How do we know we're not living in a simulation?

[TransJenner]

Who made the program?

God made everything thru Jesus
God is too holy to show himself in our reality that's why he became Jesus and in the Old Testament showed up in visions and dreams only


Jesus spoke the world into existence

 

[AlainLocke]

Did you actually watch Mr. Rogers Neighborhood as a kid? Or are you one of these people that never watched and is gonna tell us who grew up on it that we have bad memories and misremembered it?

That is just one effect. I have experienced others that are much stronger and don't relate to a song or line in a movie.

The Mandela Effect is real and its proof of glitches in our Matrix.

You know the lyrics of Mr.Rogers Neighborhood are actually written down...

And yeah...

You have bad memories...

Memories aren't perfect...you can actually give people false memories...

And since memories are shytty...we write things down...

People fukk up song lyrics all the time

When I was kid I used to think Michael Jackson was saying "Genesis is not my son"...instead of "The kid is not my son"...in Billie Jean....

But then...I read the lyrics...

 

[Sukairain]

or random plan crashes like in gta sa

That nostalgia hit

The music on San Andreas

 

[ScottyG]

Insanity manifest itself in the brain in many alternative ways when you run from reality for so long.

Maybe your existence isn't that important and were all gonna die one day

Are animals apart of OUR simulation as well or are you gonna try and tell us how their atoms are immune to the air we breathe so we can't see them really but they exist in our retinas upside down

Watch Donnie darko too many times and think you're the artifact brehs

 

[TransJenner]

Also
Go outside and look at the stars

Those exploded MILLIONS on years ago and the LIGHTWAVES are just know reaching your brain

Also look check out the double slit test experiment

 

[Double J]

Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation | Cosmos
In a paper published in the journal Science Advances, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi show that constructing a computer simulation of a particular quantum phenomenon that occurs in metals is impossible – not just practically, but in principle.

The pair initially set out to see whether it was possible to use a technique known as quantum Monte Carlo to study the quantum Hall effect – a phenomenon in physical systems that exhibit strong magnetic fields and very low temperatures, and manifests as an energy current that runs across the temperature gradient. The phenomenon indicates an anomaly in the underlying space-time geometry.

Quantum Monte Carlo methods use random sampling to analyse many-body quantum problems where the equations involved cannot be solved directly.

Ringel and Kovrizhi showed that attempts to use quantum Monte Carlo to model systems exhibiting anomalies, such as the quantum Hall effect, will always become unworkable.

They discovered that the complexity of the simulation increased exponentially with the number of particles being simulated.

If the complexity grew linearly with the number of particles being simulated, then doubling the number of particles would mean doubling the computing power required. If, however, the complexity grows on an exponential scale – where the amount of computing power has to double every time a single particle is added – then the task quickly becomes impossible.

The researchers calculated that just storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.



Elon Musk Is Wrong. We Aren't Living in a Simulation

Suppose that, against all odds, we were living inside a simulation made of something different from the now (in)famous "Musk base reality." If this were the case, the simulated world would be the only world we could access. Such a world would have the properties of the world everyone calls the physical world. Such a simulated world would therefore be identical with what everyone calls the physical world. The base reality would be utterly beyond our grasp and thus it would be, with an unavoidable conceptual twist, immaterial to us. It is a bit like that old joke: after centuries it has been found that William Shakespeare's plays have not been really written by William Shakespeare but by another man called William Shakespeare.

Either way, we live in a physical world, where physical is a catchphrase to refer to the world we live in. Once more, embracing an all-encompassing massive world simulation defeats its very nature. If the simulated apple replicates all properties of the apple, the simulated apple is the apple.

To recap, Elon Musk's argument—that a) once we had Pong, now we have Doom, therefore b) in the future there is a very good chance that we will live inside simulated worlds (and this might be already the case)—is unconvincing because nothing links b) with a). They are different things, both empirically and conceptually. The world we live in is made of real stuff. Simulations are things made of the same stuff. Musk's argument does not show that we are getting any closer to producing an alternative reality. Rather it shows that we are getting better and better at shaping the physical world.


In fact, games are becoming like little aquariums that flesh out with increasing accuracy a piece of the physical world. They are a bit like ultrasmart dynamic HD dioramas. In fact, dioramas are three-dimensional full-size or miniature models, sometimes enclosed in a glass showcase for a museum. Dioramas are physical simulations. A virtual world is like a diorama only that it uses electronic colored surfaces rather than wood or plastic scale models. A screen inside a VR headset is an amazing piece of reality that, like a superfast chameleon, reproduces all colors and shapes. It is not an immaterial figment of one's imagination. It's a piece of matter with colors, mass, and electricity interacting with your brain.

If a simulated waterfall is not wet, why should a simulated mind think or feel? A mind, unless one believes in disembodied souls, requires a brain, a body, and a world. A mind without a physical world is a myth. And a simulated world is a myth too. The fact is that all minds we know of, human minds and possibly animal minds, are embodied and situated: they have a body and they partake of the physical world. We have never met a disembodied mind. We always meet bodies in the world.

Fair points but still look at the state of computing 30 years ago. It was pong. Two bars on the screen plus a circle. Now look at what we have. Games like GTA V with living, breathing worlds.

That is amazing. In only 30 years. 30 years is not a long time at all. So it stands to reason that in 30 years or a little bit more we could have something that is indistinguishable from reality

 

[AlainLocke]

Fair points but still look at the state of computing 30 years ago. It was pong. Two bars on the screen plus a circle. Now look at what we have. Games like GTA V with living, breathing worlds.

That is amazing. In only 30 years. 30 years is not a long time at all. So it stands to reason that in 30 years or a little bit more we could have something that is indistinguishable from reality

From the same piece
Elon Musk Is Wrong. We Aren't Living in a Simulation
The key question is what are simulations made of? Or, if you are more poetically inclined, what is the stuff that dreams are made of? Simulations are things that we use to talk or to think about other things. In this respect, they do not step out of Musk's base reality. They are still base reality. They are made of the same stuff everything else is made of.

For instance, a 10-inch neoprene model of Mount Everest is still an object, albeit an object that is used to refer to a much bigger object. A flight simulator is a physical thing used to refer to real planes. A dynamic simulation on a computer of the galaxy is yet another object made of rather complex networks of electronic gates and devices cleverly connected. It is a dynamic object we use to refer to another object. But nowhere do we meet a pure simulation that is not an object.


The idea that simulations are a sort of immaterial entity that are, despite being dependent on their physical substrate, nonetheless different, is a leftover of the aforementioned belief in a higher—and possibly better—reality. It's a belief that we have no reason to take seriously. The notion that we may mistake a simulation of the world for the world is both conceptually and empirically flawed.

Conceptually, it is a self-defeating notion—something that if taken to be truth, negates itself. In fact, if, say, simulated water might be a meaningful notion, what would it be made of? It could not be made of real stuff, because if it was, it would no longer be simulated water. However, neither could it be made of simulated stuff, because—that's the point of being a simulation—there is no such thing as simulated stuff. All we know is physical. All we know belongs, once again, to base reality. Either way, simulated water cannot exist.

Empirically, increasing computational power will not necessarily transform the water of computer games into the wine of a full-fledged simulated world. Making bigger bows and stronger arrows will never lead to an H-Bomb. Sometimes there are conceptual gaps that cannot be bridged by incremental improvements. Living in a simulation is not like building a 1-mile-high tower, which is challenging but possible, but rather like having a planet with a certain mass and no gravity. No amount of technological progress will achieve the latter, no matter what.

------------

If I may add-on...

The whole point of a simulation...is to create something that represents the objective physical reality...

Like a flight simulator...you don't get into a flight simulator and mistake it as real flying because a flight simulator doesn't recreate physical reality...like in the Matrix...the Matrix isn't a simulation it's actually a physical reality that accessible by computer technology that is like beyond human capabilities.

And in fact...no matter how much you increase the power of computers...if you noticed...how advanced flight simulators are...it doesn't recreate physicality...with physics and etc.

It is simply gives you a representation and experience of flying a plane.

Simulations, virtual reality, augmented reality, and video games gives digital experiences and representations...they don't recreate our physical reality.

 

[TallMan_J]

God is basically a computer programmer
He even went inside his program to show us how to live life


Pretty crazy once u think about it

Breh...you just opened my mind to some things that I’ve never thought of. I never even thought of it like that.

 

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

We still live in a system of white supremacy

 

[Man]

I need an cheat codes for the billionaire level quick

Time is running out

 

[Clayton Endicott]

There are huge glitches in our Matrix all the time. Like this:



How do you get a coma and then speak another language you've never studied before?

There have been stories of people going under at the dentist and coming back speaking foreign languages and not being able to understand English. How the fukk does that happen

 

[Devilinurear]

There have been stories of people going under at the dentist and coming back speaking foreign languages and not being able to understand English. How the fukk does that happen

They are most likely liars.

 

[Jacaveli The Don]

Oxford Philosopher Nick Bostrom (who first proposed the modern Simulation Hypothesis in 2003) says that if we live in a simulation then most likely the creators of the simulation are our descendants (future humans). And that what we live in is an ANCESTOR SIMULATION. His argument is that at some point in the future when our descendants have advanced computer technology they would become curious as to how human beings in the past behaved and how their species evolved. So to study their ancestors they would create these life-like simulations of the past.

So we could just be the science experiment of some humans in the future.

This is the stupidest Coli post of today

 

[Swagnificent]

You know the lyrics of Mr.Rogers Neighborhood are actually written down...

If this reality is a simulation, then that doesn't matter. Every written reference to it can be changed. All that needs to happen is the computer just needs to change a few lines of code. That is what makes the Mandela Effect so wild. You got something like the Berenstein Bears where everyone remembers it with an "e" but then now every written reference everywhere is Berenstain Bears with an "a".

Too many people remember it the same way for it to just be bad memory.

This whole bad memory excuse to the Mandela Effect would make sense if our memories of the events were different. But you have millions of people who have the exact same memory. Everyone remembers "Its a beautiful day in THE neighborhood". Everyone remembers "Berenstein Bears". And so on.

 

[Swagnificent]

From the same piece
Elon Musk Is Wrong. We Aren't Living in a Simulation
The key question is what are simulations made of? Or, if you are more poetically inclined, what is the stuff that dreams are made of? Simulations are things that we use to talk or to think about other things. In this respect, they do not step out of Musk's base reality. They are still base reality. They are made of the same stuff everything else is made of.

For instance, a 10-inch neoprene model of Mount Everest is still an object, albeit an object that is used to refer to a much bigger object. A flight simulator is a physical thing used to refer to real planes. A dynamic simulation on a computer of the galaxy is yet another object made of rather complex networks of electronic gates and devices cleverly connected. It is a dynamic object we use to refer to another object. But nowhere do we meet a pure simulation that is not an object.


The idea that simulations are a sort of immaterial entity that are, despite being dependent on their physical substrate, nonetheless different, is a leftover of the aforementioned belief in a higher—and possibly better—reality. It's a belief that we have no reason to take seriously. The notion that we may mistake a simulation of the world for the world is both conceptually and empirically flawed.

Conceptually, it is a self-defeating notion—something that if taken to be truth, negates itself. In fact, if, say, simulated water might be a meaningful notion, what would it be made of? It could not be made of real stuff, because if it was, it would no longer be simulated water. However, neither could it be made of simulated stuff, because—that's the point of being a simulation—there is no such thing as simulated stuff. All we know is physical. All we know belongs, once again, to base reality. Either way, simulated water cannot exist.

Empirically, increasing computational power will not necessarily transform the water of computer games into the wine of a full-fledged simulated world. Making bigger bows and stronger arrows will never lead to an H-Bomb. Sometimes there are conceptual gaps that cannot be bridged by incremental improvements. Living in a simulation is not like building a 1-mile-high tower, which is challenging but possible, but rather like having a planet with a certain mass and no gravity. No amount of technological progress will achieve the latter, no matter what.

------------

If I may add-on...

The whole point of a simulation...is to create something that represents the objective physical reality...

Like a flight simulator...you don't get into a flight simulator and mistake it as real flying because a flight simulator doesn't recreate physical reality...like in the Matrix...the Matrix isn't a simulation it's actually a physical reality that accessible by computer technology that is like beyond human capabilities.

And in fact...no matter how much you increase the power of computers...if you noticed...how advanced flight simulators are...it doesn't recreate physicality...with physics and etc.

It is simply gives you a representation and experience of flying a plane.

Simulations, virtual reality, augmented reality, and video games gives digital experiences and representations...they don't recreate our physical reality.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." You know who said that? Arthur C. Clarke.

What you're trying to argue right now is simply a waste of time. You are taking the word of one or two scientists who are using our current understandings of science and technology to try and say something is impossible. When in reality, if you go back 50-100 years, the you would have scientists from that era saying many things we do now are impossible. That's the thing about progress. Its makes the impossible, possible.