What’s B’s thoughts on Ancestory Simulation Theory?

What’s B’s thoughts on Ancestory Simulation Theory?

Attached: FD64D246-AD2C-4DCA-B928-878555901897.jpg (1200x904, 74K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gayboystube.com/video/249329/18-year-old-in-a-diaper
discordapp.com\invite\fGFh734
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I think Rick and Morty was an ok show.

I think it's bullshit. The amount of energy it would take to simulate an entire universe is absurd. It's a theory based on pure speculation

Your perception within the simulation hides the energy use of said simulation. It could be absolutely minimal. There is no way of telling.

In fact, planck length gives us a dimentional minimal, speed of light gives us a timed maximum.

Our universe is already measurably quantised. If it's a simulation, then it gets simulated at a fixed speed, preferably as low as possible. We don't know this is the case, because our senses within the simulation work at exactly the same rate of realisation as the simulation speed.

Try and poke holes in my theory.

You're assuming the universe stimulating ours doesn't have significantly different physics and our subatomic particles maybe just emulate their atomic particles

You're assuming this makes a difference for everything inside the simulation.

Also pretty easily could be a "hollow Earth simulation" where data is only processed based off of observed data

It is. Quantum physics actually requires this.

I think we're arguing the same point?

I'm saying our universe just emulates theirs in a macroscopic level. So while we think it would take too much energy/particles to create a computer powerful enough to simulate a universe like ours, it could be equivalent to a teenagers first real computer

Which is even more evidence that we are in a simulation

Ah yes, I just noticed as well.

You're correct. ALthough, I don't think it's as abstract / high level as a "teenagers computer". I bet it's something like a cellular automata, like a giant game of life simulation, that somewhere in the past got seeded with something (fuck if I know what, but lets call that our big bang event), and it fanned outward into the intricacy we now call our reality. It kind of meshes with several other theories like the multiverse theory, brane theory, and string theory. There's nothing preventing an infinitely growing cellular automata from completely splitting off from the "main bang", and going it's own route in terms of growth..

FYI, when they discovered the higgs boson it validated the standard model, which largely makes the purpose of string/multiverse/membrane theory unnecessary

So while these theories can explain some phenomenon they are only theories in the literary sense not the scientific sense

I was mostly using hyperbole, my ego won't let me discount the universe that much :P

At the very least we are a grad students' thesis

what are the odds s1 decided to simulate ur faggotry?

what exactly do you mean?

what about just simulating YOUR viewpoint?

that would be much simpler

>Your perception within the simulation hides the energy use of said simulation. It could be absolutely minimal.
My man!

Omg went to watch some anime, totally forgot about this thread.. Sozz

So does the discovery of the Higgs boson patch all the holes?

Do we have an absolute unified theory now? (trying real hard not to quote Douglas Adams opinion on what happens when we do)

Pretty significant. Well, it's a "yes, but actually no" kind of deal. If I'm similated, then that indicates a drift towards something, which indicates a point of origin (even before this convo, this board, the internet, computers, human social interaction, etc).. And I'm not really a fan of intelligent design. tldr; I'm hoping that we got where we are now by pure chance, which would be a nice universe-wide nod towards quantum mechanics.

>data is only processed based off of observed data
Like uhh, the observer dilemma. You can't measure something, and not influence it in some way at the same time. There's always some kind of bias you're imposing, which makes measured results have an unavoidable percentage of error. THere's balance in that, because either you measure "less intensely", and you get a fuzzier read-out but with more accuracy, or you measure "more intensely" and you get a precise read-out, but your confidence that the result is correct goes down with it.

In gaming tech, they call this dichotomy raycasting vs raytracing. Either you simulate based on what you see, and you can havethe benefit of leaving out all the computation of everything you don't see, but then you have shrodingers cat principle. You can't be sure what's behind you unless you turn around and observe it. Something like that is actually going on in our universe.

Then there's Raytracing, which calculates literally everything that has a chance of making light that hits your eyeballs, and it blends all the information together at your nerve endings (or some other "observer"). Sadly, this takes infinite compute time. Literally.

>theory based on pure speculation
Yes, like literally every other theory, dipshit.

Theories are based on evidence. This "theory" is just a hypothesis

Not literally every other theory.

some call it God

Attached: hypothesis-14-728.jpg (728x546, 173K)

Why fixed speed ? And why low ? It would be bad if you can not control your simulation.
I think we just do not understand the big picture of this mess universe, we will look and find something, we will understand the time. I hope. The question if we are in simulation is hard, even with a lot of knowledge. Escaping simulation is fucking challenge.

The fact that this "theory" is even called a theory says a lot about how credible whoever came up with it is. It's pure science fiction. If you want to speculate, learn about quantum physics and some real theories

Nothing more than men trying to elevate themselves to the level of God in their own deluded minds. Total hoax

Why fixed speed? Hmm, good question. Actually, it might not be a fixed speed deal across the whole simulation, more like a pulse emanating from the center of it, going outwards. I'm sure, with the complexity the whole thing has by now, it's almost meaningless to think in terms of single clockcycles ticking over.. Might be a clue tiying wave/particle duality into this all..

Why low? Well, I'm assuming that the lower your computationspeed, the less overhead you have in terms of energy expenditure. Also, since we're probably dealing with speeds that are way fucking up there in the terahertz region anyway (but compared to the whole of the simulation; still relatively low). Less chance of overshoot with high frequencies, those would negatively impact simulation precision AND accuracy. Jitter so to speak. Maybe this is why we can't accelerate particles past a certain threshold? Cern might actually be onto more than they know.

Control? Why would you want to break out of the simulation? Maybe we're so utterly linked to it that there's no way to escape it's boundaries. Maybe we're even part of the computational part of it. I mean, we've come as far as to invent computers, making games and simulations on it, that get increasingly accurate with time. Soon we'll have the means to link simulations together and create something that interacts in such complex ways, it's tempting to call it another reality. VR tech is closing in giving us a sense inside that world. Maybe "taking a peek outside" is just not possible, and we have to be content with "peeking inside".. Sure, we can kind of feel our way around the room in the dark, but I bet it's a case of not even realising we've found a door to step through, or even worse, being completely oblivious to the existance of doors. Our perception has limits.

define god.

I still believe that the world is supported by several large turtles and we should stop going to space or else it might scare them and cause the earth to fall down into infinity. It's probably not true, but it could be!

General relativity would make it so that different points in space can have varying rates of local time. You're talking about fixed speeds, and that's part of General relativity. You're going to have to revise this.

>You're going to have to revise this
Yeah definitely. There's a lot of big if's in my ramblings, that's for sure.

I'm not debating that local time can shift things around, but spacetime on the otherhand.. We're talking 12 dimentions of shit to juggle above my head here, right? I'm not sure I've got the bigbrain for that..

ALso my theory isn't really much of a theory, more like an attempt to put some puzzlepieces together, find an edge, build up from there. I simply don't have enough puzzlepieces to see the big picture yet..

I'm enjoying the convo though ;)

>B’s
>"we'll never have futuristic technology because I can't imagine how it would work"

Triple dubs on a troll post...what a waste

That's not what trolling is, newfag.

Spacetime and local time are connected. Spacetime is local time is the local system.

gayboystube.com/video/249329/18-year-old-in-a-diaper

oh shit fam, we're famous now! the spammers demed the thread worthy

yeah, I agree with your theory.
So we create our inner reality. But if there is outside, we remain dependent on it, or ... ?
I am feeling like a left/right path split on a journey to find escape.

well, I'm talking about fixed speed only because that's what experience with low level processor programming taught me. To be clear; the speed I'm talking about is the speed at which the simulation runs, like it's clockspeed. Not the speed of things happening inside the simulation. You go through your code, and loop back to the top entrypoint, and the time that takes is your cycletime. You take the inverse of that, you get your cyclespeed. Regardless of wether this is similar to how the simulation works (ea; if the cycles tick over at exactly the same instant in time everywhere within the "program" VS if the program ticks over a line of code at a time (or a dot within the cellular automata further and further away from the center)), there has to be a way to roughly quantise the universe into states, little snapshots of reality that define the speed and direction of each particle inside the simulation.

That said; Again, how would we know? Regardless of "tick-style", our perception of the change over time remains the same, and is bound by the simulation itself, because our very senses are bound by the same realisation speed / change over time.

not so much creating our inner reality, as living inside of it, growing alongside it. I have a suspicion that once we know how to step outside of our reality, or the framework which binds this reality, we'll instantly destroy it. Especially when we're merely bits and bytes. Instead of breaking free from the simulation, all we would do is walk off the edge, never to be accounted for by the simulation, thus no longer being part of the computation, thus blipping out of existance like we were never there.

I recommend you read up on general and special relativity. I know you're using terminology based upon computing hardware and programming, but I was under the impression that you understood that the speed of light is something defined in general relativity. It's true when you invoke general relativity. But there's more to it, because of general and special relativity. If you're going to invoke it, you have to make the thing which manages to explain a decent chunk of the universe, work with your hypothesis.

You may not be talking about the speed of things happening inside the simulation, but you're using terminology that comes from inside the simulation, so you're eventually going to have to deal with the linked phenomenon that comes with each and every explanation for, say, clock speeds. If there's a grand cycletime, there should also be dependent cycletimes nested under the grand cycletime. The code surely has functions inside of it, right? And you mention the inverse, so now you have to examine the varying speeds, whether they're relative, secular, or otherwise.

A great way to define the speed and direct of each particle inside the simulation already exists. Physics. There are entire models for this. Think Planck lengths for your means of measuring a snapshot of reality.

>Again, how would we know
You couldn't speak to our perception of the change over time with that level of certainty, if us knowing the case were a dubious matter. It might not be that our perception of the change over time is fixed, because it is bound by the simulation itself. Why are our senses bound by "the same realization speed/change over time"?

It's too easy. It's a 'god did it' theory as it's quite literally impossible to prove or disprove as we are beholden to the rules of the system.
Any system advanced enough to simulate a universe wouldn't be sloppy enough to let us escape the sandbox in any possible way.

But, then there's also no real reason why it couldn't be that sloppy.

I like Barry Dainton's modification of the underlying hypothesis. It seems more likely than the original and would require less processing power to achieve

it is fun. No one knows.

Why the FUCK haven't you joined this server yet?
discordapp.com\invite\fGFh734
GO GO GO

-5od

Why the FUCK haven't you joined this server yet?
discordapp.com\invite\fGFh734
GO GO GO

-8kd

It could be proven by something like quantum pixelation or macro scale errors. If we are part of a simulation escape may be impossible, but communication with the hosting system could allow us to alter the simulation in useful ways (like flagging the sun for object permanence or changing other variables in a favorable way)

>If you're going to invoke it, you have to make the thing which manages to explain a decent chunk of the universe, work with your hypothesis.
I'm afraid that's where my overview of the whole thing gets a bit too widestretched, as well as too thinly spread to support my ramblings.. I agree I'm using terms from inside to try and explain outside, but what else do I have but the tools at my disposal?

As for the grand cycletime dividing down into literally everything inside the simulation, there's several methods of writing programs. One makes a giant loop like I used as an example earlier. This would make it effectively a linearly executing program, once you "unroll" all the functions (ea; whenever you make a functioncall, you can substitute that code for the code inside the function, all the way down).

The other method would work uhh, well still with functions, and with a small tightly coded "playfield loop" that goes on forever, but alongside of it, it has interrupt based function calls. Say uhh, timers that trigger the branch off from the main loop, change something, and return to the point wherever the execution left off in the main loop. This creates a non-linear universe so to speak. I'm not saying that explains local time, but that's as far as my interpretation goes without it sounding totally cuckoo..

Already mentioned planck in
So yes, that's our minimum spatial bounds. Not sure how physics factors into it though. I'm still taking about the simulation on a conceptual level. ea; rough happenings-ons at the speed of light in a vaccuum. The boundary between in-sim and out-sim is very unclear, and probably has wildly different ruleset(s).

How would we know? Let's say somewhere in the future (in-sim), for whatever reason the simulation (out-sim) hits pausebutton. How would we even realise this (in-sim). tldr; we don't. We get simulated alongside our senses, alongside everythig we observe, alongside everything else (still in-sim).

> i cant comprehend it so anyone claiming to must be a liar liar pants on fire

Attached: 9D2F97D4-63AE-45C5-B0D6-CBC7E181597F.jpg (1024x1024, 139K)