/sci/ - Science & Math

>people forget that Schrodinger cat is just Schrodinger mocking the danish interpretation

>grassmannian
>anti-de-sitter space
>supersymmetry
>harmonic analysis
>algebraic geometry

>non-euclidian geometry

>>11696192
This is what activates my autism. Hurr durr cat can be dead and alive XDDD
no you fuck the point is it can't be

>race and IQ
>Scientifically speaking...
>Is coffee good for you
>Flatten the curve!
>Pandemic, pan "Dem" ic - hue hue, jewS
>Is global warming real?
>Global warming is NOT real (based)
>5g is cooking your brain!
>Kirchoffs law BTFO check my 18 YouTube videos as a source
>Source?

>>11696258
Forgot
>Dubunk god, checkmate athiests

One thing I never understood about the simulation argument is the idea that simulated people are conscious. This is a necessary component of the argument that there are more consciousnesses inside simulations than outside.

If I run a simulation of the universe on a computer, I don't cause a universe to suddenly exist. A representation of a "person" through variables and symbols doesn't create consciousness. You can see how this is the case by "simulating" a person in your imagination right now. Your mental "simulation" is probably better than we will ever see from a computer program, but you aren't creating a consciousness by imagining things.

Some people will try to rescue the argument by saying that, instead of running the simulation on a computer, future civilizations could find a way to run it on an already conscious brain, like a hallucination. So, they argue that, in the future, the number of total conscious brains that have run these neural simulations will dwarf the number of "non-simulated" people, so you get the probabilistic argument again.

There is a problem with this argument too. I know that whatever my consciousness is, it can be damaged by objects around me. But if the objects around me were simulated, it would not be possible to damage the "host" consciousness using hallucinated objects, just like how someone tripping out on drugs can't give themselves physical brain damage using imaginary things.

Simulation theory advocates could try to punt this by saying that the brain-based simulation would just "simulate" the brain damage. But if they argue that the simulation is running on a human brain just like mine, the argument is equivalent to saying there is a way for my brain to generate and experience the way every possible brain injury would feel without actually sustaining the physical damage, which is absurd and would require a complete revolution in our understanding of the abilities and functions of different parts of the brain.

>>11696971
tldr and more proof of how midwit simulation fags are

>>11696178
>reddit frog
>crying about the decline in post quality
Please consider killing yourself at the earliest opportunity.

The universe is, to put it simply, a finite set of infinitely continuous affine planes represented as a complex waveform composed of 1-dimensional harmonic oscillators, from which there is an emergence of fractional dimensions. The affine fixtures are formed around strange attractors, giving reality its 3d appearance, and the frequency of the harmonic functions from the oscillators determine the state of a locally compact region. But really were living in an continuously dimensional world.

>>11696178
>pop /sci/

>>11697009
The post shits on simulation theory

>>11696971
I thought the argument was that the hardware was incomprehensibly powerful and was able to store and simulate the states of subatomic particles and their interactions to the point of having real consciousness emerging through the ruleset. Like organized systems emerging in Game of Life. Simulation Theory does piss me off because of the reddit tier "more likely to be in a sim than real life because of infinite nested sims"

>>11696178
>shrodinger's cat
>quantum physics
>wormholes
>warp drive
>dark matter
>dark energy
>multiverse
>string theory
>simulated universe
>Fermi paradoxs

>>11697232
Meant to post this picture

>>11696971
Halting problem implies it's impossible to run a complete simulation of the universe.

Next

>>11696971
>A representation of a "person" through variables and symbols doesn't create consciousness
You got anything to back that up? Also a sufficiently detailed simulation could be inseperable from what we know as "reality". Hell, it could BE our reality. You put consciousness on too high a pedistal just because you are a being that has it. In reality we can't even quality what we mean by the word, so we just go by the whole "I think, therefore I am" philosophy, which is fairly solid but certainly not scientific. Physically speaking there is no difference between the matter and energy of a conscious brain vs the matter and energy in a non-conscious plant or even something inert like a rock

>>11697237
Nah I liked the other one you posed. Much funnier. Please stick to posting funny weird comics and not boring wojak edits in the future