This changes everything.
double slit is constraint resolution, we are 100% not in a simulation, elon is a firstclass bullshitter, also he doesn't understand half of the things he says
all these sociopaths have been swapping out their faces with aislop to mask their lizard-like nature
>>16932696how does this retard manage to consistently say the most cringe shit possible?
>>16932696why can't we emulate the simulation, even a tiny bit of it?
>>16932696This would render God a slovenly weeb sitting in a dark room jacking off to us having sex and our suffering like a fat, parasocial retard, which is probably right.
>>16932696after some observation i believe I have enough data points to conclude elon only tweets right after crawls out of a k-hole.
>>16932707but we can
>>16932696this sounds like a real thing that happened and not something he made out in his head at all
>>16932696>The guy who spent his entire life thinking about computers think we're inside one.shocker
>>16932696>I had a dinner once with a scientist and a tranny and the tranny said we're in a heckin' simulationOk.
I don’t know exactly what we’re in, but I do know that it sucks.
what if it was actually the physicist who said 100%
>>16932803>respectivelyESL?
>>16932805ayayay sorry amigo me no speako da english. I figured that was the case but it would be funny if it was reversed.
>>16932736What would we simulate subjective theories of consciousness?
>doesn't name eitherHe made it the fuck up.
A simulation is an imitation of something. If reality itself is the imitation and is not imitating anything external to itself, then by definition it cannot be a simulation.
>>16932696But how can mirrors be real if our eyes are not real?
>>16932696He should stick with those mass drivers.
>>16932696Video games?
>>16932805retarded?
>>16932696>computer "scientist" thinks reality could be simulatedMany such cases. However if you study physics you will come to understand that we can't simulate a single proton or atom except in special circumstances, let alone the whole of reality. It is overwhelmingly difficult. If reality were a simulation it would have to be embedded in an external structure of incredible complexity, which I don't think can appropriately be called a simulation anymore.
>>16932696It's entirely possible that we live in a simulation, but we are not situated in one.
>>16932696Who the fuck would want to have dinner with this cringelord
>>16933164Same top scientists who dined with JE
>>16932696what a fucking pseud lmao.
>>16932696>It was like a double slit experiment, but with humansWhat a fucking twat. What did he even meant by that?
reality is mathematical and clearly designed by some higher entity, its all fake and gay
>>16932696>computer man thinks it's computers>applied math man thinks it's applied mathwoah, next you'll tell me that an economist will think everything is about the economy and a doctor will think everything is about health, truly groundbreaking observations about the universe and not at all about mundane psychology
Anyone else think all of our science is fake and gay? I genuinely believe people like Professor Dave is one of the most schizophrenic figures of our era.
>>16933125So software can't be software if it is dependent on hardware?
>>16933202>Same top scientists who dined with JEoy vey
>>16932696that's probably because computer "scientists" are all retards and they are neither scientists nor engineers. the "we live in a simulation" thing implies that our world is an imitation of something that already exists or existed (like in matrix), if we're talking about some other advanced entity creating our world then it's not a simulation from out perspective, it's just reality regardless of how it was produced. the "we live in a simulation" crowd basically say that the plot of the matrix movie is real, which is retarded
>>16932696They just had to hospitalize three doctors after a 32 hour operation to remove your tongue from elon's asshole.
>>16933563In order to simulate our world we will need more power than the world has. You know how very detailed and ultra realistic games about planes are called "flight simulators"? That's because it simulates the flying process of the plane, it recreates it. The word "simulation" implies imitation, so for our world to be a simulation it has to be happening inside a world just like ours, which is impossible. If our world was created by something else and their world is not like ours, then it's not a simulation, it's just creation.
>>16932696>We are in a simulation!A simulation of what?
>>16933689This. The universe might be some sort of petri dish spawned by incredibly vast and complex entities outside the universe itself, but that doesn't make it a "simulation".
The world is too retarded not to be a simulation sorry
>>16933729>The universe might be some sort of petri dish spawned by incredibly vast and complex entities outside the universe itself, but that doesn't make it a "simulation".This is like arguing that God isn’t just a giant fucking extra dimensional alien entity. He is. A simulation is as simple as an island survival scenario/experiment.
>>16933729>it’s not a universe created by an unfathomable intellect, it’s a universe created by an unfathomable intellect! there is a difference! Sure.
>>16933689>The word "simulation" implies imitation, so for our world to be a simulation it has to be happening inside a world just like ours, which is impossibleNah. Outside entities could be simulating (imitating) what they’ve already observed. A vivarium for instance is fundamentally a type of naturalistic simulation, or an enclosed, controlled environment designed to replicate a specific ecosystem, habitat, or environmental conditions that we’ve observed. If we extend that to universal scale… …then perhaps grand entities could reproduce universes they’ve already observed.
>>16933729>creating, perhaps even replicating an existent universe wholesale, just for observation’s sake, as it evolves over time, isn’t a simulation. It’s borderline. At this point we’re arguing semantics and that isn’t really good form.
>>16933752What reason would we have to believe we're living in such a replication rather than one of those universes being observed?
>>16933756It might be indistinguishable. They’re both more or less the same. Especially if you already buy into the idea that existence is everything everywhere every-when all at once. Perhaps intelligence is a required ingredient for certain thresholds of reality. Like how the 21st century wouldn’t have popped into being without an intelligent enough species to conceive of it. Maybe physics as we know it is more intentional than we realize, it’s just become ambient to the point where it’s indistinguishable from nature, similar to how some notable mathematicians like Wigner find math to be eerie in the sense that it is “unreasonably effective”, or almost as though existence were designed by a mathematician.
>>16932696>so the answer was yes or noi wish i was dead so i won't read garbage like this
>>16933752Threadly reminder that your preteen "what if" fantasy have zero intellectual, let alone scientific, substance and isn't worth considering. The Simulation Argument in its proper form excludes your irrelevant fantasy.
>>16933791There’s a difference between entertaining something and believing in something. If you don’t have the required imagination, you aren’t a good scientist, period. All the greatest thinkers in history had far off ideas.
>>16933797>There’s a difference between entertaining something and believing in somethingYes. Now, which word did I use, retard?>If you don’t have the required imaginationThere's a difference between being able to imagine trite and infantile things with zero relevant implications and wasting your time doing this as an adult.
>>16933791You sound terrified of the prospect of there being big ass aliens. Sort of like how atheists are terrified of God.
>>16933801Anon all I’m saying is I wouldn’t be surprised if existence as we know it is just some interest project.
>>16933803> I wouldn’t be surprised if existence as we know it is just some interest project.But that's because you're brainwashed, not because there's a single shred of evidence to suggest your mind-numbingly uncreative fantasy is related to reality.
>>16933805Why do you need evidence? This is where I start to chuckle at you people. People in the past already came to shockingly accurate conclusions about the universe without having any evidence for it. You’re the one sided unimaginative type of person that I don’t have time for.
>>16933808>Why do you need evidence?To see if your if your mind-numbingly uncreative fantasy can be related to reality in some way. Otherwise I rather spend my time pondering things that are either relevant or at least conceptually interesting.
>>16933805The idea that some higher dimensional intelligence could or would create a lower dimensional “Petri dish” where things progress over time is a weird enough concept for you? Really?I find it funny how you people will claim that it’s 100% certain alien life exists, and yet you are also 100% certain that alien life could not visit us.How is this not a sign of fear? Hopeful but fearful. Reminds me of religion. You look at concept of non-human intelligence as akin to demons.
>>16933811>my existence being a toy isn’t conceptually interesting to meYou do know that reality being a hypothetical simulation wouldn’t actually degrade existence, right?
>>16933808desu anon, you sound pretty aphantasic. aliens, simulations... it's likely that your entire mental landscape consist of yesteryear's sci-fi scraps getting recycled and peddled by techbro scammers on social media. the more you randomly accuse people of being unimaginative the more obvious it becomes
>>16933817Stay isolated, I guess. Keep thinking humans are all there is. The idea that we haven’t been observed is far more absurd than the alternative. Sorry.
>>16933813>>16933815Brain-in-a-vat, with extra steps, minus any new epistemological implications. Simulation theories are the sci-fi equivalent of zombie horror movies. You're a monkey with zero imagination.
>>16933817>theoretical physics is gay ass fantasy stay in the present nerd; string theory is all there is No?
>>16933821A simulation is as easy as an island survival scenario. You are piss at thinking. You vastly underestimate what an intelligence can get up to. You think humans wouldn’t simulate realities if they had the capacity to?Again. You keep sounding terrified of something. But what?
>>16933819isolated from what? what are you talking about? your bizarre projections broadcast your own neuroses, which are probably dictated by pop culture just like the things you like to "imagine" (i notice you didn't deny being aphantasic)
>>16933821>claims they have zero imagination>hasn’t actually imagined any alternatives himself lol is this a form of projection
>>16933822are you off your meds again? nothing in that exchange touches theoretical physics
>>16933825>isolated from whatAre you really this isolated? Lol. >>16933828He’s saying your hatred of creative thinking is funny since that’s precisely why science has stagnated for the last seventy fucking years. No dissent!
>>16933823>You think humans wouldn’t simulate realities if they had the capacity to?Humans simulate things every day. What being does it have on your brain-in-a-vat regurgitation?
>>16933829>Are you really this isolated? what are you talking... ok, i can see you're severely mentally ill or more likely a spam bot. moving on
>>16933825You assume humans are the only intelligence capable of observing human life. I find that funny. You isolate yourself when you refuse to entertain the very real prospect that we aren’t the only intelligence capable of observing ourselves. It is a form of isolation. Similar to how denying that we’ve been visited by aliens is a form of isolation. It’s a challenge. “No you can’t come here. Nope. No way no way. Sorry!”. You’ve just waged a challenge to the rest of the universe. What makes our limitations so unique? We still haven’t figured out any successor theories. Any form of life that has cracked space time is probably looking at us. It’s possible we’re off limits the same way that one island off the coast of India is off limits. A no go zone.
>>16933830If humans has the capability to simulate entire universes/timelines, would they or would they not abuse it? Answer me.
>>16933835>If humans has the capability to simulate entire universes/timelinesSuper Mario Bros is "an entire universe" for a sufficiently permissive definition of 'universe'. What bearing does it have on your sci-fi cliche?
>>16933752Vivarium simulates nature in a small environment. Are you implying that only our planet is simulated and everything else doesn't exist? Well we can observe things beyond our planet. If our world is like a vivarium, how big it is then? We can observe CMBR so I guess it is at least as big as observable universe, unless CMBR was manually hardcoded into the simulation to trick us into believing its actually there but in that case it's just "imagine if" type of shit and you can imagine literally anything.
>>16933817>aliens, simulations... it's likely that your entire mental landscape consist of yesteryear's sci-fi scraps getting recycled and peddled by techbro scammers on social media./threadNormies are incapable of true speculation.
>>16933844This isn’t really science fiction. It’s just asking what you think the human species would do if they had such a thing. We’re already seeing precursors in the form of VR, and yes, video games. The ability to recreate and reframe realities is going to be one of the holy grails of science and technology. Likely surpassing medicine if we’re to assume the overwhelmingly vast majority of the human race is just totally dissatisfied with the lives they’re living.
>>16933752Vivarium is not a simulation in any way, it's a small enclosure. Is your room a simulation as well? When you put laptop in the bag is bag a simulation of a laptop?
>>16933849>>16933835>If humans has the capability to simulate entire universes/timelinesSuper Mario Bros is "an entire universe" for a sufficiently permissive definition of 'universe'. What bearing does it have on your sci-fi cliche?
>>16933846>Vivarium simulates nature in a small environment. Are you implying that only our planet is simulated and everything else doesn't exist?Does a forest not exist because you took bits and pieces of it to make a vivarium?I do consider space(time) to be a container of sorts. It holds light/relativity. It expands faster than it. It’s possible our universe is actually quite small to something so hypothetically massive. Or perhaps kickstarting realities is an overwhelming-in-odds prospect even to such hypothetical beings. Who knows. It might be incredibly easy to assess information “up there”.
>>16933851I feel like you’ve put yourself into a cognitive loop. I suggest taking a break from the screen.
>>16933853I accept your concession that we already know what humans do with simulations and/or you are unable to ask a meaningful question.
>>16933850>Vivarium is not a simulation in any way, it's a small enclosureBeep Boop Beep. You appear to be doing semantics. Which isn’t science.
>>16933855I’ve already accepted your concession the moment you forfeited your ability to entertain and imagine hypotheticals.
>>16932696You said Einstein knew light was a wave and your observer found a particle
>>16933859Your psychotic illness causes you to project your psych-med-induced aphantasia. It's obvious to anyone reading this exchange which one of us is actually capable of entertaining hypotheticals, let alone coming up with ideas outside of standard twitter fare. Either way, since you're too mentally deficient to narrow down your meaningless question, I'll help you out. What you meant to ask was:>what would humans do if they could simulate conscious beings and/or realities indistinguishable from oursAnd the answer to this is "ex falso quodlibet". Since any and all possibilities are now open to us, I say instead of simulating billions of boring, useless eaters like you - "people" who do nothing besides eating, shitting, consooming and regurgitating - they'd probably use their all-powerful magical tech to simulate realities that look nothing like this one, nothing like anything they are familiar with. Maybe they'd use it to explore the space of mathematically coherent realities, filter out the stagnant ones and try to find patterns behind the interesting configurations, thinking they could establish metaphysical lower bounds on for a set of constraints that would account for their reality being what it is.
>>16933867That’s a lot of words for something so simple.
>>16933872It's the right amount of words to describe what it describes. In any case, tell your tard wranglers they should either double your antipsychotic dose to stop your delusions entirely, or half it so that you start having interesting ones instead of this infinite sci-fi rehash.
>>16933852ok, so in the real world they took the planet earth and digitalized it and made a simulation of, but before that they just removed it from the existence?
>>16933867>ex falso means they can figure out something usefulso based
>>16933908Almost everyone here is a mouth-breathing mongoloid incapable of basic reading comprehension and you're no exception. Americoon mystery meat should be rangebanned.
Originally it wasn't a simulator. But then people made a ferris wheel and let their kid play on us.
>>16933901Simulators could in theory simulate whatever the hell they wanted to, anon. Even something entirely original.
>>16933723Of the simulation!
>>16932696My wife and I did the double-slit experiment with another girl and we were successful.
>>16934005>it works if I just entirely change the definition of the wordyeah ok buddy
>>16934190A simulation can be as simple as an imitation of reality — any kind of reality.
>>16932707>sad /sci/ doesn't remember Gary>shocked /sci/ doesn't remember Wolfram
>>16932696elon is a make-believe celebrity scientist like einstein, and is only there doing thebidding of his master, pushing you along the chosen path. for all intents and purposes, you are already in a simulation.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cUR4up6EBLA&pp=0gcJCdgKAYcqIYzv
>>16933686The "we live in a simulation" phrase just means we don't leave in the "true" or "base" reality as they like to call it. We live in a world created by a machine.If you can't understand such a simple concept you might be the retard
>>16932696The fuck is a "computer scientist"?Computers are man made technology, it's like saying a "beer bottle scientist". when did "scientist" become a title?
>>16935331Why are you pretending it's the first time you hear the term?
>>16932696pseud
>>16932696what the groups don't understand is that there isn't a difference between simulation and real. a perfectly emulated amiga game cannot tell the difference between "really" being on an amiga or being on an emulated one
>>16936003it is by definition pseudoscience, yes, and a really annoyingly meaningless topic
>>16932696Top computer scientist here. We have tons of great arguments for this being a simulation and we don't have any good arguments against it.Also, I wouldn't expect a physicist to have anything interesting to say about this matter.Go a layer above and ask someone who studies metaphysics instead.
>>16933516Just because there's a retard online claiming to champion the "cause of science" doesn't mean science is fake and gay
>>16936039too bad there aren't any scientific arguments in favor of it
>>16933153underappreciated post
>>16932701AI handles his social media
>>16932701I'm more baffled that a human being this fucking stupid can be this rich. He keeps ruining everything he touches and he manages to keep making fucking money. He's like the opposite of a whipping boy, it's like people keep throwing money at him regardless of what he does but to what fucking end?
>>16932701>>16936156It's high level trolling, like Andrew Tate, but you faggots are too stupid and too arrogant to see it.
>>16932717Imagine how much of a nerd you have to be to think you get points for pointing out that someone uses drugs. Snitch rat licker.
>>16936086We also have don't any scientific arguments for morality but have plenty of good arguments for not murdering each other.Some things are just outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.
>>16936229https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
>>16936389Science deals with is questionsMorality deals with ought questions.We cannot get ought from is.Therefore, morality questions and science questions are mutually exclusive.You linking me to a Wikipedia page doesn't change any of the facts mentioned above.
>>16936398Especially if you don't read it, am I right?
>>16936402Try doing that yourself next time>The idea of a normative science of morality has met with many criticisms from scientists and philosophers. Critics include physicist Sean M. Carroll, who argues that morality cannot be part of science. He and other critics cite the widely held "fact-value distinction", that the scientific method cannot answer "moral" questions, although it can describe the norms of different cultures.
>>16936389https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Funny how hard skeptics will believe in the possibility of simulation but not in the possibility of us having been visited.This implies they need a more profound explanation for aliens. Simply being from another planet isn’t enough for them.
>>16936429Both are pointless lines of discussion that can't be resolved and make no difference in your day-to-day life. Might as well contemplate how many angels can dance on a pin
>>16936442actually being visited can easily be resolved, just find the visitor
>>16936156He's a MIC front man stooge.They privatize things so that you can't see what they are doing. Standard operating procedure.
>>16933855>Indian debate syntax
>>16936168>he is playing 5d chess bro, he's not retarded!
>>16932696>>16932698More like a Dunning Kruger experiment in basic human psychology where you make people who excel in a single area seek your approval and fear losing face by having to pretend to know anything about that topic The correct answer would have been "I have no clue" because even within physics or CS there are many different fields where you can't be an expert of any two of them simultaneously.I think they later regretted giving the answer too quickly and realized that they were exposed I doubt musks tweet is anything but mockery for them though
a theory which predicts that empirical reality is a falsehood should be discarded as a bad theory.>its simply too unlikely for our universe to be realwell, it is real, so the tools you used to arrive at that conclusion were flawed
