So where were you when you realized that your life and everything/one around you is a simulation?
Me? heh, I half way through The Matrix and then banged my gf at the time and when I finished started contemplating the bigger questions while she wondered about what I wanted to do later.
Pic related is what settled it for me.
Other urls found in this thread:
platonicrealms.com
twitter.com
The world itself is clearly not a simulation, based on observable objective date, however your particular perception of the world, along with everyone else's is most certainly a simulation, as you can not possible fathom the complexities of objective reality in their entirety, and so, vastly simplified models of reality, which are themselves often poorly understood, must suffice.
Lol the solution to this paradox is actually really easy... literally 8th grade of school math. what can't you understand about it?
Hmm never thought of it that way.
Then explain it smart guy.
Lets imagine Achilles runs 10 times faster the the turtle. The initial distance between them is 10 m. To run the first 10 m Achilles will need one second. To run the next 1 m he will need 0.1 of that amount. And so on. So here we basically get a geometric progression: 1; 0.1; 0.01 ... of seconds. The sum of it is the moment when Achilles will reach the turtle. But obviously it's not infinite, it's actually 1.11111111. The ancient Greeks thought that an infinite series of non-zero numbers sums infinity, so this was a paradox to them. Not true
You boys would be better off NOT looking into simulation theory. It might turn out you do not like what you find out. In fact very few people 'wake up', manage to come back and not have a stroke.
STOP. ASKING.
You know the truth already, you've just blocked it out. Keep it that way.
I want to know more.
Take this warning seriously.
They are cubes. Get a glimpse of a memory then block it unless you wake up. Don't wake up.
well its not a paradox, but you still cant mathematically define the exact point of intersection, because the number would be an inifinitely long decimal
thus his argument that mathematics are insufficient to describe reality is still valid
If we are a simulation where did the ones who are simulating us come from?
someone explain the op's pic?
turtle starts the race 10 units in advance
bunny is 10x faster than the turtle
at which point ("if ever") does the bunny take the lead?
>insufficient to describe reality
insufficient to describe motion at least
There no good reason to believe we are in/part of a simulation. Stop trying to be pseudo-intellectuals
Zeno's Paradox is a failure of perception based on the cultural beliefs at the time and having a poor general understanding of mathematics involving fractions. He made this example to try to prove the misunderstandings of the time, and fails because the paradox is an illusion of how he presents the problem.
The fact is that, if you are traveling a mile, but you are only allowed to travel half the distance, you will never get there. When you chase something though, you aren't targeting where they've been, you target where they will be. The rabbit would run circles around the fucking tortoise.
The fact is that when chasing something, you don't target where they've been, you target where they will be.
Isn't that what calculus solved?
Don't remember the original name of this paradox, but in a nut shell: some Greek mathematician stated that no matter how fast you run, you can never catch up to the turtle because pic related. Modern mathematicians already found an answer to why he was wrong, and it can be proven using integrals
eh, its more of a timing problem of 2 separate system
this is perfectly describable if you use a "tick" system which runs both systems simultaneously (like videogames do) and then check at which tick the bunny takes the lead
unfortunately you cant apply that to reality, and thats why its complicated
dunno man? what does that have to do with simulation? am i just dumb
this
yes
What do u mean cubes? Like what's outside? How do I wake up? How do i know if ive seen a memory? ur too vauge home boy.
>why he was wrong
yeah, modern mathematicians had to prove him wrong for that
topkek
just looked it up, it's called zeno's paradox
not much, to be honest, its just a thought experiment
greekdudas argued that the world HAS to be a simulation, because in reality, its mathematically impossible for the it to take the lead over the turtle
afaik, mathematics was made to work despite it being impossible to precisely define the point of intersection. expressed as a number, its still infinitely long. however, infinitely long numbers are not a problem anymore
Hundreds of years of hindsight aside, was anyone ever really fooled or compelled by this "paradox"? It's hard to imagine. Why would Achilles or the Hare or whatever is chasing whatever, decelerate constantly relative to the speed of the chased? It's absurdity. It's like a joke without a punchline.
Take the thought experiment without the stupid math. The tortoise has a 10 meter head start, ok, Rabbit starts, and moves 10 meters in the time it takes tortoise to get to 11 meter mark. In the next iteration, the hare will be at 20 meters, not 10.5. Then 30 meters, not 10.75, etc.
Can someone tell me why this was ever compelling enough to note in mathematical history?
>like videogames do
>videogames
So it works... in a simulation??
this is what i want to know too, it makes no sense from the beginning
For those not getting OP's pic: basically the rabbit has to get halfway to the turtle in order to reach and surpass it. Then it will have to reach halfway from that point and halfway from that point. This is represented by the half circle 'jumps' in the pic. Each halfway mark will be half the distance of the previous and half of that over and over infinitely. This means that mathematically the rabbit will never catch up to the turtle unless it stops moving. This means that motion is not real which means that we all live in a simulation.
I suspect it's one of those things where Zeno was probably not entirely full of shit about everything and was pretty famous dude at the time even with some backwards bullshit ideas, just like everyone today will be in the hindsight of people 300 years from now.
>General Relativity? Was it the dark ages? How could they not have know Grendelhilde's Physicus theorem that explains it so elegantly?
>You mean they used to type on dead tree pulp?
Ultimately it means that we MUST live in a simulation OR our understanding of the world is flawed since by our current understanding it is impossible for the rabbit to reach the turtle. That is unless we live in a simulation where the rules don't matter and can be bent like in a video game where for example humans can survive a gun shot wound to the head or animals are able to talk.
Except the rabbit travels at 10 meters per minute while the tortoise travels at 1 meter per minute, and we can see his thought experiment is bogus, and at 2 minutes the hare is at 20 while the tortoise is still at 12 meters, even with its head start.
Clearly basic physics was not this man's strong point.
WAKE ME UP user WHAT ARE CUBES
It's just the question. put in another way, it basically means: 'In a moment of time infinitely close to the number 1.111111... after start the distance between the turtle and hare will be infinitely close to 0 (but bigger). I think it's better to ask why pi is irrational
Why is this so difficult for you all?
Let's make the distance between your bed and your tendies in the freezer.
In order to reach your tendies you have to travel half the distance to them. After you are halfway there, you need to travel half the remaining distance again, to infinity.
But just because something is infinite mathematically, doesn't mean it is infinite realistically. You can very easily step past all of those infinite "checkpoints" in non-infinite time. You do it every time you stuff your fat fucking faces.
Hate to break it to you, but observation requires perception, thus all "observable objective data" are just a result of human perception
yeah, i got that.... continually half of something goes on for infinity... but what stumps me is why this was such a big deal in maths land
>You do it every time you stuff your fat fucking faces.
but you never actually reach anything. even though it's in your hand and eventually in your belly. like in a videogame when you go pickup an item. you didn't actually pickup the item even tho you can use it. you completed a simulation that allowed you to use it.
Wait, are you seriously saying that there is no such thing as objective data? When a seismograph picks up tremors, when a radar gets a ping, when you step on a scale and it displays a reading, you dismiss this all as subjective human experience? Congratulations, your personal simulation is incompatible with basic tenets of science, enjoy your fantasy MMO! Must be nice
>but what stumps me is why this was such a big deal in maths land
because the math didn't match reality as we experience it. so we're either missing a piece or not actually experiencing what we think we are and are really interacting with "this place" in a different way than we feel we are.
I was on Yea Forums and saw a faggot actually say heh.
There's no way a faggot could act like such an anime/comic book character like that and pull it off so flawlessly.
Heh, this isn't even my final form! Well, heh, guess I'll use my true power, heh!
Lol, you obviously haven't thought this through. Seismographs don't observe anything, human beings observe seismographs, as with any other tool of measurement. Just because all human beings can agree on something in no way indicates the existence of an objective reality
No, the math was artifically fabricated and has nothing to do with reality.
Yes to travel a distance you must first travel half that distance, but what godforsaken rule of math says you must slow down at every moment? It's a simple physics problem solved with simply physics. compare their veolocity and you will find the rabbit meets the hair around the 11.111 meter mark and is well past the hare by the time it gets to 12 meters.
All this business about infinite deceleration is a superimposed construct and has nothing to do with reality.
but maths is just numbers and theory, it doesn't work both ways. i.e something that works in maths in theory (or doesnt work) will not necessarily work in reality, the whole concept of infinity in reality is debatable, there's technically finite grains of sand on the beach but we can say it's infinite because no one has ever counted them and if someone would there'd be double the amount by the time he was done.
i get that we cannot really prove conclusively that we live in a simulation or not, but if we do, then it makes no difference. then the simulation is what we know as living, it doesn't change us
you're misunderstanding the paradox. There is no deceleration, velocity is held constant. The paradox is such that the windows of time must therefore become infinitesimal, yet there is never a point at which the distance would be closed. Therefore leading to the postulate that change is simply an illusion created by the way the human mind works
No, I have thought it through, and if you wholly dismiss objective data as subjective human experience, then science does not exist for obvious reasons.
I already covered your point on human perception by pointing out that you and everyone else is in their own oversimplified simulation of reality. You will never know realty as you are because it is too complex for you to totally understand.
I'm saying that just because you can't sense something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and you're saying that just because you can sense something doesn't mean it exists. Both statements are correct, but you're just playing games if you really don't believe that there is a real world outside of your (our) limited perceptions
THIS
The distance would never be closed only if you could slow down time or decelerate, therefore, the thought experiment isn't one, it's delusion.
how? if the turtle is 10 meters ahead and the rabbit travels 10 meters per second (or whatever), it will take two seconds for the rabbit to overtake the turtle, how is this a discussion?
I mean you can say you've thought it through all you want, but science can never be outside of human perception lol. There's no special reality that exists outside of human sensation that we can somehow come to access by building a new tool, everything is simply human sensation. Science is just that which can be agreed upon by all humans based upon human sensory capabilities. There's no way to demonstrate a reality outside of human perception, it's that simple
we only deal in relative concept
in order to say if something is simulation I must first experience reality
since it's improbable to experience reality beyond this manufactured simulation it's pointless to call it simulation
it's just as much as real as supposed reality, where choices and actions have consequences
hare and tortoise/Achilles and tortoise dilema fucks with the premise and concept of distancing, it's not even a fucking paradox since it's naturally occuring and easily solveable
The distance is obviously closed in reality lol, that's why this is a discussion. I'm pretty sure a previous user already said that this indicates a disconnect between our logical thinking about the world and the way the world works
>There's no special reality that exists outside of human sensation that we can somehow come to access by building a new tool, everything is simply human sensation
Don't be retarded, dude, How are those WiFi signals working out for you? How do you like those invisible energy beams radiating from almost everything you own, connection you and others to each other on invisible signals you can not sense in any way?
Oh boy, magic!
but the paradox is worded differently so obviously it works differently, if in reality i travel half the distance to a building then technically i would never reach it, except it would become so small that it'd become impossible, but if i were infinitely tiny it could be. it's not profound
You're awfully dense lol. Are you trying to imply that those things don't exist in the perceptual field simply because you can't sense them without tools?
We build tools that do just that, all the time, actually. we can't see underground, but we can bounce energy signals from space back and map underground features, for example.
It's not profound if you refuse to contemplate it lol. It's basically the question of whether or not things change or if our conscious experience simply travels through a constant reality
Assuming the turtle moves at 1 unit per second, then the bunny would take the lead exactly 1 second + 1 Planck time to get the lead. Your point is?
I don't understand all this bullshit with the turtle and the rabbit, The turtles obviously going to win if he has enough of an advantage. Put on a level Playingfield however, The rabbit will win 99% of the time.
We are not living in a simulation. We are not living under any divine power. We are just noise, in an infinite mathematical loop that supports itself by balancing order and entropy.
see
No, I'm correcting you because that's exactly what you're saying. You're saying that your only reality is what you can sense. That's not true at all. We formulate our reality without any sensory contact, quite often. This doesn't mean that there isn't an objective reality.
Yes, because we can sense the tools we use lol. If we couldn't sense something we'd have no way of knowing if it existed, and if we have no way of knowing if it exists then it is meaningless. You're basically postulating that evidence needs to be require for non-existence of an objective world, at which point you might as well say anything you want exists and ask people to disprove you
Why does thanos die in the first 20 min of end game?
Why does iron man use the newly made gauntlet to reverse everything?
Why does iron man die when he uses the gauntlet.
Why didn't capt america not come back and live out the past 80 years?
All big questions.
Unless you're someone else who jsut jumped into this conversation, you said earlier
>There's no special reality that exists outside of human sensation that we can somehow come to access by building a new tool
I literally gave you clear examples of how we in fact do come to access more of reality with new tools, and we do so all the time.
>You're basically postulating that evidence needs to be require for non-existence of an objective world
No I'm saying that while everyone is in their own mental simulation based on their understanding and capacity for imagination, that there is clearly a world independent of that personal simulation or imagination, or world view, or whatever you want to call it. And we share that objective world and it is real, despite our oversimplified models (which are all we have).
There is ample evidence of an objective world, independent of our fantasies. You are correct that everything we perceive is subjective to our personal cognitive models, however, this in no way illustrates the non-existence of an objective reality.
As I said you can't illustrate the non-existence of objective reality, the burden of proof is upon those attempting to illustrate it's existence. And we can't build tools that show us a new reality outside of our sensory ability. All of our tools just allow us to further explore our ability to sense or perceive. We can't all of a sudden see radio waves or wifi by making new tools, so we make tools that turn them into things we can understand, math and language themselves being tools. The point is that a caveman could somehow come into our world and be perfectly capable of understanding how everything works, because everything is created by the unconscious functioning of the brain. At this point I really hope you realize that you and I are effectively saying the same thing, but that you're postulating the additional aspect of an objective world, which is unnecessary, therefore making your explanation less simple
Without an objective reality, where would you get the information for your sense perception? Dream it up? Based on what? The data detected by your physical sensors and perceived by your brain, however poorly understood, amalgamated, or forgotten, exists and has an origin.
a caveman could -not- just come into our world and understand how everything works...
Without an objectively real world, why would the sensors we have exist?
clap your hands. you halved the distance between your hands over and over and you clapped. simple.
subjective reality is a simulation, objective reality is serious business. both realities are real.
>implying the turtle moves progressively slower
>implying the rabbit speed is linked to current speed instead of 10x top speed of turtle
If Usain Bolt is 10x faster than me does he slow down when I start walking?
When I found out jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams...
>Pic related is what settled it for me.
are you fucking retarded
>They are cubes.
why everyone talk like a fucktard in this thread? everyone is 12 and watched matrix the first time? Cubes? Op's pic? gtfo nigger kids.
False. I was made to think that I clapped because the simulation allows such things to be perceptible.
it has nothing to do with the speed of either object
*twilight zone theme*
Then it’s merely a riddle
I dont even understand the picture its so fucking retarded and even if it was legit 2000years ago its total bs today. taking this shit seriously and buildinh a belief system on it is retarded.
I had a panic attack thinking about that and my heart wouldn't stop beating .
The problem with this explanation is that "crossing the room" is moving to a fixed point. The other side of the room is not moving so mathematically you can get there. If the 'other side of the room' were a moving object or "tortoise" it wouldn't work obviously.
