You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
whether we live in a simulation or not is irrelevant, our knowledge of this world we live in and therefore no longer a fake to us.
In addition, the assumption that we live in a simulation gives an advantage over the assumption that we live in the real world, because in a simulation bugs and all sorts of glitches are more likely to occur, which can be used for practical purposes if they are discovered. even a targeted search for clues is possible. thus, the worldview that we live in the real world does not give any advantage, because for us it does not matter where we live, what matters is how we can benefit from it.
If we live in a simulation, then almost all unidentified unexplained phenomena can be easily explained and practically useful chains of logic can be constructed. if it is the real world, then the very fact of this statement makes it impossible to construct interesting theories.
axiom -> theory -> proof. at the axiom stage the foundations for theories are laid.
so which world is more real for us, the one that is more understandable and explainable, or the one that is not understandable and has a lot of unexplainable phenomena?))))))The main conclusion of my reasoning is that simulation theory, by default, implies the reality in which the simulator operates. The question is, where are we? In reality or simulation?
Wherever the "real reality" is, we still can't understand it. Hence the emergence of various fairy tales about who created the world and how. Simulation theory is one such fairy tale. Another thing is that this fairy tale clearly shows the fact that we cannot distinguish between "real matter" and "synthetic" matter simulated by coded information about, for example, quarks.
The practical sense in identifying one's reality as simulated can only be in trying to connect with the entity(s) that brewed this simulation, if that is possible at all.
For man, a social being, the more real world is the one that most affects him. And so our "real" social human world is essentially even more false than the possible simulation of our matter. It is far more beneficial to the life of the individual to open our eyes to this fact, and not to mess around with something that we essentially never have anything to do with (we don't communicate with quarks, even though we are made up of them).
Do facts within a simulation cease to be facts if their simulated nature is revealed? For the real (relatively simulated) world yes, but inside the simulation no. This is where the observer principle is important. And it is high time to bury "faith in authorities", especially for those who try to classify themselves as fans of the scientific approach with "objectivity and unbiasedness".
...The principle of the observer is important here. And it is high time to bury "faith in authorities", especially for those who try to classify themselves as fans of the scientific approach with "objectivity and unbiasedness".
And where to put faith in the scientific approach?
Where does one put one's faith in the scientific approach?
The same place. Everything has to be double-checked, nothing can be taken on faith.
In addition, the assumption that we live in a simulation gives an advantage over the assumption that we live in the real world, because in a simulation bugs and all sorts of glitches are more likely to occur, which can be used for practical purposes if they are discovered. even a targeted search for clues is possible. thus, the worldview that we live in the real world does not give any advantage, because for us it does not matter where we live, what matters is how we can benefit from it.
if we live in a simulation, then almost all unidentified unexplained phenomena can be easily explained and practically useful logical chains can be constructed. if this is the real world, then the very fact of this statement does not allow to build interesting theories.