Simulation Argument

>One of these propositions is true
Well sure if you assume your conclusion then its obvious. The sticking point is actually showing that that's the case, which involves a large number of huge metaphysical assumptions. Going "there are many worlds, most of which are simulations so if you pick one at random its likely to be a simulation, ergo we are are a simulation" is comically simplistic.

Until you prove it, it's just some stupid "woah dude" shit like all those other meme pop-sci hypotheses
Like dude, what if we're really holograms in a simulation in a multiverse of possibilities in the mind of god on top of a turtle
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude

>the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage
Not really. "Posthuman" is a brainlet meme, but brainlet subspecies will go extinct indeed.
>any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)
Yes, it doesn't seem feasible to run such simulations.
>we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
No, infeasible.

So the claim is that there is a base reality and we're not exposed to it, because it's far more likely that someone is simulating our reality. Well how can you claim to know anything of a base reality to which you're not exposed?! It's circular logic and allows any conclusion to be true. Just as well, you could say, without evidence, it's far more likely that you've been reincarnated because the vast majority of organisms are not on their first life.

Or simply that running conscious, experience filled simulations is not possible.

The simulation hypothesis is the 'intelligent design' of the millenial generation.

Luckily Karl Popper established falsifiability as one of many criteria that every scientific theory is held against.

The simulation hypothesis is not falsifiable and hence not scientific.

Into the trash it goes.

I don't even understand why people like this "simulation" crap so much. In philosophy, this is essentially called "Solipsism" and is regarded as an absolute irrelevant waste of time since the ancient fucking greeks. Why ? Because it is at the same time unfalsifiable and unprovable.It is the ultimative, most inconsequential, of all possible hypotheses. Wether it is true or not can not possibly change anything. At this point, every little neuron in your brain should just cry "Occams Razor" and throw it away, but it doesn't. Thats what's interesting about this xD Finally at least some of the more clever people have stopped believing in god (which , as well, is such an inconsequential entity) but for some obscure reason started believing in another proposition that is as stupid as the god thing and essentially defeated by all the same arguments. But i suppose transhumanism shows it's christian roots there.

*le tips*

>Is there any way to debunk the Simulation Hypothesis other than just to stop believing in it?
Sure. There is one major issue excluded from the argument which is about as likely to happen as "regular traditional AI" is - the fact that the AI will most likely lead its existence with reducing entropy as its primary goal, and that the most optimal route for the longest possible time is to scuttle its matter inside a black hole and therefor ward that matter (and any other it devours) from the unstoppable heat death and decay of the outside world

>If I reclassify my existence as a simulation without assuming this changes a single thing metaphysically this makes it less "real"
What a stupid conclusion. Shit like this is why scientists should still consider philosophy an important part of their education.

Exactly. Why would you want to debunk the truth?

This video should clear it up:
youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

>likely
>unlikely
>almost certainly

yeah get fucked

For all intents and purposes, we are in a simulation. There is no proof in science btw. Just overwhelming evidence and support.
>life begins
>no observational past other than your own
>facts and beliefs are handed to you that were discovered prior to your existence.
>the closest thing we have to death is temporary stasis/sleep where our consciousness doesn't exist
>pain is merely simulated and enough pain induction causes death (health bar depletion)
>Afterlife speculated but never confirmed. Entities operate in accordance to Yolo the Mighty, regardless.
>luck skill differs from person to person
>future vastly obscure in the beginning and slowly becomes less obscure and more predictable as you develop your character

Read this:

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

Laws of physics waste computational resources at the drop of a hat. The opposite of what we would expect if we live in a computer simulation. It is not a proof, but it is a good reason to believe we dont.

>pixels are discrete and so are photons ergo simulation
Except this is based on the completely made-up assumption that for some reason continuous physical quantities are "more natural" than discrete ones, that they better represent the base reality, so photons not being continuous is a mark against us being the base reality. This assumption is based on nothing.

Could nothing be discrete rather than continuous in base reality, hence reality?

We have no idea what the "computers" (if they are computers at all) that are creating the simulation are like. They could work completely different than computers inside the simulation.

Sounds more like an argument for subjective idealism than simulation theory.

To be aware of oneself in a simulation is impossible using any rigorous context.

...

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Discrete and/or continuous light (photons).
Discrete and/or continuous time (chronons).
Discrete and/or continuous nothing (nonons (?)).

If nothingness itself is continuous then there is continuously nothing.
If nothingness itself is discrete then there is sporadically nothing and perhaps reality exists and is a product of the "gaps" between discrete nonons.

Right, you might want to stop with the LSD. To even begin attempting to treat the "nothingness" between realities as discrete or continuous you would an even greater amount of huge baseless metaphysical assumptions.

> an even greater amount of huge baseless metaphysical assumptions