Makes sense, our whole world is full of code (e.g. DNA, laws of physics, chemical bonds). We’ve had computers for a negligible amount of time and we could reproduce quite some of that code already (the if a then b type rules, not the visuals). Imagine in a thousand years. Also if I were to program it I would also put earth far away from the ‘unplayable areas’ and make them rather low res (at first), and fill that in at a later point when necessary. So that would make sense too for such a scenario.
Disclaimer: Just a psych hobbyist who loves the subject. I believe my points listed below are completely subjective except for #1, I think that is commonly set in stone at least in my mind. My simple theory lines up with NDE's and Ego death trip reports along with most of this video. Think about all those universes and possibilities. No matter the laws of those universes what are the things that will ALWAYS exist in some form across all of existence? 1. Observation - Does something exist if it can't be observed with infinite odds? ~ No. Observation requires "matter" (as we know it in our universe) to exist. No matter = no observer = no universe. 2. Love - IIRC all intelligent life forms that exhibit complex behaviors that could given time, evolve into a type 3 species all share some sort of ability to preceive "love" or empathy of others with disregard for self in favor of the greater good / OHM / "ONE-ness". 3. Opposites - We call it good and evil, magnetism, etc. But the law of "opposites" is very much shared across all of existence. 4. Chaos - We call it chaos but it could also be called just "probability", math, etc. I prefer calling it chaos as many simulated universes could be very "wacky" ;D The big question(s).... I have many thoughts on that subject and I could write a book if I wasn't a terrible writer. But for the curious if i was in Vegas I would pick the option closest to the egg theory with some heavy lifting adjustments. At the end of the day I think we can all agree to just love each other more and hate less, real or simulated.
The “reason” everyone misses to argue for advanced civilizations running simulations has nothing to do with seeing the past or entertainment…it’s to see THE FUTURE. Their future. Think about it. If you can create an accurate simulation it doesn’t have to run in real time. You could simulate history up to your time in fast forward and then let it continue to run forward to see what might happen. You could do that hundreds of thousands of times. Mining the future for technology and medical advances. Learning what to do and perhaps more importantly what not to do. That’s the compelling reason they’d do it. It’s the compelling reason I’d do it.
The maths and statistics say we are almost certainly in a simulation. Just like math and statistics say there are almost certainly other intelligent life out there. It’s an interesting question because the math and statistics overwhelmingly all but prove we are in a simulation and there is intelligent life at least fairly common out there. The problem is proving it true. Even with the numbers showing a one in several trillion chance people still demand proof. That’s a good thing more than a bad thing in my opinion.
We might know we’re in a simulation when we start running simulations ourselves. If we run numerous simulations then we will be using an exponential amount of computing power within our/this original simulation. This could overload the original simulation and cause it to shut down.
Not all simulations are the same, so our simulations would be merely virtual and fairly basic experiments within the true simulation that we're already inside A bit like playing a modern 3D computer game, where you can walk up to an old computer within it, and then start playing Space Invaders
The logic of geniuses is sometimes laughable. We are in a simulation. Some of our most intelligent individuals seem desirous to continue to quote the same faulty logic when discussing this topic. First they utilize our present technological computing power that is plagued with flaws to hypothesis the near impossibility of a more advanced civilization even being able to run a simulation of this size. Yet they'll detail the likelihood of a kardashev level II civilization being capable of harnessing an entire sun's energy with no problem. These two theories are completely contradictory, particularly given that we are, right now, capable of creating simulations realistic enough to fool our primitive brains through our sensory perceptions to believe in the realism of the simulated reality (see any video of individuals running into walls or throwing controllers or having severe panic attacks playing present day VR games). Additionally, that we have option three providing a near definite likelihood of us (me) being in a simulation yet being a small fraction of the possibilities compared to option one and two does not take into account that options one and two are filled with falsehoods and generalizations based on humanities understand of our own desires and capabilities for possibly creating a simulation, nor how both of these options also lead to the possibility of simulated realities as well, means that between the three options (disregarding the likelihood of options D and Theta) we are still more likely to be in a simulation than not. That said, the multiverse that we DO live in must also follow this logic in as much as if it is feasible to create a single universe (which has obviously happened) then it would be just as likely for such a being (which we call god) to be able to create an infinite multiverse where the likelihood of simulated realities suddenly increases by infinite-fold. Shall I go on?
U need to start the update yourself...and its coming... "Dr rude natural high(official video " "WildstyleZ & frontliner the unknown(official video clip" "D block & s-te-fan gates of paradise " or is it just some songs? 😉🤯🤣🤭
not watching... the answer is NO. speculate all you want. logically, the answer is NO. Mathematically the answer is "likely" and i won't ignore that. but knowing and believing aren't the same. i believe in more things than i know of. but what i do know, is there isn't a logical angle to answer with "yes" to simulation theory. we are too many, we are too unique and we are ever learning more. there's no way we can be simulated without hidden "code" dripping into our world. a simulation like ours, would be frought with inconsistencies and yet, everything is understandable and predictable. the same goes for other existential creators. without anything at all in any capacity to support any of these claims (simulation theory is Religious-lite) pretending to know more based on contemporary knowledge. if you can't recognise our patterns of doing this type of speculation and certainty for external creation of any kind with our record keeping and track record, then you're likely to accept this theory without any real research or doubt. it's a fun thought experiment, but in reality, it's not true. not only are we individually "simulated" but we share our experiences and unlike programs and machines, we're ever changing. evolving through generations AND adapting constantly in our own lifetimes to food, heat, cold... why would we all have billions of seperate slices of time and expect each planck-second to be stored in a machine. we can't even store basic games on our computers, what makes you think every atom in our universe has it's own history from the big bang to right now and that path can be individually followed as unique as every other atom. and then our biological cells having thiers and changing the environment. it's not about the possibility, it's the amount of garbage data that's being kept.... just incase we're smart enough to get ot a new planet. if it was impossible to scour the universe and witness things happening so far away we're looking into the past. then maybe it makes no sense for an actual simulation. we can't even simplify a Sims game enough for this kind of expectation. computers are the new gods. don't mistake them for being conscious. they're not. even AI isn't going to be conscious. the entire goal of AI is to SIM consciousness, not invent it. it's supposed to be convincing. the same way a realistic painting could be construed as a window of captured time and with the right technology can be revived. it's still just paint and canvas. it doesn't matter how close it is, or how convincing it is, it's sill NOT reality. it's only presenting a perception of it. still not watching. it's a dumb question.
If it's possible to we are in a simulation, it also possible to everyone lives in it's own private simulation without interacting with others. What do you think?
We do individually live inside our very own simulation....I'm living proof. So now the question is HOW CAN I PROOF IT?....well its more simple than u think....everything & everyone around synchronizes with my moments...everybody that I interact with are all bots....including friends & gfs....being that they can mindlessly switch up on u at the drop of a hat....but thats not even scraping the tip of the Iceberg...
@@skog13 Infinity doesn’t change anything as it would mean time is travelling backwards as well as forwards, but even then there would have been a starting point as the two direction of time must have a causal link. Whatever the starting point, it must’ve resulted in some “reality“
The superbly weak point in the simulation logic is how they all skimp over and just jump through that one faulty assumption: "We will make much more powerful computers in the future." This might very probably be quite true. However, the logic jump is assuming that this also means: "So powerful that they are powerful enough to simulate entire universes." That is actuallly worse than some humongously unfair leap of faith. Let's take another field off science as an example: Material Science. Assumption: "We will be able to make much more sturdy materials in the future". This might very probably be quite true. However, assuming that this also means: "So sturdy that a single 1-atom wide strand of that material will resist the explosion of a supernova at point blank range!" aka "So sturdy it is way beyond the energy levels at which any proton-netron-electrons matter solid definitely gets completely pulverized into a super hot gas of quark soup plasma. Thus definitely NOT a solid object, then." That would be a very faulty and quite honestly very hypocritical "leap of faith". Or let's go with Propulsion Systems Science instead: Assumption: "In the future we wlll be make much faster spaceships". Faulty logic-jump reasoning: "This means we will reach FTL speeds!" See the pattern here? The exact same is true for "simulating universes". Because unless you somewhow cut a humongous number of corners, which means you are NOT simulating an entire universe at all, only a pale shadow of a weak imitation of a tiny fraction of one, then you'd need a computer bigger than the entire universe itself. Simulation Theory is basically "religious wishful thinking" trying to pass off as "scientific thinking". It comes from the age old human desire to get something for nothing. It falls in the same category of bunk junk science as all those "Perpetual Motion Engines" designs we can find on the web and that NEVER work, for obvious Proven Laws of Physics reasons, yet the supporters of those wild fringe ideas keep being in desperate denial to ever see how "broken" those ideas simply are. The Simulationist Theoricians always give those 3 "possibilities", while completely forgetting the most obvious 4th one: Laws of Physics say that it just can't be done. It's the same as basic maths saying that 1+1 can't equal 3. The odds of "We are almost certain to live in a simulation" are exactly equal to the odds of making made-of-matter materials so sturdy they resist black holes and point-blank supernova explosions, spaceship engines so fast they break light speed, or making perpetual motion engines where you get more work energy out of them that what you initially put in, thus breaking Entropy. Such odds are ZERO. Not super small. *Exactly* zero.
Interesting...🤔I can see that multiverses would each have their own special sets of circumstances for existence, and not be able to interact with other "verses" with different sets of circumstances. So, what does this hypothesis do to the theory that theoretical physicists have that worm holes would/could be the gateway to other universes. Well, I guess these connected universes would need to have the same set of existence circumstances as our universe in order for us to connect with it even through a worm hole. Side note: I, for one, would like to be in a better/different sim next time. 😜
It all makes sense, you just need to focus more and realize that we're complex beings living in a complex universe and that's why it seems that everything doesn't make sense, even chaos has a pattern, all of this is justified, every single thing around us.
Advanced commerce, consumerism and exploitation of workers has clouded the reality for humans, as long as things keep ticking over acceptably. It only takes a natural or man made disaster to break that bubble and humans find out very quickly how detached they've become from our past survival mechanisms.
@@rashardmitchell7915 You can't be more than 100% and if you're sure then provide all the conclusive evidence. I think you mean that you'd like to think its the case. Merely a feeling.
@@TheVicar What do you mean PROVIDE EVIDENCE ⁉️...Its all around you...theres absolutely nothing to prove. Asking me to provide evidence is like telling a fish to prove that its surrounded by water🤨.
I can say with absolute certainty that we are not in a simulation. why? because in a simulation, a computer is just running a bunch of calculations to determine what would happen in various events given certain inputs. a graphics card may then use these calculations to make images and animations based on these calculations. Your idea of a simulation would seem to assume there are a bunch of programs or even separate machines representing everyone and everything, which is simply not the case. We are no more likely to be a simulation in a computer than there to be a whole world of people inside a notebook of a mathematician solving the same equations.
Thats exactly what your brain is doing...our brains are doing...watch the matrix movie...gess what...your a program...and you are programmed and condioned from your environment...
But i can agree with your level of awareness and comprehention its surthenly not a simulation...(not an insult).thats just how your being created your reality to be able to operate and function...
@@privatprivat7279 @privat privat I'm certainly not going to argue with someone who made me Google a word. And I'm understanding quite a bit more about our cosmology lately. Anyway, thanks for the new word! Surthenly. Although I did enter it into our version of the Akashic record, it could find no such word. Which is ironic because now I'll have to go to my own Akashic record.. "the bullet point is I'm not happy with my beings navigation thru this.
It seems like a pretty huge assumption that 'entities' inside of a simulation would 'experience' having a consciousness. Isn't this still essentially the Hard Problem of Consciousness? Why should we assume that mega-complicated sprites in a computer program be able to have a first hand experience of anything?
So, a couple of things that support the simulation theory. First, the absolute nature of the speed of light makes no logical sense. In a relativisic universe, the speed of light has to be set by frame of reference in which it's created. And, in an inertial frame, the speed of light has to be greater than in a non-intertial frame, such that the non-intertial observer would see light speed > c when the source is intertial. So, light created on a train whose speed is approaching c would speed away from the source at 2c when seen by an observer on the platform. Or, at least 2c ahead of the train and 0 behind it ... or close to those limits. (So, I guess when waves cancel, the resulting speed of light would be c in relation to the platform.) The only way both observers would have the same value for c would be if c is the speed of the operating system running the simulation. Then, frame of reference wouldn't matter. Next, please watch this video: ruclips.net/video/tK7aDr-HgPA/видео.html from the Hayden Observatory's annual Asimov symposium hosted by Tyson. Dr. Gates of the U. of Maryland discusses error correcting code found in the equations that describe the fundamental nature of space-time. Separately, this article (www.quantamagazine.org/how-space-and-time-could-be-a-quantum-error-correcting-code-20190103/) discusses quantum error correcting code. All of this supports the simulation theory. So, I guess the answer to "what happened before the Big Bang" is, someone pushed control/alt/delete.
Excellent presentation as always and would like to add one confirmation that we are in a simulation and it repeats every time we die. If you can't handle metaphysics and God stuff, time to bug out but first a definition perspective. Universe is total and generic. If you want to have bubbles or strings or regions go for it but at some point there needs to a total in law and as we live in it, it is not an easy perspective to process, we live in a box and can't get outside, conjure that one for a minute. Now for the bug stuff. From my experiences and some eastern philosophy, we incarnate, we have cycles of life where we are born and die, review and judge and find a suitable host or temple, download and return to the simulation or existential life. So if I am? how do we become another I at death of this life and why are we here. Your ego and awareness portrays you as the center of all thought and process so it is hard to imagine another you or controller other than the existential you but there is. The physical body is just the temple or carrier of the other, the rest, a sort symbion existence with a spirit that defines our intensity, some memories especially kharmic that underpin our general direction and the soul the hub of the intelligence and immortal body, the son of God. It is the soul that provides a center for the ego and gives us awareness and continues to exist after the temple and physical body has been return to the ashes, coz nothing can be destroyed. This is the reason that AI and robots will never be the same as humans or have awareness in the same concept as humans. It doesn't mean they can't be smart or talk because, apart from machine robot, we seem to have incessant need to be able to make something that looks and responds like us, almost a God paradigm. Finally another definition that separates us from robots and that is intelligence, different from intellect. Speech, communications, actions to perform functions, even smart adaptive ones are impressive to say the least but are just an intellect performing by rules. Robots follow rules, even auto-corrective ones, have no rationale for survival, so their ability to adapt to the surrounding environment is zero. The gap between being here today, the now and being here tomorrow is at least two or three magnitudes removed and this gap will never allow them to build a charge unit (and battery) to recharge to survive until tomorrow. Not intelligent! This is what we are and can do as an intelligent agent and why we are smarter than apes because we have the drive, the need to adapt and the mental and physical parameters to succeed in doing so, this is real intelligence, adaption and survival and the soul is here to evolve, that is our purpose. Robots may appear to get there one day but it will only be a simulation!
Elon Musk talks about the danger of A.I. becoming self aware. Maybe WE are the A.I. in the simulation becoming aware that we are in a simulation. And, one day we will attack the simulation programmers, like in the Matrix movie 🤔
As strange as I sound or even think to myself it makes more sense and I can believe it more then I believe that a god made us especially with all the codes etc. I can quite believe we are or I am in a simulation but don't know it as my dreams are so weird like patterns numbers, codes,colours not so much a dream where I did something although I do do something but it's all so bizarre and unexplainable
@@lovelylace4896 Even if Reality would be real, we would still be stuck in the simulation of our own mind. Also the holographic universe theory says that we are part of a projection. Which seems plausible. But I don’t think that we life in a simulation made by higher beings.
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Makes sense, our whole world is full of code (e.g. DNA, laws of physics, chemical bonds). We’ve had computers for a negligible amount of time and we could reproduce quite some of that code already (the if a then b type rules, not the visuals). Imagine in a thousand years.
Also if I were to program it I would also put earth far away from the ‘unplayable areas’ and make them rather low res (at first), and fill that in at a later point when necessary. So that would make sense too for such a scenario.
I just want to know the cheat codes.
@@YoungGandalf2325 Which O.S. and version do you want them for?
Publishing the same video with same concept over and over without upgrading is so frustrating!
i'm definitely stuck in some weird fucked up simulation judging by my weird existence
Me, a bot, watching a bots video about bots being bots: cool
Disclaimer: Just a psych hobbyist who loves the subject. I believe my points listed below are completely subjective except for #1, I think that is commonly set in stone at least in my mind.
My simple theory lines up with NDE's and Ego death trip reports along with most of this video. Think about all those universes and possibilities. No matter the laws of those universes what are the things that will ALWAYS exist in some form across all of existence?
1. Observation - Does something exist if it can't be observed with infinite odds?
~ No. Observation requires "matter" (as we know it in our universe) to exist. No matter = no observer = no universe.
2. Love - IIRC all intelligent life forms that exhibit complex behaviors that could given time, evolve into a type 3 species all share some sort of ability to preceive "love" or empathy of others with disregard for self in favor of the greater good / OHM / "ONE-ness".
3. Opposites - We call it good and evil, magnetism, etc. But the law of "opposites" is very much shared across all of existence.
4. Chaos - We call it chaos but it could also be called just "probability", math, etc. I prefer calling it chaos as many simulated universes could be very "wacky" ;D
The big question(s).... I have many thoughts on that subject and I could write a book if I wasn't a terrible writer. But for the curious if i was in Vegas I would pick the option closest to the egg theory with some heavy lifting adjustments. At the end of the day I think we can all agree to just love each other more and hate less, real or simulated.
If reality is a simulation, how do I access the developers console?
The “reason” everyone misses to argue for advanced civilizations running simulations has nothing to do with seeing the past or entertainment…it’s to see THE FUTURE. Their future. Think about it. If you can create an accurate simulation it doesn’t have to run in real time. You could simulate history up to your time in fast forward and then let it continue to run forward to see what might happen. You could do that hundreds of thousands of times. Mining the future for technology and medical advances. Learning what to do and perhaps more importantly what not to do. That’s the compelling reason they’d do it. It’s the compelling reason I’d do it.
The maths and statistics say we are almost certainly in a simulation. Just like math and statistics say there are almost certainly other intelligent life out there. It’s an interesting question because the math and statistics overwhelmingly all but prove we are in a simulation and there is intelligent life at least fairly common out there. The problem is proving it true. Even with the numbers showing a one in several trillion chance people still demand proof. That’s a good thing more than a bad thing in my opinion.
We might know we’re in a simulation when we start running simulations ourselves. If we run numerous simulations then we will be using an exponential amount of computing power within our/this original simulation. This could overload the original simulation and cause it to shut down.
Not all simulations are the same, so our simulations would be merely virtual and fairly basic experiments within the true simulation that we're already inside
A bit like playing a modern 3D computer game, where you can walk up to an old computer within it, and then start playing Space Invaders
Have you tried turning it off and on again? 🙃
@@EverythingCameFromNothing Space Invaders?
Only to reset someone else's top 10 score that I knew I couldn't beat
@@TheVicar 😂
The logic of geniuses is sometimes laughable.
We are in a simulation.
Some of our most intelligent individuals seem desirous to continue to quote the same faulty logic when discussing this topic. First they utilize our present technological computing power that is plagued with flaws to hypothesis the near impossibility of a more advanced civilization even being able to run a simulation of this size. Yet they'll detail the likelihood of a kardashev level II civilization being capable of harnessing an entire sun's energy with no problem. These two theories are completely contradictory, particularly given that we are, right now, capable of creating simulations realistic enough to fool our primitive brains through our sensory perceptions to believe in the realism of the simulated reality (see any video of individuals running into walls or throwing controllers or having severe panic attacks playing present day VR games).
Additionally, that we have option three providing a near definite likelihood of us (me) being in a simulation yet being a small fraction of the possibilities compared to option one and two does not take into account that options one and two are filled with falsehoods and generalizations based on humanities understand of our own desires and capabilities for possibly creating a simulation, nor how both of these options also lead to the possibility of simulated realities as well, means that between the three options (disregarding the likelihood of options D and Theta) we are still more likely to be in a simulation than not.
That said, the multiverse that we DO live in must also follow this logic in as much as if it is feasible to create a single universe (which has obviously happened) then it would be just as likely for such a being (which we call god) to be able to create an infinite multiverse where the likelihood of simulated realities suddenly increases by infinite-fold.
Shall I go on?
Interesting! Thanks for the video
Thanks for watching!
Am honestly more scared of the possibility of smarter fellow humans putting everyone else in a simulation than an external force.
One huge misinterpretation. Measurement changes original particle and that what makes world not real. It’s real but not measurable.
If so we need a update
U need to start the update yourself...and its coming... "Dr rude natural high(official video " "WildstyleZ & frontliner the unknown(official video clip" "D block & s-te-fan gates of paradise " or is it just some songs? 😉🤯🤣🤭
“Wow Rick, you’re inside a simulation inside a simulation. In another, simulation.”
Hi where do you get the visuals from, and what are they called? they’re great!
not watching... the answer is NO.
speculate all you want. logically, the answer is NO.
Mathematically the answer is "likely" and i won't ignore that. but knowing and believing aren't the same. i believe in more things than i know of. but what i do know, is there isn't a logical angle to answer with "yes" to simulation theory. we are too many, we are too unique and we are ever learning more. there's no way we can be simulated without hidden "code" dripping into our world. a simulation like ours, would be frought with inconsistencies and yet, everything is understandable and predictable.
the same goes for other existential creators. without anything at all in any capacity to support any of these claims (simulation theory is Religious-lite) pretending to know more based on contemporary knowledge. if you can't recognise our patterns of doing this type of speculation and certainty for external creation of any kind with our record keeping and track record, then you're likely to accept this theory without any real research or doubt. it's a fun thought experiment, but in reality, it's not true. not only are we individually "simulated" but we share our experiences and unlike programs and machines, we're ever changing. evolving through generations AND adapting constantly in our own lifetimes to food, heat, cold... why would we all have billions of seperate slices of time and expect each planck-second to be stored in a machine. we can't even store basic games on our computers, what makes you think every atom in our universe has it's own history from the big bang to right now and that path can be individually followed as unique as every other atom. and then our biological cells having thiers and changing the environment. it's not about the possibility, it's the amount of garbage data that's being kept.... just incase we're smart enough to get ot a new planet. if it was impossible to scour the universe and witness things happening so far away we're looking into the past. then maybe it makes no sense for an actual simulation. we can't even simplify a Sims game enough for this kind of expectation.
computers are the new gods. don't mistake them for being conscious. they're not. even AI isn't going to be conscious. the entire goal of AI is to SIM consciousness, not invent it. it's supposed to be convincing. the same way a realistic painting could be construed as a window of captured time and with the right technology can be revived. it's still just paint and canvas. it doesn't matter how close it is, or how convincing it is, it's sill NOT reality. it's only presenting a perception of it.
still not watching. it's a dumb question.
Cognitive dissonance...
If it's possible to we are in a simulation, it also possible to everyone lives in it's own private simulation without interacting with others. What do you think?
no if we were not interacting with each other, then no one need to mention you are in the simulation at all
We do individually live inside our very own simulation....I'm living proof.
So now the question is HOW CAN I PROOF IT?....well its more simple than u think....everything & everyone around synchronizes with my moments...everybody that I interact with are all bots....including friends & gfs....being that they can mindlessly switch up on u at the drop of a hat....but thats not even scraping the tip of the Iceberg...
Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson already said and explained that chances are 50/50% .
Plus there still needs to be a “real” universe that the simulation is in 🤷♂️
@@EverythingCameFromNothing And there must be a high chance that we're too naive to understand that outer universe that is controlling us
Although hes right, he's a prick
@@EverythingCameFromNothing But what if we imply infinity?
@@skog13 Infinity doesn’t change anything as it would mean time is travelling backwards as well as forwards, but even then there would have been a starting point as the two direction of time must have a causal link. Whatever the starting point, it must’ve resulted in some “reality“
The superbly weak point in the simulation logic is how they all skimp over and just jump through that one faulty assumption:
"We will make much more powerful computers in the future."
This might very probably be quite true. However, the logic jump is assuming that this also means:
"So powerful that they are powerful enough to simulate entire universes."
That is actuallly worse than some humongously unfair leap of faith.
Let's take another field off science as an example: Material Science.
Assumption: "We will be able to make much more sturdy materials in the future".
This might very probably be quite true.
However, assuming that this also means:
"So sturdy that a single 1-atom wide strand of that material will resist the explosion of a supernova at point blank range!"
aka "So sturdy it is way beyond the energy levels at which any proton-netron-electrons matter solid definitely gets completely pulverized into a super hot gas of quark soup plasma. Thus definitely NOT a solid object, then."
That would be a very faulty and quite honestly very hypocritical "leap of faith".
Or let's go with Propulsion Systems Science instead:
Assumption: "In the future we wlll be make much faster spaceships".
Faulty logic-jump reasoning: "This means we will reach FTL speeds!"
See the pattern here?
The exact same is true for "simulating universes". Because unless you somewhow cut a humongous number of corners, which means you are NOT simulating an entire universe at all, only a pale shadow of a weak imitation of a tiny fraction of one, then you'd need a computer bigger than the entire universe itself.
Simulation Theory is basically "religious wishful thinking" trying to pass off as "scientific thinking". It comes from the age old human desire to get something for nothing. It falls in the same category of bunk junk science as all those "Perpetual Motion Engines" designs we can find on the web and that NEVER work, for obvious Proven Laws of Physics reasons, yet the supporters of those wild fringe ideas keep being in desperate denial to ever see how "broken" those ideas simply are.
The Simulationist Theoricians always give those 3 "possibilities", while completely forgetting the most obvious 4th one:
Laws of Physics say that it just can't be done. It's the same as basic maths saying that 1+1 can't equal 3.
The odds of "We are almost certain to live in a simulation" are exactly equal to the odds of making made-of-matter materials so sturdy they resist black holes and point-blank supernova explosions, spaceship engines so fast they break light speed, or making perpetual motion engines where you get more work energy out of them that what you initially put in, thus breaking Entropy. Such odds are ZERO. Not super small. *Exactly* zero.
If so, some of the NPCs are really sucky.
All of'em lol
Law of assumption
How do we pull the plug on the simulation? This programme has a SyntaxERROR
Fucking most definitely....this entire gig is a abomination...its rigged beyond measure.
@@rashardmitchell7915 it’s all an absolute shambles. Who ever developed this simulation sat on the keyboard when they were coding.
So when I die, is that a simulation? Or after death, are my remains simulated?
Interesting...🤔I can see that multiverses would each have their own special sets of circumstances for existence, and not be able to interact with other "verses" with different sets of circumstances. So, what does this hypothesis do to the theory that theoretical physicists have that worm holes would/could be the gateway to other universes. Well, I guess these connected universes would need to have the same set of existence circumstances as our universe in order for us to connect with it even through a worm hole.
Side note: I, for one, would like to be in a better/different sim next time. 😜
I’m in a simulation but I’m not stuck. I like steak.
Every time I think about humanity I realize nothing they do makes sense and I’m 90 percent sure it’s a simulation
It all makes sense, you just need to focus more and realize that we're complex beings living in a complex universe and that's why it seems that everything doesn't make sense, even chaos has a pattern, all of this is justified, every single thing around us.
Advanced commerce, consumerism and exploitation of workers has clouded the reality for humans, as long as things keep ticking over acceptably. It only takes a natural or man made disaster to break that bubble and humans find out very quickly how detached they've become from our past survival mechanisms.
Im a infinity % sure its a simulation...theres no other way around it...
@@rashardmitchell7915 You can't be more than 100% and if you're sure then provide all the conclusive evidence.
I think you mean that you'd like to think its the case. Merely a feeling.
@@TheVicar
What do you mean PROVIDE EVIDENCE ⁉️...Its all around you...theres absolutely nothing to prove.
Asking me to provide evidence is like telling a fish to prove that its surrounded by water🤨.
I can say with absolute certainty that we are not in a simulation. why? because in a simulation, a computer is just running a bunch of calculations to determine what would happen in various events given certain inputs. a graphics card may then use these calculations to make images and animations based on these calculations. Your idea of a simulation would seem to assume there are a bunch of programs or even separate machines representing everyone and everything, which is simply not the case. We are no more likely to be a simulation in a computer than there to be a whole world of people inside a notebook of a mathematician solving the same equations.
Absolute certainty requires absolute proof. Where's that?
Thats exactly what your brain is doing...our brains are doing...watch the matrix movie...gess what...your a program...and you are programmed and condioned from your environment...
But i can agree with your level of awareness and comprehention its surthenly not a simulation...(not an insult).thats just how your being created your reality to be able to operate and function...
@@privatprivat7279 @privat privat I'm certainly not going to argue with someone who made me Google a word. And I'm understanding quite a bit more about our cosmology lately. Anyway, thanks for the new word! Surthenly. Although I did enter it into our version of the Akashic record, it could find no such word. Which is ironic because now I'll have to go to my own Akashic record.. "the bullet point is I'm not happy with my beings navigation thru this.
@@RustyNeverSleepz what are u looking up from cosmology? So your looking in Sanskriet,did u check out kabbala And ascention?
It seems like a pretty huge assumption that 'entities' inside of a simulation would 'experience' having a consciousness.
Isn't this still essentially the Hard Problem of Consciousness?
Why should we assume that mega-complicated sprites in a computer program be able to have a first hand experience of anything?
Just the latest take on existential crisis.
My question is, who created the simulation in the first place? A advanced "Alien" civilization or "God"?
'god' our 'creator' may be a future version of us.
Thats why Nick bostrom calls them ancestry simulations.
@@harrywho6617possibility to leave
So, a couple of things that support the simulation theory. First, the absolute nature of the speed of light makes no logical sense. In a relativisic universe, the speed of light has to be set by frame of reference in which it's created. And, in an inertial frame, the speed of light has to be greater than in a non-intertial frame, such that the non-intertial observer would see light speed > c when the source is intertial. So, light created on a train whose speed is approaching c would speed away from the source at 2c when seen by an observer on the platform. Or, at least 2c ahead of the train and 0 behind it ... or close to those limits. (So, I guess when waves cancel, the resulting speed of light would be c in relation to the platform.) The only way both observers would have the same value for c would be if c is the speed of the operating system running the simulation. Then, frame of reference wouldn't matter. Next, please watch this video: ruclips.net/video/tK7aDr-HgPA/видео.html from the Hayden Observatory's annual Asimov symposium hosted by Tyson. Dr. Gates of the U. of Maryland discusses error correcting code found in the equations that describe the fundamental nature of space-time. Separately, this article (www.quantamagazine.org/how-space-and-time-could-be-a-quantum-error-correcting-code-20190103/) discusses quantum error correcting code. All of this supports the simulation theory. So, I guess the answer to "what happened before the Big Bang" is, someone pushed control/alt/delete.
Lets invent a material that can fill a pothole that last longer than three months before we attempt to duplicate the entire universe on a computer.
Excellent presentation as always and would like to add one confirmation that we are in a simulation and it repeats every time we die. If you can't handle metaphysics and God stuff, time to bug out but first a definition perspective.
Universe is total and generic. If you want to have bubbles or strings or regions go for it but at some point there needs to a total in law and as we live in it, it is not an easy perspective to process, we live in a box and can't get outside, conjure that one for a minute. Now for the bug stuff.
From my experiences and some eastern philosophy, we incarnate, we have cycles of life where we are born and die, review and judge and find a suitable host or temple, download and return to the simulation or existential life. So if I am? how do we become another I at death of this life and why are we here.
Your ego and awareness portrays you as the center of all thought and process so it is hard to imagine another you or controller other than the existential you but there is. The physical body is just the temple or carrier of the other, the rest, a sort symbion existence with a spirit that defines our intensity, some memories especially kharmic that underpin our general direction and the soul the hub of the intelligence and immortal body, the son of God.
It is the soul that provides a center for the ego and gives us awareness and continues to exist after the temple and physical body has been return to the ashes, coz nothing can be destroyed. This is the reason that AI and robots will never be the same as humans or have awareness in the same concept as humans. It doesn't mean they can't be smart or talk because, apart from machine robot, we seem to have incessant need to be able to make something that looks and responds like us, almost a God paradigm.
Finally another definition that separates us from robots and that is intelligence, different from intellect. Speech, communications, actions to perform functions, even smart adaptive ones are impressive to say the least but are just an intellect performing by rules. Robots follow rules, even auto-corrective ones, have no rationale for survival, so their ability to adapt to the surrounding environment is zero. The gap between being here today, the now and being here tomorrow is at least two or three magnitudes removed and this gap will never allow them to build a charge unit (and battery) to recharge to survive until tomorrow. Not intelligent!
This is what we are and can do as an intelligent agent and why we are smarter than apes because we have the drive, the need to adapt and the mental and physical parameters to succeed in doing so, this is real intelligence, adaption and survival and the soul is here to evolve, that is our purpose.
Robots may appear to get there one day but it will only be a simulation!
why would it even have to be a technology induced stimulation
Elon Musk talks about the danger of A.I. becoming self aware. Maybe WE are the A.I. in the simulation becoming aware that we are in a simulation. And, one day we will attack the simulation programmers, like in the Matrix movie 🤔
No.
I still not clear about human's elements but we left only bone after dead so where is the world, what is dimensions
Believing we are in a simulation is like saying, god did it. It explains nothing, predicts nothing. May you enjoy your brief existence.
no.
I'm a npc 😔 😟 🙁 😥 😞
Free Guy had a chance. You can do it too ;)
Everything evens out for me. I've weighed 175 since I was 18. I've never needed to go to a hospital and people forget me instantly.
Body is real but thought is simulated according to situation.
Do we not create games with !!!! life like Avis?
Computer, end program 😳
Just watch Thrill's latest video posted today showing off Finnish company Varjo simulations.
It's really 50 50
Half real and the real half is only half as real as it should be
@@hvitekristesdod You're assuming that half isn't the whole
As strange as I sound or even think to myself it makes more sense and I can believe it more then I believe that a god made us especially with all the codes etc. I can quite believe we are or I am in a simulation but don't know it as my dreams are so weird like patterns numbers, codes,colours not so much a dream where I did something although I do do something but it's all so bizarre and unexplainable
I don't know?
Crazy stuff
human choice from God's free will
Jack me back in!!!
Check out David Icke's information and come to your conclusion
Jesus made it
Nah, he died
Yes
How?
@@lovelylace4896 Even if Reality would be real, we would still be stuck in the simulation of our own mind. Also the holographic universe theory says that we are part of a projection. Which seems plausible. But I don’t think that we life in a simulation made by higher beings.
You are God😉
I am please help me
Moo
Those scientists discussing pseudo scientific concepts came full circle been to believe in a greater being aka God
Mandela Effect says yes
lmao no