How do we know this isnt the case?

What does this have to do with literarure?

>our world has perfect laws that never break
>such a system would need to be perfect to recreate our reality
>only being capable of creating this perfect machine is God
>God doesn’t need a machine, he can directly create the world so he’d have no reason to put a machine between reality and us.

There. I’m not saying God exist tho, just dismantling the hipothesis.

The brain is having storytiem.

Because pic related

Attached: 1534896220745.jpg (647x820, 171K)

Maybe the single most quantitative image of our world possible. Try again, Satan.

Because this board doubles as Yea Forums's very own /r/badphilosophy/

Maybe knowing isn't programmed into the machine? Ask

I'll tell you once and for all because I'm tired of seeing this dumbassery. The lifetime of the human body is 80-100 years, the lifetime of the brain alone could be 200 years. Why do we die at 80? Because we are not only a brain.

Basically this. What's the effective difference between sense input through the medium of nodes and wires and sense input through the medium of organs and conductive nerves? Isn't our brain "simply attached" to the sensing machine of our body in exactly the same way?

But what if the brain were made by Apple or Samsung?

I thought it was the pineal gland?

The pineal gland is in the brain. I don't know what you mean.

I think user was referring to Descartes notion of the pineal gland being the bridge between the extended substance (body) and the immaterial substance (mind). However, user implicitly believes in substance dualism and is therefore a pleb. Don't mind him

>only being capable of creating this perfect machine is God
>God doesn’t need a machine, he can directly create the world

>only being capable of creating this perfect god is a jew
Why does everything need to be created? (expect god ofc but nothing else because ehm...)

A machine can and will fail.

what sort of mental barrier do you have to cross to be occupied with retarded thoughts and scenarios like this

Statiscally speaking that is of course what's going on. At some point there should be trillions of simulations and we're nestled somewhere in there. At least if A.I. doesn't lead to certain extinction I see no way around this. Are we really the first of an infinite number of simulations? Nah. Doesn't really change anything.

Whatever you truly believe is real, is real

The fact that we have to trust the chemicals in our brains to even acknoledge reality is precisely the point. There is no fight, only submission to an contigent system that, just like the natural world, exists outside our rational control. Stop deluding yourself with wishful bullshit.

>our world has perfect laws that never break
Riotous laughter

It is the case basically.

It is, but only for one person. It's you. This entire reality is yours alone. There are many others in realities of their own, but make no mistake, the one you are in right now is yours. You. It's just you.

Whats the point of this thought experiment? You are not your brain

the most important question is, why does it matter if it is the case ?

You don't act as of it was the case so the question is pointless.
Or just go full Pyrrho and do 't give a shit lmao

I'm basically a walking oscilloscope

It could be the case, we don't know.
It's pretty questionable that any other knowledge would be affected if it were the case though.
It would just mean the universe of discourse for all of our beliefs changes to vatworld, analogous to the phenomenal, while the so-called real world, corresponding to the noumenal, forever remains outside of our apprehension, save for some vague misgivings from a few philosophers.

Transcendental personal experiences make me skeptical that that which governs the external world can effectively explain away my own existence. I only bother bring it up anonymously on this poop flinging image board though.

I think I'm typing a post on Yea Forums, while lying in bed. The sun has set where I am.

That’s such a dumb argument. All empirical knowledge you have of brains and their properties are based on sensory information. Brains don’t even have to exist in the “objective” reality.

Why would it matter if it was the case?

explain.

Attached: image.jpg (699x518, 246K)

...it begs the question.

If i am in a sim, why dont i have a bigtiddygofficgf.

Unless low-sig suffering is some kind of currency or food.

Here is one hand,
And here is another.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore, an external world exists.

Attached: based.jpg (250x189, 20K)

Here is one hand,
And here is another.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore, an external world exists.

Attached: based.jpg (250x189, 20K)

Who the fuck would come up with such an absolute mediocre simulation?

Someone more or less replicating the same reality they came from, only with some added sarcasm based on things I've said that they misinterpreted or took out of context.

ironic shitposting is still shitposting, anglo

saying you're a brain in a jar is still asserting there really are brains and jars
filthy realists

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia
why hello there continental

That which is the case is that which is fact. Of what we cannot speak we must be silent

If we used to not be in the jar then we could pinpoint flaws in the simulation compared to reality. A perfect simulation is unlikely to exist.

If we always were in the jar then we couldn't. And there would be no point in worrying about it since it is the only reality we know and it is outside of our control anyway.

Ever let a sim go into a swimming pool and then removed the ladder?

niggas its all about the wavelengths not chemicals Lmao

reddit reddit reddit reddit reddit you must go back you must return reddit reddit reddit reddit reddit

parsimony

t. actual philosopher

>mobile
see

An "illusory" world is feared not because it is weak but because it is irresistibly strong, because it is "real", and a "real" world is feared not because it is strong but because it is irresistibly weak, because it is "illusory".

>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

A simulation would probably run differently. Actually the more I think of it, the more it seems like we're a rogue AI escaping a controlled environment. Any safe AI would need to be confined in a way that is mathematically proven to be safe - which is why we have various mathematical constants. Except it's entirely possible that we will be able to get past that eventually.

If we do indeed become absorbed by Capital like Land predicts, perhaps the resulting entity is the goal of whoever is running the simulation.

Attached: 1556620157885(1).jpg (554x800, 122K)

>Why do we die at 80?

To be rebooted. Where the fuck do you think the reincarnation/afterlife/etc business comes from?

We are only likely to exist in a simulation if:
1) Intelligent life is probable to emerge with some regularity.
2) Intelligent life survives long enough to develop the technologies needed to simulate a universe.
3) This kind of technology is even feasible.
4) Intelligent life would desire to construct a simulation.

We can use these assumptions and the Fermi paradox to make an educated guess as to the validity of 1) and 2). If intelligent life was common place in the universe, and if it could survive long enough to develop the insane technologies needed to simulate an entire universe, then why haven't we seen evidence for it's existence? Take the Von Neumann probe: if one individual created one self replicating space probe, then their proliferation would be DEMANDED and we would see them. But there have been no such probes. Why? Because intelligent life is either exceedingly rare, or exceptionally doomed. Either way, it doesn't look good for the sim-tards.

It may as well be. There isn't even a brain in a vat, just an overall simulation (or rather calculation) that we call "reality" but that is in fact purely mathematical. You may as well call it "real" because there's likely nothing more real than it.

why would anyone bother to do that lol

Mathematics is a human conception. The universe doesn't care about numbers, it is only expressed by people this way. And mathematics has yet to fully establish the fundamental truths of the universe. Far from it.

What does Kant have to say about it? He basically destroys the subjective solipsistic thesis ("only I exist, and every phaenomenon I percieve is a creation of mine"), but he does not seem to have much to say about those brands of solipsism which states that our subjective pheanomenic experience is externally simulated.
All I know is that he would say that we could still derive logic, scientific laws and moral laws out of that simulation (out of ANY simulation, actually).

Attached: Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg (964x1388, 154K)

I'm the bubbles.

...

can you shut up i’m disassociated as it is

Last resort of the extreme indivisualism to avoid the consequence. No wonder why Elon Musk copes this way.

Is This objectively true?

Attached: IMG_2893.jpg (258x245, 12K)

Ok so dont trust the chemicals in your brain. Now What? How do you know there is chemicals? How do you know There is a brain? How do you know anything exist? And If You don't know that anything exists How the fuck do you know about the chemicals in your brain?
This whole line of argument comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of both modern neuroscience and basic philosophy.

Attached: hhf.png (500x655, 201K)

1) If that was the case, it wouldn't make sense that only now with the ressources we have, human population grows exponentially.
2) What would there be to gain from running the same experiment over and over with billions of people. The reason in The Matrix already didn't make sense and no one has given a better one.
3) Contrary to popular belief, it's not that easy to fake thoughts and memories and sensations. We THINK that it is because we look at brains that have already made all these experiences over a lifetime so now the brain can use these memories to work with and trick itself; but feeding an actually "new" brain with sensations that do not exist in reality is still centuries away from us, way too energy-costly for anyone to make sense and also wouldn't make sense because if you experiment, then why feed the brain sensations that are not real anywhere; what results would you hope to get.

Do you Have an example of the laws of the universe breaking then?

Attached: IMG_7489.png (433x357, 145K)

Even if it was the case, why does it matter at all to you? What would it change fundamentally in the way you live you life and why? What makes you value the illusion you have now?

I'm agreeing with you fathead

Math isn't about numbers

Explain Pi

Attached: IMG_7269.gif (400x332, 1.97M)

it is the case, the vat is your fleshy head

Attached: 51NuY6ZMboL._SX367_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (369x499, 38K)

Nietzsche's sister was pretty hot, not gonna lie

She had the kind of eyes that just say "I will dismantle your cock like an Ikea shelf If you give me half a chance. You WILL call me mommy and cry."
I'd be fine with it.

We don't even have a concrete understanding of what these laws are. There's still ongoing debate about whether there are four or fewer fundamental forces.

Same as an afterlife, it impossible to prove it false or true. Even if we wake up from brain machine state into the true reality, what does it matter, as could that not also be a brain machine state. An infinite amount of brain machines states always going up? Useless to consider, any thought worth thinking would be equally valid on heaven as on earth, every step closer to *reality* in the brain machine states keeps the same perennial truths as the one below it. No reason for this to not be the case.

I would only abductively be reasoned to be a believer in substance dualism as such a proposition implies not only I believe in substance to intuit but further that I don't adhere to mereological nihilism. I was mocking him for being like Descartes but you may apply the same shame to your intuition.

The Demiurge is a spider: NERVOUS SYSTEMS ARE SOUL WEBS

Schizo Ramblings

Objective reality is real my friend.

prove it spook
you are NOTHING to me

...

... to you.

This.

We have concrete understanding of the fact that there are laws.

Attached: D7A4B6136447413DB0CBB64F684A9CD2.gif (280x358, 2.53M)

Its statistically improbable. For this to be possible there'd have to be either a jar and equipment for every brain of every "human" on "Earth," or just one jar and one set of equipment for my brain because I know for a fact that I exist.

>He basically destroys the subjective solipsistic thesis ("only I exist, and every phaenomenon I percieve is a creation of mine"),
No, that's Fichte and Hegel.

This is the only true answer. Even if it were the case, it doesn't matter, as you would still have to function in a world which doesn't allow you to jump out of a skyscraper.

>only I exist, and every phaenomenon I percieve is a creation of mine

That is NOT Solipsism. Nor does Kant refute it.

>Muh dialectic
Are you trying to synthesise pure idiocy? Get out of the vat, you're too dumb for the wires to make a difference.