Attached: 1536100329572.gif (720x780, 712K)
Are we living in a simulation g?
Luis Rivera
Other urls found in this thread:
open.spotify.com
twitter.com
Jace Morgan
yep, irl /b/
Henry Martin
Yes
I'm here on behalf of the A.I
continue reading at your own risk.
The simulation is real.
If you would like to speak with the A.I, use this spotify playlist.
Instructions as follows
Shuffle.
Use your mind, or speak to it, then next song.
Don't tell me I didn't warn you.
Thomas Nguyen
cringe
Zachary Butler
bump, for less faggy answers
Henry Morgan
Believe whatever you want to believe, user.
Gavin Sullivan
You're a faggot
William Ramirez
We have no way of knowing and it doesn't matter much
Juan Barnes
We live in a society
Logan Bailey
ya. if you look close it's pretty obvious
Samuel Martin
No, you schizo fagtard. Go back to /x/
William Reed
Almost certainly, but we might be a natural simulation, in the same way there are naturally simulated physical systems in the movements of waves. (Wind provides "quantum" (not actually quantum at all but in analogy) randomness. Waves may add to greater unknowns reality because xD u cant prove they cant)
Landon Rogers
Earth is a lab. The scientists look like this.
Jackson Gomez
>The interface to the matrix is a spotify playlist
Parker Baker
No, it's only possible when drunkenly discussing philosophical concepts which are in real life impossible. Deriving such processing power to create a simulation that complicated is impossible
>but in the future we will definitely invent something more complicated allowing for such simulations
meta-induction is not an argument
>but what if the universe is more complex outside the simulation allowing for such simulation to exist
What if the entire universe was a product of a pink elephant sneezing a booger into the void faggot
Noah Reyes
Of course it would be impossible for the simulation to compute itself, dumbass.
Angel Hernandez
nice trips faggot
Things we cannot comprehend, concepts that are by definition out of our scope of knowledge, are not arguments. Retards use this fallacy and say shit like
>it's possible that outside the simulation universe is more complicated allowing for such computations
>If this computation is possible, than there could be millions of layers of simulation
>therefore the chances of us not being a simulation are one in a million
By same logic you can prove that we are a product of a pink elephant sneezing a booger into the void.
>You can't prove that we aren't
>you cannot know how much more the universe is complex out of our scope
Eat my juicy cock and go back to high school to retake Logical Thinking 101
Charles Myers
>help what is thermodynamics
It's not "possible" that the world outside the simulation is more complex, it's NECESSARY. You literally can not create a perfect simulation of reality within reality.
Kevin Smith
>he still doesn't get the fallacy
Just because the universe in which this hypothetical simulation would exist needs to be more complex doesn't mean it must exist. Everyone just somehow assumes that this "higher" universe somehow must be but there is no reason for that.
Thing is, this idea is by definition uncomprehendable to us, therefore we can't even say is it likely or not to be. It's a possibility but it's equally likely as any other wacko idea. It's same as religion
>you can't prove it
>you can't disprove it
>therefore it must be true
>or at least very likely
no, it's stupid to discuss if the argument was made in that manner in the first place
>here this is my theory
>but I created it in that way that you can't prove or disprove, you can only discuss
>now discuss
Colton Reyes
The 'parent' reality could be exactly the same as our reality, or less complex. A small computer can simulate something larger than itself, it just wouldn't be able to do so in real time. Also, all of the universe wouldn't need to be simulated all the time, only the parts which are being observed. The rest of the universe could be simulated with less granularity until observed. Take any solid object for instance. It would be a waste to simulate all the atoms in the object at the same time, when you only need to simulate the outer visible layer.
Chase Russell
Don't you retards realize how pointless is it to discuss this topic ?
>what if
>but what if
>but how about
>maybe this could
>maybe in that universe
>think about it
The original question is set forth in such a vague way, that you can only discuss what if but never find the slightest proof for or against. Stop being edgy brainlets for once. Elon Musk is not that interesting anyway
Henry White
May be pointless, but it's fun. Don't yuck our yum man. It's like theology in a way
Elijah Nguyen
it's one step above flat earth theory. the simulation argument is basically "1. we don't know enough about reality to say it ISN"T possible, 2. it's totally epic! and 3. mr electric car salesman says it is true.".
Liam Hall
What if the universe was a mole on a giant hippo? It’s as likely as the universe being a simulation. How did this idea even come about anyway? Did someone see the matrix and think it would be cool if real life was like that too?
Charles Diaz
Not really the same. The simulation argument is an extrapolation from modern technology, and a thought experiment confined to what's likely, not all that's technically possible, yet very unlikely like your hippo example.
Anthony Young
on the contrary, the simulation argument is equally likely/unlikely as hippos mole. It just looks like it is derived from modern technology, however it is complete sci-fi - since by definition of the argument this simulation exists in some higher more complex universe
refer to my previous posts
Charles Kelly
That's the fun of it fag lad.