What are the odds that we are all in a simulation?
-
Exactly. Even if it was definitely proven that this is all a simulation, there is exactly zero chance humans could ever break out of it or hack or exploit or even begin to understand the machine the simulation is running on. We have still not even figured out the rules for our universe and understanding what the real universe where this is a simulation is way beyond the scope of human understanding. We could not affect it in any meaningful way except maybe some laboratory tests or cause some hideous corruption. Yet we think and feel and experience living in the only way we know. Hence, I'd argue it would not matter.
This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If we are I want a word with the dev team. This shit needs a rebalance ASAP. Gravity wells are too OP, black hole mergers should not warp the fabric of spacetime.
And don't even get me started on Gamma Ray Bursts or Vacuum Decay.
-
If we are I want a word with the dev team. This shit needs a rebalance ASAP. Gravity wells are too OP, black hole mergers should not warp the fabric of spacetime.
And don't even get me started on Gamma Ray Bursts or Vacuum Decay.
Those probably are the intern's doing
-
I mean is there any proof we don't live in a simulation? Like I am not arguing for simulation, neither am I arguing against it just, personally, I don't see simulation theory as something life changing and important. Odds would probably be 50/50, but don't see how it changes anything. If I live in simulation, I live in a simulation and someone is either controlling me or someone predestined me to do what I do, and it would be their fault for bad things happening. That would actually raise question why didn't they gave us more clear understandings of morals so we don't do bad things to each others, also why did they make us kill, and get sick...
If simulation is not real, then that doesn't change anything we still have questions about who or what made us, who or what was before our universe even existed.
The only way it matters is that maybe there's a way to escape 'to a higher plane'. But even without a simulation, there's always opportunities to understand the universe better and maybe make some fundamental breakthrough. Or there's mysticism. Of those three, a simulation may offer the least chance for a breakthrough.
-
People floating would go against the laws of physics of this simulation.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Best way to know if you're in a simulation is to observe when it glitches (in a way that can't be explained by a glitch in the sub-simulation that is human perception).
You and several complete strangers see someone floating in the air without any technological support, assuming y'all haven't been poisoned in a similar way and are hallucinating, either a) there's some support you don't know how to look for, b) there's a condition of reality that hasn't been accounted for in the study of physics yet, or c) the rule set just straight broke somehow.
I don't think anyone has totally eliminated glitches in the human or an incomplete understanding of physics to really support a 'we live in a simulation' explanation for strange phenomena, at least not yet.
-
This post did not contain any content.
A simulation wouldn't be this stupid
-
A simulation wouldn't be this stupid
That's just what the agents want us to think, man!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.
Can't prove it, can't disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.
People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.
This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)
It is as pointless as arguing about god.
-
Belief in a simulation implies intelligent design of some sort, so this is, in my opinion, just a 21st century way of asking the age old question, does God exist?
Or we are NPCs in a game played by a 9 year old.
-
This post did not contain any content.
100%, and I have - if not proof - strong evidence:
- Economics. It makes no sense, not even to experts, to such an extent þat þere's a saying: "get 4 economists in a room and you'll get 5 opinions." Þere's no-one who understands it, only people who þink þey do
- Mantis shrimp. If mantis shrimp aren't an easter egg, I don't know what is.
- Kittens. Our reactions to kittens has to be a bug, þere's no evolutionary reason why apes universally react to kittens þe way þey do.
- All of þe rules start to break down when physics got granular enough, such þat we have to invent concepts like þe Heisenberg Principle which - if you really þink about it is just a huge cop-out, like developers reclassifying bugs as "features."
But, seriously, all of physics. It was all fairly rudimentary, and it all worked, until our measurements got better, and þen it became more complex. And every time we measured more accurately, þe old models stopped being strictly correct and were had to come up wiþ even more complex models, until now we have quantum physics which is eerily like economics in þat ... does anyone really understand quantum physics? We don't even have a unified, unanimous agreement on þe rules of quantum physics, and when we þink we do... Bam! New quark discovered, back to þe drawing board. Oh, þe Highs Boson is super sketchy, too.
Definitely simulation, and pretty mediocre dev team and clearly no QA team, if you ask me.
-
This post did not contain any content.
My favorite part of these types of discussions is the human brain trying its best to rationalize something it can not understand with a human understanding. If this is a simulation you can't reach beyond you station. You are limited, held back by rules and laws yet you feel special or that you have an inkling about anything all because you're programmed with ego and a sense of individualism.
-
I mean is there any proof we don't live in a simulation? Like I am not arguing for simulation, neither am I arguing against it just, personally, I don't see simulation theory as something life changing and important. Odds would probably be 50/50, but don't see how it changes anything. If I live in simulation, I live in a simulation and someone is either controlling me or someone predestined me to do what I do, and it would be their fault for bad things happening. That would actually raise question why didn't they gave us more clear understandings of morals so we don't do bad things to each others, also why did they make us kill, and get sick...
If simulation is not real, then that doesn't change anything we still have questions about who or what made us, who or what was before our universe even existed.
You can't prove a negative.
The positive assertion is "we live in a simulation". All that can be done is gather evidence to support this assertion.
-
God is a loaded term though. Yes there would be a creator but it could be a completely passive observer.
That's no different than saying the universe is a simulation.
-
Those probably are the intern's doing
Hey now, don't go blaming the minimum wage workers for not being fully trained.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Measured subjectively, the chance that I am in a simulation is higher than that anyone else is, since in that case some or all of you might be merely simulated.
-
This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them.
Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea "can not comprehend" to punishable dogma "must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict".
-
God is a loaded term though. Yes there would be a creator but it could be a completely passive observer.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Why would being in a simulation require that those who create or maintain it only observe?
Edit: I misread, merely observing is certainly a possibility.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If it is possible to stimulate reality to this level of detail, very low. If it's possible that the simulation can then run another instance of the simulation with no loss of fidelity and that is true for any simulation within the stack, still low but much more likely than before. If the chance of this simulation existing is higher than the odds for a universe that can sustain intelligent life, then it becomes about even odds.
The people who claim otherwise are mathematicians who forgot how reality works, as they get into an infinite spiral of higher and higher odds without any basis in reality.
The reason why it gets to even-at-best is because the simulation needs to exist in a reality at some point, and it really, really stretches the imagination that someone could build this shit. So, then you're attaching the odds of intelligent life in a universe to the odds of then some intelligent life understanding literally every aspect of reality and being able to build said simulation (and then that repeats on every simulation).
-
This post did not contain any content.
I have no idea of the odds. Whatever reality is we could simulate it then conclude that a simulation like that could be running out reality. What could we observe about our reality that would make it simulation proof?
-
Why would being in a simulation require that those who create or maintain it only observe?
Edit: I misread, merely observing is certainly a possibility.
Not OP, but they said “but it could be”, not that it is required.
