ARE WE LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?

[SuburbanFarmer]

You'd only have to simulate the observable universe. More than that, you could just put light images in place of the stars, and simulate the earth and moon. The only evidence we have beyond that is EM signals and radiation.

[Speaker to Animals]

You'd only have to simulate the observable universe. More than that, you could just put light images in place of the stars, and simulate the earth and moon. The only evidence we have beyond that is EM signals and radiation.

That's untrue, though. Too much information is sent by starlight, including orbits of planets, flares, and probably even chemical composition of atmospheres of those planets.

You'd not necessarily know which stars we would observe and when.

[Penner]

You know that this whole, "our universe might be a really advance simulation" came from philosophy and not actual science. This is more of the case of a thought experiment about what is real vs. what is not real and how do we know, etc...

Well, it was proposed by a scientist I believe, and has gotten a lot of scientific attention.

No way to disprove it really.

Nah, this whole idea (in one way or the other) goes back centuries- to the whole Greek idea of men living in caves, etc...

[SuburbanFarmer]

You'd only have to simulate the observable universe. More than that, you could just put light images in place of the stars, and simulate the earth and moon. The only evidence we have beyond that is EM signals and radiation.

That's untrue, though. Too much information is sent by starlight, including orbits of planets, flares, and probably even chemical composition of atmospheres of those planets.

You'd not necessarily know which stars we would observe and when.

I could very intricately put lights on a distant ceiling, and convince any scientist that they were looking at the stars. Add in some manipulated computer output, and nobody's the wiser.

The point of the theory is that we'd be in a simulated reality though - Matrix style. In that case, there's absolutely no difference, and we'd never know.

[Speaker to Animals]

Maybe. But to create the data we see in starlight, you still have to model the star systems they represent.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Maybe. But to create the data we see in starlight, you still have to model the star systems they represent.

Not at all. What data do we actually have? There are points of light and radiation that wobble occasionally, and very rarely we see a big burst from one of them. They also very very slowly move together.

Easily done.

[Speaker to Animals]

Maybe. But to create the data we see in starlight, you still have to model the star systems they represent.

Not at all. What data do we actually have? There are points of light and radiation that wobble occasionally, and very rarely we see a big burst from one of them. They also very very slowly move together.

Easily done.

They contain all the radio and light data of a star, it's solar cycles, and it's composition. They contain flares, pulses, and whatever else. They contain the orbits of planets around those stars.

I could go on. Starlight contains a ton of information about the star system it comes from.

[Penner]

Did anyone read this article?

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... simulation

[Fife]

Did anyone read this article?

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... simulation

Wow, that's shitte.

If a simulated waterfall is not wet, why should a simulated mind think or feel? A mind, unless one believes in disembodied souls, requires a brain, a body, and a world. A mind without a physical world is a myth. And a simulated world is a myth too. The fact is that all minds we know of, human minds and possibly animal minds, are embodied and situated: they have a body and they partake of the physical world. We have never met a disembodied mind. We always meet bodies in the world.

[Ex-California]

This Microdosing is getting out of hand.

These so called digital evangelists need to lay off this also