Thread for proofs that we are in a computer program?

Imagine when we "die" we just wake up in a room somewhere beyond our universe. We have just awakened from a vacation of sorts, just like in Total Recall, but not a chemical brain alteration, but computer.

Wild.

Attached: wait.gif (257x212, 2.91M)

This is bait but I still want to reply to it for some reason. I don't think the two concepts are on the same level. You don't find any mega-churches around that are evangelizing that people convert to a belief in simulation theory.

imagine being at computers

the possibles man, the possibles are endless

>ghost chemical bonding
That's quite interesting.

I read a while ago that such a simulation should require physical constraints of sorts that some physicists were looking for. I can't remember the details now but I hadn't read anywhere if they were successful. The power requirements to run such a simulation is unimaginable also.

You're not wrong.

Then what kind of explantion is there for that ghost chemical bonding?
The link explains what the process is, but I briefly summarized it in the OP.

You have to admit the concept is akin to a computer glitch, where a character in a video game for example glitches through a wall, or acts as though they have an item that they don't actually have...

This is a software glitch, what else could it be?

youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

I'll throw a bullet here but, why does people want to believe in this thing of a simulation rather than in God? It takes more faith to belive that than to believe that a superior being created everything

Seek help.

I've never thought of it like that..

Attached: 1546525573153.png (405x344, 10K)

The problem I have with this idea of it being a bug is that it causes no major problems and has consistent, and even useful, behavior.
This makes it hard to determine if it is really a bug or expected behavior.

If you're looking for bugs that provide evidence of a simulation then we need something that will result in unpredictable and unexpected behavior. Something that will cause a violation in something we are already sure of.

As it stands, ghost chemical bonding is odd, but it is something that was predicted BEFORE experiments were done. Which means it remains within bounds of known physics.

>muh megachurch
The human framework built around the core concept is irrelevant, if you're a true believer, and distinctly different from the intelligent design theory

It comes as a logical conclusion.

In 1994, we did not have access to technology we have today. Likewise today we do not have access to technology that will inevitably exist.

Following any path of logic, it goes without saying that technology will continue to improve in capabilities. It will reach the point where (somewhere in the far distant future) resources are powerful enough to host such a simulation...

And if that is possible to happen at all, it could have indeed already happened and we are inside that inevitable creation...

>It takes more faith to belive that than to believe that a superior being created everything
Does it really?
I would put it on equal footing at best. Neither has any evidence so it is 100% blind faith either way.
Same with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just as much faith required.

If we're in a simulation then our simulated universe must be orders of magnitude less complex than the real universe our simulation was created in.
Simulation hypothesis is the exact same as arguing for God though. It's not science, it will never be proven true or false. Any evidence presented to a religious person/"simulation theorist" could be brushed off as us not looking hard enough, or interpreting the evidence wrong.
There's a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars. You can't prove me wrong here.

Attached: 1556398892406.jpg (500x500, 55K)

intelligent design

>a higher power created the universe and us

simulation theory

>a higher power created the universe and us as a simulation

wow so different

Attached: 15129905_952949104805018_277225856_n_952949104805018.jpg (522x477, 35K)

Probability we werent created is effectively 0 given the (((random permutations))) needed for us to be here now

>created the universe and us
Not necessarily us, the simulation could be created, but experienced by us as a kinda of super-realistic VR type thing. Like this is just the 100th gen xbox that we are playing an MMO that we get immersed fully.

*proves maxwells equations, greens theorem, and the laws of thermodynamics*
*dabs*

What kind of computing hardware would you need to simulate the 10^80 atoms in the universe?

Attached: 1515106832279.jpg (466x618, 29K)

Ehh, no.
For the universe to be such that it was inevitable that we would be here now (the universe would be in the exact state it is at this moment) would require a creator.

Rolling a six five times in a row in unlikely, but if you do it that doesn't mean that it was rigged so you would always throw sixes.
Though fortunately we can test to see if a die is rigged, but you can't test if there is a god. All we can see is that the universe doesn't need one.

What if the atoms don't render until we look close enough?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

It's like LODs in video games.

The observer effect is again another example of proof we are in a simulation.
Think about it, when you open up the task manager, the mere fact that you're observing your running processes uses processing power.
Meaning you can never "truly" observe the processes of you computer, because the results will always be affected by the tool you are using to observe them.

That's called synchronicity

The ultimate personalized gaming experience ;)

>creationism == intelligent design

Technological advancement is not infinite, there are limits on what’s possible.

If the universe was running Arch we'd know by know since it would have broken

Ya, and why do you think running an accurate simulation of this reality is outside of those limits? You have no evidence to suggest we won't ever get to that point.

I dropped a cap of a bottle in my lab. Couldn't find it. Spent 30 minutes looking for it. I heard it drop in the floor near me. Saw it fall in the general direction. I was in a small room. There was a very limited amount of floor space that it could haves landed on or rolled off too. But i never found it. It straight up disappeared. I think about this a lot. Its the only truly unexplainable event in my life.

It clipped through the floor

Truly epic

>>/x/

You make my point except you are too dumb to see.

What's the probability of rolling a six a million times in a row? Might as well be zero.
And no, you cannot test if the die is rigged. We cannot repeat the experiment of Earth and us to see what would happen. There is no counterfactual.

>Might as well be zero.
But it's not, faggot.

It's still there, you just lack the creativity to find it.

two people at different times 'disappeared' , i drove by, guy at a bus stop, drove only 100 feet further past him, at like only 20-30 mph, drove into the parking lot behind him, (saw no bus) turned my head to the right, no person there. im like huh? maybe its me having the problem but everything there was 'normal' imho the whole time, other than that 1 guy 'no there'? maybe he hid himself i guess.

imagine being consumed by electronics to a point you actually start believing this.

Just get your sheltered ass out of your air-conditioned house and spend some time in the wilderness.

But you won't really do that because you are a lazy pseudo-intellectual who can't actually face reality and so decided it's all a simulation.

Maybe you didn't see someone, maybe you did someone and they passed out and dropped to the ground; maybe you're just crazy, maybe I'm not real, just a figure of your imagination.

For a simulation to exist some outside universe in which that simulation exists must also exist. Fuck this dumb ass theory passing the buck.

...

I imagine a patch like what you describe would just involve rolling the simulation back to the moment of discovery and then it just never happened. Which makes you wonder if it's already happened before. Maybe we cracked faster than light travel and then there was a patch and rollback to keep us from finding the edge of our cage?

You need to kill yourself

That would result in the suicide effect.

That would make sense, as the ability to trick atoms into bonding with nothing could turn out to be a game-breaking bug. I imagine the simulation devs did not intend for this mechanic, since through exploiting it, could introduce other game-breaking mechanics.

It's not an intended feature, so it will probably be patched out or we will experience a rollback of some sort...

ah some people sleep on the sidewalk, there was bushes, maybe he layed down lol, but still theres no argument for the observer effect with that science experiment (supposedly)

How about a signed integer wraparound error in temperature handling?

cryo.gsfc.nasa.gov/introduction/neg_Kelvin.html

He got de-loaded because you weren't looking, but turned around too fast that he couldnt be loaded back in without you obviously knowing and breaking immersion so he stayed gone

>so he stayed gone
Where though? /dev/null ?

Layman's terms?

>the observer effect
That's bullshit. That shit only works on the quantum level.

Making a particle's absolute temperature negative (below absolute zero) makes it warmer. This looks suspiciously like what happens when you try to set an unsigned integer to -1in a language without runtime checks for such things.

How could you say there's a true reality anyway? Maybe only computer programs exist, or rather - maybe all realities are what we would call virtual.

Imagine a person integrated into a virtual reality using a brain-computer interface, and experiencing sufficient amnesia that he cannot remember this reality (the one in which we are typing to each other).

How can it be said that this is not already the case? Perhaps all of us humans do exist in a different reality and have chosen to come here with amnesia?

Perhaps we can create believable virtual realties ourselves and eventually humans will choose to engage with the VR rather than experiencing life here. (The requirement is that the system can sustain itself without human input, or very limited human input, such that our bodies are still nourished while we are experiencing the next level of VR.)

In this case our minds are limited (inhibited) conduits for our consciousness to reach down from the higher reality into this one. Just as if we created a new reality we would need an avatar to "live" in to experience it. Whenever you play a game you must play a character.

As of now, a believable VR is close enough - the technology isn't far away. So what should stop this hypothesis from being true? Also this is simpler/more likely to happen than humans creating consciousness on a computer. Why would we? We already have consciousness in our minds that can enter the new reality. I believe creating consciousness is actually impossible. I've thought more about this but this is the overview.

>pay life savings for a VR vacation
>born retarded
>shoulda just bought a sex-bot harem

Its being generated with variables, only so many restrictions are put in place..government and law are an art form, there has been lots of death...kind of difficult to do one thing without having a negative. If I can't fix this it will end up underwater.

Attached: P3070540_Tree_branches_in_Fog_1024x1024.jpg (1000x786, 221K)

This is what I was trying to get at in my OP -- we are living in a simulation; not that we are necessarily products of that simulation. If such a simulation were to exist, our existence within it would be as participants, similar to VR experience, and should the system cease to exist -- we would find us back in our "real" selves, or at least one more step "realer" (if you believe there could be multiple VR layers).

>And no, you cannot test if the die is rigged.
In the real world, yes. That's the point.

>What's the probability of rolling a six a million times in a row? Might as well be zero.
True. But ALL possible outcomes have the same probability. The probability of them all being ones is just the same as them all being six. The probability of any specific sequence is just the same as any other specific sequence.
That's the point. The fact we ended up with A specific sequence doesn't provide evidence for anything.

No, clearly there would be checks for such things or otherwise we'd discover the integer size of the universe when the lab explodes.

Is the real great filter a race condition between two poorly coded functions?

This reality is just a training simulation for aliens to interact with advanced humans as service workers, Without the necessary cultural experience, humans would get easily offended.

Yes, this is what I say when people play the lottery.

They pick specific numbers like it will help their chances of winning, but then I tell them that the sequence

1 2 3 4 5 6

has as much chance as winning as their chosen numbers, and they dont like hearing that so much..

Exactly. I am starting to actually believe this - that we would go back to a higher level of reality if we or the system ceases to exist. But I imagine there's many levels of reality and I'm not sure if there's a limit to how many there can be.

I'm not sure how far we can go in understanding this though. Our "minds" may be limited in this reality, just as they are more so when we are dreaming (which I also consider an alternate reality considering we often experience a level of amnesia in dreams).

But that's not an error. If it's a signed integer then it is SUPPOSED to wrap around.
If particles suddenly jumped to a very high energy state below 0 Kelvin then that would be more suspicious, aka an unsigned integer wraparound.

If you wraparound an unsigned integer it'll go to the from 0000 to FFFF or FFFF to 0. So an unsigned integer error would result in an extremely high energy state when crossing absolute zero.

>If we're in a simulation then our simulated universe must be orders of magnitude less complex than the real universe our simulation was created in.
Thats like minecraft mobs not able to imagine that they are in a simulation, because they expect it to run on redstone

That's right, reddit.
Though I don't believe lottery is exactly random. But the fact is that the chance of any INDIVIDUAL winning the lottery is one in 500,000,000 or whatever, but that doesn't mean that NO ONE can win. If enough tickets are bought then it becomes a statistical probability that there will be A winner.

...

>why yes, I am an atheist
>btw, did you know that we're in a simulation?

Attached: 1533612105225.jpg (640x845, 108K)

What does God or Atheism have to do with this? Whatever "our" soul comes from, it's entirely unrelated to us living in a 100% immersive VR simulation

simulation theory is intelligent design for atheists
and honeslty it's less plausible than anything religion has come up with

That's literally what happens though, "negative" temperatures are extremely hot.

I'm thinking if this is true. The program corrects itself through means of 'new discovery'. As humans become more logical and observant, any evidence they find of a 'glitch' will be covered up adding in new information, and provided to the humans as a new discovery of how things really work - or is wrong. You can't beat the system, no matter how hard you try to figure it out, because it will always be pulling the wool over your eyes by adding something new or patching. And, if the system is negligent enough to not notice, then how advanced is it really?

You got me dude.

No, it's really not. I can believe in God, and also believe that technology has advanced to the point where they can create super realistic simulations we can experience, like MMO

So you're arguing for God

God doesn't exist, and if it does then it can be explained. If it's explainable is it god still?

To be honest though, why can't people just admit they don't know? And go along with what evidence we do or don't have, instead of believing shit written by imaginative humans who possibly drank too much or had a mental disorder?

technically yes but practically no
simulation theory is extremely implausible, so it's only taken seriously by hardcore atheists attempting to explain the things religion can using 'science'

If religion believes in God/higher beings then what are aimulation theory believes, advanced human playing VR?

Get your brain fixed

Yea well you ask someone in 1800s whether they thought it would be plausible that people can send pictures of their cock directly to anyone across the earth and what you think their answers would be?

Technology improves over time, that is inevitable. We see technology advance even within our own lifetimes.
What is so implausible about one day, with some breakthrough or discovery in advanced computing power, that something could be so technologically advanced that today seems out of reach?

I must admit being creeped out by highly intelligent people playing multiple boards of chess. But we are still limited by the prism of day to day experiences.

There also has to be a proof that 'glitches' can exist iff we are in a simulation. Maybe it's just nature being weird.

You're being very narrow minded with the ideas implying we actually came form somewhere, are not real, or just exist because we exist. It's all possible, but any sane person wouldn't say it's a fact... Magic and mysticism is what's rediculous, it's like when we went from Alchemy to Chemistry. Shit's just evolving. All anybody can say is it's a fun idea to play around with... Religious people take things as fact and put themselves in a bubble that is hard to pry them out of...

you're making the assumption that technological process is limitless and can do anything. Sounds an awful lot like god doesn't it? It's the same thing as the AI singularity. Religion for atheists, not grounded in science in any way, rather the assumptions you make that technology is limitless and all-powerful

can we stop using the word god in the discussion?

no

Stuff is either evolved or designed. Claiming to know wether the universe has evolved or designed is just pure speculation.

Religion tier gods are bs and belong in
/x/

You're not making a sane comparison. Believing that technology will continue to advance and can possibly (or inevitably) be able to host realistic simulations that can be experienced has nothing to do with religion.

Unless you're saying that the mere belief that technology will advance at all is some type of "religion", you're misguided.

You're trying to discredit this idea by comparing it to a religion, when it is essentially the exact same thing as someone saying "I can't wait until that new X comes out, it's gonna be so much better than current Y." is also a type of religion.

You're trying to make comparisons where none exist

>saying "I can't wait until that new X comes out, it's gonna be so much better than current Y." is also a type of religion.
it is
Believing that technology is all-powerful is not science
Believing that something is all-powerful is religious thought whether you want to admit it or not