Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 01:09:39 UTC No. 16165035

>>16165034
What if it's procedurally generated?

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 01:10:40 UTC No. 16165038

>>16165034
What if analog

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 02:25:24 UTC No. 16165108

>>16165034
if it's anything like a traditional computer then it will just suddenly stop at some point. Or it might overflow, whatever that means in this sense

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 02:33:47 UTC No. 16165115

>>16165108
Who would develop such a sophisticated program only to have it memory leak insanely fast and crash?

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 03:07:45 UTC No. 16165150

>>16165034
A common low IQ rebuttal to Simulation Theory. The only way we "know" The Universe "exists" is based off two actions. The visual observation of space with optical telescopes and the collection of analog and digital data from instruments. You've never been to The Universe and if you believe in such things the farthest humans have physically gone to confirm it exists is The Moon, which can also be explained away. Notice how long trips always have a "loading screen" stage? Long plane rides, long space rides, you always end up in some loading status where you must be trapped and confined while "the server loads a new map".

So all we know is what we have stored in computers and on ancient film. That's it. How much computer power do you suppose it would take to make that small amount of data? By definition less power is needed to generate it than we used to collect and store it. Thus we can never observe more bandwidth worth of data than Earth alone can observe and store. This translates to 99.9999999999999999999999% of the alleged universe being unrendered and not a burden on the simulation. The amount of data we get from deep space is so limited and low bandwidth sometimes all you get is a few lines of numbers or a graph. Look at deep space spectroscopy, they get a spectrum readout from a planet and extrapolate the other 99.98% of data. The simulation generates 0.01% of the data and the humans do the rest or not at all.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 04:17:40 UTC No. 16165221

>>16165150
intradasting

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 04:25:24 UTC No. 16165230

The whole simulation theory bit is based on a fallacy. Two reasons.
1. Doesn't matter. Zero impact on day-to-day life, or even much in general.
2. If any simulation exists, there is zero reason to believe our world is an accurate reflection of it. Technically, we could be simulated from a world that operates off of completely different rules and is a dozen dimensions higher. doesn't matter.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 05:42:39 UTC No. 16165314

>>16165230
"As above so below" should be self-evident. That belief is a tendency to make a certain kind of analogy. Having more thoughts is an improvement.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 08:50:14 UTC No. 16165513

>>16165115
An Indian probably

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 09:07:27 UTC No. 16165530

>>16165150
>This translates to 99.9999999999999999999999% of the alleged universe being unrendered and not a burden on the simulation
I don't think that would be the case. For example, say you're monitoring two stars orbiting eachother. Then you stop monitoring one of them. If that star then becomes unrendered (i.e. temporarily removed from the universe) then the other star is going to suddenly fly off into space. Even if you're only monitoring one of the stars it's still being affected by the gravity of the other star you're not monitoring. Now imagine two clusters of galaxies orbiting eachother. Trillions of stars all moving in certain ways due to the gravity of their neighbouring stars. The point being if things were suddenly removed from the system there would be obvious effects on the things that aren't removed. But we don't see anything like that in nature, everything behaves as though it's always all there, all constantly affecting eachother.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 10:30:13 UTC No. 16165578

>>16165034
Hate to break it to you anon, but your simulation is ending in like 80 years max. Enough resources for that.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 10:50:04 UTC No. 16165591

>>16165530
We don’t control check 99.99999% of the universe like you describe. The logic could be irregular where we don’t look.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 11:06:51 UTC No. 16165610

No since it only needs to compute the observable universe

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 12:09:17 UTC No. 16165676

>>16165034
If something is stimulating single particles (quanta) then the computing resources would be scaled for number of particles. Spatial coordinates would just be a property of each particle.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 13:23:34 UTC No. 16165789

>>16165035
Godd Howard

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 13:25:28 UTC No. 16165796

>>16165150
Almost a useful analogy until you arrived at fucking air planes beeing loading screens holy fucking dingus

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 13:26:46 UTC No. 16165798

>>16165230
2 is a good point. 1 is stupid

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 13:27:47 UTC No. 16165800

>>16165530
Things can be rendered at different levels of detail

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 13:34:33 UTC No. 16165811

>>16165800
I think the point was that things like stars would be making erratic movements in the sky whenever other stars weren't being watched. But we don't really ever see that happening. Like a star that has been moving back and and forward a short distance for a few decades might suddenly start moving a large distance across the sky if the stars around it weren't being watched anymore for some reason.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 20:23:42 UTC No. 16166297

>>16165034
It basically depends on the feasibility of hypercomputation.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 02:03:11 UTC No. 16166685

>>16165150
If you aren't rendering something to save resources, you still need to run the logic for it in the background to have everything be coherent. And if you aren't doing even that then an eternally increasing inflaton field does not exist and eternal inflation is false.

Eternal inflation and simulation theory are mutually exclusive, unless the runtime for the simulation is very short.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 05:19:41 UTC No. 16166859

>>16165314
>"As above so below" should be self-evident.
Its not since The SIMS physics is obviously very different from real physics.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 05:59:37 UTC No. 16166899

Eternal inflation means eventually the prices in the supermarket will cause an integer overflow in the simulation and hence become negative.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 06:07:56 UTC No. 16166902

>>16165811
Why would that be the case? Clearly such things could be simulated at a lower resolution,
What would be mir interesting is the chemical and physical processes going on in distant stars. Those could be far more erratic and not „low detail“

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:47:10 UTC No. 16167000

>>16166859
If we are a videogame who is the player character?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:54:02 UTC No. 16167002

>>16167000
Depends on the type of video game since the sims lets the player control many characters and numerous real time simulations put the player in control of every character.