Do we live in a simulation? Chances are about 50–50.

Oct 14, 2020
1
1
10
“We just assume the principle of indifference, which is the default assumption when you don’t have any data or leanings either way.” This is a fatal flaw whenever applied, because it's ridiculous. You arbitrarily assign a 50% probability to some fantasy, because you don't know anything. The probability we live in a computer simulation approaches zero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96
Jan 15, 2020
20
3
35
To apply Occam's Razor makes no sense, if that is part of the overall simulation.
Personally I tend to the old saying: "Yesterday is history, tomorrow is mystery, but now is a gift, that is why we call it the present." Simulation or not, the "now" we perceive is the only reality we are likely to ever see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Aug 27, 2020
4
0
10
Imagine what a virtually omnipotent race of beings would do for entertainment. The way you might take off for an afternoon matinee in the theater or curl up on the couch with a novel, they (we) take off for 70 years or so as a human. The Planck Length, Planck Time and speed of light are all evidence of a finite resolution to reality. If you could do anything, wouldn't that seem like an obvious diversion?
 
Dec 10, 2019
12
4
35
Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

Do we live in a simulation? Chances are about 50–50. : Read more
Perhaps the "glitch" in the simulation is the fact that we can't readily detect the cause of the universe accelerating in it's expansion. Of course there are millions of things science can't explain now, so my comment is pretty much useless. Maybe I'm the glitch!
 
Jul 27, 2020
195
21
105
To apply Occam's Razor makes no sense, if that is part of the overall simulation.
It would seem that Occam's Razor is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. From computers to molecular biology, there is very little that is simple about any of it. And this article is about as "anti-Occam's Razor" as you can get. Some of it is so convoluted as to nearly defy its rational interpretation by even the most sophisticated simulation!

Which leads me to my one and only notion to it all, which may or may not have been covered in the article :) since as MY simulation may be degrading. But this issue still needs to be addressed at the first level :

If we are a simulation, what are the chances that our "simulator" is being simulated by a higher level "simulator", ad infinitum?!

My guess is the answer is also 50%!! What else could it be?!
 
Last edited:
Jan 15, 2020
20
3
35
A thought just occurred to me: are "we" all experiencing the simulation together? Or is every other human I know, my mother and father, my friends, my husband, my kids, my pets, all just a part of the simulation and I'm the only "real" one here? Sort of makes Self Isolation due to Covid 19 seem crowded by comparison! Or does "everybody else" each have their own separate simulation where the billions of other humans they come across in their lifetime simply illusory and part of the program? If so, how many of these "real avatars" are there in total?
And...is Donald Trump even real, or he merely the fevered, pixellated figment of some Great Programmers imagination? Oh dear, that GP is one sick little puppy! Or whatever...
 
Jan 14, 2020
1
1
15
The all-simulating device cannot simulate itself without an impossible renormalization, or calling itself recursively ad infinitum, either.
So the probability of simulation is [near] zero and of base-reality is {near] one,
So no 50/50 deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Jul 27, 2020
195
21
105
The all-simulating device cannot simulate itself without an impossible renormalization, or calling itself recursively ad infinitum, either.
So the probability of simulation is [near] zero and of base-reality is {near] one,
So no 50/50 deal.
This is clearly preferred, but there are those who will argue that we could never make that determination, and we are a simulation.

But what difference does it make? If it cannot be determined, take you pick as to how you want it. Who cares?

This could become a cult, if it has not already!
 
Jan 15, 2020
20
3
35
This is clearly preferred, but there are those who will argue that we could never make that determination, and we are a simulation.

But what difference does it make? If it cannot be determined, take you pick as to how you want it. Who cares?

This could become a cult, if it has not already!
I think the term is "nihilism". Don't know if it's a cult though.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
The reason we cannot move faster than lightspeed is extraordinarily simple and the debate needs to stop. Without the constraint of a cosmic speed limit we would be infinite beings or we would not exist at all. General Relativity is a physical understanding of our finite perception of our universe, which in reality is part of a chain of singularities with observable finite properties "culminating" in eternity. What is observed from beyond as a singularity with finite properties such as mass, spin, charge, and observable boundary, is observed from within as the physics of an infinite universe. This is because every existence, while appearing to be finite, is actually just a finite experience of an infinite singularity constrained by the limited spees of light. Simple.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
Please forgive me, I have no words to explain how frustrated I am that so many fail to grasp what I am saying. This is THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
Anybody else have a theory that explains asymmetry, the Big Bang, singularities, and wave-particle duality without sacrificing the validity of general relativity or quantum mechanics as we know it? No? Just me? Okay then.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
Any theory of everything must incorporate infinity as a basic concept. As long as you view it as an impassable barrier you will remain stumped. Think of the universe as context existing in an infinity of self-perpetuating infinite systems constrained by relative observation and go from there.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
The universe will expand forever because general relativity governs our finite observation of infinity. The expansion of spacetime accelerates relative to an externally observed property of radius.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞
Relative infinity described in terms of Schwarzchild's radius. Simple.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
6*∞=6,12,18,24...∞
6^∞=6,36,216,1296...∞
r=(2GM/c^2)*∞ therefore represents a static universe wherein all mass/energy is distributed equally relative to infinity, which is essentially meaningless to us.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞ represents a static universe that expands exponentially relative to initially observed properties.
So you see, the accelerating expansion of spacetime can be explained quite simply as a necessary physical property of our universe.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
“We just assume the principle of indifference, which is the default assumption when you don’t have any data or leanings either way.” This is a fatal flaw whenever applied, because it's ridiculous. You arbitrarily assign a 50% probability to some fantasy, because you don't know anything. The probability we live in a computer simulation approaches zero.
Finite perception of infinity. Nothing is actually finite, it just appears to be to us. That is why matter cannot be created or destroyed.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
I am so tired. I just wish somebody would understand what I am saying instead of demonstrating quite clearly that they don't and then getting mad at me. Our problem is the way we grapple with concepts of infinity. But like zero (the opposite of infinity) we will need to bring it into the conceptual fold if we want to advance. The answer has always been right in front of us.
 
Jan 15, 2020
20
3
35
Hey efarina96, nobody is arguing with you! You seem to have sorted out the universe to everybody's satisfaction and we are all in awe of you and love you.
Thank you so much, don't know how I survived before you explained it all to me.
;D
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
Hey efarina96, nobody is arguing with you! You seem to have sorted out the universe to everybody's satisfaction and we are all in awe of you and love you.
Thank you so much, don't know how I survived before you explained it all to me.
;D
I feel like you are being sarcastic, but I can never tell.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
Hey efarina96, nobody is arguing with you! You seem to have sorted out the universe to everybody's satisfaction and we are all in awe of you and love you.
Thank you so much, don't know how I survived before you explained it all to me.
;D
I have been trying to talk to people about this for quite some time and don't generally get much of a response. So if you are serious, thanks. and if not, I wish you well anyhow.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
Hey efarina96, nobody is arguing with you! You seem to have sorted out the universe to everybody's satisfaction and we are all in awe of you and love you.
Thank you so much, don't know how I survived before you explained it all to me.
;D
With all due respect I don't want anybody to be in awe of me, I want to know what they think of this idea. And I feel like I can never get a straight answer from anybody
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
Hey efarina96, nobody is arguing with you! You seem to have sorted out the universe to everybody's satisfaction and we are all in awe of you and love you.
Thank you so much, don't know how I survived before you explained it all to me.
;D
In all seriousness, I would love to know if you are messing with me, and if so where do you think I went wrong?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts