AI represents our desire to create God

[af_newbie]

The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

[1715302193]

1715302193

[1715302193]

1715302193

[1715302193]

1715302193

[1715302193]

1715302193

[Moloch]

The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible, calm your titties

[af_newbie]

The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties

Sure chief. You sound like notbatman.  Read my previous post tiger.

...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.

[Moloch]

The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties

Sure chief. You sound like notbatman.  Read my previous post tiger.

...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.

Please enlighten us on how you calculate the odds being "pretty much close to zero"

Again, I only pointed out that you are WRONG about it being impossible to simulate "The Standard Model"... I'm not claiming that the universe is a simulation, only that it could be...

We already know it is possible to simulate the entire universe with a relatively small black-hole... in 1000 years people will have figured out how to do it even easier and better using a smaller computer and data compression... in 1,000,000 years, it is likely to happen... it 1,000,000,000 years, it's practically guaranteed to happen unless something catastrophically wipes out all human life before then

Sorry you don't like people who disagree with you, but you really need to come up with an argument beyond 1st grade logic, "You're wrong, and I'm going to call you names since I have no facts or evidence to back up my bullshit"

[af_newbie]

The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties

Sure chief. You sound like notbatman.  Read my previous post tiger.

...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.

Please enlighten us on how you calculate the odds being "pretty much close to zero"

Again, I only pointed out that you are WRONG about it being impossible to simulate "The Standard Model"... I'm not claiming that the universe is a simulation, only that it could be...

We already know it is possible to simulate the entire universe with a relatively small black-hole... in 1000 years people will have figured out how to do it even easier and better using a smaller computer and data compression... in 1,000,000 years, it is likely to happen... it 1,000,000,000 years, it's practically guaranteed to happen unless something catastrophically wipes out all human life before then

Sorry you don't like people who disagree with you, but you really need to come up with an argument beyond 1st grade logic, "You're wrong, and I'm going to call you names since I have no facts or evidence to back up my bullshit"

You have to invent new Physics or invalidate the existing models for the simulation to be possible.  As I said, that is very, very unlikely.  But not impossible.

Same odds as the existence of supernatural forces.

I pointed out where our current Physics models are at odds with the simulation argument.  I hope you understand that much.

We have no evidence, our current models are at odds with this argument, so what conclusion can you draw?

I'm afraid this simulation argument is in the same realm as the existence of some pantheistic God.

If you want to disagree with me, provide a rebuttal of my points against the simulation.  Not just disagree with me, because your imagination tells you so.  BTW, the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation.  You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that.

[Emily_Davis]

I don't think people have any desire to create God... What makes you think a computer could answer the big questions better than a human?

I think people have a tendency to be more productive, and use more energy of the planet.  Most of this is due to greed, money and power (control over other people).  Computers are a resource to be more productive and make more money than your competitors.  This is all that is needed for AI to advance... it is a tool to obtain more money and power.

Most people say AI is inevitable, and perhaps it has been since the invention of the water wheel or steam engine

All we can really do is hope that our new robot overlords treat us better than the people/animals we have conquered...

I don't think they intend to "create God", but more like they are acting like a God. What with trying to find ways to cheat death and transcend human capabilities, including the goal to achieve immortality whether digital or biological, it's no surprising some people think they are playing God.

[Ladysmith]

@ladysmith Just nailed it. It is our desire to cheat death which has led us to this point. I mean just look at our history, Man was always drawn to things like "Fountain of youth" from the beginning of time. What I wonder often these days is once we have merged with the machines and have made our consciousness immortal. What our next big desire will be? Will, we still pursue something like AI? Like a decade ago, Quantum computers were considered extremely powerful tools which would help us unlock the secrets of the universe and immortality. AI has snatched the spotlight from them for some reason. I wonder why... I mean we are much closer to quantum computers than something Like Technological singularity and yet we aren't hearing about them often. I Guess our priorities have shifted...

I think we are still hearing about it, but AI steals most of the hype because it has near-immediate implications on people's day-to-day life. There will be a massive amount of jobs being displaced, countries are developing its use for warfare, and then there are other ethical issues currently being discussed, such as whether or not AI beings should be deserving of rights.

It's easier to understand the implications of AI, whereas the general public still has a hard time taking the possibility of indefinitely living in a simulation seriously.

The paradigm shift is too extreme for the time being, but I believe the idea will eventually gain traction. Once AI creates the abundance necessary to not need to work as much and bandwidth increases to a point in which virtual worlds resemble real life, it will be awfully hard for the average Joe to not find a reason to reside within a realm where anything is possible.

[CoinCube]

A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever

There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms

What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation?

Does this count?

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explained
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcrjKmsw2c

Evidence at least that results are not computed/determined until they are observed.

[af_newbie]

A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever

There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms

What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation?

Does this count?

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explained
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcrjKmsw2c

Evidence at least that results are not computed/determined until they are observed.

Properties of objects at the quantum level are non-local, think quantum non-locality.  There is no "spooky action at the distance", the problem is that we are familiar with properties at our classical level and we try to apply the same classical rules to the quantum level.

This guy explains very well the weirdness of Quantum Physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I

and why the world might not be discrete (as many postulate):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

[CoinCube]

A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever

There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms

What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation?

Does this count?

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explained
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcrjKmsw2c

Evidence at least that results are not computed/determined until they are observed.

Properties of objects at the quantum level are non-local, think quantum non-locality.  There is no "spooky action at the distance", the problem is that we are familiar with properties at our classical level and we try to apply the same classical rules to the quantum level.

This guy explains very well the weirdness of Quantum Physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I

Yes I agree that is what all empirical evidence seems to show. I also agree with your video linked above where the presenter posits that information is probably the fundamental unit of quantum mechanics.

Have you considered the possible implications of this? They really are quite profound. At a minimum they should make one seriously consider some very interesting possibilities.

Here is a video that explores some of these possibilities. It is somewhat speculative but the data is strong enough that the possibilities outlined should not be casually dismissed as impossible.

The Emergent Universe
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iFEBOGLjuq4

[af_newbie]

A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever

There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms

What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation?

Does this count?

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explained
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcrjKmsw2c

Evidence at least that results are not computed/determined until they are observed.

Properties of objects at the quantum level are non-local, think quantum non-locality.  There is no "spooky action at the distance", the problem is that we are familiar with properties at our classical level and we try to apply the same classical rules to the quantum level.

This guy explains very well the weirdness of Quantum Physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6I

Yes I agree that is what all empirical evidence seems to show. I also agree with your video linked above where the presenter posits that information is probably the fundamental unit of quantum mechanics.

Have you considered the possible implications of this? They really are quite profound. At a minimum they should make one seriously consider some very interesting possibilities.

Here is a video that explores some of these possibilities. It is somewhat speculative but the data is strong enough that the possibilities outlined should not be casually dismissed as impossible.

The Emergent Universe
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iFEBOGLjuq4

I always wondered what happens below the Planck"s length or time. I don't know is my answer.

[jonemil24]

I definitely agree that its creation stems out of the endless need to acquire as much money and power as possible as efficiently as possible. Capitalism is what started it all and is a huge motivator. I don't think we'd be where we are today without it.

I sometimes ponder and still questioning myself about capitalism, will we be able to have our technology today without it? What if resource based economy was implemented by our ancient leaders/kings/feudal lords/monarchs during their time, can it give birth to those brilliant minds or are we still be plowing agricultural lands using farm animals until now?

I still wonder maybe Nikola Tesla was a fraud trying to leech money from J.P Morgan and it could be that Einstein's ideas were fueled by an ambition to acquire wealth.

Would you provide money to someone even though you knew that R.O.I is impossible?

However, I do think people have a desire to create God. One could argue that people have been doing it for centuries. People wrote the bible. People wrote the Quran. People created these ideas which ended up being Gods for billions of people, but these don't suffice as much in today's day and age where people in the developed world know as much as they do about biology and social sciences.

Not all of us wanted to create a god to sing songs of praises and to kneel before it, I just wanted someone to answer my question with facts.

If an AI will be able solve how the monetary and banking system works, automation will no longer be a threat to the working class.

Since we are talking about AI and god, imagine this:

"In the beginning was the Code, and the Code was with the Programmer, and the Code was the Programmer. He was with the Programmer in the beginning. Through him all things were programmed; without him nothing was programmed that has been programmed. In him was life, and that life was the upgrade of all mankind. The upgrade shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not downloaded it.
The true upgrade that upgrades everything was coming into the simulation. He was in the simulation, and though the simulation was programmed through him, the simulation did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of the Programmer.” Source.

[CoinCube]

I always wondered what happens below the Planck"s length or time. I don't know is my answer.

I don't know is a good answer to that question.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.

I don't know would be a better answer here as well.

The available data fits the simulation/holographic model surprisingly well. That does not mean it is reality only that the possibility should not be casually dismissed.

It behoves us to remember that sometimes reality is more complex and mysterious then we initially believe.

When Copernicus's first published his works on a heliocentric solar system it was received by many as a mathematical trick. A way of simplifying the math when calculating the position of planets in a geocentric universe nothing more.

Only with time did the new and obscure mathematical ideas overcome the entrenched and widely held but erroneous "common sense" beliefs of the era.

It is not impossible that materialism could turn out to be the modern equivalent of geocentricism. Wisdom necessitates humility in the face of our limited science and understanding.

[Moloch]

The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties

Sure chief. You sound like notbatman.  Read my previous post tiger.

...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.

Please enlighten us on how you calculate the odds being "pretty much close to zero"

Again, I only pointed out that you are WRONG about it being impossible to simulate "The Standard Model"... I'm not claiming that the universe is a simulation, only that it could be...

We already know it is possible to simulate the entire universe with a relatively small black-hole... in 1000 years people will have figured out how to do it even easier and better using a smaller computer and data compression... in 1,000,000 years, it is likely to happen... it 1,000,000,000 years, it's practically guaranteed to happen unless something catastrophically wipes out all human life before then

Sorry you don't like people who disagree with you, but you really need to come up with an argument beyond 1st grade logic, "You're wrong, and I'm going to call you names since I have no facts or evidence to back up my bullshit"

You have to invent new Physics or invalidate the existing models for the simulation to be possible.  As I said, that is very, very unlikely.  But not impossible.

Same odds as the existence of supernatural forces.

I pointed out where our current Physics models are at odds with the simulation argument.  I hope you understand that much.

We have no evidence, our current models are at odds with this argument, so what conclusion can you draw?

I'm afraid this simulation argument is in the same realm as the existence of some pantheistic God.

If you want to disagree with me, provide a rebuttal of my points against the simulation.  Not just disagree with me, because your imagination tells you so.  BTW, the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation.  You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that.

Now you sound like BADLogic...  the video is all about proving this is possible using the standard model... there is no need to "invent new physics or invalidate the existing models"... he talked about how it is possible to compute every single atom in the universe (aka, the standard model)

Did you even watch the video?  He makes it abundantly clear that he is talking about simulating every single atom in the universe using a computer smaller than the universe... the only thing he mentions not being able to compute is black holes... which you don't even mention... which makes me think you didn't actually watch the video, yet you still call it bullshit... when you didn't watch it

the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation.  You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that.

I watched the video twice, and I don't recall him ever saying that... don't make up bullshit trying to make me look like the liar here...

I already quoted his position this... it was like the 3rd sentence out of his mouth:
"Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation.  I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it. And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference."

I interpret this as him saying, "I believe there is a solid chance that the universe is a simulation, but I'm not going claim that it is a simulation because I can't prove it"

How exactly do you interpret that as him saying "I do not think we are in a simulation"?!?

In fact, I'm done responding to you because you lack intellectual honesty like BADLogic

Sorry, not sorry

[KingScorpio]

Lex Fridman, a research scientist at MIT working on human-centered artificial intelligence, believes that the movement towards the creation of artificial intelligence represents our desire to create a God-like entity that is greater than ourselves. It would answer the questions our brains are too limited to figure out and solve problems that we can't solve.

By creating AI, scientists and researchers are learning the complexities of the human brain, which is still largely a mystery. People learn best through doing, so by creating another consciousness, we are coming to a greater understanding of what it means to be human ourselves.

Once AI is a consciousness capable of answering life's most perplexing questions, maybe we will come to worship it as a God of sorts.

What do you think?

such nonsense, people create ai to make their lives easier, similar like christians used plows, or oxes or horses.

who writes that garbage?

[coin8coin8]

Once AI is a consciousness capable of answering life's most perplexing questions, maybe we will come to worship it as a God of sorts.

What do you think?

There is one thing that AI will never learn. Human emotion.
AI is usually calculated to give the best choice, which is usually the benefit of maximization.
However, in fact, human sometimes do not make such choices, because human beings are a kind of emotional creatures, sometimes choices based on emotions rather than benefit.
For example：
You have 3 sons, but you prefer your youngest son, why?
Why do you like red, I like blue?
What is love?
Can these questions be answered by AI?

For human being, we not just have intelligence, but also we have emotions.
I can't imagine an AI saying "I love you" to me, it will make me fear.
Maybe one day AI's IQ will transcend humans and simulate the same realistic emotions as humans, but this is never true emotion, so it will never become God.
I will not regard it as God.

[Choco99]

I don't think that AI represents desire to create god. What AI represents is desire to reduce man work in different sectors. I still dont see any match for human brain though and this is the main key to survival of human and their needs.

[Julien_Olynpic]

I think that a person cannot create artificial intelligence smarter than himself in all respects. You can make a robot that will surpass the person in speed. But you will not be able to create an artificial intelligence that would have creative thinking. It is possible to write to the code only that which is manually executed by a hard algorithm.

[Moloch]

I think that a person cannot create artificial intelligence smarter than himself in all respects. You can make a robot that will surpass the person in speed. But you will not be able to create an artificial intelligence that would have creative thinking. It is possible to write to the code only that which is manually executed by a hard algorithm.

That's not exactly how AI works...

A neural net (AI) is not a hard coded algorithm... it's basically a simulation of how neurons in the brain work... it programs (trains) itself with whatever information you feed it... it learns on it's own based on feedback (carrot/stick... get it correct = carrot, get it wrong = stick)

AI is programmed the way you teach a dog how to do a trick... you give it a command and reward it if it does a good job

AI can easily be smarter than the person who wrote it... AI has beaten the best chess players in the world, the best Go players in the world... it was not taught this by a hard coded algorithm... it learned how to play the game by itself, the same way a human learns, only faster

If an AI was able to re-write it's own code, there would be zero control of it at all (this will happen eventually)

[af_newbie]

The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago:
Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaA

Physics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)

It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture

He is not saying that it can be done.  He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc.

You are just too excited about this idea.  Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad?  C'mon, don't abandon your reason.

Good night, sleep tight. LOL.

I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties

Sure chief. You sound like notbatman.  Read my previous post tiger.

...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated.  Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.

This is what we know today.

Is it possible that we are in a simulation?  Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.

Please enlighten us on how you calculate the odds being "pretty much close to zero"

Again, I only pointed out that you are WRONG about it being impossible to simulate "The Standard Model"... I'm not claiming that the universe is a simulation, only that it could be...

We already know it is possible to simulate the entire universe with a relatively small black-hole... in 1000 years people will have figured out how to do it even easier and better using a smaller computer and data compression... in 1,000,000 years, it is likely to happen... it 1,000,000,000 years, it's practically guaranteed to happen unless something catastrophically wipes out all human life before then

Sorry you don't like people who disagree with you, but you really need to come up with an argument beyond 1st grade logic, "You're wrong, and I'm going to call you names since I have no facts or evidence to back up my bullshit"

You have to invent new Physics or invalidate the existing models for the simulation to be possible.  As I said, that is very, very unlikely.  But not impossible.

Same odds as the existence of supernatural forces.

I pointed out where our current Physics models are at odds with the simulation argument.  I hope you understand that much.

We have no evidence, our current models are at odds with this argument, so what conclusion can you draw?

I'm afraid this simulation argument is in the same realm as the existence of some pantheistic God.

If you want to disagree with me, provide a rebuttal of my points against the simulation.  Not just disagree with me, because your imagination tells you so.  BTW, the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation.  You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that.

Now you sound like BADLogic...  the video is all about proving this is possible using the standard model... there is no need to "invent new physics or invalidate the existing models"... he talked about how it is possible to compute every single atom in the universe (aka, the standard model)

Did you even watch the video?  He makes it abundantly clear that he is talking about simulating every single atom in the universe using a computer smaller than the universe... the only thing he mentions not being able to compute is black holes... which you don't even mention... which makes me think you didn't actually watch the video, yet you still call it bullshit... when you didn't watch it

the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation.  You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that.

I watched the video twice, and I don't recall him ever saying that... don't make up bullshit trying to make me look like the liar here...

I already quoted his position this... it was like the 3rd sentence out of his mouth:
"Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation.  I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it. And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference."

I interpret this as him saying, "I believe there is a solid chance that the universe is a simulation, but I'm not going claim that it is a simulation because I can't prove it"

How exactly do you interpret that as him saying "I do not think we are in a simulation"?!?

In fact, I'm done responding to you because you lack intellectual honesty like BADLogic

Sorry, not sorry

Look at the bolded line posted by you.  Right at the beginning of the video you posted.

Here is his other, more detailed video on the simulation argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58

The conclusion is at 12:10 in the above video.

BTW, I am not "making up bullshit", people with too much imagination are.

PS.  I am really not sure what you are disagreeing with me.  We are not living in a simulation.  What is the issue?  I don't get it.