What if the whole world was just a simulation and we are a part of its data ? Atoms, electrons and gluons being some kind of elementary data that gets computed through functions and algorithms similar to computer coding to make more complex data (if (C + O2){return CO2} or something like that) and basically the whole world being a simulation matrix that works through algorithm iteration, which can get observed through the evolution theory and astronomy ?
>>17024912>what if (schizobabble)nothing, you have posited nothing testablewhat if the entire universe is just a thought experiment in the imagination of a nine-dimensional caterpillar? please like and subscribe for more untestable 'theories'
>>17024912its great news. nothing actually mattters and just do what you want
>>17024918I disagree with this orator, I believe simulation theory has philosophical debate potential.For example we could attack it through computational complexity, you see how many GPUs needed to create smth like Omniverse to train a robot pickup a box. If the "whole" world is a simulation then where those "GPUs" to simulate it would be placed? Certainly you need a bigger world to simulate smth.It also beats "simulation argument" which retard Altman is so excited about. It sounds like this "there could be infinity more simulations than real worlds thus we are likely leave in a simulation". You see, with the above computational limitations (which are scientific, this is how it related to /sci/) you can't have infinitely many simulated worlds.
>>17024918Iterations in the universe are some kind of proof of concept of this, with the right observations of the interactions around the universe that surrounds you, you could model the right algorithm, prepare the right setups and end up in the right parameters to get a decent material life for your own consciousnessThats what egyptian used to do to build pyramids or manage food storage, and thats what made nuclear power possible, except they werent aware of the existence of computers or AI.
>>17024923You cant actually do what you want, you are determined by a succession of functions and parameters that applies to you, except if what you want suits to the parameters and functions that are applied to you, for example you cant outpace a jaguar through genetic manipulations because it has not been observed as being possible, but you could build a bike or something to get closer to what you want as you have the hands and cognitive power as a human to assemble complex things with tools
>>17024912Simulation Theory, like Panspermia or Intelligent Design, is just can-kickery masquerading as real science.
>>17024912what if the world is just a book written by Jesus?>>17024937if you couldn't have not posted that, then youre dismissed since coerced testimony is not valid.
>>17024950>coerced testimonyYou still have choice, but you just need to take a set of choices made for you, just like alternative endings in RPGs, you cant make your own ending but you can choose a set of endings that were made possible by the pre-existing parameters developed on the game that you chose to take
It’s kind of weird how the universe goes to such great lengths to maintain the speed of light. If the universe is a simulation then the designers might have been aware of a “rendering limit” that the constant speed of light solves. Maybe God could also have a good reason for instituting such a speed limit, if he exists.
>>17024912If you're watching TV, is there a little person inside ? No, it's just lights projected to form the illusion of a film.When you play The Sims, are those real people inside the computer, however simple-minded? No, just a computer calculating the reactions of imaginary people.If you do the math to calculate where a cannonball would fall, is there an actual cannon being fired because of it? No, it's an imaginary projection of what would happen given certain physical conditions.A simulation is exactly that. We cannot be in a simulation because we are real, we have sentience and a physical existence. A computer would be simulating something which is, implicitly, not there. There's no such thing as living "inside" a computer world, there's no such thing.
>>17025159>it's just lights projected to form the illusion of a film.Thats a TV, there is no really computing power involved>are those real people inside the computer, however simple-minded? No, just a computer calculating the reactions of imaginary people.We can consider our consciousness as a simple minded program, at the very basic level consciousness just relies on previous experiences and tries to interpret or anticipate situations based on the data it already stacked>If you do the math to calculate where a cannonball would fall, is there an actual cannon being fired because of it?In a simulation, you could calculate the trajectory of a cannonball based on physics which derives from the matrix parameters observations which created laws and theorems, the cannonball you fired would seem real for you and tear someone in your reality, but maybe its all just part of a simulation and the dead man would just be erased from the simulation>we have sentience and a physical existence.Bases on what pur consciousness tells us, which is based in empirical perception and DNA that is composed of atoms just like the rest of the simulation>A computer would be simulating something which is, implicitly, not thereMaybe everything that happens in this simulation doesnt exist and is just a bunch of data computed by algorithms and functions which seems real for out programed consciousness
Let me explain something and I think this will help you.Imagine the point in some multi-dimensional data space you are at right now in exact equivalence. For the sake of simplicity lets say it's just a very long string of numbers, lets call it X.Now how many lines could you draw through X?And so how many defining behaviors can predict X right now?
>>17024928Your assessment relies on too many assumptions. For example, your perception of the passage of time, had we been in a simulation, would be entirely dependent on the world clock of the simulation. If 1 second for us were 1000 seconds in the real world, you'd need approximately 1/1000th the computing power to run the simulation. Likewise there's questions about how much of the universe is being simulated and to what level of granularity. And that's before we get into how the physics of the simulation may differ from the universe the simulation is nested in, which may mean a computation which is difficult for even the most advanced hardware we'd theoretically be capable of producing could be a trivial computation for the simulator we exist in.Tl;dr: even these sorts of inquiries are meaningless. Arguing about "simulation theory" is no different from argung about solipsism.
>>17024918>TESTABLE>PHILOSOPHY IS NOT WORTH DISCUSSINGThat said simulation theory is retarded
>>17024912Same thing as God theory except denying God's moral authority and placing yourself in His stead.Ngmi
Deliberate obtusity is not an excuse
Nor is denialism
You either choose to Love God, or you choose to turn away.Simple as.
