Why does simulation theory trigger lit so much?

Because it should lead any real atheist to an unslovable aporia, just like it happens when they consider the notion of a personal God/Creator. They might as well start talking about the Demiurge instead

Because redditors, STEMlords and midwits are into it and it's becoming more and more mainstream.
I'm not saying that it's wrong or irrelevant because of that though

Many believers of it, unironically start believing in some sort of God/Creator because of it. Which makes sense, who made the simulation?

it's just dorks rediscovering metaphysics but expressing them in the language of science fiction.

What if we're in a simulation? The way causality works and how I perceive this reality as it is means that you're basically looking at atheistic theism.
What if the world started last Thursday? Then time-space still works as it always has and Thursday is just simply an event spanning trillions of years.

Dust theory is more likely I think.

One of the 3 is almost certainly true:

1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or
3. "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"

That is, of course, assuming that simulated persons experience consciousness like we do. This doesn't prove that we live in a simulation, just gives us a reason to entertain the possibility.

>I am LITERALLY SHAKING
Delusion of choice get battered by judgmental moralists. Those without bloodlust were burned at the stake so they can't cope without feeling more so in control even when not actual christfaggots. It makes them feel like souls aren't real when in reality it'd make no difference.

I don't see why conscious simulations wouldn't be possible unless you believe in some kind of micromanaging god.

Would they not both be saying infinite worlds exist?

Good question. Even though I disagree with simulation theory it's still far more plausible than the old religious myths Yea Forums prefers. We all used to laugh at the edgy reddit fedora-wearing atheists but the contrarian Catholics on Yea Forums are at least as embarrassing.

Because it doesn't matter

Post facto reductive bullshit

It is an unproven assumption and I felt the need to mention it. Even if physicalism is true, why the operations of our biomachinery are accompanied by qualia remains a mystery.

Deism was never debunked though.

Attached: thomas1.jpg (300x168, 6K)

It could only ever work with a matrix style set up of fooling the brain of a sedated real body and not a completely virtual and computer-generated self-conscious being; because biological reductionist materialism is wrong and the soul does exist, and so no amount of complexity would make quantum computer-generated NPCs be actually self-conscious, since they wouldnt have souls

>Deism was never debunked
I just did

I don't see this as a conflict. The soul must latch on to or communicate with something in the physical world right? If that something is information theoretic then simulation should be easy because if you match the information content the soul will follow. If that something is a specific arrangement of matter found in the brain then that arrangement could be used as a hardware accelerator as a component in a computer.

Because its just novelty, they believe it for the same reason they hold all their other beliefs. To permit themselves to do anything they want.

>Deism has been debunked for millennia
this is what christcucks believe

I don't mind the concept so much, but it can get frustrating the extent that it takes up time and conversation. I'm of the belief that it may be possible, but it doesn't really change much; simulationists usually don't know what to do with that and just default to "prove it wrong though".

Simulation may become either: a facility for the selfdestructive implosion of abundance, or a conduit toward the spiritual fulfilment of abundance.

It's all a dream bro. It's that level of philosophy

If you are simulated being how are you able to do anything you want? Wouldn't you only be capable to do what you were made to simulate?

Because it's baby's first philosophy for people who think The Matrix was a deep movie and have never read a single book on metaphysics in their lives.

This applies to any reality that follows a system of laws.

because philfags cant get over the fact that it's an objective fact that it's a simulation (not like matrix simulation but simulated thru something similar to wangs carpets by greg egan)

philfags are stuck reading ancient greeks who fucked kids in the ass instead of using their brains, it's literally impossible for the universe to not be a simulation (or at lesat the greater multiverse). seriously retarded retards

Attached: quuxseo7wcm31.jpg (742x768, 116K)

another unverifiable atheist dogma like evolution

evolution has been directly observed in nature

last time I checked it takes millions of years to a species turn into another

I'm just a passerby and probably a brainlet too but what does simulation theory change exactly? Fuck all. You're not neo in matrix and won't do sick fights and break out of it. That's why it pisses me off.

>lol creatures don't change over time!
I'm not even going to insult you. I almost pity you. It doesn't matter try, be kind to people and always obey the what God tells you.

speciation consists of continuous accumulation of small changes
moderate changes have been directly observed

>the soul exists because I say it does
Wtf I'm Christian now

thats just speculation and not scientific
small adaptations happens yes, does it mean the organism turn into anything new over time? NO

What reason do you have to believe that small adaptations would not add up to speciation?

why should I assume they do, what proof?

It's litteraly buddhism+ being retarded about How science works and is developed.

it literally doesnt mean anything, it changes no subjective or objective reality especially to humans who arent possibly smart enough to do anything about it. a simulation, imo, would just mean there's a limit to biological evolution and a limit that can't be surpassed by the medium that's controlling it. if it's some hypothetical computer, nothing here can surpass that. if it's something biological (a la wangs carpets) nothing can be more complex than the turing machine controlling the simulation

it doesnt really matter, its just bullshit that pseuds can sling their dicks about intsead of doing something important; they should read nick land or mark fisher instead lol

Attached: 69506893_1350642188424097_4600158858780868608_n.jpg (720x713, 50K)

Because it's a midly interesting argument midwits turned into a some fascinating speculation.

Read the original simulatin paper of Nick Bostrom.
Its main merit is being simple and short (for a scholarly article, but really it isn't that long by all standards), its most glaring flaw is lack of explicitly discussing he meteaphysics that are the heart of the issue (for instance, what is the metahysical difference between a simulation and an "original" reality? how would you find a way to test the difference? the only thing he has is some argument from likelihood).

Another problem is his use of essentially Ockham's razor to make conditional claims about outside universe whose distribution we nkow nothing about. That's a running gag in the lesswrong/singularity/simulation circles. Using Ockham's razor not as a way to trim the fat from theories but as an investigative tool in situation of almost complete ignorance.

Also if anyone claims Bostrom "proved we're most likely in a simulation" you can dickslap them on the spot. For all his flaws he doesn't claim that, he only says if we manage to build a simulated universe and if we have reasons to think most species who can build simulated universes will build a great number of them, then and only then it would be extremely likely we're in a simulation ourselves.

That's two enormous "if".

multiple small changes add up to a larger total change
that doesn't even require explanation it's obvious

It only takes day to watch non-cannibilistic critters turn into infant-eating cannibalistic critters, and not of lack of food.

Speciation is not some hard-and-fast divide you can always check for in a two species' DNA, it's just a typology used to categorize genetic and phenotypic difference.
If have a two strains of the smae species of bacteria and have them reproduce in different controlled environment, and after a few thousands generations (which might take a few weeks in idea conditions) I have two different strains that have bigger genetic and phenotypic difference than there are between say squirrels and rats then I have two new species of bacterias.

/thread

hey u stupid asshole u spelled occams razor wrong so ur whole entire post is null and void u stupid retard

Attached: 70510191_2340166942719338_1808519017908928512_n.png (720x830, 254K)

Simulation Theory is like ordering KFC and a 2 liter for "family dinner night". It's like watching your poor classmate have to explain that they can't afford to watch HBO. It's like going to the laundromat because your apartment unit's machines are broken. It's like having to listen to your waiter explain why he's moving to Boulder in the spring. If you find it even remotely palatable it's because you're a useless peasant who is not used to the amount of free time that late capitalism has provided you with.

we're still in early capitalism homie

Simulation theory is nonsense for the same reason AI is nonsense, which is that computers can't have anything to do with either. Computer science is premised on the fact that computational process (the intuition-free manipulation of symbols) can't be used to solve general problems of first-order logic and can't be used to carry out robust analysis of program source code. And yet machines that by design cannot do the two things that STEMfags worship most are supposed to bring about the singularity or serve as the basis of metaphysics, which is, well, mostly an indictment on the quality of CS education.

If we do x, then hypothetical beings of whom we can know nothing must have done x

If there's matter in the universe that can solve the halting problem someone will make an infinitely powerful computer out of it. There isn't though. No uncomputable problem will ever be solved.

damn what ifi........reals don't real................???????????

WH-what

yikes

"Uncomputable" problems are solved all the time, they just aren't solved by computers. A skilled programmer can work out whether some code will terminate, and a skilled logician can work through many questions of universal validity. The point is that a computer is a machine that cannot solve uncomputable problems. The only way one can talk about AI or simulation horseshit is to be talking about something that bears no resemblance to digital computers or computer science.

The halting problem is not being able to tell if some specific programs will halt. It is being able to tell if any arbitrary program will halt. No human will ever be able to do that. You do not understand even the basics of what you are talking about.

>it doesnt really matter, its just bullshit that pseuds can sling their dicks about
Exactly

Turing's proof of undecidability is only for Turing machines, and likewise, Church's is only for lambda calculus. There is no proof regarding human capability for either the halting or decision problems, but these have very different implications. Because a program can't be written to decide whether a program terminates, there's no methodological basis upon which to write a program that constructs other programs beyond basic block transformations (i.e., compiler optimization). On the other hand, humans don't need a methodological basis upon which to begin programming, they only need to do skill acquisition--they need to "take programming into their lives," and then they're programmers.

For someone to solve an uncomputable problem there would have to be matter or an arrangement of matter in the universe that can solve uncomputable problems. There is no evidence of this. If the laws of physics are computable this matter can not exist. If this matter existed it would immediately be the basis for infinitely powerful computers.

Computability was not a convenience of design for advanced calculators. It is much more fundamental. There is no theoretical framework for the existence of any real object that exists outside the computable. That includes our brains.

Yeah but there are "rules" within the context of the "simulation". like morality. Simulation theory as an extension of materialism just tries to undermine that by treating reality as a fake.

Sorry I was thinking about the pirate captain Rackham the Red in Tintin's adventures. Why couldn't he be an early philosopher of knowledge on top of being a pirate?

>assuming that simulated persons experience consciousness like we do
But they wouldn't.

Not actually. There are prophets, miracles, the Messiah, and so on and so forth. Additionally, the writings of those inspired by God. Through these, the church, as well as living a Christian lifestyle we can be closer to God, who is above such concepts as "personality"

Because we were simulated to feed that way.

Attached: 253B85B8-92CF-4B9B-B6AB-CE0CB63ED040.gif (220x179, 412K)

Because it doesn't matter anyway

>why the operations of our biomachinery are accompanied by qualia remains a mystery.
Ability to think about qualia is the proof of their physicality. Qualia are about processing information.

Nobody who matters takes Christian theologians seriously

>Hahahah u dum Christians, god isn’t real, he didn’t make us
>life is a literally a video game guys, trust me
Hmmm

Nothing will answer why qualia exists, not dualism, not idealism. Criticizing physicalism because of it is absurd, given that there are no better alternatives.

not sure if you are trolling but you have no idea what science is

why not

It's another iteration of "dude, what if we're not real?" pipe dreams

it's just what happens when stemtards who hate philosophy try do it themselves anyway

Because as you can see if you look at history of philosophy, philosophy has been improved by excluding "that type" of philosophical theories. Just Goddamn speculation in the purest form.
That is why Kant is so influential in the philosophy. By making distinction of pure reason and reason out of bound, we can finally overcome and attack on this type of pure speculation, dogmatic theories with no backing substance.
and that improvement as time goes on, such as Wittgenstein and Heidegger. If Hilbert calls infinity "mathematician's paradise", then there is no reason to not call Kantian and Kant extremist as "philosopher's paradise".
I think this is best seen in On Certainty by Wittgenstein. He argued that the situation had already passed a very lot at the time someone thought of simulation theory. The fact that such a person can already think of such a premise is too late to make a proper simulation theory. He said that knowledge is only shown through "language game", so this is already not the case.
Now, you can argue to this - "What in the fuck is this? is this even a proper refutation? why does this theory should involve language game?" - and it's kinda right. this is not a proper refutation, it's more like a persuation from language games. And that's the point - "To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle". He took the position that mankind does not have to have any knowledge in epistemology. Many people say this as nihilist but I think it's a fair shot, especially to the simulation theory considering how other philosophers react.
Philosophers don't like to wheel-idle about such theories at all. This applies not only to Wittgenstein but also to other philosophers.
This is why simulation theory often talked at freshman's class. I admit this is good at telling us what epistemology is - and as soon as they know what epistemology is - they quickly abandoned it.

it's actually pretty reasonable compared to almost everything else that's the funny part

fpbp

>another unverifiable atheist dogma like evolution
no u dogma

>Scientific theories are proven through experimentation and consistent observation and reproduce-ability
>Evolution is real because I say so
Go back to Yea Forums kid.

IDK mate, the reason, the only reason why this type of simulation theory getting popularity is because that "if" is not enormous enough. Some thought-experiment speculations and scientific speculations constantly pops up with "if" that not big enough.
I mean for fuck sake I don't want to defend it but when Elon musk spewing this, he backed up with some arguments("persuation" if you will) to convince why this is not an enormous "if".
Well, how about boltzmann's brain?

What about Descartes Evil Demon?

Well you can include that, But I'm afraid about it because he could argue "that is very big" and "what about hilary putnam"

are you a guenonfag?

common, that is just slander. there is no way legit philosophers denying with evolution

Guenon denied evolution. Schuon did too, as does Nasr. It's a theme among the Perennialists.

I mean, they never really affirmed anything. Theology only gives you the questions, not the answers.

>people start using new technology
>think they solved the universe
hmm when has this happened before

This thread is filled with idiots. On my brief skim-through I have not seen a single intelligent person in this thread. I usually try to avoid calling people idiots without first making a counterargument, but it would truly take to much time to respond to all of you.

>Hey guys I just jumped into this thread to say this
>Unique poster count doesn't go up
KYS yourself my dude

>This thread is filled with idiots.
yeah and youre a prime example

You only need one "post-human" civilization to create a simulation. The simulated entities will then eventually create their own simulations, there would be simulation inside of simulation inside of simulation and so on. Theoretically there would be an infinite amount of simulations inside of simulations.
If such a thing is possible, then we can bet with a high likelihood that we are not the original civilization and that we are inside of a simulation. The only things that would prevent this is from happening is (1) simulation being impossible (I doubt this.) and (2) some kind of ethics that would prevent simulations from being used inappropriately.

Struck a nerve?

This guy is actually smart. There's a correlation between holding a cellphone to your ear and getting brain cancer.

Is that him? The King Of All Pseuds?

What's the correlation?

It’s wrong but also kind of true. And AI will save humanity from dividing itself.

because it's off-topic
kys

In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors.
Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors.
Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma — a specific type of brain tumor — for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall.
After evaluating several studies on the possibility of a connection between cellphones and glioma and a noncancerous brain tumor known as acoustic neuroma, members of the International Agency for Research on Cancer — part of the World Health Organization — agreed that there's limited evidence that cellphone radiation is a cancer-causing agent (carcinogenic). As a result, the group classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to people.

So none at all? Ok

Attached: This2.png (446x305, 7K)

Attached: 1542801204565.gif (209x213, 1.73M)

t Youtube brain

Cringe take bro

The logical consistency of arithmetic is proved by infinite means and impossible by any finite process. These processes will never ever be done by any 'machine' in any sensible meaning of the word.
Other user is correct that anything being able to solve these problems must be fundamentally different from what we call computers even in an extremely large sense.

Imagine holding these views. Have you actually work at a philosophical work by a prominent philosopher, read the academic work on it and draw your own consensus? You just passively watch whatever is thrown at you without critical thought. You're an utterly embarrassing idiot. Have some shame

The size of the "if" (so to speak) doesn't prevent people from speculating. Musk is keen on hopping on internet trends. Neither he nor anyone else who defends simulation theory has a remote idea of how hard it would be to make a universe-like simulation. It's task so far away from us we can't even properly assess how hard it is.
That said you're right that we often underestimate our ability to close huge gaps in capability in a short time (a good example being the atomic bomb, who was thought a pipe dream in the 1930s and became a reality in 1945). But conversely we often overestimate the difficulty of solving apparently simple problems.

>The simulated entities will then eventually create their own simulations, there would be simulation inside of simulation inside of simulation and so on.
This is only true if the simulated universe is close enough to the original one, and that people in the simulated universe are willing and capable to make a simulation.

>The only things that would prevent this is from happening is (1) simulation being impossible
I could simply be "simulation is possible but very hard and nobody has cleared that stage yet". Before you hit me with the infinite universes theory, remember the ontological status of infinite universes is dubious.

>Neither he nor anyone else who defends simulation theory has a remote idea of how hard it would be to make a universe-like simulation.
Okay but that's irrelevant. Musk specifically says that regardless of however hypothetically complex a simulation as such would have to be, the fact that we are making VR simulations today with a positive rate of improvement necessitates that we will eventaully reach that level of complexity. I don't see the flaw in his reasoning.

what if he have all types of universes like in the ending scene of men in black?

because is Reddit tier and anyone spouting it is doing so because she/he wants to look deep and quirky at the same time.
>DUDE WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION xD

forget to mention the simulation theory perse isnt boring or stupid. it's just immanence with pop culture stupidity, just read metaphysics and pascal if you really want to get into it.

I have debunked the simulation argument, so I keep checking threads like this to see if anyone else sees the obvious flaw in the argument before I can publish.

Thankfully all of you are brainlets.

>Nobody who matters
kek'd nice try there reddit

>I almost pity you
Why is everyone so fucking cringe on this board. Nabokov denied evolution. Do you pity him? The idea of a specimen of the canaille like you pitying him is hilarious.

>forget to mention the simulation theory perse isnt boring or stupid
yes it is, in that it's circular reasoning and probably incorrect even when granted validity (a civilization capable of simulation would be so prone to destruction and so uninterested in asking itself what it could answer in a microsecond that it would never bother making universes.

"Shitstorm so clear in the view, or is it meerley the trick of the bait?"