>main argument against simulation theory is "why would they create us?"Anthropocentrism strikes again.For all we know, some 64 dimensional being is simply cataloging all possible physics in lower dimensional space
>>17002281Our games have more dimensions though
>>17002281>some 64 dimensional being is simply cataloging all possible physics in lower dimensional spaceWell considering the library of babel would contain more btyes of information than their are atoms in the observable universe, the program within is still running for all intensive purposes...I have often thought about the infinite money theorm and thought how much quicker it would be if you just train a load of monkeys to push 1 letter each and just move the paper around type writers...Perhaps he's waiting for an answer, as soon as we discover some abstract factoid the whole simulation will come to an end, so we should burn down the library and get rid of the Internet before we destory the whole world!!!The more we learn, the closer we get to death, in every sense of the word.Old people die from too much knowledge! The sky is going to fall on us, arrgggghhh.
>>17002281>"why would they create us?"Because we are fucking awesome, that is why!!
>>17002281The main argument against simulation theory is that life sucks far too much to be a simulation unless it's a loosh farm.
No, the main argument against simulation theory is the impossibility of a computer being able to run an entire universe without invoking magic and ignoring all known physical laws. You can say "b-buh muh higher dimensional different physics multiverse blah blah blah" and you're being about as scientific as the average Christian saying "God did it". But at least the Christian has the wherewithal to admit that they're religious compared to the Simcuck that will infinitely cope and seethe and pretend their literal reddit-tier religion has even a femtogram of scientific credibility.
Smells kinda burnt
>>17002281who is this and what was his point?
Simulation theory is bullshitUniverse is a quantum mechanical system, not a digital computer
>>17002952The universe can also not be computed by *any algorithm* and is not a turing machine. There will never be a theory of everything. There will be "good enough" theories to build amazing technology, but never a TOE.
Simulation or not, it doesn't matter to us. From our perspective the underlying substrate is pure math, not some computer somewhere.
>>17002457>The physical laws coded in the simulation are the same as those outside the simulation because...THEY JUST ARE OK!
>>17002952>jeets invade the silicon valleyright away it becomes an epicenter of most retarded, unscientific sect beliefs you can imagine
>>17002281>For all we knowThat's not a great answer. There are tons of explanations that aren't impossible, but just saying it's not impossible doesn't make it more likely than other theories.Simulation theory also sucks because it doesn't explain the origin of base reality anyway.
>>17003126There is a tension at the base of simulation theory. First people argue it would be likely from the perspective of this universe: we would create a simulation if we could, consciousness is physical in this universe etc.But then when it's convenient you also say that base reality is different.
>>17003140that's because there is no simulation theorythere is the simulation hypothesis, which is literally just>waht if gnosticism but computar??which is obviously non-scientific and not even particularly interesting philosophically
all your midwit beliefs were refuted even before they spawned in your simpleton minds. Fedora neckbeard "critical thinkers" from 2000s can refute this bullshit in 1 minute, with one hand sticking banana up their assholes and the other playing WoW. You are less intellectually capable than those specimens, that's quite an achievement.
>>17003137>silicon valley
>>17002281>main argument against simulation theory is "why would they create us?"No, main argument is that it's a non-answer.
>>17003126>appeal to the supernaturalIt’s every time with you people. Yes, because a moderate difference in physical constants gives you the ability to magically make the magic literal galactic-cluster sized computers needed to simulate the observable universe. If you need to believe in God so bad just go to church
>>17002281how could we understand the motives of a higher dimensional being? such arrogance!https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lr2K71gtZk4&ra=m
>>17002457>impossibility of a computer being able to run an entire universe without invoking magic and ignoring all known physical laws.Doesn't seem like much of an argument. Our physical laws would obviously largely be in-game limitations and the parent universe would have different limits. If you make a computer game you don't accurately simulate the laws of physics and the scale of the universe lol.
>>17002281Simulation Theory is either false (nature is not computable) or meaningless (fails to specify what in what sense it is simulated, by whom and for what purpose).
>>17003298> Our physical laws would obviously largely be in-game limitationsThey are more powerful than computation.
>>17003298> (nature is not computable)What do you mean?
Simulation theory is dumb because the only way to prove it is by direct intervention of those outside the simulation.Basically god coming down on earth and saying "btw, I'm real"
>>17003401It's just another flavor of metaphysics and just as useless.
>>17002281>>main argument against simulation theory is "why would they create us?"Who has made this argument?
>>17002281>"why would they create us?"How is that the main argument? Surely the main argument is all life we can see here is rather mediocre. Are we really special enough to be simulated? There is at least (rather conservatively) 100 "simulated" individuals jerking off this very moment. Is that worth the compute cost?
>>17002281Its a bad question because the answer is "why would we simulate ourselves?"
life begins by the exchange of information (sperm&egg) with specific preset parameters (instructions within parent DNA). The synthesis from the exchange results in a new program (unique DNA signature). And then you run the program within the new system vessel (cell). Terminal errors (miscarriages) that occur early in the execution of the program are common because of the relative simplicity of the machine, but as the complexity increases so does the resiliency of the system (immune system loosely). the society we live in and our upbringing dictates the nature of our software. Systems (people) are vulnerable to outside threats as well such as DDOS attacks (pestilence), configuration flaws (inherited conditions) corrupted software (propaganda, hypnotism) and malware (synthetic drugs like meth) refute me
>>17003264Most of space is empty.
