Red pill or the Blue pill?

[Gurgumul]

I want to see a movie where all the characters are played by Nicolas Cage.

[Utrakil]

I want to see a movie where all the characters are played by Nicolas Cage.

like that?http://imgur.com/a/tum01

[Golem]

 I feel like it's more fucked up, that we're actual unpredictable human beans.

[Taser]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[The_Bloody_Nine]

I dunno I think this whole idea of us living in some kind of simulation is so completely irrelevant and uninteresting. If we do, it doesn't change anything. In fact it would be a very simple solution to life, the universe and everything. We are currently approaching the technological possibilities to build complex simulations so it is a very obvious notion to think we are living in one. Seems much simpler and less interesting to me than what some religions have come up with in the past.

[Rhekimos]

I dunno I think this whole idea of us living in some kind of simulation is so completely irrelevant and uninteresting. If we do, it doesn't change anything. In fact it would be a very simple solution to life, the universe and everything. We are currently approaching the technological possibilities to build complex simulations so it is a very obvious notion to think we are living in one. Seems much simpler and less interesting to me than what some religions have come up with in the past.

Especially if it's a "perfect" simulation, the distinction becomes meaningless. This comes out with the excitement and wonder of a techgeek reading introductory philosophy for the first time and latching onto an idea thinking it changes everything when it really changes not much at all.

Now if Elon figured out a way to test if we live in a simulation, that'd be actually interesting. Forget Mars and self-driving cars, give me the nature of reality.

Also it just pushes the origin question further away instead of solving it. If we're a simulation, then the reality that is running our simulation still has the exact same question of origin.

[Leshma]

Such is the nature of the universe. Infinite spiral, two in correlation with each other at any section you take for reference, interweaving. There is no higher plane, higher universe or "reality" that hosts our simulation. They go on forever and only way to observe it is to stop for a moment. Otherwise it just endlessly flows inside out.

We'll probably find scientific model to become too rigid and deterministic. Probability is the key, we can't be sure of anything because there is no such thing. Yes, you can put some boundaries and find that your formula works but go past them and again it doesn't work. That is the problem with physics. We believe, just because it works on subset scale of the universe there must be a way to "fix" it, to expand it to work for all cases. There probably isn't.

[Rhekimos]

Such is the nature of the universe. Infinite spiral, two in correlation with each other at any section you take for reference, interweaving. There is no higher plane, higher universe or "reality" that hosts our simulation. They go on forever and only way to observe it is to stop for a moment. Otherwise it just endlessly flows inside out.

Poetic. But if there's nothing simulating, can you call it a simulation? Isn't that just what "is"?

We'll probably find scientific model to become too rigid and deterministic. Probability is the key, we can't be sure of anything because there is no such thing. Yes, you can put some boundaries and find that your formula works but go past them and again it doesn't work. That is the problem with physics. We believe, just because it works on subset scale of the universe there must be a way to "fix" it, to expand it to work for all cases. There probably isn't.

As we fill out our understanding of those subsets, many new things and previously unseen connections will undoubtedly dawn on us. Whether one of those will be a grand theory of absolutely everything, I don't know. Seems unlikely. Even getting gravity and quantum physics to play along would be fantastic though.

[Golem]

Best things in life aren't even good.

[Gurgumul]

The world being a computer simulation seems like a temporary idea. 500 years ago people had their theories which we laugh at now. 500 years from now there will be some super advanced quantum technology for doing things we can't even imagine, and people will laugh at us for even considering the idea of a primitive digital computer simulating the world. The future people will have their theories to explain the world, and they will also be wrong. The closest one can get to understanding the nature of sentience, is if they were deprived of senses from the moment they are conceived. The more we know, the more we look at the world through the prism of physical experiences. It's like giving a computer a very limited amount of data, and telling it to calculate something that's way beyond that data. This only leads to errors and false results. You can't understand the world through drugs, not through religion, not science and not anything at all. Maybe you'll find out what it means to be or not to be kurwa after death, but then you won't really have a brain to process this info, will you?

[Kafein]

The world being a computer simulation seems like a temporary idea. 500 years ago people had their theories which we laugh at now.

What theories we laugh at now? 500 years ago we lacked the engineering tools to actually test most of the ridiculous theories that got overturned later. These existed not because we were confident they were true, but because we tried to make sense of the world without the adequate tools to confront our models with reality. Or sometimes because of politics. There are plenty of examples of that now too, yet hardly a significant part of our knowledge is even moderately likely to be overturned. The ancients knew the properties of fauna and flora in their environment without understanding the chemistry and biology involved. Their knowledge was never overturned by later discoveries but merely put in context. Much in the same way, we know how to put satellites in orbit. Even formidable discoveries in physics can't change that.

[Leshma]

There are multiple ways how to do things and they aren't equally good. For example, there is a hole in the brick wall. You have oval shaped brick in your hand. After many attempts to put it in rectangular hole, you'll eventually mold it in desirable shape and force it into wall. Or you could be smart and pick the brick of right shape and size, just slide it in the opening.

[Gurgumul]

What theories we laugh at now?

Ridiculous stuff like gigantic ass monsters beyond the sea, or that the Earth is flat and carried by a big guy. These things seemed sensible because of lack of knowledge and technology, same as today's theories of brains connected to a gigantic ass computer. Seems theoretically possible with today's knowledge, just like the sea monsters back then, but nobody has seen neither the monsters, nor Big Boy Computer.

500 years ago we lacked the engineering tools to actually test most of the ridiculous theories that got overturned later. These existed not because we were confident they were true, but because we tried to make sense of the world without the adequate tools to confront our models with reality. Or sometimes because of politics. There are plenty of examples of that now too, yet hardly a significant part of our knowledge is even moderately likely to be overturned. The ancients knew the properties of fauna and flora in their environment without understanding the chemistry and biology involved. Their knowledge was never overturned by later discoveries but merely put in context. Much in the same way, we know how to put satellites in orbit. Even formidable discoveries in physics can't change that.

Practical stuff, yes. Past people's practical knowledge wasn't false, it was mostly incomplete, but so is ours, and so will be future people's. But when it comes to theories about life and spiritual stuff, our theories are no more correct than the past or future people's. On a bigger scale of time, computer brains will turn out to be just a fad, something that appeared because people discovered a new bit of technology, and created a world theory out of excitement.

There are multiple ways how to do things and they aren't equally good. For example, there is a hole in the brick wall. You have oval shaped brick in your hand. After many attempts to put it in rectangular hole, you'll eventually mold it in desirable shape and force it into wall. Or you could be smart and pick the brick of right shape and size, just slide it in the opening.

But no brick will be perfect in shape and size like my dick :^), you can come infinitely close to perfection, but there will always be a tiny bit missing. Same with world theories.

[Golem]

There are multiple ways how to do things and they aren't equally good. For example, there is a hole in the brick wall. You have oval shaped brick in your hand. After many attempts to put it in rectangular hole, you'll eventually mold it in desirable shape and force it into wall. Or you could be smart and pick the brick of right shape and size, just slide it in the opening.

Either way, you can't see through the wall now.

[Gurgumul]

Either way, you can't see through the wall now.

You must transcend into a higher plane of computering. Then you won't even need to see beyond the wall. You will do as you lust without trespassing from the square.