Simulation Theroy Is Not Unfalsifiable.

In fact it's being proven true right now. The burden of proof lies on Simulation Theory denialists to prove it wrong at this point.

Inb4 "But Decartes' evil demon told me it's real!"

KEK, good luck with that blue pilled losers.

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, I mean he tried to lean on a virtual tennis table, and also religions that had no concept of computers talked about extra-physical realities, so of course that proves it.
    I actually like Rogan and will not be pretentious about your source, but nothing in this clip will introduce any knowledge to even a 12yo IQfy user.

    The problem with simulation theory is that base universe must exist always, and the simulations are based on a bunch of "ifs".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Then you didn't watch the clip. He talked about cosmology, quantum physics, and many other things that support Simulation Theory you seemed to have ignored to help fit your preconceived notions. It's not about Joe Rogan, he hardly spoke. It's about the computer scientist who is talking. Go watch it again and pay attention because I can tell you didn't.

      Let that be a lesson to you IQfy midwits. I'm not going to let you bullshit your way out of this one. You need to refute the points this man made or accept the reality that Simulation Theory is slowly looking more and more like a fact.

      Bostrom says that if we humans can make a life like simulation that means more than likely we are also in a simulation. This is the plot to the movie 13th Floor....spoiler. So we've got an experiment to run to prove or disprove Simulation Theory. Hence it's not unfalsifiable, one of the main critiques of ST. Humans are currently working on these types of simulations and as the computer scientist says there seems to be no real technological roadblocks to making it happen. He admits as will I that much more work needs to be done in brain science and computer hardware but the goal seems achievable with enough time and effort. Look at Meta and the billions still being pumped into VR. It's only a matter of time before people would rather live in VR than real life and that will snowball development to the point people can't tell the difference. When this happens it will prove we also live in a simulation and always have.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The person in the video is not very intelligent and does not tackle the problem in a way that exhausts it or shows a deep understanding of it.
        The idea that you'd have "memories" from "other runs of the simulation" is just one taken from a cheap sci-fi movie, that makes no sense in reality. If this is all simulated, the authors of the simulation can, i.e., store my mind in any state. "Implanting" memories also makes no sense. It would be harder to implant memories that provide consistency with the running simulations, than to just simulate a lifetime.
        So this is a guy that obviously did some reading on the subject, and tries to grasp it with an IQ that's below 120. And you are impressed by him.
        Yeah, I'll keep my thoughts on the subject for another day.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He's a successful game programmer, game industry investor, and a professor at Arizona University I believe he said. How is he not intelligent? What makes you smarter than him? Your post seems unintelligent to me as you are just pulling shit out of your ass as to why it won't work.

          This "guy" literally teaches a college class on Simulation Theory and you didn't watch the whole video or you'd know that. You've also cherry picked a single thing he said you don't like and are ignoring all the other evidence to allow yourself the cognitive dissonance to continue living in the simulation. We see this psychology in Plato's Cave where those trapped in the cave would rather kill the man trying to teach them the truth and live in the cave than have their world view shattered.

          • 1 month ago
            bodhi

            NTA but if you want it explained to you like you are a child, step by step start with this
            https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Here are the facts, you can't prove I don't live in a simulation. Logic and facts point to the fact that we do live in a simulation. Science on a quantum level displays multiple oddities that are perfectly explained by ST. Yet people are trained to scream and kick and run whenever someone tries to break the delusion. LIKE I SAID BEFORE SAME HAPPENED IN PLATO'S CAVE!

            It's long I'll read it later. I've looked in to the holographic universe as well.

            I am not in denial about the simulation theory. I am agnostic about it, leaning mostly against it. The argument for it assigns probability to assumptions. And it does not seem falsifiable.

            I have already pointed out to you why his thoughts on the theory are stupid. What do his credentials change? If simulation theory is correct, "brains in a jar" version of it is not likely.

            It is falseafiable. If humans fail to create a life simulator that tricks humans(VR Turing Test?) then we can't live in a simulation as they would be impossible to make. If we succeed in making one that means we are in one. It's super simple. That's the experiment, pass or fail, true or false. Claiming it's unfalsifiable is cope brainwashing that people repeat like trained seals. You are moving the goalposts about his intelligence now that you've been called out and proven wrong.

            no you

            Typical low IQ IQfy big brain here folks.

          • 1 month ago
            bodhi

            no you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why aren't you showing the simulation argument and its evidence? You are using pointer logic which I will counter all the same way,

            >poojeet
            >meme degree
            >meme topic
            >QUANTUM
            >unoriginal
            >repackaged chinese room argument
            >meme reply
            >no argument
            >no evidence
            >70% confidence
            why are you here my Black person?

            Your poojeet made a horrible argument that basically glossed over the fact that he has contributed nothing beyond elementary computer science from turings era my Black person.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He wrote a whole book on the subject, here is the detailed table of contents. He's just one voice of many who speak on ST and he did a good job making points on the JR show in a short and concise manner.

            Quantum uncertainty principle alone proves it but cope more.

            >It is falseafiable. If humans fail to create a life simulator that tricks humans(VR Turing Test?) then we can't live in a simulation as they would be impossible to make. If we succeed in making one that means we are in one. It's super simple. That's the experiment, pass or fail, true or false.
            Yeah, you are a fricking moron.
            >can't predict the physics of the higher-level reality, thus can't predict how relatively powerful computation can be in the higher-level reality
            >simulated creatures would have no point of reference
            >one civilization being unsuccessful is making a realistic simulation does not affect the overall argument
            >simulated reality does not have to imitate higher-level or base reality
            This is some obvious shit that comes to my mind immediately after reading your post. And my IQ is 126 on a good day. You should not be here.

            That's based of Nick Bostrom's book. Go call him a moron too, bet you won't. All your points are literal nonsense that I never brought up and have nothing to do with the discussion. That's called a strawman argument aka a logical fallacy. You're stupid, thanks for playing. My IQ was measured at 141 when I was 6 years old. Measured by school psychiatrists for entry into the gifted program and I was having a bad day so I fricked up the test. I'm orders of magnitude higher on the IQ scale than you....and it shows.

            >What if god was actually a computer
            C'mon

            It's a common misconception that it "has to be a computer running binary programs" that's your own experiences coloring your outlook. A quantum computer would be a better example. There is also the idea of an analog simulation as in a biological experiment. This ties into many other theories such as Panspermia. Holographic Universe theory also falls under the same umbrella. Your lack of imagination will be your downfall.

            PS, the speed of light is the upper limit of the processing power of the simulation. That's why data/information can't travel faster just like your CPU only goes so fast or it melts. Many other such "artifacts of the simulation exist."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Here is a great article so you all can stop beating up on the pajeet, who was born in the Midwest BTW. Most if not all the critiques of ST are dogmatic talking points that fall apart when pressed.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/

            I'll try to download the book here and see what it says. Loads of info on the subject that you NPC's refuse to look at.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I did not even post a single argument against simulation theory, just ones offending your intelligence and comprehension of the subject, so why would I call Nick Bostrom an idiot?

            Did you suffer from any severe brain damage post that IQ test?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >just ones offending your intelligence and comprehension of the subject

            In the world of logical fallacy we call that an "Ad hominem" attack. Often morons, like yourself, resort to attacking the messenger on a personal level instead of rebutting the core logic of his/her arguments. Low IQ people do this because they have no real rebuttal to your points or logic thus must resort to emotional attacks in a vain attempt to distract and derail the discussion away from the facts, which can't be countered, and towards a tit-4-tat insult battle.

            So if you aren't here to refute ST, why are you here? Seriously.

            Every time simulation theory comes up it becomes painfully obvious that no one involved with the subject has ever read philosophy. At best you'll get some homosexual aping the Allegory of the Cave without having ever read Plato's actual dialogs.

            Are you saying that about me? I read and promote philosophy often. All PhD's in science are based on philosophy. It's the core of all knowledge and the pathway to all answers. If you've got some recommended reading speak up. You will not only educate me but others reading this thread. So instead of half ass posting maybe full ass post. Make a critique and then offer a solution. The OP image is from Descartes and he's mentioned in the OP post. So no it's not all about Plato's cave.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            An IQ measured at 6 is not necessarily stable across your life, it changes substantially with age. There's no way this is a serious post.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >muh imagination

            Unfalsifiable

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It is falseafiable. If humans fail to create a life simulator that tricks humans(VR Turing Test?) then we can't live in a simulation as they would be impossible to make. If we succeed in making one that means we are in one. It's super simple. That's the experiment, pass or fail, true or false.
            Yeah, you are a fricking moron.
            >can't predict the physics of the higher-level reality, thus can't predict how relatively powerful computation can be in the higher-level reality
            >simulated creatures would have no point of reference
            >one civilization being unsuccessful is making a realistic simulation does not affect the overall argument
            >simulated reality does not have to imitate higher-level or base reality
            This is some obvious shit that comes to my mind immediately after reading your post. And my IQ is 126 on a good day. You should not be here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            listen kid here are the facts. You can't prove I didn't sleep with your mom. Therefore I slept with your mom. QED

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not in denial about the simulation theory. I am agnostic about it, leaning mostly against it. The argument for it assigns probability to assumptions. And it does not seem falsifiable.

            I have already pointed out to you why his thoughts on the theory are stupid. What do his credentials change? If simulation theory is correct, "brains in a jar" version of it is not likely.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >poojeet
        >meme degree
        >meme topic
        >QUANTUM
        >unoriginal
        >repackaged chinese room argument
        >meme reply
        >no argument
        >no evidence
        >70% confidence
        why are you here my Black person?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Rizwan (“Riz”) Virk is a successful entrepreneur, investor, futurist, bestselling author, video game industry pioneer, and indie film producer. Riz received a B.S. in Computer Science from MIT, and a M.S. in Management from Stanford's GSB. He is currently working on a PhD at ASU's College of Global Futures, researching metaverse and virtual worlds.

          Riz was the founder of Play Labs @ MIT, a startup accelerator held on campus at the MIT Game Lab. He also runs Bayview Labs and is a venture partner Griffin Gaming Partners, one of the largest gaming VC funds and is an advisor to Ridge Ventures. Riz is an advisor to many startups, VC's, educational institutions, blockchain organizations and private foundations. His interest and expertise ranges from startups/VC industry, video games/metaverse, blockchain/cryptocurrency, meditation/consciousness, simulation theory, UFOs/UAPs, the intersection of science, science fiction, religion and philosophy. His podcast, The Simulated Universe explores many of these issues at the edge of science and science fiction.

          He's also an angel investor in Discord. So this guy is obviously smarter and more successful than all of you morons but you still insist on ad hominem attacks while avoiding any real scientific debate.

          We are currently building life like simulations. Simulation Theory is happening in front of you and morons refuse to look.

          None of that is a real logical debate rebuttal against Simulation Theory. You've simply regurgitated a moron level play by play of the video. Are you an AI?

          troony thread

          See above

          b***h if you want the real proofs go to Plato, not a video game designer moron. This shit was proven long, long ago

          I literally referenced Plato's Cave in this thread at least once. Learn to read homosexual.

          • 1 month ago
            bodhi

            no you

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Physics will inevitably suggest a simulation, because that's what physics is. It's a crystal ball.

    • 1 month ago
      Cult of Passion

      >Yes
      If.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    troony thread

  3. 1 month ago
    bodhi

    b***h if you want the real proofs go to Plato, not a video game designer moron. This shit was proven long, long ago

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'll be back later to ball bust you morons. I just downloaded his book so I'll start reading it as well.

    If you don't have something constructive to say, for or against ST, STFU and go some place else.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What if god was actually a computer
    C'mon

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If we live in a simulation, then our universe should also have such an artifact. We can now begin to articulate some properties of this artifact that would help us in our search for such an artifact in our universe.

    The artifact is as an additional component of every operation that is unaffected by the magnitude of the variables being operated upon and is irrelevant within the simulated reality until a maximum variable size is observed.

    The artifact presents itself in the simulated world as an upper limit.

    The artifact cannot be explained by underlying mechanistic laws of the simulated universe. It has to be accepted as an assumption or “given” within the operating laws of the simulated universe.

    The effect of the artifact or the anomaly is absolute. No exceptions.

    Now that we have some defining features of the artifact, of course it becomes clear what the artifact manifests itself as within our universe. The artifact is manifested as the speed of light.

    Space is to our universe what numbers are to the simulated reality in any computer. Matter moving through space can simply be seen as operations happening on the variable space. If matter is moving at say 1,000 miles per second, then 1,000 miles worth of space is being transformed by a function, or operated upon every second. If there were some hardware running the simulation called “space” of which matter, energy, you, me, everything is a part, then one telltale sign of the artifact of the hardware within the simulated reality “space” would be a maximum limit on the container size for space on which one operation can be performed. Such a limit would appear in our universe as a maximum speed.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every time simulation theory comes up it becomes painfully obvious that no one involved with the subject has ever read philosophy. At best you'll get some homosexual aping the Allegory of the Cave without having ever read Plato's actual dialogs.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just like always no one can refute any point I make and it's all NPC robots sent here to confuse and deflect. I'll keep an eye on the thread but it seems the big brains of IQfy have failed again. Lowest IQ board on all of IQfy.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >video game designer
    Opinion discarded

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Check'd

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I 100% agree with everything you’ve posted and I fully believe we are in a “simulation”
    But what’s the difference? I still have to get up tomorrow at 5am.
    So my thought provoking question is this: if we know life is a simulation of some kind but we still call it real, what does that say about lucid dreams? Wouldn’t that make a lucid dream as real as our level of simulated reality?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >poojeet
    >grifter that will say anything to gain fame or fortune
    The fact that you can't see those and the countless other red flags makes me think you're one too.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >joe rogan
    >video game designer thinks
    Get perm'd, you fricking homosexual, keep this trash in reddit

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Simulation theory is inflationary, it's just traditional religion repackaged. If there's a "god" it's not any personal god with a grand plan, reality and all of its rules can be reduced to a few simple equations a la cellular automata
    You do not have an immutable cartesian soul, we're all just a bunch of Chinese rooms

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Simulation theory assumes that it is possible to create simulation. I haven't heard that somebody successfully created advanced simulation that can fully mimic our realty. Therefore your argument incorrect

  16. 1 month ago
    Barkon

    Simulation theory is true.

    Simulation doesn't imply fake, it is a real occuring thing that simplifies complexities about a given state(i.e. the universe). There is a logical reason things are simulating - again - it's not some invisible fake.

    The burden of proof is on the denialists if they claim the universe looks/is quantum(or as a midwit would say, 'real', 'non-simulated').

    I have evidence to suggest it isn't quantum, there is dimensionality such as corners where the stars fit, thus, it's a simulation.

    -backhands denialists-

    -Bootel

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      For simulation theory to be true you need to prove that simulation exists otherwise its just made up nonsense

      • 1 month ago
        Barkon

        Bootel, now

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It is shit simulation and you can't claim that it is similar and can't be confused with our reality

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The only people who would take this nonsense seriously are those who can't into philosophy. It's not even a meaningful question. It's the same as believing the world is an illusion projected onto your senses by a demon. Put in such terms would anyone take it seriously? No.

  18. 1 month ago
    Barkon

    Simulation is like one of those ornaments with a smaller ornament inside it and a smaller in that one, ad infinitum. Technically, there's a big star which we know as vacuum.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Where is smaller ornament contained in our universe? Did you just made that up?

  19. 1 month ago
    Barkon

    The vacuum simulates the universe, for each star, a partition. Stars far away aren't even loaded into our minds. Who would reduce that efficiency?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    simulation theory is god for people slightly less moronic than catholics

  21. 1 month ago
    Barkon

    gays

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Since we going full schizo in this thread, here is a little something from /x/.

    • 1 month ago
      Barkon

      /x/ > IQfy - is this what you suggest? If so, I agree.

      (I know they talk in secret code there and they're all truly super intellectual).

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >In fact it's being proven true right now. The burden of proof lies on Simulation Theory denialists to prove it wrong at this point.
    Lol, and you post a fricking Joe Rogan clip.
    Dude, just fricking have a nice day you stupid useless autistic genetic reject. WTF.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *