is a program/simulation of a reality, with hard-coded physics and natural processes and chemical reactions, it could be one of infinite such simulations, all designed by some intelligent being, or more likely, all designed by a simulation-designing program which was designed by a simulation-designing-progam-designing program designed by an intelligent creator, like a Matrix, run by The Machines, which were created by The Humans, in a Reality that was actually a simulation designed by The Real Machines which were created by The Real Humans...

OR

This is reality.

Gee I fucking wonder which one seems more plausible.

It's like SJWs claiming that the reason minorities and women don't have more high-end careers is because of a secret white patriarchal plot to maintain power by systematically keeping everyone else down, and running this plot so deep behind the scenes that even the people it subjects perpetrate it without them even realizing it. In reality, it's actually just because black people and women either aren't applying for those careers or just aren't qualified.

No, ignorance means "lack of knowledge or information".

It is theoretically possible to simulate a brain. Physical laws don't forbid it. It's not possible to make matter out of nothing. The most basic of physical laws forbid that.

Why do people assume a simulations overworld would be anywhere similar to our universe? Or worse, we're just a copy of our parent universe? If this universe was """fake""" we might as well run on something with no recognizable matter, math or logic, something so unthinkable that it's not even worth calling it a simulation anymore, since that's an antropomorphic concept.

>simulation theory
It's not a "theory". It's unfalsifiable what-if garbage.

The actual backend of our reality is probably so foreign and inaccessible to us that calling it a simulation would be like a chimp calling his little bug-getting stick a particle accelerator.

>The difference is that simulation theory has actual merit and substance behind it,

It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and these are not worth entertaining, similar to hypotheses that invisible omnipotent Gods created the universe then decided not to interfere with it anymore, or that there is a teacup floating around Mars

These are just the sorts of things that are outside the limitation bubble created by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and Turing Computability

>Veeky Forums consensus

You cat prove thier is no satan.

Simulation theory is creationism for atheists who like computers too much. It's as irrational as religion, has no solid evidence, just like religion, can't be possibly proven, just like religious views. By saying "simulation theory is/may be true" you admit you're just a brainlet who has to believe in some supernatural power, but just don't like the tales about Yahweh making Adam and Steve from clay 6000 years ago

What if Geralt (The Witcher) decided after a couple decades of fighting monsters, he wanted to become a scientist and figure out how magic and monsters came to be, only to figure out that he's in a simulation? Kinda depressing m8

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_universe

By your definition the Christian Godhead itself isn't "God".

Putting a fully sentient being into such a crude world would probably qualify as some kind of hell.

Holy shit would you fuck back to plebbit already

There are things like Planck length and Planck time, which are clearly hard coded limitations of the engine. Planck time represents the tick rate of the universe, and Planck length represents the floating point accuracy of location. We are obviously living in a simulation. When you die, you will wake up in a game arcade and remove the virtual helmet from your head. Your friends will laugh at you for getting the lowest score anyone has ever seen.
>We told you not to pick a NEET faggot, stupid
You will, however, set an unbreakable record for the time spent masturbating to tentacle porn. You hope your friends won't notice that.

>By your definition the Christian Godhead itself isn't "God".
Hardly surprising, since I'm not a Christian.
As a deist, _my_ (unfalsifiable) belief is that God is the supreme divine being, creator (or whatever) of ALL universes, not just this one.
But I don't really see where that idea is incompatible with the doctrines of the Christian faith.
Sure, I don't support most church doctrine, but I don't see where they wouldn't like my definition of God.

BTW: "Funerals are for the living". The point of faith isn't whether or not God actually exists. The point is the impact faith has on your life, no matter how unfounded it is.

It seems to me that such a being would be so detached, omniscient, omnipotent and unhuman that it would be completely pointless to worship or even acknowledge them.

You may as well start calling the fine structure constant "Arnold" and insist that it's a God.

This relies on the assumption that the universe was necessarily created by God

>completely pointless to worship or even acknowledge them.
Yeah, I really doubt the point of worship is to stroke God's ego.
It seems pretty obvious the point is to create a structure for the clergy to control the masses for their own personal gain.
But "acknowledge"? Again, the point of faith is how it affects you, not whether you get to be "right" about something you can't even begin to prove.

>You may as well start calling the fine structure constant "Arnold" and insist that it's a God.
If that helps you cope with life better, go for it.
Except the "insist" part, that doesn't sound healthy.
Even as a deist, I don't insist God must exist, neither to myself nor to others.

why hasnt anyone assassinated that fuck yet?