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
19
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
266
40
230
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
19
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
266
40
230
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
19
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
77
1
55
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 18, 2020
1
0
10
I don't believe that reality is a simulation, but the reality that we do "live" in is not as real as we believe. This "reality" is not controlled by some monstrous aliens hellbent on our destruction or control. It has nothing to do with the Matrix, since it does seem to go back as far as the 1960s. I was shoved through the rabbit hole in 1968 , without the use of drugs, and continued on for almost a decade. The mystery was that it never happed the same way twice. At one time I saw the end of the Rabbit Hole, and was deeply disappointed by what I had experienced. The event was Earth shattering and left me totally speechless, and was an event that can only be experienced. Most of history is a lie, and all we are going through is a lie, and the things that will happen will be based on the lies of the past. Saying that our reality is based on a pack of lies in something we will react to negatively. Like the character Smith hearing that he was not the first chosen one. Life is more complex than the Matrix or any fictional "reality". Will the truth be told? I doubt it. Can we handle the truth. No. Ignorance is bless, and all will be as right as rain.
 
Mar 6, 2020
101
25
130
I don't believe that reality is a simulation, but the reality that we do "live" in is not as real as we believe. This "reality" is not controlled by some monstrous aliens hellbent on our destruction or control. It has nothing to do with the Matrix, since it does seem to go back as far as the 1960s. I was shoved through the rabbit hole in 1968 , without the use of drugs, and continued on for almost a decade. The mystery was that it never happed the same way twice. At one time I saw the end of the Rabbit Hole, and was deeply disappointed by what I had experienced. The event was Earth shattering and left me totally speechless, and was an event that can only be experienced. Most of history is a lie, and all we are going through is a lie, and the things that will happen will be based on the lies of the past. Saying that our reality is based on a pack of lies in something we will react to negatively. Like the character Smith hearing that he was not the first chosen one. Life is more complex than the Matrix or any fictional "reality". Will the truth be told? I doubt it. Can we handle the truth. No. Ignorance is bless, and all will be as right as rain.
What is this rabbit hole you speak of? How does it relate to the ending of the universe, and why is most of history a lie?
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
I don't believe that reality is a simulation, but the reality that we do "live" in is not as real as we believe. This "reality" is not controlled by some monstrous aliens hellbent on our destruction or control. It has nothing to do with the Matrix, since it does seem to go back as far as the 1960s. I was shoved through the rabbit hole in 1968 , without the use of drugs, and continued on for almost a decade. The mystery was that it never happed the same way twice. At one time I saw the end of the Rabbit Hole, and was deeply disappointed by what I had experienced. The event was Earth shattering and left me totally speechless, and was an event that can only be experienced. Most of history is a lie, and all we are going through is a lie, and the things that will happen will be based on the lies of the past. Saying that our reality is based on a pack of lies in something we will react to negatively. Like the character Smith hearing that he was not the first chosen one. Life is more complex than the Matrix or any fictional "reality". Will the truth be told? I doubt it. Can we handle the truth. No. Ignorance is bless, and all will be as right as rain.
"History is a pact of lies agreed upon." What this quote signifies to me, is that history is a tale told by a fool- full of fire and fury, but signifying nothing. Those with the power to make such a pact, are the ones whose tales are long remembered. But fear not- tools for data analysis will soon become so advanced, that future people will not only be able to perfectly reconstruct every moment of our lives, they will be able to work backward and definitively deduce the circumstances of every single event in human history. The truth will have its day my friend!
 
Nov 24, 2020
2
0
10
We are now living in a simulation simply because of the way we interact with what we call reality. We do not see the chair in the room ... our eyes capture "supposed" reflected light and color and creates the image chair in our minds eye...at least that's the theory. We touch the chair but the sensation of touch is once agian created in the minds eye.... we beleive the wetmatter of our brain exists but in reality it also is a construct in the subjective reality we call awareness. As Max Planck said "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." What he is saying is that Conscious awareness is the only thing we truly know ...everything else such as "matter" is up for debate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY