>>16969956
>No, just because quantum physics are wacky doesn't mean we live in a fucking simulation.
I've never heard of this before. Can you explain the reasoning?

>>16969987
No, I can't because unlike all the retards trying to explain quantum physics I know I can't do it. So instead of making up retarded shit, I prefer to guard silence. Quantum physics will be understood one day and anyone trying to explain them now or selling weird theories like "we live in a simulation" is a con artist or a grifter. Be patient, don't jump into conclusions just because they sound like an easy way out.

>>16969995
If you can't explain it then how can you be sure that you understand it, and perhaps more to the point, how can I be sure that you understand it?

>>16969995
do you get unjustly mad when hearing the phrase "all the world's a stage"?
thats what "its all a simulation" means to noncewits

>>16969956
>Hairless ape gets confused and angry.
Many such cases.

>>16969956

It's just an accurate model. Nothing else. Does Einstein's theory necessitate that the fabric of the universe is smooth as if it was made out of Leibniz's monads? Quantum discreteness (i.e., in the name "quanta") explicitly contradicts this; yet we can treat gravity as a smooth force (perhaps because of how weak it is...)

Similarly, for statistical models in data streams, we stop using probability mass functions because a singleton measurement approaches "0 width" as the sample size increases. Does this mean we're restricted to a low sample amount? No, it means we change our perspective of measurement, and instead use something like the Central Limit Theorem to say "aha! so our measure regularity now rests on using normal distributions to model (most) data distributions."


Leo AI:

The key insight from the search context is that hyperbolic space (such as the Poincaré disk or hyperboloid model) expands exponentially as you move away from the origin. This exponential growth allows trees and hierarchical structures to be embedded with low distortion in just two dimensions (the hyperbolic plane), whereas Euclidean space would require many more dimensions to avoid "crowding" of nodes.

Specifically:

Exponential Volume Growth: In hyperbolic space, the volume (or number of points) grows exponentially with distance from the center. This matches the exponential growth of nodes in a tree (e.g., a binary tree has $2^l$ nodes at level $l$).
Efficient Embedding: Because of this property, a 2D hyperbolic space can represent hierarchical data that would require a much higher-dimensional Euclidean space to represent accurately.
Projection Models: Common models like the Poincaré disk or hyperboloid model map the infinite hyperbolic space into a bounded region (like a unit disk or a sheet of a hyperboloid). This allows for visualization and computation in a finite, lower-dimensional coordinate system relative to the complexity of the data structure.

>>16969956
Yes simulation is very gay and has been solved millenia ago by Plato in Republica. But that's not really science so I'll leave it at that.

>>16969956
Simulation Theory is retarded for the same reason Panspermia is retarded: It's just can-kickery.

>>16970035
weird way to concede

>>16969956
Parallel universes / multiverses are falsifiable in some formulations thoughever.
I've never seen a falsifiable formulation of the so-called simulation theory.

>>16970181
>has been solved millenia ago by Plato in Republica
You mean the cave allegory? That doesn't really solve it.

>>16969956
>scientific theories
>"simulation" theory
Its not really scientific though. Its a philosophical explanation for our reality. Its the same thing as creationism but with heckin 1s and 0s.

"scientific theories" that posit no differences between sex and race

>>16969995
Your method is inefficient in getting people interested in studying the topic. They'll wind up in more contemporary and flashy topics like game theory and "psychology".