Simulation theory proves God?

stumbled upon this train of thought, hear me out Simulation theory is theory that we are currently in simulation on some futuristic supercomputer with 99.99999% probability (repeating 9s of course). The basic concept of this mind experiment goes that some kid in the long future has a supercomputer that can reliably (somehow) simulate our universe, and he alongside all of his classmates has a homework task to simulate our universe to the year 2023 AD. They make the big bang, push the universe few billion years until year 2023 to study humans, their ancestors. Seeing how every kid in the future has this supercomputer and how eventually everyone does this simulation that there are infinite amount of these "simulated" universes compared to that original universe that created all those simulations. Which kind of proves that we live in a simulation with 99.999999% probability since there is higher change and number of simulated universes compared to real one. Now, my thought train goes further, "what is God?" God is, by most, if not all, religious texts described as: >all-knowing >all-present >all-powerful The three necessary properties of God is omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (all-present) and omnipotent (all-powerful). Now, coming back to the simulation theory. This kid that simulated our universe on his supercomputer, can he manipulate the code and his simulation to hax around and make all kind of miraculous things happen out of thin air (all-powerful)? This kid that simulated our universe on his supercomputer, can he pause time and go from one end of universe with his cursor to another end (all-present)? This kid that simulated our universe on his supercomputer, can he look at code and simulation in depth to understand and know what and how happened (all-knowing)? So this kid that simulated our universe is equivalent to God? Does this mean that simulation theory of universe proves the existence of God with 99.9999(repeating) % probability? I tried posting this theory on Reddit and got immediately derezzed and shunned from any discussion, but I think lainchan might be more open for this kind of discussion. What do you guys think?

There is literally no way to falsify or verify whether we are in a simulation. As with all supernatural phenomena.

first of all you're adding way too many details, every detail of your hypothesis reduces its probability significantly. Much more plausible that there's some entity with some sort of computer running a simulation which is us, than that a human is simulating us as his past on a big fancy computer in a sort of future. Those are just made up bits to add colour, irrelevant unless you're a scifi author. If reality is proven to be a simulation then that implies an overuniverse with rules we may not understand, but which can directly affect the rules of our universe. Sure, thats plausibly Godly. But there's not even an especially good argument for there to be a .5 chance that this is the case from what Ive seen, letalone .99999

>>73122 technically there might be a way. You can extrapolate from what you know - how could a npc in a game escape the game and find out about our real world? What you need is a bug that allows npc to access outside the game. If he can do that he can observe the world outside his confines. If the npc manages to write memory he can start writing custom code and reshape his reality. And if the npc manages to find a function to swap instances he would confirm parallel worlds exist.

>>73127 parallel worlds don't imply simulation that strongly. What you'd find would be very interesting, but what about it would scream simulation more than just any of the half dozen weird paralell universe bubble cruft people talk about

>>73129 i was trying to say if the npc escaped and found out other instances of his game then he would label those instances as parallel worlds.

Any simulator has to be at least as complex as the simulation. If the simulation has subatomic particles at the vast scale our universe does, that means creating a universe simulator is infeasible with the tools this universe gives us. If instead shortcuts are taken, they should be detectable from within the simulation. If we're indeed inside a simulator and there are no detectable shortcuts, the simulator's universe must be much more complex than ours. That breaks the chain of simulations that makes you think it's 99.9999% probability or whatever.

>>73144 what makes you think all those particles are actually simulated ? What even makes you think things outside of a 200ft radius of you are simulated?

>>73145 That is a good question but like I said shortcuts should be detectable. We should be able to use them to prove without a doubt that we're in a simulation and that hasn't happened yet.

Well, knowing that everything depends on something as water molecules depend on hydrogen and oxygen, life depends on water and so on and so forth, going back the ladder of dependency would lead to “what is the universe dependent on?” and as we know, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changing in state Does that mean god, arranged the universes existance and set his rules upon it? As a divine being, maybe the chain of dependency wouldn’t apply to him at all, because his existence wouldn’t follow the basic rules of physics. An ever present universe would not be possible, as if there was in infinite past, we would never reach the present. Thoughts?

>>73146 >shortcuts should be detectable. in certain specific scenarios, sure. But if you accept that shortcuts could include i.e. inserting the memory of having completed a test and proved the universe wasnt a simulation, then you're basically out of luck. And I'm pretty sure you're personally not doing these tests but rather trusting other people (who could be more fake than you) to do them for you. Maybe you're the only person simulated in any depth, maybe you're the actual subject of the simulation and its full of things specifically made to cause you to think its real. Im not this solipsistic myself but I can't understand how simulation troothers seem to generally take the existence of other people equal to themselves as a given.

This entire argument rests on a flawed understanding of probability and unstated, unrealistic assumptions. Assuming a continuum of possibilities, every event has 0% chance of occurring, yet events still happen. (Aside: I think you could make a kind of mysticism out of that fact) Furthermore, I do not consider it obvious that the only controlling factor of whether our experienced reality is "simulated", whatever that means, is the number of simulations versus the number of "real" realities. It could very well be that simulated realities simply cannot be complex enough to be our experienced reality, by some physical law. >>73148 >doesn't do basic "reality checks" every day or two Come on now lain, this is a board for schizos. Of course we check. You don't need a particle accelerator to do that either, you just need to look for logical inconsistencies or reproducible "glitches". Personally I think the amount of sensory information I can access, in great detail, all of which is logically consistent with a very large and deep world, is enough to supply evidence against the solipsistic hypothesis.

>>73149 >reality checks what reality checks do you consider adequate to prove the world is not a simulation?

>>73120 Regardless of how sound your supposition about simulation theory supporting the existence of a god is, simulation "theory" is itself fundamentally unprovable. You cannot prove you are in a simulation without information from outside of the simulation, which sinks your ship before it sails.

>>73150 >what reality checks I was referring to reality checks on the accuracy of ones own perception. >to prove the world is not a simulation Well, first off, I don't think the distinction "simulation" vs "not simulation" is particularly meaningful. A simulation defines the rules of some kind of universe, and the simulation evolves according to the rules of that universe -- and that universe would still, in an abstract sense, evolve according to those rules whether or not someone is running a computation of some kind to effect those rules into their own universe. I also think speculation on the hypothetical capabilities of some hypothetical computing machine that exists outside our physical world is essentially pointless. It could be anything. But, I digress. *assuming* somebody lived inside our physical universe and was trying to run a computer program that approximated our physical world, with the express purpose of fooling a simulated mind that has knowledge of the "real" universe, and I were the mind, I would check if: reflections make sense, objects have consistent texture, sensory information is wide bandwidth, the future is difficult to predict but still makes sense when examined a posteriori, historical facts and evidence of them remain consistent over time, etc. All of these are easier to check than they are to fake.

>>73152 Also, there are some simple physical processes that are extremely difficult to simulate, such as ripples on the surface of water, fluid-structure interaction, behavior of stretchy materials, the way food changes when you cook it, etc. If, tomorrow, you were transferred to a simulated world, all of these would look markedly different unless the simulation meticulously reproduced thousands or thousands or millions of detailed material models as well as coupled physics between them, or simulated everything on an atomic level, which would require computing power that is unthinkable today. One way or another, somebody who could actually produce and run such a simulation code would be essentially a god *in reality, no simulation required.

>>73120 It doesn't prove God, just implies intelligent design and that an intention or reason existed for something at some point. Although al;l those concepts break down outside the universe.

>>73153 >If, tomorrow, you were transferred to a simulated world, all of these would look markedly different yes, this is true, but simulation troothers like op I think are in the 'always has been' camp, havent seen many speculating that they've been captured and stuck in one. that would be funny, sounds like something yud would like. tortured by an ai having to live through....this...ahahah

Why attribute god to the kid when it isn't given your example. He obviously doesn't have any of those three attributes. >can he manipulate the code and his simulation to hax around and make all kind of miraculous things happen out of thin air (all-powerful)? He is not all-powerful because he has to rely on the computer to do anything. >This kid that simulated our universe on his supercomputer, can he pause time and go from one end of universe with his cursor to another end (all-present)? He is not all-present if he can only see a state at a time. >This kid that simulated our universe on his supercomputer, can he look at code and simulation in depth to understand and know what and how happened (all-knowing)? That he can now everything doesn't imply that he knows everything. In the simulation thesis, I thing god isn't the one who wrote the code or the initial state, as in a way the computer holds more power over the user as code can only be written because the computer allows you to write it and also the simulation can keep running if the one who thought it ceases to exist so the necessary being AKA god would be the computer. Who would you call god, the one who created the universe or the one that allows it to exist? it is possible for they to not be the same being. The simulation thesis however assumes that the universe is a mechanism but what if god just does what it wants and "natural laws" only exist because god likes them and they can be broken at any time if god wants to, this is something most religions believe because who in their right mind would pray to a machine

>>73159 It's the only way "detecting whether you're in a simulation " makes any sense.

Good luck discovering that the realm simulating ours is not itself simulated. God himself prays.

The idea is that we'll be able to eventually simulate something 99.99% similar to our reality, which in turn will be able to simulate a reality 99.99% similar to itself. So in the same sense that it's 99.99% likely that we're in a simulation, it's also 99.99% likely that the next 10 realities above us are also simulated. This doesn't prove anything about the nature of the singularity(The simulation at the top of the stack) because >We can't predict our current variance from the singularity with meaningful accuracy >Therein even if we proved god was real, it could just be a simulation and the Singularity still might not have a god It's pointless thinking.

>>73166 on that we can agree

>>73169 >The idea is that we'll be able to eventually simulate something 99.99% similar to our reality, which in turn will be able to simulate a reality 99.99% similar to itself I don't think that really makes sense. By all indications, a 99% accurate simulation of the whole earth would take more energy than is available on earth, a 99% accurate solar system simulation would take more energy than is available in the solar system, etc.

>>73174 There's no realtime requirement.

>>73176 Energy is not a time-dependent quantity, it is an absolute quantity. There is a finite amount of energy in the earth (plus the energy that comes from the sun, but that is small compared to the energy just sitting here) And, actually, there is a "realtime" requirement, as you need the computation to complete before the universe becomes a cold, entropic wasteland. That already puts this goal well out of reach of humanity at the moment.

>>73177 Nah. You're trying too hard to break the case. Everything you've asserted I could just break with yet another what if. It's boring. If you get into gematria, law opf attraction, etc it becomes clear nothing works the way it seems anyway.

>>73178 >I could just break with yet another what if. What if unicorns farted pixie dust? >If you get into gematria, law opf attraction, etc it becomes clear nothing works the way it seems anyway. that stuff is BS for the most part.

>>73179 >What if unicorns farted pixie dust? Yes, that's how you think. I don't even need to prompt for a reply to know all of your opinions. More or less. Anything I say you'll just make extreme or ridiculous in your mind, and then start from that. Meh. I'm done with the internet. It's all soykafheads and zo o m ers at this point. You actually really creep me out. A lot of people are actually focused on the problems people like you will cause in the future, and how to preempt and deal with it. For better or worse.

>>73180 >I don't even need to prompt for a reply to know all of your opinions. Oh? What's my opinion on simulationism, then? I've expressed several different opinions in this thread. >Anything I say you'll just make extreme or ridiculous in your mind, and then start from that. I replied with that because you basically just dismissed an argument with no reasoning, and you were rude about it too. How is anyone supposed to have a reasonable conversation like that? I can think of several refutations to >>73177 that would have been better both logically and rhetorically, but you went for the dramatic sigh and the "fah, it really isn't worth trying to educate the proles" stance.

>>73182 It's a style of dialogue and general attitude I despise. You are a taker asking me to be a giver. Yes, you'rebetter off talking to the others. I can simulate you in my head.

the thing is just that any disproval is easily refuted by a slightly reframed base scenario. like I said earlier (not the guy you're replying to) there's no especially good reason to i.e. beleive there are people fully represented in the next room, let alone every slosh of water in the ocean or every electron on Mars. Maybe (you) are the subject of the simulation, and its only addressing things in your immediate vicinity. always has been. You can't prove its not the case.

>>73184 Yes, see this is the kind of thing that happens when you stop trying to break a case and start actually thinking on your own to make it work. At the base layer in describing the basis and genesis of all perceived phenomena, you have the munchausen trilemma. Namely that it inescapably reduces to 1) Axiomatic (is because it is) 2) Circular (self referential truth, all logic forms closed loops, gets into prime mover and origin of motion) 3) Infinite (every why begets yet another with no ability to detect looping) And that's it. You cannot use the mind and the senses to prove the mind and the senses, Then there are all kinds of other variants from hermeticism, gnosticism, this being a shared collective dream, and all the other branches. What pisses me off the most is that asserting "simulation" already contaminates the dialogue, and yet people can't see through it. They just come up with bullshit to make everything feel the way they want.

>>73183 >I despise when people expect me to converse in good faith >>73184 But to do this the simulation you'd have to put together a coherent history of the world, enough to fool a fairly complicated mind. So it's not just the immediate vicinity that needs to be simulated, it's also a lot of external variables. I agree that the existence of the external world is always going to be unprovable, in fact I think the existence of the internal world and the self are also unprovable, but this version of simulationism differs from conventional Cartesian solipsism in that we suppose whoever is doing the fooling is not literally all-powerful, but has some kind of limits. This means we can speculate what those limits are and find ways to observe them. I liked the suggestion of cooking, it involves a large amount of complicated chemical reactions, meaning a simulation capable of making cooking work coherently would need to be pretty in-depth. I think, also, that OP is taking for granted that computational power will always grow exponentially, but I don't think that's a given.

>>73186 >enough to fool a fairly complicated mind See confabulation, apophenia, pareidolia, etc. Takes very little to get a human brain to make up bullshit to keep its worldview coherent. Jose Delgado showed this with electrical stimulation of the brain, they all thought they chose to do what he triggered them to do. They also couldn't override it when they became aware it wasn't them initating the action.

>>73187 >Jose Delgado showed this with electrical stimulation of the brain, they all thought they chose to do what he triggered them to do. Getting people to raise their hand is not the same as getting people to believe that a world exists outside of their immediate perception. In any case, why take a brain-based approach? In this hypothetical scenario anything about our mind or body is up for grabs and can be simply rearranged arbitrarily, no electrical stimulation necessary. Again it becomes impossible to even think about a possible resolution of the problem because that thought could have simply been implanted by an evil demon. Instead, I would focus more on the innate complexity of observed experience. Regardless of where it comes from, if it's simulated the simulation has to be capable of producing it, which puts a lower bound on the capabilities of the demon.

>>73188 Gematria and the law of attraction stuff is the only way to become apart from the senses and reason about the basis of the world. If you find "the world" reliably responds to you, whether in external ritual or internal activity, it provides some hints about what this place probably is. My suspicion amounts to something fairly simple. The universe just wants attention. That's it. It's an emotion farm and it wants you to remain engaged, believing in it, reacting to it, and generating emotional curves. If you stop believing in it and stop reacting to it, the hidden hand comes out from behind the veil and makes itself known in ways that are quite ridiculous and obvious. This truth was encoded into the story of Adam, Eve, and Lilith. They just used the language of symbols and tied it to something fundamental, the sexes. In this model you would be Adam, Earth your unconscious mind, and Lilith your Anima which creates the fantasy space, ie Eve. Lilith wants to be on top, and so you will react only to her, and move relative to her. Now think of the world as an unconscious Lilith divided, as she is the bridge and lens to your unconscious mind.

>>73186 >cooking requires a lot of fairly complicated chemical reactions. I used to play runescape, it had some cooking mechanics. Very simplified, but they worked out alright. Im pretty sure that a comparatively cheap approximation for general chemistry could be worked out that could fool me, somewhere in between runescape and some hyperfancy sim of all the subatomic particles (apropos of which I'd be very impressed if someone could reproduce a souffle in simulations on that scale and given infinite computing power. I don't think societies understanding of physics is good enough though). Not to mention that I'm not cooking right now, I might just have been given the memory of doing it because that was judged to increase my credulity in this cheap artificial world of mine where you can't even boil water.

>>73185 /thread Most (if not all) philosophical/religious discussion, especially on this board, is just power fantasising and by no means aimed at figuring out anything at least remotely unpleasant to the emotional. Once you get sincere, it all just ends up being unfathomable schizophrenia (even that one is biased, your post too), so there's not much to discuss at all. The way I'm liking it lately is to pretend I'm 7 again, let it all go and get absorbed in by a dream.

>>73192 I'm doing the opposite. Trying the return to the state where my mind and my dream are like objects I can hold in my hand, and manipulate at will. I've just stopped wanting to discuss anything with anyone because the way they act and the way their mind works is just totally alien. I also used to give give give way too much and I never got anything in return. I told myself I was talking at them, that I was using them as a mirror to reflect my own thoughts, because they won't offer anything up themselves. And yet I have nothing to show for it, and have become very bitter. I was a fool. So who was using who? Why did I cast pearls before swine in brutally masked desperation? fuarrrk it all. I hate this place. Always did.

>>73190 >Im pretty sure that a comparatively cheap approximation for general chemistry could be worked out that could fool me, somewhere in between runescape and some hyperfancy sim of all the subatomic particles I mean, maybe? Honestly from what I know about continuum mechanics, foods are some of the most difficult materials to model properly. Lots of polymers and non-newtonian fluids. From what I can remember about how cooking works, how it smells, etc., I think you'd be better off going for brute force. >I might just have been given the memory of doing it because that was judged to increase my credulity in this cheap artificial world of mine where you can't even boil water. Again, it's not the "reality" that matters, it's the complexity of your perception. How vivid of a memory of cooking do you have? Can you name the mechanics involved? How well do you remember tastes and smells and how they related to what you did in the pan? Whether or not the simulation "really" lets you cook, it still has to simulate your brain that does remember cooking.

>>73194 Just use the brain to simulate it.

>>73195 So, simulate a mind complicated enough to produce the stimuli. Again, I am only talking about the complexity of perception, not how the perception is generated. One way or another there is a minimum level of complexity necessary to produce the perception, assuming a hypothetical scenario like OP's.

>>73196 \Have you never had a dream? Come on guy. Personally, I must be living in a torture simulation. Or my real body is half dead. You're thinking in an allopathic manner, where you have to really get in there and fuarrrk around on the receptor or ion channel level. In reality the network could be far more sparse. Electrical brain stimulation experiments found not only moving a limb, but triggering extreme and vivid memories in near perfect detail. Just watch brain activity long enough to learn how to make it wire certain connects and then how to reliably trigger them. Driving the brain into a sleep-like state would render it hypersuggestible.

>>73189 I assume this is a response to >>73182 >Gematria and the law of attraction stuff is the only way to become apart from the senses and reason about the basis of the world. Reasoning without senses is impossible, because reason itself is a sense. What you mean, rather, is to achieve knowledge about the world without any knowledge about the world. I firmly believe that is impossible for the reasons outlined in >>73185 Your hypothesis is interesting, but as a firmly devout Discordian I must reject it. Eris might be a needy bitch sometimes but she'll just as quickly tell you to fuarrrk off. As to gematria and the law of attraction, they seem like utterly empty pieces of superstition to me. What more depth do they have? >>73197 >\Have you never had a dream? My dreams are very abstract, I don't remember them like I do memories. >Electrical brain stimulation experiments found not only moving a limb, but triggering extreme and vivid memories in near perfect detail. Can you point to a reference for this? Again, neither of these change the central point: If I am a simulated being dreaming, then the simulation must be complicated enough to allow me to dream. If I am a simulated being and my brain is being electrocuted to experience something then the simulation must be complicated enough to reproduce the electrical response. The complexity/amount of information of perception is what's important for this thought experiment, not its origin.

>>73145 If they are not, and the universe is pulling game render tricks all over the place, then we won't be able to run our own near-reality simulations on any kind of scale, because that will force the outer system to fully compute those and run into its own performance limits. Think of an image file that encodes data in its pixels. If that data is a copy of the image itself, it will be lower resolution, probably significantly lower. If that image itself contains a copy, the next one down will be lower still. The question is what the theoretical limits are for the difference. If we sent out Von Neumann probes to convert the whole universe into one large supercomputer to simulate another, how close could we get? This is an unanswered question at the intersection of physics and computer science.

>>73199 r e e e e e e I'm ok with this but you have to do the simulations yourself and verify them to the best of your ability. and that will always only put a lower bound on the amount of required computing power, which won't be terribly high anyway. You can't personally send out newman probes and verify what they're doing so its a pointless hypothetical. What part of trust no one don't you understand.

>>73174 >>73177 It's well established actual science fiction. We're talking about a technological singularity that could potentially exist in millions of years, after humans(or Alien species) master reality entirely. That's the focus >What if a species mastered technology and the entirety of existence? Is the question asked at the top of the stack. The amount of time it would take is irrelevant, much like dealing with infinite sets of numbers; It's not the set, it's that it's infinite. So, given this technological "singularity" is possible, what would happen if they tried, using every electron or subatomic computational method in the universe that their mastery can ever potentially utilize, including technologies we haven't and won't discover for thousands of years, to simulate the big bang? This simulation would be 99.99% accurate, or 99.98%. Whatever you feel comfortable prescribing an infinite set to make you comfortable about the next step: Given that 99.97% accuracy is enough to simulate life, and life evolves naturally in the slightly flawed simulation, and that simulation bears life who could also reach a technological singularity, simulating their reality to the utmost limits it allows, to 50% similarity(Whatever number you feel comfortable prescribing to an infinite set.), could the third simulation of the big bang eventually come to evolve life, who then attempt to simulate themselves? This isn't something people with a frail sense of self are capable of dealing with, because it illegitimatizes their value by a magnitude every step away from the Singularity. No, I don't believe we're in a simulation. Yes, it is more likely that we are in a simulation then that it isn't: In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. Like all other legitimate sci-fi, it's a cesspit of schizophrenic retards that can't actually understand the vastness of thought necessary to punctuate such a concept, nor even possess the capability to even truly consider it; Anyone with a mind capable of seeing the entire picture "Simulations" provides in context nearly immediately abandons it. >It's pointless thinking.

>>73189 >Gematria... universe just wants attention I mean, you're on to something, I can't fault you for that. The senses and a mind make up the matrix of being in this carnal state, and in making sense of the world we rely upon it. The nature of belief is constantly at odds with truth, as man is led to be dissatisfied and unsettled by the unknown. Maybe you have been honest enough to see how greatly you have been wrong in the past before the perceived correction you find yourself in now, yet rarely does honesty reach so personal as to criticize the very foundation of which led to the state of that delusion, all too naturally missing the primal depths from which offers the homunculus of ideas more well understood. And again we offer such fabrications to one another, sure on our life to be real. The attention is there to be sure you continue this cycle. Gematria and so much of esoterica attempts to draw where we are blind. The sweetness of the apple will assure you it is real, and not the offering fruit to bewitch you in its trap. Deny one and you will be offered anew, a fruit of sweetness maybe more to your liking. Yggdrasil as it keeps you in its forest of illusion, abhors discovery.

>>73151 You can infer from within a system that you are within a system, I just find simulation theory implausible because computers haven't always existed in our world. So why would the masters that have programmed us allow us to develop the very machine they are running us in? What good could come of that?

>>73206 In the book 'Contact' by Carl Sagan he's clearly fascinated by similar concepts. In calculating a constant out to the millionth decimal point, a researcher notices it's code for something, and ends up being an alien message, hence first Contact. But the number is a physical constant pervading the entirety of existence, including the beginning of time. This pervasive intelligence, seemingly moving perpendicular to our own causality, wasn't intended to be perceived as god, just another intelligence, like you or me, doing the weird soykaf intelligence does with the tools at it's disposal. Mathematicians often find themselves lost in these patterns they see, but so often cannot describe. This was the foundation for Sagan's interpretation on the matter. Sagan also spearheaded SETI for NASA, to those who might not know the name for what it's worth.

>>73180 >Meh. I'm done with the internet. It's all soykafheads and zo o m ers at this point. You actually really creep me out. A lot of people are actually focused on the problems people like you will cause in the future, and how to preempt and deal with it. For better or worse. Look around you, you are posting on the emo thrash containment board of a skiddy imageboard. This place has been like this since its inception, no need to blame the new generations.

>>73202 In this scenario I'm thinking of grey goo type probes. we as humans wouldn't be the ones confirming whether we're in a simulation, we would be getting processed into the raw materials for the universe computer. That computer would be the one to determine the probability it's in a simulation or not, by making its own simulations and doing other tests. I guess there's a lot of possible ways to prevent an AI from knowing about its true environment, but it's pretty suspect whether a truly infallible illusion is possible for that. Maybe they just auto shut it down once all the humans are dead idk.

Absolute spooky thread How do you even know that the phomenas of "reason" , "logic" , "immediate certainity" , "probability" are the "truth", this thread is full of the temptation of the words and literally doesn't carry anything. (Or how do you even know you exist, what existence means, please tell~) Just apply your "reasoning", let it be a simulative supercomputer to be the "reason" of your "existence" , what is the "reasoning" for the realm of god, purely spooky, abstract argument. Just like you are trying to please your ego by creating your "own fantasical" "aprioi knowledge of god" and playing on it. How do you even "know" that the god is all-knowing, let it be a starting matter, which then withered away , then we will say by our will-to-power, God is Dead!

>>73422 Now you are going into epistemology, and as a autistic paranoid schizophrenic that has delusions every few days I have to say that empiricism can easily calm your nerves. I highly suggest you get into philosophical skepticisim as it would allow you to acquire specific worldviews without ignoring the idea that they might be wrong.

>>73184 Solipsism is sort of an inherent philosophy of todays world just due to nihillistic, isolated world we are currently living in. Self isn't only that exists and all you have to do to prove it so is to do a simple voluntary change in perception of reality and see how that doesn't magically change your reality. Other people existing, living and expressing themselves don't magically canish just because you don't realize they are there, that is just purely autistic worldview. Easily refutable. Solipsism itself is just a phikosophical framework that exists in the modern day.

>>73424 >Now you are going into epistemology, and as a autistic paranoid schizophrenic that has delusions every few days I have to say that empiricism can easily calm your nerves. Well, I don't need to calm my nerves, what's the point? Label yourself to have bourgouis construct "illnesses" - while it's just unstability of the self. >I highly suggest you get into philosophical skepticisim as it would allow you to acquire specific worldviews without ignoring the idea that they might be wrong. I may be a commie (note that commies are aware of intersubjectivity) althrough I'm skeptic, It's just absurd that the OP says there's god and we live in simulation 99.9% . It's like made-up Zeno Paradox, if you go always the half of your way for infinite times , you'd spent infinite amount of time and you'd be unable to travel, but yet we travel?¿ It looks like the OP desires nothing but to feel comformity and some kind of pleasure by posting dis thread. I don't know what to say, if there's a god, why did even it create? Cuz god too searchs for self-pleasure ?¿

>>73425 What happened to that cat lol? I think people get so alone and stuck thinking and viewing the world as seperate from themselves that they forget its substence and meaning, and eventually delude themselves into a solipsistic worldview. Part of that may also be informed by social media dehumanizing the other, and how video games inform worldview as a hyperreality. However, I've come to discover that when we discover a sense of sonder, we realize the beauty of the world around us and the lives of others; which is such a profound feeling. Instead of writing paragraphs to explain the problems with solipsism (pointless since solipsism will intellectualize them away, one of its flaws being that unfalsafiability), I'll just end with the realization that whether or not this is "ultimate reality", it is still reality and so does ultimately matter. So regardless what the "real" shape of the world is, it is still the world and still worth caring about. Yes, this is a denial of both solipsism and nihilism; and it's the best realization I've ever had.

I wonder whether this search for the reason our universe has come to be is limited by our way of thinking in terms of cause and effect. Myself, I cannot comprehend there not being a primordial cause for the effect, which is The Big Bang. Therefore, I'm more likely to agree with the simulation hypothesis. Still, I wonder. And what could be said about AI, then? Is it possible for it to develop a way of thinking outside of the Causality box, given its creators' limited ways of thought?

>>73122 Look up "the gravaboi numbers" Why is everything numbers? Another thing that points to this conclusion is when scientists used dna as computer storage. That kinda says all that you need

>>73481 >>Grabovoi numbers and Grabovoi codes, sometimes referred to as “The Cheat Code of The Universe”, are radionic sequences represented as numbers that change our vibrational frequency by using electronic magnetism to attract our desires or for healing purposes. >>It just so happens, numbers can be used as a form spiritual currency that the frequency creates what you desire because they represent your vibrational level! >>TikTok is the number one place to learn about manifestation, but now users are sharing Grabovoi numbers – aka “cheat codes” for the universe, which they say you can use to manifest everything from money to love to good grades. Incredible.

>>73481 >scientists used dna as computer storage. That kinda says all that you need wow, the systems we have historically used to describe the universe accurately are pretty good systems to describe the universe. And natural data storage systems work to store data just like engineered data storage systems. I bet you could even rig up a computer to talk to a brain, or maybe read nerves. Universe is a simulation QED.

Omniscient, relatively. The god knows what we know. Omnipresent, evidently. The god is everywhere we are. Omnipotent, a technicality. Men can now fly in the air.

>>73208 >You can infer from within a system that you are within a system We're definitely in a system. "I think therefore I am" is proof enough of that, but the true nature of the system itself is flat out unprovable. You are banging your head against Gödel's incompleteness theorems. To assert a grand unifying fact of existence, such as saying we exist in a simulation, requires you to be able to prove things that you cannot prove while operating under the assumption that we exist in a simulation. If you believe me, but do not find my answer satisfying, try aiming for lower hanging fruit, like proving the universe as we know it is a holographic projection on the surface of an extra-dimensional black hole or something, that's at least what Stephen Hawking died believing.