Taking the Black Iron Prison way too literally

[NeonWytch]

Reality doesn't have a switch - it is simultaneously lubed up super sex and elements colliding. It's the perceive who assigns meaning to those interactions.

I know, but how would the simulation engineers sift through the simulation and derive meaningful data from it if it's just simulating on the scale of quantum strings? Unless  of course there is some kind of omniscient intelligence that can perceive and understand what's going on... it'd have to be bitchy, and unhelpful... maybe this intelligence speaks to people in semi-coherent koans and cryptic imagery... maybe it has a s fixation on the number 5 and hot dogs and antiauthoritarianism and individualism and etc etc etc etc etc

In summary, checkmate atheists

[Cain]

I wonder if there's something keeping track of statistics. If so, does it just like, use human ideas of "things" to calculate what the groups of particles are (Y'know, so if one of these simulation engineers wanted to watch some good old fashioned, rough and tumble slimy, lubed up super sex they could switch to it instead of any other situation where carbon, water, and various other elements are moving in and out of each other repeatedly), or does reality abstract everything on the large scale and only turn on the particle physics when someone's looking closely? Are sex and driving and writing and fighting all their own separate but seamlessly integrated sub-systems?  Are we actually just living in the final version of Dwarf Fortress?

I think Bethesda designed the universe.

It would explain a lot about the general lack of playtesting and overall bugginess and stability issues.  Like black holes everywhere and dark matter.

[The Wizard Joseph]

I wonder if there's something keeping track of statistics. If so, does it just like, use human ideas of "things" to calculate what the groups of particles are (Y'know, so if one of these simulation engineers wanted to watch some good old fashioned, rough and tumble slimy, lubed up super sex they could switch to it instead of any other situation where carbon, water, and various other elements are moving in and out of each other repeatedly), or does reality abstract everything on the large scale and only turn on the particle physics when someone's looking closely? Are sex and driving and writing and fighting all their own separate but seamlessly integrated sub-systems?  Are we actually just living in the final version of Dwarf Fortress?

I think Bethesda designed the universe.

It would explain a lot about the general lack of playtesting and overall bugginess and stability issues.  Like black holes everywhere and dark matter.

  Those aren't bugs. Those are features!

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Reality doesn't have a switch - it is simultaneously lubed up super sex and elements colliding. It's the perceive who assigns meaning to those interactions.

I know, but how would the simulation engineers sift through the simulation and derive meaningful data from it if it's just simulating on the scale of quantum strings? Unless  of course there is some kind of omniscient intelligence that can perceive and understand what's going on... it'd have to be bitchy, and unhelpful... maybe this intelligence speaks to people in semi-coherent koans and cryptic imagery... maybe it has a s fixation on the number 5 and hot dogs and antiauthoritarianism and individualism and etc etc etc etc etc

In summary, checkmate atheists

Have you ever watched larger scale simulations of things like galaxies crashing together or boats capsizing or weather patterns? I imagine it being something like that, our whole lives being incidental parts of the math necessary to display whatever it is someone's actually interested in on a screen we could no more perceive than a character from the Sims could.

[NeonWytch]

Have you ever watched larger scale simulations of things like galaxies crashing together or boats apsizing or weather patterns? I imagine it being something like that, our whole lives being incidental parts of the math necessary to display whatever it is someone's actually interested in on a screen we could no more perceive than a character from the Sims could.

If that's the case, the chance that we could ever get the attention of these engineers is infinitismally small, unless we start doing shit on the scale of like... galactic filaments.

Not that I have anything against filament-level gigaprojects
Gotta secure the local supercluster against those illegal aliens somehow.

[Telarus]

I wonder if there's something keeping track of statistics. If so, does it just like, use human ideas of "things" to calculate what the groups of particles are (Y'know, so if one of these simulation engineers wanted to watch some good old fashioned, rough and tumble slimy, lubed up super sex they could switch to it instead of any other situation where carbon, water, and various other elements are moving in and out of each other repeatedly), or does reality abstract everything on the large scale and only turn on the particle physics when someone's looking closely? Are sex and driving and writing and fighting all their own separate but seamlessly integrated sub-systems?  Are we actually just living in the final version of Dwarf Fortress?

I think Bethesda designed the universe.

It would explain a lot about the general lack of playtesting and overall bugginess and stability issues.  Like black holes everywhere and dark matter.

 

[styx]

"In a paper published in 2003, Nick Bostrom argued that at least one of several propositions is likely to be true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage, i.e., (fp≈0); (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof), i.e., (fI≈0); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation, i.e., (fsim≈1)."

In the 40's, Konrad Zuse already speculated that our universe is computable by a deterministic computer program. The probability of this hypothesis is greater than zero but less than 1.

Must have one or more important key point to dismantle or rise the entire idea about simulation hypothesis or it's another bored fucking wealth trying to create more chaos just for fun.

What is the point for the whole Whac-A-Mole?

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

"In a paper published in 2003, Nick Bostrom argued that at least one of several propositions is likely to be true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage, i.e., (fp≈0); (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof), i.e., (fI≈0); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation, i.e., (fsim≈1)."

2 seems to me to be the most likely

[Doktor Howl]

To the OP, what if you DID break out of the simulation?  What's out there?  You really want to know?