Prove you aren't living in a simulated reality

>he thinks the Creator's reality has the same constraints his simplistic, simulated world has
top lol
some transcendental dev just lost his sides reading the logs of this iteration

I do live in a world simulated by my thoughts.

Your reality can't be invented by you or anyone. The things that we see must have existed before us because we're incapable of conceptualizing something of which we have experienced no prior impressions of.

Not necessarily, they could be just images of false things broadcast into your brain.

>The things that we see must have existed before us because we're incapable of conceptualizing something of which we have experienced no prior impressions of.
but whose to say the things we're experiencing right now isn't a simulation of things that have already happened in the past? What if this is a simulation of 2017 constructed in 2034?

But we do, everyone knows that!

phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

Even if I do, what changes?Is it so important to exist that you have to create delusions.I exist.I do not exist.I do not care.The me that is here and posts feels true enough, it's actual true metaphysical nature is of no importance to my functions.

>Even if I do, what changes?

This basically. If you could prove beyond any doubt that we live in a simulation nothing would change unless you managed to figure out how to hack that simulation which is as ridiculous as the visitors to your Theme Park breaking into the real world.

Metaphysics isn't for you.

Kant remarked that it was scandalous no one had proved the existence of the outside world. Really, it was scandalous such a question is asked, because it shows the misdirection of our philosophical approach.

The world is not an "object" we approach, as subjects, in order to reduce it so some further analysis. In the manner of Reinhold, the representation is *given* to consciousness. Consciousness may remain axiomatically one-dimensional with respect to experience, yet consciousness must always be qua consciousness, that is to say, it is always consciousness *of* something: it thus eludes a partition.

If I can't know whether the reality I experience is fundamentally a simulation or not, then why should I not treat the 'reality' I experience as real?

refute my argument

You're not proving anything--other than OP's question makes you uncomfortable.

This guy gets it.

fpbp

Society IS a simulated reality.

What's the difference between a "regular" reality and a simulated reality?

A simulated reality would be one that has been deliberately created by something external to our reality.

You didn't make an argument. You called into question the utility of metaphysics and there isn't much utility there, but there also isn't much utility in anything else. Sure it's just intellectual masturbation but so is any intellectual endeavor.

So, like, God?

How do you know it's infinite?

Any simulation complex enough to create the reality we live in would need to be based on a machine either infinitely large or drawing infinite power, and probably both. It just doesn't work, physically

Depends on your definition of God. The Abrahamic God is within this Universe as far as I know but yeah effectively like a god.

Could be anything. Even in science its considered likely we're living in a simulated reality because of oddities like the anthropic principle and fermi paradox. The only way we'll ever know for sure is if we make a simulated reality and whoever is running it switches us off.

>what if
Veeky Forums would laugh at you

Oh no!

>The Abrahamic God is within this Universe as far as I know
He's both in and out, I mean I don't give much credit to the jews but their idea of 'God' and 'The Heavens' fits the idea of a simulated universe like a sock, don't you think?

Meh, not really. It's unlikely in any simulation that the creator would provide moral rules they want you to abide by rather than enforce them algorithmically or that they would deal directly with "people" in the simulation through prayer or divine inspiration. Not to mention that an afterlife outside of the simulation would be extremely unlikely.

A creator of a simulation would be as powerful as a God obviously but they would be a far more removed being than the Abrahamic God is.

read wittgenstein on certainty

>they would be a far more removed being
I think that's a reasonable assumption since it's exactly what happens most of the time when we run simulations ourselves. Thing is, we're separate beings from the computers we use to make simulations. When we dream, however, our very own mind makes the simulation, and we're much more involved in the whole thing, so much so it disappears when we wake up (as far as I know). If we think of our reality as a 'dream' generated by a being's mind, then it's inevitable such being would be actively involved, and considering the sheer scope of the 'dream' we live in then we can assume this being to be a highly advanced one and outside our comprehension. I'm not saying the Abrahamic God is the only conceivable option in this case, but it is a reasonable candidate in my eyes.

>it isn't false unless you can disprove it
>god exists because how could we be and think if he did not
Shit philosopher

Smoke DMT and report back David

If you do know here is one hand, then we'll grant you the rest.

Wrong. The machine saves power by only simulating observed particles. Hence wave-particle duality as shown by the double slit experiment. Very efficient, likely built by ze germanz

how is a dream any more a simulation than a memory or simply imagining something?

> assuming that our physical laws are the only possible physical laws

prove (you) first

It's not? Depends on how you define simulation.

There seems to be a temporal difference between a simulation and an imagining. Imaginings might be said to be less comprehensive in detail then a grand simulation, not too mention entirely solipsistic, whereas you and I can play themepark together...

From the point of view of two people being imagined as playing in the park, it is not solipsistic.

prove you aren't a nigger

First, apply the ontological argument on God.
Following that, I can presume that, since I was created by a Good God, he wouldn't illude me.
Now fuck off to Reddit.

>Two people being imagined

Being imagined by a single perspective... Ipso facto, solipsism. I cannot share in your imaginings, but we can both stare at the same simulated vidya

I was referring to the imaginary subjects, not the subject that is imagining them. Even then you can still theoretically share your imaginings given you have advanced enough tech.

That's all well and good, but keep in mind this was the basis for our masturbation.

> Claiming telepathy is theoretically possible

Wew lad

THIS
H
I
S

Doesn't Descartes do the same thing with the cogito rather than the ontological argument?

Descartes proves there is actually a res cognitans, ie. a thinking subject, and thence says his real thoughts must represent something, and that this something thus would be the cause of his particular idea of it ; and then he adds that this cause of his thought must contain as much reality as the thought ; and then he says a thought is real when it is "clear and distinct" ; then he says he has a clear and distinct thought of the infinite ; and then he proves God. Since trickery is caused by a lack of something, God cannot trick you. Thus you're not being fooled and the outside world is real.

hahahaha when will we give robots inalienable rights?

That's why I answered that, meme man.

>It's unlikely in any simulation that the creator would provide moral rules they want you to abide by
maybe the creator wants to test exactly that?
whether humans would stick to dogmatic religious doctrine or use their free will to move away to secularist values

OP BTFO

This thread gave me an idea. Is it feasible to run a simulated reality? Like Dwarf Fortress but instead of playing you just watch the world developing from a Genesis scenario

Prove me that it matters.

putnam

>thinks that the demon would allow any stimuli that would even hint you are in a simulation
Kind of funny how we can't possibly understand things outside our narrow box so we have to accept the imagination of a denizen of the narrow box :)

Dwarf Fortress already has a feature like that

>Pro-tip: you literally can't
That's true, I can't disprove unfalsifiable claims

Ahhh man. I'm tired of spotting talk of solipsism. I suppose I'll wait until everyone else gets tired of it too.

Numbers are made up.

>enter the question "why is there bird poop on her butt?"

Stop pissing on Descartes corpse

p weak desu

ja sam

JA JESAM!

We need to align our defacto speeds and attempt to travel a full QPU

The Nazis did win the war. They enslaved humanity for 60+ years and slaughtered nearly everyone because people wouldn't stop resisting. Finally they master universal physical science and create a false universe where they lost the war and project that "reality" into the minds of all humanity who are still unbeknown to them slaves of the Nazis, but people don't feel as bad about it thinking the Nazis are gone.

I'm writing something on this topic, what you think
T lay there in a booth of his brew, bought by the fruit of the labor farms. Atrophied from 3 nights on a simulation server, his extremities had become dead of any feeling. His prescription for a barrage of compounds had just come in to his local server and the delight this bough visibly escalated him. Knowing he was seconds away from instant pleasure made him tingle in a way only this could invoke. The next week would be spent smashing out the cannabinoids with sprinkles of DPH when he wanted to peak all over himself. The next week would up the states to a pyramid of hallucinogens, in the safety and comfort of his home in Laplace. The penultimate week would be spent recuperating and the final week was spent learning about the intricacies of folding metal on Earth c. 1000 for craft.
As T winced at the thought of getting up, he had resigned to msg craft sick even though it was the last day of work period. There was nothing inherently wrong with craft; he did a craft, like everyone else on Tesla, that resonated with the self. It just didn't matter. None of it would garnish any attention in the records and T knew he was to become like everyone post-war period, a statistic in life's fabric.
T would often relish thinking about his genetic superiority to the gods. He was smarter, taller, and healthier than even the mightier gods; godhood in his youth seemed like some preordained afterthought but as he was molded by the state, mediocrity set in. He would often have dreams of slaying the gods with his bare hands only for crowds of people to cheer for the dead; after proceeding to kill and rape the crowd for their loyalty to the establishment, he would take the finest for wives. A recurring theme in his simulated worlds, the AI must think him a degenerate.

Unrelated, but I awkwardly browsed Veeky Forums last night on my phone and let out a very pitiful squeak at the sight of OP's pic while waiting in my now girlfriend's room last night.

We need to go deeper reddit!

>God isn't a dick. Ergo reality is real.
So this is the power of philosophy

>he hasn't read Descartes
kind of funny how we can possibly spout such garbage without having any idea what we're talking about :)

by proving that i'm living in a simulated reality im also proving i'm not in a simulated reality

Prove reality exists at all, even as a simulated entity.