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.
>>810999If we're in a simulation Last Thursdayism could be real.
>>810917I don't think you need to give it that much thought, really. anyone could chime in and bolster the argument by providing a few concessions, such as…
>yeah ok but what if we just take for granted that the highly advanced artificial intelligence is many more times powerful than that which we as humans can comprehend?>what if it's so incredibly efficient in its rendering of the real-time simulation, and consumes a type of energy that is many times more potent than that which we can envision as humans? and blah blah blah. nobody takes this simulation theory seriously, it's just another fantastical alternative that is equally as viable as ye olde invisible sky daddy what made eveything and is gone but u on da naughty list if u dont worship him.
>>810999obviously simulation universe theory is bullshit but this is a weak argument against it since the hypothetical "devs" could interrupt our stream of consciousness or implant false memories of the "update" features having always existed.
>>811306Actually that’s not a bad argument.
This theory caused me to have an OCD related breakdown when i was 17 and ever since i have hated it with a burning passion.
>>810996>>810999You're thinking of it too much like a computer simulation, when our computers would be completely incomparable to whatever would be running it. There are either no updates (why would there be updates for a universal simulation?), or updates are so subtle we can't detect them yet, or updates that happen rarely and which haven't happened for all of human history. And about the people raised from the dead thing, yeah technically that would be possible but why would they do that? To the people in the higher universe we would be like amoebas, tiny life forms that are understood very well (though not quite solved, because you can't 'solve' life because life contains contradictions). On the other hand they might not even consider us alive, because to them we are just some emergent property of the physics engine, but one that is completely solved and like stick figures on a page. Or maybe we
>>810917It's just recreating gnosticism and eastern philosophy metaphysics for retards. If this was a simulation, that means that the "real" "physical" "reality" would have to be made out of different material than the simulated reality. Then we are inside the simulated reality, and cannot see what this material that our simulated reality is run on. It's no different then saying this universe is a dream of Brahma, Vishnu, the creator whatever.
Techies are so boring and uncreative. What do you call this phenomenon where ignorant idiots "reinvent the wheel" so to say where they feel they've independently invented what is a very old and widely known idea?
If you like computer metaphors:
>In addition to the traditional metaphor we just used, there’s a clever modern metaphor that you might find helpful. Your desktop computer has hardware and software. And so do you.
>The computer’s hardware represents your sthula sharira, your physical body, and the computer’s software represents your sukshma sharira. If you look inside your computer, you’ll see the power supply unit in a corner. In this metaphor, that power supply represents your heart.
>You’ll also see a tangle of assorted wires that represent your veins, arteries, and nerves. And you’ll find the main CPU chip hidden beneath its cooling fins. Obviously, the CPU chip represents your brain. Inside the computer chassis, you’ll also find the hard disk, the memory unit that contains all your computer’s software. That hard disk weighs about a pound and might be able to store 20 gigabytes of software in its memory.
>Now, if you were to completely erase all the software from that hard disk, would it weigh less? And if you were to store more software on that hard disk, filling it up to its 20 gigabyte capacity, would it weigh more?
>This metaphor accurately describes the distinction between sthula and sukshma, physical and non-physical. The hard disk is physical hardware like any part of your physical body. But the software is not physical, it is subtle, like your sukshma sharira.
>Without any software, your computer would be useless. It’s the presence and function of software that makes your computer a powerful, intelligent device. In the same way, it’s the presence and function of your sukshma sharira that makes you powerful and intelligent.
>Suppose your computer has been working fine, but when you try turn it on today, nothing happens; the screen remains dark. You hit control-alt-delete, or whatever, and try to reboot it, but nothing happens. What’s the problem? If your computer isn’t plugged into an electrical outlet, how can it work?
>In this metaphor, electricity represents atma, the one, all-pervasive consciousness, like the sun did in the previous example. It is electricity that makes each computer work, and it is the one, all-pervasive consciousness, atma, that makes all living beings sentient.
>If many computers are plugged into the same power source, it’s actually the same electricity flowing into each of the computers. In the same way, it’s the same all-pervasive atma shining within each of us, illumining our minds, revealing our thoughts, emotions, and memories, and enabling us to experience the world.
>Now, we can extend this metaphor to explain reincarnation, like we extended the bucket metaphor. When you buy a brand new computer, what’s the first thing you do with your old computer? You download all the software files from your old computer, and then you upload them to your new computer. Computer geeks call this software migration; we could call it transmigration.
>Just like software can be transferred or migrated from an old computer to a new one, the sukshma sharira travels from a dead body to a new one. To complete this metaphor, suppose you erased all the software from your old computer. Then, even when it’s plugged into an electrical outlet and switched on, nothing will happen. The computer will be dead, so to speak.
>In the same way, even though the one, all-pervasive consciousness continues to pervade a dead body, that body will be lifeless in the absence of a sukshma sharira.
>Now, we come to the final part of this presentation. Wood eventually rots and water seeps out of old buckets. That’s the way nature works. Computers eventually grow old. They get outdated and become incompatible with newer generations of software. So an old computer must be retired just like an old bucket.
>All this refers to the fact that our bodies are constantly aging and will eventually be unable to hold on to a sukshma sharira. We know that our sukshma shariras will travel on to inhabit new bodies, but we also know that at the time of death, we lose everything. We lose our loved ones, our possessions, the activities we enjoy, everything.
>>811357Regardless, they can still be affected
If they’re incomparable to our own, why assume that the universe is a simulation then?
I don't fully grasp Cockshott's take in the image. Is he arguing that pontificating about consciousness and qualia is a waste of time since they are so nebulous?
Whether we live in a simulation or not is an entirely fruitless discussion, but yall don't seem to understand how an actual simulation works. Time would be part of any computation, so given your consciousness is also part of it, you could never perceive how time passes outside of the simulation; one second of simulated time could be equal to years of "real time" and you wouldn't know! There is actually a fun hypothesis by permutation city, which says once the rules of an internally consistent simulation have been computed once, its conscious inhabitants perceive it in perpetuity.
>OP Image
The absolute state of analytic philosophy!
Unique IPs: 22