Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[steve_bank]

Top down? Naaah. Circular simulation is better. Triangular simulation has been trued, but the discontinuities ate the points are difficult to deal with.

us form of simulating is a good approach. You think you are getting somewhere but you are really just covering the same ground over and over. No entropy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why in the heck (am I still responding?) would a simulation that is Top-Down, simulate down to the quantum level?

You keep contradicting your own statements.

Machine learning happens BEFORE the main simulation - during "training".

You are stuck in the rut of 'well it's possible'. Yeah sure, it's possible. Just about anything can be possible with enough energy.

That isn't the question. The question is how does one go about observing being inside a simulation.

And aren't people going to get curious? Aren't people going to discover the simulation eventually? I mean if you are going to take the path that we can simulate quantum foam, QM and anything and everything that is logically and naturally "weird," why not just fess up and say that we've discovered that it's all a simulation?

If we can never "prove" that it's a simulation, if everything we discover about the universe gets tossed onto the argument that we can simulate that too, then what the fuck is the fucking point? How do you ever get to demonstrate that it's a simulation? Is that part of simulation dogma, that those in the simulation can never discover the simulation? Sounds kinda like woo to me.

There is added self-serving irony that we are in the simulation, and the simulation is about us.

Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.

 

[excreationist]

Why in the heck (am I still responding?) would a simulation that is Top-Down, simulate down to the quantum level?

You keep contradicting your own statements.

Like how in Flight Simulator 2020 when you get close enough it shows the grass, when observe closely enough in our world you can observe quantum phenomena. Using machine learning it can also take quantum phenomena into account on a large scale. The purpose is to be indistinguishable from reality without having to always simulate the 10⁵⁷ atoms in the Sun, etc.

Machine learning happens BEFORE the main simulation - during "training".

You are stuck in the rut of 'well it's possible'. Yeah sure, it's possible. Just about anything can be possible with enough energy.

I'm also saying that in the future there would probably be billions of these simulations so it would seem likely that we're in one of them.

That isn't the question. The question is how does one go about observing being inside a simulation.

Well it is meant to be indistinguishable from reality so you can't know for sure.

 

[excreationist]

Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.

View attachment 34922

In the machine learning top-down kind of simulation the stars and our Sun would be approximated. So distant stars wouldn't be constantly simulated using 10⁵⁷ particles at once... but an image of those stars would look like that if a person were to view them. I'm saying they would still be simulated to some degree when not directly observed.

 

[excreationist]

There is added self-serving irony that we are in the simulation, and the simulation is about us.

Yes like in the video game "No Man's Sky" there are 18 quintillion different planets but it focuses on the planet you are currently visiting. (though I think in our simulation it still simulates phenomena very very roughly when not directly observed)

Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.

That's like saying that the 18 quintillion different planets in "No Man's Sky" (and their animals) have to be constantly simulated to the grass scale just in case the player is anywhere on any particular planet. Video games are usually optimized to be as efficient as possible. Constantly simulating all of the planets to the grass scale when there is only one player is unnecessary and too CPU intensive so it wouldn't happen in a practical video game.

 

[steve_bank]

Ask not for whom the simulation simulates, it simulates for you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There is added self-serving irony that we are in the simulation, and the simulation is about us.

Yes like in the video game "No Man's Sky" there are 18 quintillion different planets but it focuses on the planet you are currently visiting. (though I think in our simulation it still simulates phenomena very very roughly when not directly observed)

Try this, the whomever that are simulating our universe has no idea we exist in the model. We are less that a spec of a piece of dust on the penis of a tardigrade (I will beat anyone who fact checks that! into a pulp), that our existence has gone undetected and wholly unnoticed by the simulation.

That's like saying that the 18 quintillion different planets in "No Man's Sky" (and their animals) have to be constantly simulated to the grass scale just in case the player is anywhere on any particular planet. Video games are usually optimized to be as efficient as possible. Constantly simulating all of the planets to the grass scale when there is only one player is unnecessary and too CPU intensive so it wouldn't happen in a practical video game.

That's not a simulation, that's solopsism.

 

[excreationist]

That's not a simulation, that's solopsism.

In the Roy game in Rick and Morty it turned out that Morty was the only real person within that game though at the time he temporarily wasn't aware of that....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szzVlQ653as&t=24s
I guess the purpose of that simulation (the Roy game) is to have the player see how well they can live a particular character's life - without being aware it is just a simulation during gameplay....
A similar scenario is Alan Watt's dream scenario:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?24575-Suffering-in-a-designed-world

BTW it turns out that "No Man's Sky" can be played as a multiplayer game.... so then only some of the 18 quintillion different planets would be simulated at once... (rather than all of them at once)

 

[steve_bank]

If this a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

If this is not a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

Go with the flow bro.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If this a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

If this is not a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

Go with the flow bro.

Right, it's goofy.

How would you ever learn that its a simulation if everything is perfectly simulated, as claimed? So you can't know if its a simulation and you cannot know if it isn't a simulation. So pursuing knowledge about whether it is a simulation is the dumbest thing you can do. The simulation salesmen are just like god salesmen.

Come to think of it, pursuing any knowledge at all is just as dopey because its all a dog and pony simulation. Bread and circus, bread and circus, bread and circus forever.

 

[steve_bank]

If this a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

If this is not a simulation there is nothing I can do about it, no worries.

Go with the flow bro.

Right, it's goofy.

How would you ever learn that its a simulation if everything is perfectly simulated, as claimed? So you can't know if its a simulation and you cannot know if it isn't a simulation. So pursuing knowledge about whether it is a simulation is the dumbest thing you can do. The simulation salesmen are just like god salesmen.

Come to think of it, pursuing any knowledge at all is just as dopey because its all a dog and pony simulation. Bread and circus, bread and circus, bread and circus forever.

I am thinking this kind of mew age mysticism is just a spin on the old stuff both religious and philosophical. A reframing of an old question.

Why am I here and what is my purpose?. Is my life predetermined? And so on.

Simulation is just a code word for god or guiding spirit. Another metaphor for reality and a way to explain reality.

The infinite capacity of human imagination.

 

[excreationist]

About a different kind of simulation:

3:59

today I want to talk about the idea that it's our experience of the universe that is simulated.​

That we are simulated minds in a virtual universe​

that has just enough detail to convince us of its reality​

4:22

Bostrom argues that in the future, it will be possible to simulate the action of all the neurons of the human brain​

and to simulate the sensory input to that brain with enough fidelity to convince the simulation that it's a real person.​

10:19

The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.​

Bostrom himself points out that upon being found out by one of its resident minds​

the simulation can be instantly edited or rewound.​

In fact this editability is a necessity.​

These simulations can only cover a tiny fraction of the universe so they are prone to inconsistencies.​

It's far more computationally economical to edit out the discovery of these inconsistencies​

Than it is to simulate enough of the universe so that inconsistencies don't happen.​

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thanks, ex. I watched that video sometime back. Pretty fascinating.