We can't possibly "live in a simulation!!!111!!!!" because it takes more resources (either in the form of space, time, energy, or matter) to 100% accurately simulate a given real phenomenon than is contained within the phenomenon itself, and since phenomena are interconnected with other phenomena in the universe, even 100% accurately simulating a single phenomenon requires the metaphysical leap of isolating that phenomenon from other other phenomena in order to avoid having to simulate literally everything in existence. The computational power alone required to simulate an entire universe at real time speeds would require more energy than is contained in several universes. And even then there still might be a tradeoff between accuracy and latency, resulting in a simulation which does not produce results which are very predictive of reality. All simulations which are economically viable are inherently lossy, and all information, even information written in cuneiform on clay tablets 5000 years ago, is essentially highly compressed and lossy data which is meant to imperfectly reflect reality for some specialized purposed and nothing more. You cannot simulate all of reality. This is religious fantasy made to sound scientific.
>>810917>because it takes more resources Proof?
does it matter? id revolt even in a simulation.
>>810918try to create a perfectly accurate simulation of all the parts of your computer and the electricity flowing through it using only the resources contained in your computer and the electricity flowing through it. You will have to tradeoff one of the four resource types.
>>810919You are not even revolting in the real world.
This.
I feel that “we live in a simulation” is just a peculiar sci-fi theory that’s promoted to mystify one’s daily reality because they’re too disenchanted
No different from conspiracy theorism
I don't think we live in a simulation because I never got sex. Because of that I don't believe we live in a simulation. A real simulation would've provided me with tons of sex with women.
Your argument is actually not very convincing. If we were being simulated, why would the higher universe is anything like ours? Maybe in the higher universe it would take only a small amount of energy to simulate our entire universe.
But yeah obviously caring if we do or don't live in a simulation is just a religious fantasy with a thin veneer of scientific reasoning.
>>810917That assumes the outside dimension is like ours. Could be bigger, stranger, higher dimensions. We could be like Pacman to them.
>>810938If we do live in a simulation in a higher universe, we would still be at risk of being shut down or glitched
>>810939A simulation would require constant power supply without any interruption.
And you’re forgetting that simulations can have their codes changed.
>>810939You mean universe.
A dimension is one axis of space.
A universe is a set of objects existing in set space
>>810940>shut downYou wouldn't know, even if it happened, since you wouldn't exist anymore
>glitchedMaybe that's what all the ghost/post death stories are about
>>810940Honestly no I don't think we would be at risk of either. You wouldn't simulate a universe just to shut it down arbitrarily in the middle, and a glitch in the simulation would just be a glitch in physics. Well worrying about that should probably be left to universal level civilisations who might have the energy to start hacking physics properly.
>>810944You don't need the universe to be a simulation for there to be hackable physics. What would need to be true instead, is multiverse theory, where different universes have different laws of physics. If there were multiple bubble universes with different local laws of physics and they have the potential to split or merge over time, then the possibility of physical laws changing would be real.
You put too much effort in. Simulation theory takes so many leaps and makes so many assumptions you'd have to be unreasonable to even consider it and people only believe it because technically speaking I guess you can't disprove it. it's the solipsism of tech dweebs.
>>810932maybe you were a really horny alien and they put you in the simulation so that you would learn to go without sex.
>>810953OP is just using simulation theory as an excuse to rant about computation and its limits, which are much more relevant on a day to day basis.
Words cannot despise these types of unfalsifiable theories that tech neckbeards come up with so that they feel good about you being "unable to disprove it" despite the fact the theory brings absolutely nothing constructive to the world. Just mental masturbation.
>>810956they are, but I don't understand them
if you'd read about localized infinity glitches you wouldnt be so certain that life isnt a simulation
>>810943>ghosts are glitches in the matrixWrong. Those are not glitches.
A glitch would be more some normal-matter object/mass disrupting space time around it with no explanation in laws of physics.
>>810944How do you know that we wouldn’t be at risk?
People don’t run simulation for the sake of shutting them off half way but shit happens.
Also a glitch would be more than just a glitch in physics.
>>810960Fucking this. It doesn’t even describe the technical flaws in their theory.
A lot of these people who entertain this theory aren’t all well read in science or philosophy. They are just bored with life and wanna “escape”. These are the same people who fall into conspiracy theorism or religious extremism.
They’re personalizing their own failures in life onto the world.
Here’s a question I ask of the believers of the “simulated universe” theory:
Where are the updates?
All simulations require cybernetic updates to keep it running smoothly.
If glitches are simply peculiar incidents of abnormalities in the laws of physics, updates would change the laws of physics.
If the universe is a simulation, then that means people could be raised back from the dead
We haven’t seen that happen yet.
And I don’t mean near-death state either.
Unique IPs: 13