Evidence for being in a possible simulation

Hans Blaster · 2026-07-11T18:36:11-0500

JohnClay said:
What did it get wrong? Can you point out more than 5 mistakes?

The text-based simulation in post #9. Remember to expand the quotes to read it all. Can you even find 2 mistakes or examples of ignorance?

Oh, good grief you hid pages of text in quotes. SMH.

JohnClay said:
So that proves your more of a sun expert than that example?

I'm talking about the simulated character that I quoted. Note the person mentions many different devices.

I don't care about your simulated character. I care about your claim to have evidence that all of reality is possibly simulated. It is the TITLE of your stupid thread and you've never come even close to providing evidence. Instead you feed us various bits of LLM slop.

JohnClay · 2026-07-11T18:45:58-0500

Hans Blaster said:
Oh, good grief you hid pages of text in quotes. SMH.

The message board hid the text in the quotes.

Hans Blaster said:
I don't care about your simulated character.

I asked you to find at least 2 (preferable 5) problems with the character who is supposedly a sun expert. It has very lengthy quotes so that should make it easier for you. Saying "I don't care" suggests you were unable to do it - or couldn't be bothered.

Hans Blaster said:
I care about your claim to have evidence that all of reality is possibly simulated. It is the TITLE of your stupid thread and you've never come even close to providing evidence. Instead you feed us various bits of LLM slop.

The sun expert quote is part of the evidence. You claimed that various detected properties of the sun could never be simulated by an AI. The sun expert is a text based version that involves virtually observing the sun (on a simplistic level). Anyway you don't even believe that AI could surpass human abilities in the future and for my main evidence you keep saying you don't care. You seem to think calling it "slop" disproves that it could be used.

JohnClay · 2026-07-11T19:14:53-0500

So my main argument is that in the future there could be billions of games that are indistinguishable from reality. And so we are likely to be in one of those rather than in "base reality". To contradict that means to prove that that isn't possible or is virtually impossible. Elon Musk says it would happen in less that 10,000 years. But if you look at the state of generative AI and LLMs a couple of years ago vs today they have been making a lot of progress and I think it is reasonable to believe that this rapid progress will continue.

Hans Blaster · 2026-07-11T19:26:10-0500

JohnClay said:
So LLMs writing university essays for people allowing them to pass if they're not caught is "garbage-level technology"? I tend to disagree.

Is that what you think "university level" is? Writing an essay for an intro class and not getting caught? LOL.

A technology that semi-randomly mashes phrases together based on likelihoods of association is not impressive. It is just generating mediocre junk.

Hans Blaster · 2026-07-11T19:30:10-0500

JohnClay said:
I asked you to find at least 2 (preferable 5) problems with the character who is supposedly a sun expert. It has very lengthy quotes so that should make it easier for you. Saying "I don't care" suggests you were unable to do it - or couldn't be bothered.

Bingo!

I have zero interest in reading, viewing, hearing, or interacting with any "AI". NONE.

Having some artificial pseudo expert generated chat doesn't in anyway validate your original claim. You are really bad at this. I recommend you stop.

JohnClay · 2026-07-11T19:37:01-0500

Hans Blaster said:
Is that what you think "university level" is? Writing an essay for an intro class and not getting caught? LOL.

No it is an example that I think contradicts "garbage-level technology". I mean a lot of people wouldn't be able to write a university level essay that can pass.

Hans Blaster said:
A technology that semi-randomly mashes phrases together based on likelihoods of association is not impressive. It is just generating mediocre junk.

In the future there would probably be better AI than doesn't have those flaws.

JohnClay · 2026-07-11T19:38:50-0500

Hans Blaster said:
Bingo!

I have zero interest in reading, viewing, hearing, or interacting with any "AI". NONE.

Well that's the whole foundation of this topic. My theory of the possible simulation is that it heavily involves AI.

Hans Blaster said:
Having some artificial pseudo expert generated chat doesn't in anyway validate your original claim. You are really bad at this. I recommend you stop.

If the expert is so flawed then why don't you provide any actual evidence that it is flawed? Ooops I forgot, you don't have any interest in that.

Hans Blaster · 2026-07-11T19:42:32-0500

JohnClay said:
Well that's the whole foundation of this topic. My theory of the possible simulation is that it heavily involves AI.

You're doing a really awful job of it then. Your title is "Evidence for BEING in a possible simulation"

You've offered no evidence that WE are in a simulation. None. At all.

JohnClay said:
If the expert is so flawed then why don't you provide any actual evidence that it is flawed? Ooops I forgot, you don't have any interest in that.

AI;DR

JohnClay · 2026-07-11T19:53:33-0500

Hans Blaster said:
You're doing a really awful job of it then. Your title is "Evidence for BEING in a possible simulation"

You've offered no evidence that WE are in a simulation. None. At all.

The first step is to show that the games I'm talking about (like the Roy game in Rick and Morty) will eventually be possible. Though you didn't even want to watch the video that portrays that game. You don't even believe that AI will surpass human intelligence in the future. Does this mean you are more knowledgeable about that than the researchers working for AI companies who disagree with that?

d taylor · 2026-07-11T20:51:55-0500

JohnClay said:
Note that a simulation using generative AI could explain how Genesis 1 works - an AI could accept voice commands/prompts and generate the visuals and behaviour of the created world. It also can easily handle miracles including teleportation. Otherwise it would involve the physical world and some form of magic.

-

Yes and it would be based off of sciences deceptive version of God's creation and not actually The Bibles truthful description.

In the end it is still a deception and not a simulation !

JohnClay · 2026-07-11T22:31:34-0500

d taylor said:
Yes and it would be based off of sciences deceptive version of God's creation and not actually The Bibles truthful description.

In the end it is still a deception and not a simulation !

I'm talking about an understandable mechanism that God could have used. Does the Bible say that humans will never ever be able to understand how he could create and perform miracles?

Well there's this:
Ecclesiastes 11:5

As you do not know the path of the wind,
or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things.

Footnote: Or know how life (or the spirit) / enters the body being formed

This implies that the science of the wind and unborn babies is similar to understanding how God works...

Simulations also explain how God could have perfect knowledge and AIs could explain how God could have no sin...

In the past Jewish people's attempts to understand God sometimes involved things like Kabbalah - but I'm not sure if the Bible is against that. On the other hand I think Kabbalah is nonsense. e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Tree_of_Life_2009_large.png

JohnClay · 2026-07-12T01:29:21-0500

Well I thought I maybe found a flaw in the text generated in post #9 - I thought maybe all of that equipment might cost more than $500,000... but this is what AI said:

Here's a rough real-world cost breakdown for the instruments described in that scene:

Pyranometer (measures solar irradiance, W/m²)

Basic/entry-level: $200–$800

Research-grade (e.g., Kipp & Zonen, Hukseflux): $1,500–$5,000+

With mounting, sun tracker, and data logger: add $2,000–$10,000

Spectroradiometer (measures spectral intensity across wavelengths)

These are much pricier due to precision optics

Portable field units: $10,000–$30,000

Lab-grade or NIST-traceable calibrated systems: $30,000–$100,000+

Magnetometer (for Bz/geomagnetic field readings)

Simple fluxgate magnetometers: $500–$3,000

Research-grade/observatory instruments: $10,000–$50,000+

X-ray flux detector / GOES-class monitoring

You generally can't buy "GOES X-ray flux" hardware — that data comes from NOAA/NASA satellites

A ground-based proxy setup (X-ray spectrometers) can run $20,000–$100,000+, but true solar X-ray flux monitoring realistically requires satellite access, not consumer hardware

Coronagraph (for CME/corona imaging)

Amateur/DIY coronagraph attachments for telescopes: $500–$5,000

Professional-grade coronagraphs (like those on SOHO/LASCO): not commercially available — these are custom-built satellite instruments costing millions

TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) monitor

This isn't something you purchase — it's satellite-based data (SORCE, TSIS-1) run by NASA/NOAA

Access to the data itself is free (public datasets)

Building/launching your own TSI satellite instrument: tens of millions of dollars

Bottom line: If you're talking about a realistic ground station setup with a decent pyranometer, magnetometer, and basic spectroradiometer, you're looking at roughly $15,000–$150,000 depending on precision and calibration needs. But the X-ray flux and TSI/coronagraph data in that scene are actually sourced from government satellites (NOAA's GOES, NASA's SORCE/TSIS-1) — that's not something an individual or even most institutions could replicate; you'd just use the free public data feeds instead.

If you're picturing a real "half a million dollar" setup like the one described, that's plausible if it includes a solid pyranometer array, a research-grade magnetometer, a proper spectroradiometer, and a small coronagraph telescope rig — the line item that would actually eat the budget is the spectroradiometer and any custom coronagraph optics.

Note the content in post #9 was generated very quickly and for free on Copilot. It involved a fairly plausible simulation of a sun expert and if I had enabled "Think deeper" it would have been even better.

Larniavc · 2026-07-12T03:12:11-0500

JohnClay said:
I think the possible simulation could use generative AI rather than using the old method of simulating every atom in the universe. Note that using the old method to simulate the Sun would involve 10^57 atoms which is a 1 with 57 zeroes like this: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Early versions of the kind of technology that could be used: (see the first minute)

It could use generative AI similar to this from 9 months ago which can generate pretty realistic characters:

An AI from 2 years ago that could generate super realistic voices and laughs in realtime - and it can see through his phone's camera:

I am a fan of this old video of Elon Musk:

Welcome, Life's Player

The possibility of being in a simulation, video game, or matrix...

lifesplayer.com

So I think there would be billions of cheap simulations in the future - using generative AI to generate the sounds, visuals, and other sensory information. It would usually involve one player and the rest of the characters would be AI generated but I just assume everyone is real anyway. Elon Musk thinks it would take less than 10,000 years for technology to get to that point.

A video about this scenario can be found by looking for rick morty roy game on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rick+morty+roy+game

Note that Rick and Morty video contains swearing. It also runs faster than real time so it takes minutes or hours to simulate a life of many decades. There is also another scenario where you begin with god like powers (easy to do in a simulation) and eventually decide to live a normal life where you forget your original identity.

1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []

web.archive.org

Note to be "indistinguishable from reality" like Elon Musk says, it would be impossible to 100% prove that it is a simulation.

If it is a simulation it’s not bound by current technology.

JohnClay · 2026-07-12T03:27:06-0500

Larniavc said:
If it is a simulation it’s not bound by current technology.

I still think cheapness would be an important factor e.g. explicitly simulating 10^57 atoms vs approximating it for an observer. And I think being able to explain it in terms of current technology makes the argument stronger.

Evidence for being in a possible simulation

Reconstruction 3 will come

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Reconstruction 3 will come

Reconstruction 3 will come

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Reconstruction 3 will come

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Married Mouth-Breather

Similar threads