Do you think that we're living in a simulation?

[MaiqTheLiar]

So, a simulation of what?

Shadows in a cave?

I can go with shadows in a cave.

[GulliverFoyle]

@Grey_Devil

My humorless, serious response would be: Please define what you mean by simulation.

They mean the artifact of some entity we’d recognize as in some way conscious.

I agree that the universe is likely a quantum or implicate order computational process; information is the bones of all knowledge. But positing its physics to be an artifact of another is merely an extension of anthropomorphisation. Humans are poor at imagining a universe that wasn’t built by some version of ourselves.

[JonS]

A Bunch of Rocks

[DasKleineTeilchen]

@Grey_Devil

My humorless, serious response would be: Please define what you mean by simulation

I thought he did?

people who are convinced that our world is a digital creation

aka computer-generated-simulation. right?

[yetanother]

I’d say we are all living in our own, individual simulations, which we create.

Conscious Realism, some call it.

[anon62577920]

actually, recently things have gone badly enough for me i sometimes wonder about karma, past lives etc. maybe i was a real POS and now I’m reaping my reward

edit: not sure how to interpret the likes on this one

[wait_really]

Ok maybe it’s mumbo jumbo (irdkoc) but it’s worked as an excellent derailleur for me in conversations about the limits of knowledge

[Mark_Sniadecki]

I could get behind describing our experience of reality as a simulation (and a very limited one in some ways). But I believe there has to be a baseline realness–a space and a matter, persisting in what we experience as time–to inform the simulation, otherwise the precious little communication we do manage to succeed at would be impossible. The alternative explanation would be beyond nihilistic: implying that only I exist and everything else is generated from me.

I spent a metaphorical week on that drug as a misguided teenager in the mid-90’s, never doing that again.

[Punchcard]

We either do or we don’t, and it makes little practical difference. However, the question is a great way for wankers to disappear up their own ass.

I’m looking at you Elon.

[LurkingGrue]

Yes, and I expect the reason P ≠ NP due to restrictions on our hypervisor.

I also think the Galactibanks are also the product of a deranged imagination.

[anon62577920]

@Brian_Shock

The simulation theory is just one more non-falsifiable proposition in an infinite crowd of non-falsifiable propositions, like the existence of afterlives and deities. If you want to spend your time believing one or more of these propositions, that’s cool. However, if you treat others badly because of your belief in such propositions then you’re just one more insufferable jerk who’s dragging down the rest of us.

True Detective - Rust talks about Religion ("What's the IQ of these people?") {Full Scene} [HD]

[anon62577920]

quit sucking up to the global brain weenie

[j9c]

Oh oh I know this one!

Will Ferrell.

Definitely Will Ferrell.

[Asthmaticus]

@dug

Sure why not? At the very least, we know enough of physics to see through the matter myth.

I took a look at “The Matter Myth” on Amazon (Paul Davies), and it was last updated in 2007.

Is there a recent authoritative work on the subject?

Thank you.

[NickyG]

@GulliverFoyle

But positing its physics to be an artifact of another is merely an extension of anthropomorphisation.

Or, someday we learn that consciousness is actually a fundamental aspect of reality, and that our brains are more of an antenna for it, than a generator of it. Ya never know.

[Asthmaticus]

@NickyG

Or, someday we learn that consciousness is actually a fundamental aspect of reality, and that our brains are more of an antenna for it, than a generator of it.

How would you propose we prove this?

I can’t prove to you that I’m conscious, and you can’t prove to me that you’re conscious.

If we can’t verify the existence of each other’s consciousnesses, how do we go about exploring your idea?

[bheerssen]

It’s not simply ridiculous and stupid, it’s positively perverse. That gives the simulation hypothesis a little more credibility, in my opinion. But not enough to really take seriously.

[hecep]

@Melz2

This reality is too ridiculous and just downright stupid at times for anyone to have conceived of it and then intentionally designed it to be this way.

Perhaps sky-jebus has been driving trollies us.

[anon62577920]

@YetiLives

If we do live in a simulation, who wrote the code?

@NickyG

Or, someday we learn that consciousness is actually a fundamental aspect of reality, and that our brains are more of an antenna for it, than a generator of it. Ya never know.

Tired: do we or do we not have free will
Wired: we are all part of the global brain so STOP HITTING YOURSELF

@dug

On what subject? The idea that our world of gross appearances is constructed from more fundamental forces – (presumably) aspects of a unified whole that we cannot yet fully grasp isn’t a matter of debate. It’s just modern physics.

not gross. beautiful.

[dug]

@Asthmaticus

Is there a recent authoritative work on the subject?

On what subject? The idea that our world of gross appearances is constructed from more fundamental forces – (presumably) aspects of a unified whole that we cannot yet fully grasp isn’t a matter of debate. It’s just modern physics.