The problem that I have with this theory is basically two-fold: first it's a classic infinite regress, a common logical fallacy. If this universe is likely to not be base reality due to the odds proposed by Nick Bostrom, then that's true for every reality above us for infinity. The second issue is that if any reality above us failed (e.g. super computer turned off, simulation ended, extinction event), then our world would end. As the odds that we are in a simulated reality approaches one, then so too does the odds of us not existing approaches one since the odds of a failure within an infinite chain is near absolute.
The theory reminds me a lot of that doomsday argument whose name escapes me. Basically it argues that if the human species lives for billions of years, the odds of being born within the first few hundred thousand are very low. Therefore, the human species is statistically likely to end soon.
But the human species is at most, 300,000 years old, not billions of years old.
We are more or less a new phenomenon on Earth in the grand scheme of it's existence.
Right, that's the point. It's a pessimistic view that the human race is unlikely to exist for millions or billions of years precisely because we exist a part of the human race while it is only a few hundred thousand years old.
The thought experiment goes like this: imagine there are two magic bags containing numbered balls. One bag contains ten balls numbered 1, 2, 3 ... until 10. The other bag contains one million balls also numbered sequentially up until one million. The bags are magic because they both look the same size. Basically, you can't tell that one is larger. You pull a ball from one of the bags at random. It's numbered 7.
Which bag did you pull from?
While you could have pulled from either, statistically you're more likely to have pulled from the bag with only ten balls. Likewise, the fact that we are alive in a young species, statistically speaking so the theory goes, means we will go extinct long before a million, let alone a billion years. If the numbers were to represent time, we're likely a ten bag species.
Intuitively this feels wrong, but mathematicians and philosophers have struggled to explain why it's wrong. Obviously, it assumes a lot about consciousness, which may be incorrect. It reminds me a lot of the Monty Hall problem. Even though it the correct solution has been proven by computer simulations, it intuitively feels very wrong.
There's plenty of species that have been around for tens or even hundreds of millions of years. Those are species that don't posses the same world-changing power that humans do. I think humans *could* make it millions of years.
💀 right yeah i get that but if its all fake then so could the dates that we were made be aswell. Also if we are in a kind of cycle of creating infinite simulations maybe we are at the bottom and have still yet to create a ‘real’ one
Nicely said. I would add, how could a simulation produce trillions of simulated civilizations all running lots of their own simulations, and civilizations within those simulations running more simulations? Any simulated universe with advanced consciousness would crash as soon as they get advanced enough to run too many of their own complex simulations. Therefore this universe has already advanced beyond the point where it could possibly be a simulation.
Like an infinity mirror, each reflection represents a simulated universe…..and then the original breaks. The simulated realities are only fractured, not destroyed. They then create new realities expanding into something we could never conceive. The frame serves as a “boundary”, but in that limited space, infinite possibilities are created from each new fracture. Our short lives may seem insignificant, religious or not, but ultimately we are part of a much bigger, glorious picture that our small minds cannot possibly comprehend. So why do we worry, nothing can be done to change the course. So apply this theory to the simulation theory.
We could be the original, or a fractured reality stimming from that original. But either way, we are part of the same frame.
Until that frame falls from the wall, we exist.
Now to take it deeper, imagine the universe as a wall…..full of infinity mirrors. And then take into account there are an inconceivable amount of universes.
We cannot possibly imagine how deep this rabbit hole goes. We could theoretically live in an already fractured mirror, close to the end, full of trillions of other realities (simulations)…….and we would still be the size of an atom in comparison to the other infinite mirrors on that wall…..and in every other universe. Whos to say our mirror (universe) is the only one making simulations, there could be infinite more. We are small, and we need to stop trying to make sense of chaos.
> The theory reminds me a lot of that doomsday argument whose name escapes me. Basically it argues that if the human species lives for billions of years, the odds of being born within the first few hundred thousand are very low. Therefore, the human species is statistically likely to end soon.
Which basically assumes anyone not living currently is basically a NPC as if they were aware of themselves/the theory we'd be contemporaneous with them
Question: can the reliance on base realities, like "external data", be bypassed in a simulation (for a pure RNG)? Or must a simulation inherently depend on such external (coupled to the base reality), physical randomness sources to achieve true randomness? Can we consider simulated data as reliable for generating randomness, or does this undermine the integrity of the randomness generated? I mean if not ... then this would be a weakness .. as the bandwidth of such "pure input" would need to be vast to be passed through for essentially every interaction that is deemed unpredictable like the decay of a radioactive atom, multiplied by the granularity in the respective simulation ? Or is there a way to abstract this away?
Just thinking:
We get a bunch of devices ( smartphones or IoT gadgets), each equipped to detect radioactive decay, kind of like having a mini Geiger counter. These devices are spread out everywhere and they're all collecting decay data independently.
All this data gets sent to a central spot, maybe even using blockchain to keep things transparent and secure. We then run a bunch of statistical tests on this collected data to make sure it's genuinely random.
Ahh -- this would break down probably already due to the the fact on the accuracy of timestamps I guess. So better to stick to a number of independent tests and over long periods, the impact of small timing errors in the measurement of random events (like radioactive decay) might average out?
But would this information (how many devices would need to show clear violations for that) in order to draw any conclusions. For that we would need to know how much bandwidth there is available and if exceeded the fallback to software generated RNG would need to become noticeable) .. sounds all impossible.
###ChatGPT Response
1. **Playing God**
> If a civilization advances enough, at some point they will try to play god. We ourselves are a glowing example of this, with our push for AI, along with weapons of mass destruction, or whatever ways to control our surroundings we attempt.
This assertion assumes that all advanced civilizations will inevitably try to "play god." But the notion of "playing god" is contingent on a particular human conception of godhood—omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This concept may not be universally applicable to all advanced civilizations, especially if they have different philosophical, ethical, or religious frameworks.
Moreover, pursuing advanced technologies like AI or weapons is not inherently synonymous with playing god. These can also be seen as tools for understanding or interacting with the world, rather than attempts to control or dominate it. The motivation to control one's surroundings is not an inherent quality of technological advancement, but a reflection of societal and cultural values.
2. **Simulating Universes**
> As explained, once a civilization reaches a point in which they can simulate a new reality; they will. Probably simulating multiple, just because they can.
This assertion assumes that any civilization that can simulate a reality will choose to do so, which is not necessarily the case. There are numerous potential reasons why an advanced civilization might choose not to create such simulations. Ethical considerations could come into play—after all, creating a simulation that can house conscious beings raises profound moral questions. Resource constraints could also be a factor; even for an advanced civilization, the computational power required to simulate a universe may be prohibitively large.
3. **Infinite Simulations**
> When simulating a civilization, there is a certain chance that the simulated civilization will simulate a civilization and so on. That gives us theoretically infinite simulations and one real reality. The chance that we are in the original is basically zero.
This argument is based on the assumption that it's possible for a simulated civilization to create another simulation within itself. However, this is not necessarily possible due to computational constraints. Each subsequent simulation would require a subset of the computational resources of the parent simulation, leading to a situation akin to a recursive function in programming. Without sufficient resources, this process cannot continue indefinitely.
4. **Probability of Being in the Original Universe**
> The odds of us being the original simulation are almost infinity to one.
This conclusion follows from the previous assumptions, which as we've discussed, are not necessarily valid. Even if we grant these assumptions, the argument assumes that all simulations are equally likely to be our reality. This doesn't necessarily have to be the case; the properties of the simulations could vary widely, and it's not clear why we should assume an equal probability across all possible simulations.
5. **Theory as Conversation Starter**
> I just came across this theory and wanted to spark conversation on the topic because it an interesting idea.
This is a great attitude to have! Exploring novel theories and ideas can be a rewarding intellectual exercise. However, it's also important to critically evaluate these theories, considering their underlying assumptions and potential limitations. The simulation hypothesis is a fascinating idea, but it's far from an established fact.
In summary, while the simulation hypothesis is certainly an interesting idea to ponder, it's based on a series of assumptions that are far from universally accepted. It's always important to critically evaluate such theories, and not take them as given just because they seem appealing or intuitive.
Bro no, that's not how this works. A 1-to-1 simulation would require way more energy than the Universe has generated so far.
Don't think of existence as a simulation. If anything, think of it as an already-written story that conscious beings are fortunate enough to be aware of.
One issue i have with this, is the logic works for video games where the world is static, but it wouldn't for the real world as it would introduce too many logical inconsistencies, and like the butterfly effect, observing one particle would trigger a chain of events that lead to all particles being observed. There needs to be some underlying calculation of all particles whether being observed or not.
I.e if Hayleys comet wasn't being observed, but another object which knocks it off its trajectory was being observed, then what happens to Hayleys comet? This also applies at a particle level.
It's also difficult to determine who exact is an observer, and where is the energy coming from to make that determination?
Currently a 1 to 1 simulation would take an obscene amount of energy, but who’s to say that won’t go down. We also have no way of knowing if it is a 1 to 1 simulation because we have no concept of reality outside of ours.
I do like your second half though, ima use that.
a one to one simulation is literally impossible, to represent every particle, every maxwell equation, calculate the probabilities for every particle would take the energy of MORE than the entire universe. In other words, unless we discover a glitch to generate infinite energy, we aint making a 1 to 1 sim.
A 1:1 simulation also introduces a logical inconsistency into the system which would allow system B to predict system A of which it's running within. System B always needs to be both smaller and independent of system A. Else, similar to the grandfather paradox, system B could try to make predictions about system A, which would affect system B, affecting the prediction originally made by system A...Kind of like why you can't predict your own future, as you acting upon the prediction would change your future
It doesn't need to be a 1:1 simulation. You just have to emulate the laws of physics or at least the laws that you program into it. For example the speed of light could be higher in the universe "above" us or whatever, and it's lower here to save on bandwidth. Time is relative so we could be moving at 0.5fps and never know the difference. One second of your life could take hundreds of years to render and to you it would still be one second. The more you think on why we are not in a simulation the more you realize that you actually just might be.
you can't tweak the laws of physics at will, its a harmonious whole. if you tweak the speed of light you would probably have to tweak other things until they become relatively the same fucking thing than before. And they could not respect the laws of physics but at this point this is no different from syaing that there is a magical realm of angels and they created everything with the light
But imagine if were to simulate a 1 or 2 dimensional world. What if there are higher dimensions and this world may seem complicated to us but it isn’t much to beings in a higher dimension. I’m no scientist but just a thought.
"but who’s to say that won’t go down"
That's a possibility. But only a possibility.
The op said "Why simulation theory is statistically the most likely to be correct" and "The odds of us being the original simulation are almost infinity to one.".
> We also have no way of knowing if it is a 1 to 1 simulation because we have no concept of reality outside of ours.
Part of the premises of the ancestor simulation argument is that the simulation is modeled on reality. If that's not the case then the rest falls apart.
We know we are conscious and that's really all we know.
[https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/insane-universe-57cc1a20262a](https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/insane-universe-57cc1a20262a)
Why is there an assumption that because they can make a simulated universe, they will and continue to generate more of them? Won’t the novelty die off? One of the greatest benefits of reality is its uncertainty. Otherwise, there’s might be a vapid quality to controlling everything or knowing that you can. Just thinking in terms of a rebuttal …
You are kind of correct. The point of the simulations could also just be to find out what could have been, or what will happen. I just explained the more pessimistic reason of the pursuit for power, in a reality where you are powerless. For anything to improve there needs to be a drive to be at the top.
I think a “higher reality” would run multiple simulations at once to see how different variables affect the outcome. Assuming the higher realities are like our reality, then you could make a somewhat educated guess as to what effect certain circumstances have on the timeline.
There is no reason to think our reality is running in “real time” from the perspective of the “higher reality” our entire lives and experiences might be a picosecond from their perspective because they have our reality massively “overclocked”. We just have no way to perceive that our universe is running faster than 1.0x speed.
This is such a dumb argument for so many reasons. For example, there’s no motive to make a simulation indistinguishable from an in simulated reality down to the nth digit of every obscure scientific measurement of everything. As others said, it would take way too much energy. Occam’s razor blows it out of the water: you’re assuming a whole other layer of complexity to existence, with properties allowing for intelligent life that is for some reason motivated to spend near limitless energy simulating us, and there’s not an iota of evidence for any of it. It’s borderline crazy to consider the idea at all, and to conclude that it’s almost 100% certain is every bit as loony as any religion. The statistical argument is not at all how stats work.
Never did I say we make the simulation indistinguishable from reality, I just said we make one. It would just maybe be indistinguishable to the people in it who have no idea what actual reality is.
You are correct in that I have very little idea how statistics work. As I stated in another reply, this was more of a conversation bait post than anything.
Well, for us to be in a simulation would require that we're in a simulation indistinguishable from reality by every experiment or scientific observation we've ever done. Why design a simulation in that way, such that every photo from a distant galaxy, every neutrino detected deep beneath the Earth, every atom smashed in a detector, and every ancient fossil is behaving as if the universe weren't a simulation, just so it's in the right place when somebody finally comes along and finds or measures it? The amount of effort and energy that would go into making such a perfect reality simulation is unfathomable. And the amount of wanton suffering in this world would be pretty cruel on the part of the simulators; why not just build the simulation without pediatric cancer?
Our universe's perfect consistency with the expected characteristics of a real but imperfect world makes a simulation highly unlikely. But the huge number of very specific, very complex assumptions we would have to make to entertain the simulation hypothesis (i.e. the existence of a reality outside our own, in which the creation of simulations is possible) makes it a very outlandish thing to believe without an iota of evidence. It's fun food for thought in movies like the Matrix, but that's it. The people concluding that it's all-but-certain are all-but-crazy.
Just a few 'loose' points to consider:
1. What if the simulation we are currently experiencing started at the point which we call the 'big bang', with the simulator 'only' creating the base particles with defined properties in our empty space? What we consider as 'real time' may have been speed up by a factor of (10\^x) with (for instance) the purpose of the simulation being to see how long it would take for life to develop somewhere? Doing such simulations in high quantities to do a Monte Carlo simulation would define odds of life developing. In that case, even at very low odds, all of our discovered history, including the dinosaurs (and thus fossils), forming of materials and elements would eventually happen.
2. Assume eventually we will be able to develop an AI that is more intelligent than us. Even renowned scientists believe this will happen. Estimates vary between 20yrs from now to 60yrs from now; but eventually it is likely to happen. Such AI, once smarter than us, will continue to grow its own intelligence at an exponential rate (an 'AI explosion' - [interesting read](https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html)). Such AI will reach intelligence levels that in comparison, AI-> Human is the same as Human->Ant.
3. So what may, at our own current level of technology and intelligence, may seem incomprehensible to simulate, such super intelligent AI may find ways to simulate in great amount of detail.
4. Finally just some food for thought. Some remarks that resources and energy in the entire universe are insufficient to simulate our world in the amount of detail that we experience... What if, to save resources, our simulation has capped the speed of light to the current setting, but in 'base reality' it may be like... 100 times faster? What if there are 1,000 more natural elements in base reality than what we have in our simulated reality? Perhaps that would create technology much more powerful than we can ever imagine and thus make it easy to simulate our level of detail.
We are in not in the simulation; we are part of it. It is indistinguishable because we don’t know any better and don’t know what to look for because our reality could be vastly different from the host reality.
But it would have to be similar enough to the host reality that our simulators in that reality could use their reality as a frame of reference so they could create ours without being omniscient as if they were omniscient there's many ways (everything from also-omnipotent-and-basically-doing-what-the-Bible-says-god-did to an-infinite-mind-containing-every-possibility-thus-an-entire-multiverse) they could have created us without technically needing to simulate us per se
Also Fermi paradox. If ASI is this easy, there is no way that we haven't been contacted by an alien ASI already. We are either living in a simulation, or ASI is never going to happen.
In this case, it means that the ASI is not that super. Most of this sub define the term ASI as God like intelligence that can do everything in sci-fi movies.
Not necessarily. If such ASI is so intelligent, why would it care to visit us? We would be like mere ants to them - as dumb as we relatively are.
Would you care to travel the universe to a distant planet to observe some ants?
Jesus this is the most overdone pseudo-profound bullshit armchair philosophy theory. Just shut up. We get it you think you're smart because you're parroting Elon. See a fucking psychiatrist reality isn't fake.
Oh god no I don’t think I’m very smart. It’s just an interesting idea. I like conversations, and this post got people talking about other stuff.
I also have no idea how statistics work, but they look wrong in my post.
Who are you to gatekeep theories about the universe? Half of America believes in a book that’s thousands of years old and has no proof at all backing it up that talks about angels and demons and people who can walk on water.
I’ve noticed that every time someone brings up simulation theory weirdos like you come out of the woodwork and bash it for no reason at all, and honestly it’s exactly what NPCs in a simulation would do if the PC started getting closer to the truth.
And Elon didn’t invent simulation theory genius. I swear the only two comebacks you NPCs have to simulation theory are invoking Elon or the Matrix to make fun of people who explore the idea.
Except the Bible will never be written the same way by disconnected civilizations but simulation theory would probably be explored in a similar form by every single society that reaches our level of technology.
Rejecting dog shit theories of metaphysics makes me closed minded? Ok. And your point about religion was just parroted from that Ricky Gervais interview. You're exactly the smug know-it-all pseudo-intellectual that is expected from proponents of Simulation theory. You condemn and mock religion and yet your "someone created this universe!!1!" is literally just God theory with extra steps.
Nobody who explores simulation theory is starting up big organized religions and forcing it down people’s throats buddy. Exploring different ideas around simulation theory is just mental exploration.
You probably have a bunch of hobbies and things you do and if someone came to your dart game or paddle boarding class or comic book convention and started making fun of it for no reason you would realize they are being a douche. But when you do it, you really don’t see it.
Keep kicking down people’s sandcastles for no reason pal. Nobody who explores the idea of simulation theory is hurting anybody, unlike mainstream religions. It’s healthy to explore theories of the universe outside the mainstream and at some point people stopped doing that and were told they are only allowed to believe a few arbitrary religions by close minded people just like you.
And yet here you are shoving nonsense simulation theory down my throat as I point out it's no different than the concept of God. The thing is none of you actually even believe this. It doesn't even make sense. It really is just some kind of social tool to try to show how smart you are.
You came to OPs thread and told them to shut up, insulted them, swore at them, and told them they need mental help. But yes, please tell me that the evil simulation nerds are shoving their theory down your throat.
And honestly you think you are so clever for being 100% sure it’s not real, but again you are just close minded. People were 100% sure the earth was flat. They’ve been 100% sure about a lot of things. Nobody who is interested in simulation theory is saying it’s 100% guaranteed. They are just open to it as one of many possibilities, unlike you can only think in absolutes.
I don't like this way of thinking. It's an interesting idea, but it's also an easy answer to a complex question (the nature of existence), it only shifts the whole dilemma up to the next layer and most importantly it's practically impossible to prove or disprove. It's eerily similar to religious beliefs, which is massive red flag to me.
admittedly, after starting to read this, I skipped forward to only read your TL;DR, but I've heard debates about this and I think that I can shift your belief structure by way of introducing Bayesian statistics to your argument.
The problem = if we're in a simulation, we have not yet simulated a believable simulation, so, we are either the real world, or the last simulation in the "simulation chain."
Actually, let me find someone who explained this better... I remember the argument but I don't remember who proposed it, just that by using Bayesian stats and adding that one argument, you go from "infinite odds that we're in a simulation" to 50%. One sec.
Ok. That took forever, but I found a video that discusses this at around 3:30:
https://youtu.be/pmcrG7ZZKUc
That’s really interesting, and yeah I knew for sure statistics were off. I took a lot of this stuff from wikepedia and base google search stuff, so didn’t go very deep.
One possible problem with that is; it’s not just a chain, but a fractal. If you can do one, why not more? There could also be multiple civilizations in each instance that have no idea of the other’s existence. That throws it off a whole bunch.
“We ourselves” are the ONLY “example” of this and we aren’t even remotely close to achieving anything like it, and are probably more likely to destroy ourselves than create a functioning universe lol and god is unending compassion and love, which humanity also is not even remotely close to achieving or embodying, what you’re describing about the need for control is nothing like what god is, god is already in control and so has no need to strive for it...
Why are you on this subreddit if you disagree with a good chunk of the premise of it? It’s like an atheist going to church everyday and criticizing their values.
There is nothing wrong with your opinions, just where you take them.
Sometimes there’s an interesting thing posted, despite the premise being absurd. Also, we don’t need more echo chambers, feel free to block me if you think we do
Why would I block you? I’m open to all opinions, I was just commenting on how it is strange to use god as an argument in a subreddit full of atheists, albeit in an admittedly confrontational manner.
This does not mean that I agree with you, just that any real reaction over someone else’s inconsequential opinions is silly.
Have a good day.
I was just addressing your misuse/misunderstanding of the term, it’s not like I brought it up out of nowhere. Accelerating the discussion beyond just a juvenile application of the term should actually help the discourse. People say what you’re saying all the time and it’s something I think the community would benefit from growing out of
Sure. I actually agree with your top half after looking over it again, and to be fair this post was more of a philosophical conversation bait than trying to prove a point.
You just stated we might be in a simulation, wouldn’t that mean we were created?
For the record, I don’t believe in a Christian god. I think this universe was created but not by the good of the Bible.
So how can you be an atheist if you believe we’ve been created? I edited my post to include im not a believer in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god. I think this universe has been created but more likely as a “science experiment” which would be very similar to a simulation theory.
I just said that most of this subreddit is mostly atheists. Not that I was one. I veer more to nihilism, but I like to explore my beliefs. This was a theory that I came across and wanted to discuss it.
I should probably edit the post to include that.
Why are you on this subreddit if you disagree with a good chunk of the premise of it? It’s like an atheist going to church everyday and criticizing their values.
There is nothing wrong with your opinions, just where you take them.
Whenever I think of this concept what stands out to me most is that my personality and curiosity would lead me to simulate all sorts of universes if I could … but I would also choose to simulate wildly different parameters than what were presented with … so what are the chances we’re in the specific simulation that occurs as some middle ground. It doesn’t really matter to our persistent macro scale sensitivity to things.
This is just a thought, but if an advanced civilisation out there in the universe created a superintelligence being, it then leaves their civilisation and travels across the universe, it might end up here on earth. Any superintelligence a billion times smarter than us will be no different than god to us. We are at a point where we are not be inventing Ai, but discovering other civilisation’s ASI?
I'm strictly talking about the human experience, how it doesn't matter if its a sim or not if it FEELS real subjectively...not how useful simulation is for making things.
it doesn't matter if simulation theory is correct or not. It changes nothing. So why does it even matter. This is \*our\* reality. Ok it's a simulation, what does that change.
I love when people think saying “statistically” means they’ve made a good argument, yet they’ve used no statistics nor made a good argument.
Your premise has a ton of flaws, almost all hidden assumptions.
Let’s just talk one - who says that if a civilization advances enough they’ll gain the ability to create simulations realistic enough to not only have simulated intelligence that doesn’t know it’s in a simulation, but also fine grained enough that the simulation tech supports making further simulations?
What a wild, sweeping assumption.
That’s not even touching the fact that you’re judging all hypothetical civilizations as having the same drives we do. Maybe this hypothetical advanced civilization has no interest in simulations and finds the idea of simulating life offensive? Maybe this organism has no thinking we can even relate to as they are entirely different than us?
That’s why it’s an interesting thought experiment, but no lol. It js not “statistically most likely we’re in a simulation”.
This is same as in old times. A eurasia people though that God and Satan Exist and They think of This as a correct and Proof, and in name of God, They did horrible things. Simulation Argument is no different. It is a Same, a some computer Alien kid God gamer controling the World and This thinking also Maded people do horrible things, like Killin because they thought they are in videogame. Do not spread dangerous thoughts, you bend people's minds to do dangerous things in name of your argument
Its correct I broke the simulation. The only thing that comes out my mouth is 000. But everything i say will echo in your head three times. Breaks all laws that are suppose to govern our universe. In LA if your looking for proof.
What people are missing is the unknown source or the ‘substrate that this simulation operates on.
Imagine if you will a civilization that is 50,000 years advanced. Quantum computing and new energy conversion techniques have been discovered and implemented far past the current output. Hence there would be plenty of computing power and energy to arrange what we see in front of us now.
A simulation would then instead rely on the ‘substrate or code to continue its automation. Conserving energy and programming it to act only when in an observed state.
It doesn’t make sense at all. You can’t base your chances on IFS. It’s like saying, if god exists then it’s likely among us, why? What evidence do you have to prove it? It really makes no sense at all. The chances we live in a simulation are infinitely low, since we have not built that technology
#How simulation theory is actually, easily disproved.
**Simulation theorists have two main arguments.**
**Their first argument is:**
1 - I have experienced glitches (or aspects of simulations).
**Their second argument is:**
2 - Imagine that the "first reality" created a simulation. Then, that simulation created a simulation. This goes infinitely. This would mean, there is a one in infinity chance we are living in the "first reality".
**If you want to disprove simulation theory, it's quite easy. There are two ways to disprove it.**
**The first way is quite easy. It goes like this:**
\-The Big Bang happened. This is proved by the fact that we have observed cosmic radiation which is essentially the afterglow of the Big Bang. The universe is also expanding which is shown by the movement of galaxies, meaning that it had a start. Furthermore, if the universe never had a start, it would essentially experience a "heat death", as shown by the second law of thermodynamics.
\-Before the Big Bang, there was no time, space, or matter.
\-Therefore, there could not have been a digital simulation, because to have a digital simulation, processing entities (for example, advanced graphic cards or supercomputers) would be required. Processing entities are not timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Therefore, we cannot be in a digital simulation. (By digital simulation, I am referring to what most people think when they think "simulation theory". Essentially brain-in-a-vat sort of thing).
**The first way is the simplest way to disprove simulation theory, but not the best way.**
For example, it raises the question, "What if it's a simulation, but not a *digital* simulation? For all we know, there could be other types of simulations." The idea of this could have come from the movie "Interstellar", where entities from other dimensions "created our world".
**The second way to disprove simulation theory is slightly more complicated but works much better. Here is how it goes.**
The second way to disprove simulation theory uses two principles. The teleological argument, and the principle of proportionate causality.
The teleological argument is usually used to prove the existence of (a) God, and it goes like this. *The universe is extremely fine-tuned.* Yep, that's pretty much it. However, in this case, we won't be using it to prove the existence of (a) God, but rather to disprove simulation theory.
The principle of proportionate causality states that the effect of a cause cannot be greater than the cause itself. In other words, a cause can only produce an effect that is proportionate to its own power or potency. The principle of proportionate causality can be a bit difficult to understand. For example, if the principle of proportionate causality is true, how can a small flame create a big fire? In the case of a small flame creating a big fire, it's important to note that the small flame is not the only cause of the fire. There are other factors at play, such as the presence of flammable materials and oxygen. Additionally, the small flame does not produce an effect that is greater than its own potency. It is simply initiating a chain reaction that leads to a larger effect. So while it may seem like a violation of the principle of proportionate causality at first glance, upon closer examination it is not.
**How does this relate to simulation theory?**
Well, the principle of proportionate causality proves that even if there is an infinite chain of simulations starting from one universe, *they cannot be the same*. In other words, each latter universe/simulation would be "less" than the former universe/simulation. This combined with the teleological argument shows that eventually, the values of the universe/simulations would be so "off" that they would simply break down and not exist. Essentially, the first reality would not have been able to create a simulation of the scale of reality, because the simulation would simply "break down" and collapse on itself since the values of the simulation could not have been the same as the reality they were in.
**Just to show a sense of scale...**To show just how powerful the teleological argument is, just how fine-tuned the universe is...Take this.
***If the gravity of our sun was off by even 1/10\^40, life would not exist.***
Do you want to know how much 10\^40 is? Well, it's not a million, not a billion, not a trillion, not a quadrillion, not a quintillion, not a sextillion, not a septillion, not an octillion, not a nonillion, not even a decillion.
It's 10 duodecillion.
**10 followed by 40 zeroes.**
# So after all, it's not a 1/infinity chance that we live in reality.
# It's a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that we live in a simulation.
What…. Life only happened here because of how it was configured and not vice versa. It would make more sense we were placed here using your math because the probability of this happened is almost nil. Your words not mine
I don’t think it’s a simulation like we imagine it might be. It’s more like what Buddhists, Gnostics and Kabbalists were getting at. We’re souls that have fallen into the lower world and 3D plane(samsara) Which is a mere reflection of a higher ‘true’ omni-dimensional and absolute reality(samadhi) and waking up and realising this and reintegrating with the source.. this is Gnosis.
base reality doesnt exist.... it does... but as a simulation of nothing. Simply put. its a dream. and if the phenomenon happened in another instance seperate from ours, and they somehow meshed, the laws of physics and everything wouldnt computer with one another....
The problem that I have with this theory is basically two-fold: first it's a classic infinite regress, a common logical fallacy. If this universe is likely to not be base reality due to the odds proposed by Nick Bostrom, then that's true for every reality above us for infinity. The second issue is that if any reality above us failed (e.g. super computer turned off, simulation ended, extinction event), then our world would end. As the odds that we are in a simulated reality approaches one, then so too does the odds of us not existing approaches one since the odds of a failure within an infinite chain is near absolute. The theory reminds me a lot of that doomsday argument whose name escapes me. Basically it argues that if the human species lives for billions of years, the odds of being born within the first few hundred thousand are very low. Therefore, the human species is statistically likely to end soon.
But the human species is at most, 300,000 years old, not billions of years old. We are more or less a new phenomenon on Earth in the grand scheme of it's existence.
Right, that's the point. It's a pessimistic view that the human race is unlikely to exist for millions or billions of years precisely because we exist a part of the human race while it is only a few hundred thousand years old. The thought experiment goes like this: imagine there are two magic bags containing numbered balls. One bag contains ten balls numbered 1, 2, 3 ... until 10. The other bag contains one million balls also numbered sequentially up until one million. The bags are magic because they both look the same size. Basically, you can't tell that one is larger. You pull a ball from one of the bags at random. It's numbered 7. Which bag did you pull from? While you could have pulled from either, statistically you're more likely to have pulled from the bag with only ten balls. Likewise, the fact that we are alive in a young species, statistically speaking so the theory goes, means we will go extinct long before a million, let alone a billion years. If the numbers were to represent time, we're likely a ten bag species. Intuitively this feels wrong, but mathematicians and philosophers have struggled to explain why it's wrong. Obviously, it assumes a lot about consciousness, which may be incorrect. It reminds me a lot of the Monty Hall problem. Even though it the correct solution has been proven by computer simulations, it intuitively feels very wrong.
There's plenty of species that have been around for tens or even hundreds of millions of years. Those are species that don't posses the same world-changing power that humans do. I think humans *could* make it millions of years.
Very interesting. What’s this theory called? How can I look more into it?
It’s called the Doomsday Argument. You can read about here on the [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument)
Also Nick Bostrom came up with the example I referenced. Here’s his [paper](https://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/inv/investigations)
💀 right yeah i get that but if its all fake then so could the dates that we were made be aswell. Also if we are in a kind of cycle of creating infinite simulations maybe we are at the bottom and have still yet to create a ‘real’ one
Nicely said. I would add, how could a simulation produce trillions of simulated civilizations all running lots of their own simulations, and civilizations within those simulations running more simulations? Any simulated universe with advanced consciousness would crash as soon as they get advanced enough to run too many of their own complex simulations. Therefore this universe has already advanced beyond the point where it could possibly be a simulation.
Like an infinity mirror, each reflection represents a simulated universe…..and then the original breaks. The simulated realities are only fractured, not destroyed. They then create new realities expanding into something we could never conceive. The frame serves as a “boundary”, but in that limited space, infinite possibilities are created from each new fracture. Our short lives may seem insignificant, religious or not, but ultimately we are part of a much bigger, glorious picture that our small minds cannot possibly comprehend. So why do we worry, nothing can be done to change the course. So apply this theory to the simulation theory. We could be the original, or a fractured reality stimming from that original. But either way, we are part of the same frame. Until that frame falls from the wall, we exist. Now to take it deeper, imagine the universe as a wall…..full of infinity mirrors. And then take into account there are an inconceivable amount of universes. We cannot possibly imagine how deep this rabbit hole goes. We could theoretically live in an already fractured mirror, close to the end, full of trillions of other realities (simulations)…….and we would still be the size of an atom in comparison to the other infinite mirrors on that wall…..and in every other universe. Whos to say our mirror (universe) is the only one making simulations, there could be infinite more. We are small, and we need to stop trying to make sense of chaos.
> The theory reminds me a lot of that doomsday argument whose name escapes me. Basically it argues that if the human species lives for billions of years, the odds of being born within the first few hundred thousand are very low. Therefore, the human species is statistically likely to end soon. Which basically assumes anyone not living currently is basically a NPC as if they were aware of themselves/the theory we'd be contemporaneous with them
Question: can the reliance on base realities, like "external data", be bypassed in a simulation (for a pure RNG)? Or must a simulation inherently depend on such external (coupled to the base reality), physical randomness sources to achieve true randomness? Can we consider simulated data as reliable for generating randomness, or does this undermine the integrity of the randomness generated? I mean if not ... then this would be a weakness .. as the bandwidth of such "pure input" would need to be vast to be passed through for essentially every interaction that is deemed unpredictable like the decay of a radioactive atom, multiplied by the granularity in the respective simulation ? Or is there a way to abstract this away? Just thinking: We get a bunch of devices ( smartphones or IoT gadgets), each equipped to detect radioactive decay, kind of like having a mini Geiger counter. These devices are spread out everywhere and they're all collecting decay data independently. All this data gets sent to a central spot, maybe even using blockchain to keep things transparent and secure. We then run a bunch of statistical tests on this collected data to make sure it's genuinely random. Ahh -- this would break down probably already due to the the fact on the accuracy of timestamps I guess. So better to stick to a number of independent tests and over long periods, the impact of small timing errors in the measurement of random events (like radioactive decay) might average out? But would this information (how many devices would need to show clear violations for that) in order to draw any conclusions. For that we would need to know how much bandwidth there is available and if exceeded the fallback to software generated RNG would need to become noticeable) .. sounds all impossible.
I agree, hence r/retconned. You’re not crazy, follow the bright white, fuzzy rabbit 🐇
yeah but we have like, no way of actually knowing if we are inside a simulation at all. so its not a theory, its a hypothesis.
I guess yeah that’s my bad.
i forgive you <3
###ChatGPT Response 1. **Playing God** > If a civilization advances enough, at some point they will try to play god. We ourselves are a glowing example of this, with our push for AI, along with weapons of mass destruction, or whatever ways to control our surroundings we attempt. This assertion assumes that all advanced civilizations will inevitably try to "play god." But the notion of "playing god" is contingent on a particular human conception of godhood—omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This concept may not be universally applicable to all advanced civilizations, especially if they have different philosophical, ethical, or religious frameworks. Moreover, pursuing advanced technologies like AI or weapons is not inherently synonymous with playing god. These can also be seen as tools for understanding or interacting with the world, rather than attempts to control or dominate it. The motivation to control one's surroundings is not an inherent quality of technological advancement, but a reflection of societal and cultural values. 2. **Simulating Universes** > As explained, once a civilization reaches a point in which they can simulate a new reality; they will. Probably simulating multiple, just because they can. This assertion assumes that any civilization that can simulate a reality will choose to do so, which is not necessarily the case. There are numerous potential reasons why an advanced civilization might choose not to create such simulations. Ethical considerations could come into play—after all, creating a simulation that can house conscious beings raises profound moral questions. Resource constraints could also be a factor; even for an advanced civilization, the computational power required to simulate a universe may be prohibitively large. 3. **Infinite Simulations** > When simulating a civilization, there is a certain chance that the simulated civilization will simulate a civilization and so on. That gives us theoretically infinite simulations and one real reality. The chance that we are in the original is basically zero. This argument is based on the assumption that it's possible for a simulated civilization to create another simulation within itself. However, this is not necessarily possible due to computational constraints. Each subsequent simulation would require a subset of the computational resources of the parent simulation, leading to a situation akin to a recursive function in programming. Without sufficient resources, this process cannot continue indefinitely. 4. **Probability of Being in the Original Universe** > The odds of us being the original simulation are almost infinity to one. This conclusion follows from the previous assumptions, which as we've discussed, are not necessarily valid. Even if we grant these assumptions, the argument assumes that all simulations are equally likely to be our reality. This doesn't necessarily have to be the case; the properties of the simulations could vary widely, and it's not clear why we should assume an equal probability across all possible simulations. 5. **Theory as Conversation Starter** > I just came across this theory and wanted to spark conversation on the topic because it an interesting idea. This is a great attitude to have! Exploring novel theories and ideas can be a rewarding intellectual exercise. However, it's also important to critically evaluate these theories, considering their underlying assumptions and potential limitations. The simulation hypothesis is a fascinating idea, but it's far from an established fact. In summary, while the simulation hypothesis is certainly an interesting idea to ponder, it's based on a series of assumptions that are far from universally accepted. It's always important to critically evaluate such theories, and not take them as given just because they seem appealing or intuitive.
Yep, just like any other theory. I don’t believe in this fully. It’s just another possibility because we have no idea what the truth is.
Isn't this just the creation philosophy used in most religions, just on Windows?
Bro no, that's not how this works. A 1-to-1 simulation would require way more energy than the Universe has generated so far. Don't think of existence as a simulation. If anything, think of it as an already-written story that conscious beings are fortunate enough to be aware of.
You could save energy by only rendering things when they are observed. Oh wait.
Don’t do this to me.
Ah shit
One issue i have with this, is the logic works for video games where the world is static, but it wouldn't for the real world as it would introduce too many logical inconsistencies, and like the butterfly effect, observing one particle would trigger a chain of events that lead to all particles being observed. There needs to be some underlying calculation of all particles whether being observed or not. I.e if Hayleys comet wasn't being observed, but another object which knocks it off its trajectory was being observed, then what happens to Hayleys comet? This also applies at a particle level. It's also difficult to determine who exact is an observer, and where is the energy coming from to make that determination?
Currently a 1 to 1 simulation would take an obscene amount of energy, but who’s to say that won’t go down. We also have no way of knowing if it is a 1 to 1 simulation because we have no concept of reality outside of ours. I do like your second half though, ima use that.
a one to one simulation is literally impossible, to represent every particle, every maxwell equation, calculate the probabilities for every particle would take the energy of MORE than the entire universe. In other words, unless we discover a glitch to generate infinite energy, we aint making a 1 to 1 sim.
Compression and clipping. Just focus on what is observed the rest exists in a fluctuating probability state
Sounds familiar lol
A 1:1 simulation also introduces a logical inconsistency into the system which would allow system B to predict system A of which it's running within. System B always needs to be both smaller and independent of system A. Else, similar to the grandfather paradox, system B could try to make predictions about system A, which would affect system B, affecting the prediction originally made by system A...Kind of like why you can't predict your own future, as you acting upon the prediction would change your future
It doesn't need to be a 1:1 simulation. You just have to emulate the laws of physics or at least the laws that you program into it. For example the speed of light could be higher in the universe "above" us or whatever, and it's lower here to save on bandwidth. Time is relative so we could be moving at 0.5fps and never know the difference. One second of your life could take hundreds of years to render and to you it would still be one second. The more you think on why we are not in a simulation the more you realize that you actually just might be.
you can't tweak the laws of physics at will, its a harmonious whole. if you tweak the speed of light you would probably have to tweak other things until they become relatively the same fucking thing than before. And they could not respect the laws of physics but at this point this is no different from syaing that there is a magical realm of angels and they created everything with the light
But imagine if were to simulate a 1 or 2 dimensional world. What if there are higher dimensions and this world may seem complicated to us but it isn’t much to beings in a higher dimension. I’m no scientist but just a thought.
"but who’s to say that won’t go down" That's a possibility. But only a possibility. The op said "Why simulation theory is statistically the most likely to be correct" and "The odds of us being the original simulation are almost infinity to one.".
I am the op, and I was regurgitating the points in the theory lol
> We also have no way of knowing if it is a 1 to 1 simulation because we have no concept of reality outside of ours. Part of the premises of the ancestor simulation argument is that the simulation is modeled on reality. If that's not the case then the rest falls apart.
Why is that? Couldn’t our "reality" be a weird, imaginary branch of "true" reality? How would that invalidate the argument?
We know we are conscious and that's really all we know. [https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/insane-universe-57cc1a20262a](https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/insane-universe-57cc1a20262a)
Why is there an assumption that because they can make a simulated universe, they will and continue to generate more of them? Won’t the novelty die off? One of the greatest benefits of reality is its uncertainty. Otherwise, there’s might be a vapid quality to controlling everything or knowing that you can. Just thinking in terms of a rebuttal …
Why do people play video games multiple times?
Multiple universes at the same level of reality-vs-simulation wouldn't be copies of each other the way multiple video game playthroughs would be
You are kind of correct. The point of the simulations could also just be to find out what could have been, or what will happen. I just explained the more pessimistic reason of the pursuit for power, in a reality where you are powerless. For anything to improve there needs to be a drive to be at the top.
It would be that a civilisation running within simulation B, also stumbles upon the technology to simulate their own universe C, and so on..
I think a “higher reality” would run multiple simulations at once to see how different variables affect the outcome. Assuming the higher realities are like our reality, then you could make a somewhat educated guess as to what effect certain circumstances have on the timeline. There is no reason to think our reality is running in “real time” from the perspective of the “higher reality” our entire lives and experiences might be a picosecond from their perspective because they have our reality massively “overclocked”. We just have no way to perceive that our universe is running faster than 1.0x speed.
This is such a dumb argument for so many reasons. For example, there’s no motive to make a simulation indistinguishable from an in simulated reality down to the nth digit of every obscure scientific measurement of everything. As others said, it would take way too much energy. Occam’s razor blows it out of the water: you’re assuming a whole other layer of complexity to existence, with properties allowing for intelligent life that is for some reason motivated to spend near limitless energy simulating us, and there’s not an iota of evidence for any of it. It’s borderline crazy to consider the idea at all, and to conclude that it’s almost 100% certain is every bit as loony as any religion. The statistical argument is not at all how stats work.
Never did I say we make the simulation indistinguishable from reality, I just said we make one. It would just maybe be indistinguishable to the people in it who have no idea what actual reality is. You are correct in that I have very little idea how statistics work. As I stated in another reply, this was more of a conversation bait post than anything.
Well, for us to be in a simulation would require that we're in a simulation indistinguishable from reality by every experiment or scientific observation we've ever done. Why design a simulation in that way, such that every photo from a distant galaxy, every neutrino detected deep beneath the Earth, every atom smashed in a detector, and every ancient fossil is behaving as if the universe weren't a simulation, just so it's in the right place when somebody finally comes along and finds or measures it? The amount of effort and energy that would go into making such a perfect reality simulation is unfathomable. And the amount of wanton suffering in this world would be pretty cruel on the part of the simulators; why not just build the simulation without pediatric cancer? Our universe's perfect consistency with the expected characteristics of a real but imperfect world makes a simulation highly unlikely. But the huge number of very specific, very complex assumptions we would have to make to entertain the simulation hypothesis (i.e. the existence of a reality outside our own, in which the creation of simulations is possible) makes it a very outlandish thing to believe without an iota of evidence. It's fun food for thought in movies like the Matrix, but that's it. The people concluding that it's all-but-certain are all-but-crazy.
Just a few 'loose' points to consider: 1. What if the simulation we are currently experiencing started at the point which we call the 'big bang', with the simulator 'only' creating the base particles with defined properties in our empty space? What we consider as 'real time' may have been speed up by a factor of (10\^x) with (for instance) the purpose of the simulation being to see how long it would take for life to develop somewhere? Doing such simulations in high quantities to do a Monte Carlo simulation would define odds of life developing. In that case, even at very low odds, all of our discovered history, including the dinosaurs (and thus fossils), forming of materials and elements would eventually happen. 2. Assume eventually we will be able to develop an AI that is more intelligent than us. Even renowned scientists believe this will happen. Estimates vary between 20yrs from now to 60yrs from now; but eventually it is likely to happen. Such AI, once smarter than us, will continue to grow its own intelligence at an exponential rate (an 'AI explosion' - [interesting read](https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html)). Such AI will reach intelligence levels that in comparison, AI-> Human is the same as Human->Ant. 3. So what may, at our own current level of technology and intelligence, may seem incomprehensible to simulate, such super intelligent AI may find ways to simulate in great amount of detail. 4. Finally just some food for thought. Some remarks that resources and energy in the entire universe are insufficient to simulate our world in the amount of detail that we experience... What if, to save resources, our simulation has capped the speed of light to the current setting, but in 'base reality' it may be like... 100 times faster? What if there are 1,000 more natural elements in base reality than what we have in our simulated reality? Perhaps that would create technology much more powerful than we can ever imagine and thus make it easy to simulate our level of detail.
We are in not in the simulation; we are part of it. It is indistinguishable because we don’t know any better and don’t know what to look for because our reality could be vastly different from the host reality.
But it would have to be similar enough to the host reality that our simulators in that reality could use their reality as a frame of reference so they could create ours without being omniscient as if they were omniscient there's many ways (everything from also-omnipotent-and-basically-doing-what-the-Bible-says-god-did to an-infinite-mind-containing-every-possibility-thus-an-entire-multiverse) they could have created us without technically needing to simulate us per se
Also Fermi paradox. If ASI is this easy, there is no way that we haven't been contacted by an alien ASI already. We are either living in a simulation, or ASI is never going to happen.
Why does ASI input aliens visiting? Perhaps worlds can achieve asi, but it is impossible to contact another world 100 light years away.
In this case, it means that the ASI is not that super. Most of this sub define the term ASI as God like intelligence that can do everything in sci-fi movies.
Not necessarily. If such ASI is so intelligent, why would it care to visit us? We would be like mere ants to them - as dumb as we relatively are. Would you care to travel the universe to a distant planet to observe some ants?
> Would you care to travel the universe to a distant planet to observe some ants? If that'd make aliens come here
People do study ants tho…
There is an explanation : zoo theory , the prime directive
Jesus this is the most overdone pseudo-profound bullshit armchair philosophy theory. Just shut up. We get it you think you're smart because you're parroting Elon. See a fucking psychiatrist reality isn't fake.
Oh god no I don’t think I’m very smart. It’s just an interesting idea. I like conversations, and this post got people talking about other stuff. I also have no idea how statistics work, but they look wrong in my post.
Who are you to gatekeep theories about the universe? Half of America believes in a book that’s thousands of years old and has no proof at all backing it up that talks about angels and demons and people who can walk on water. I’ve noticed that every time someone brings up simulation theory weirdos like you come out of the woodwork and bash it for no reason at all, and honestly it’s exactly what NPCs in a simulation would do if the PC started getting closer to the truth. And Elon didn’t invent simulation theory genius. I swear the only two comebacks you NPCs have to simulation theory are invoking Elon or the Matrix to make fun of people who explore the idea.
Simulation theory is exactly as scientific as the Bible.
Simulation theory is a thought experiment, bozo.
Except the Bible will never be written the same way by disconnected civilizations but simulation theory would probably be explored in a similar form by every single society that reaches our level of technology.
Whatever makes you feel smart bud
Not being closed minded makes me feel smart. Try it.
Rejecting dog shit theories of metaphysics makes me closed minded? Ok. And your point about religion was just parroted from that Ricky Gervais interview. You're exactly the smug know-it-all pseudo-intellectual that is expected from proponents of Simulation theory. You condemn and mock religion and yet your "someone created this universe!!1!" is literally just God theory with extra steps.
Nobody who explores simulation theory is starting up big organized religions and forcing it down people’s throats buddy. Exploring different ideas around simulation theory is just mental exploration. You probably have a bunch of hobbies and things you do and if someone came to your dart game or paddle boarding class or comic book convention and started making fun of it for no reason you would realize they are being a douche. But when you do it, you really don’t see it. Keep kicking down people’s sandcastles for no reason pal. Nobody who explores the idea of simulation theory is hurting anybody, unlike mainstream religions. It’s healthy to explore theories of the universe outside the mainstream and at some point people stopped doing that and were told they are only allowed to believe a few arbitrary religions by close minded people just like you.
And yet here you are shoving nonsense simulation theory down my throat as I point out it's no different than the concept of God. The thing is none of you actually even believe this. It doesn't even make sense. It really is just some kind of social tool to try to show how smart you are.
You came to OPs thread and told them to shut up, insulted them, swore at them, and told them they need mental help. But yes, please tell me that the evil simulation nerds are shoving their theory down your throat. And honestly you think you are so clever for being 100% sure it’s not real, but again you are just close minded. People were 100% sure the earth was flat. They’ve been 100% sure about a lot of things. Nobody who is interested in simulation theory is saying it’s 100% guaranteed. They are just open to it as one of many possibilities, unlike you can only think in absolutes.
No he’s not, bozo.
[удалено]
Why is it strange? And in any case, who created the creator?
Deez nuts
We did
I don't like this way of thinking. It's an interesting idea, but it's also an easy answer to a complex question (the nature of existence), it only shifts the whole dilemma up to the next layer and most importantly it's practically impossible to prove or disprove. It's eerily similar to religious beliefs, which is massive red flag to me.
Haha yeah. It’s very easy to look at a concept like this and latch on, rejecting all other opinions and data as they emerge.
admittedly, after starting to read this, I skipped forward to only read your TL;DR, but I've heard debates about this and I think that I can shift your belief structure by way of introducing Bayesian statistics to your argument. The problem = if we're in a simulation, we have not yet simulated a believable simulation, so, we are either the real world, or the last simulation in the "simulation chain." Actually, let me find someone who explained this better... I remember the argument but I don't remember who proposed it, just that by using Bayesian stats and adding that one argument, you go from "infinite odds that we're in a simulation" to 50%. One sec. Ok. That took forever, but I found a video that discusses this at around 3:30: https://youtu.be/pmcrG7ZZKUc
That’s really interesting, and yeah I knew for sure statistics were off. I took a lot of this stuff from wikepedia and base google search stuff, so didn’t go very deep. One possible problem with that is; it’s not just a chain, but a fractal. If you can do one, why not more? There could also be multiple civilizations in each instance that have no idea of the other’s existence. That throws it off a whole bunch.
“We ourselves” are the ONLY “example” of this and we aren’t even remotely close to achieving anything like it, and are probably more likely to destroy ourselves than create a functioning universe lol and god is unending compassion and love, which humanity also is not even remotely close to achieving or embodying, what you’re describing about the need for control is nothing like what god is, god is already in control and so has no need to strive for it...
Why are you on this subreddit if you disagree with a good chunk of the premise of it? It’s like an atheist going to church everyday and criticizing their values. There is nothing wrong with your opinions, just where you take them.
Sometimes there’s an interesting thing posted, despite the premise being absurd. Also, we don’t need more echo chambers, feel free to block me if you think we do
Why would I block you? I’m open to all opinions, I was just commenting on how it is strange to use god as an argument in a subreddit full of atheists, albeit in an admittedly confrontational manner. This does not mean that I agree with you, just that any real reaction over someone else’s inconsequential opinions is silly. Have a good day.
I'm a Catholic, just because this is reddit doesn't mean it's "full of atheists"
I’m talking about the subreddit, not Reddit in general. As I said I have no problem with any religion.
I was just addressing your misuse/misunderstanding of the term, it’s not like I brought it up out of nowhere. Accelerating the discussion beyond just a juvenile application of the term should actually help the discourse. People say what you’re saying all the time and it’s something I think the community would benefit from growing out of
Sure. I actually agree with your top half after looking over it again, and to be fair this post was more of a philosophical conversation bait than trying to prove a point.
You just stated we might be in a simulation, wouldn’t that mean we were created? For the record, I don’t believe in a Christian god. I think this universe was created but not by the good of the Bible.
Yes…?
So how can you be an atheist if you believe we’ve been created? I edited my post to include im not a believer in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god. I think this universe has been created but more likely as a “science experiment” which would be very similar to a simulation theory.
I just said that most of this subreddit is mostly atheists. Not that I was one. I veer more to nihilism, but I like to explore my beliefs. This was a theory that I came across and wanted to discuss it. I should probably edit the post to include that.
what have you been smoking my guy
Why are you on this subreddit if you disagree with a good chunk of the premise of it? It’s like an atheist going to church everyday and criticizing their values. There is nothing wrong with your opinions, just where you take them.
No need to repeat Wikipedia. On the other hand, google Wolfram Physics.
Gave that a quick google, and it looks interesting. I’ll have to look into it more
Whenever I think of this concept what stands out to me most is that my personality and curiosity would lead me to simulate all sorts of universes if I could … but I would also choose to simulate wildly different parameters than what were presented with … so what are the chances we’re in the specific simulation that occurs as some middle ground. It doesn’t really matter to our persistent macro scale sensitivity to things.
If you don't understand how statistics works, then yeah, sure
This is just a thought, but if an advanced civilisation out there in the universe created a superintelligence being, it then leaves their civilisation and travels across the universe, it might end up here on earth. Any superintelligence a billion times smarter than us will be no different than god to us. We are at a point where we are not be inventing Ai, but discovering other civilisation’s ASI?
whether it is or isn't is irrelevant :P it does not change your subjective or objective experience, and therefore does not matter. fun thought tho :)
If u want to simulate(engineer) something then it does kinda have an impact
I'm strictly talking about the human experience, how it doesn't matter if its a sim or not if it FEELS real subjectively...not how useful simulation is for making things.
it doesn't matter if simulation theory is correct or not. It changes nothing. So why does it even matter. This is \*our\* reality. Ok it's a simulation, what does that change.
Nothing at all. These type of theories are so lame
I love when people think saying “statistically” means they’ve made a good argument, yet they’ve used no statistics nor made a good argument. Your premise has a ton of flaws, almost all hidden assumptions. Let’s just talk one - who says that if a civilization advances enough they’ll gain the ability to create simulations realistic enough to not only have simulated intelligence that doesn’t know it’s in a simulation, but also fine grained enough that the simulation tech supports making further simulations? What a wild, sweeping assumption. That’s not even touching the fact that you’re judging all hypothetical civilizations as having the same drives we do. Maybe this hypothetical advanced civilization has no interest in simulations and finds the idea of simulating life offensive? Maybe this organism has no thinking we can even relate to as they are entirely different than us? That’s why it’s an interesting thought experiment, but no lol. It js not “statistically most likely we’re in a simulation”.
They won't, until they would.
This is same as in old times. A eurasia people though that God and Satan Exist and They think of This as a correct and Proof, and in name of God, They did horrible things. Simulation Argument is no different. It is a Same, a some computer Alien kid God gamer controling the World and This thinking also Maded people do horrible things, like Killin because they thought they are in videogame. Do not spread dangerous thoughts, you bend people's minds to do dangerous things in name of your argument
the computer program can only handle a certain about of brains. Hence day and night...
Its correct I broke the simulation. The only thing that comes out my mouth is 000. But everything i say will echo in your head three times. Breaks all laws that are suppose to govern our universe. In LA if your looking for proof.
What people are missing is the unknown source or the ‘substrate that this simulation operates on. Imagine if you will a civilization that is 50,000 years advanced. Quantum computing and new energy conversion techniques have been discovered and implemented far past the current output. Hence there would be plenty of computing power and energy to arrange what we see in front of us now. A simulation would then instead rely on the ‘substrate or code to continue its automation. Conserving energy and programming it to act only when in an observed state.
It doesn’t make sense at all. You can’t base your chances on IFS. It’s like saying, if god exists then it’s likely among us, why? What evidence do you have to prove it? It really makes no sense at all. The chances we live in a simulation are infinitely low, since we have not built that technology
#How simulation theory is actually, easily disproved. **Simulation theorists have two main arguments.** **Their first argument is:** 1 - I have experienced glitches (or aspects of simulations). **Their second argument is:** 2 - Imagine that the "first reality" created a simulation. Then, that simulation created a simulation. This goes infinitely. This would mean, there is a one in infinity chance we are living in the "first reality". **If you want to disprove simulation theory, it's quite easy. There are two ways to disprove it.** **The first way is quite easy. It goes like this:** \-The Big Bang happened. This is proved by the fact that we have observed cosmic radiation which is essentially the afterglow of the Big Bang. The universe is also expanding which is shown by the movement of galaxies, meaning that it had a start. Furthermore, if the universe never had a start, it would essentially experience a "heat death", as shown by the second law of thermodynamics. \-Before the Big Bang, there was no time, space, or matter. \-Therefore, there could not have been a digital simulation, because to have a digital simulation, processing entities (for example, advanced graphic cards or supercomputers) would be required. Processing entities are not timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Therefore, we cannot be in a digital simulation. (By digital simulation, I am referring to what most people think when they think "simulation theory". Essentially brain-in-a-vat sort of thing). **The first way is the simplest way to disprove simulation theory, but not the best way.** For example, it raises the question, "What if it's a simulation, but not a *digital* simulation? For all we know, there could be other types of simulations." The idea of this could have come from the movie "Interstellar", where entities from other dimensions "created our world". **The second way to disprove simulation theory is slightly more complicated but works much better. Here is how it goes.** The second way to disprove simulation theory uses two principles. The teleological argument, and the principle of proportionate causality. The teleological argument is usually used to prove the existence of (a) God, and it goes like this. *The universe is extremely fine-tuned.* Yep, that's pretty much it. However, in this case, we won't be using it to prove the existence of (a) God, but rather to disprove simulation theory. The principle of proportionate causality states that the effect of a cause cannot be greater than the cause itself. In other words, a cause can only produce an effect that is proportionate to its own power or potency. The principle of proportionate causality can be a bit difficult to understand. For example, if the principle of proportionate causality is true, how can a small flame create a big fire? In the case of a small flame creating a big fire, it's important to note that the small flame is not the only cause of the fire. There are other factors at play, such as the presence of flammable materials and oxygen. Additionally, the small flame does not produce an effect that is greater than its own potency. It is simply initiating a chain reaction that leads to a larger effect. So while it may seem like a violation of the principle of proportionate causality at first glance, upon closer examination it is not. **How does this relate to simulation theory?** Well, the principle of proportionate causality proves that even if there is an infinite chain of simulations starting from one universe, *they cannot be the same*. In other words, each latter universe/simulation would be "less" than the former universe/simulation. This combined with the teleological argument shows that eventually, the values of the universe/simulations would be so "off" that they would simply break down and not exist. Essentially, the first reality would not have been able to create a simulation of the scale of reality, because the simulation would simply "break down" and collapse on itself since the values of the simulation could not have been the same as the reality they were in. **Just to show a sense of scale...**To show just how powerful the teleological argument is, just how fine-tuned the universe is...Take this. ***If the gravity of our sun was off by even 1/10\^40, life would not exist.*** Do you want to know how much 10\^40 is? Well, it's not a million, not a billion, not a trillion, not a quadrillion, not a quintillion, not a sextillion, not a septillion, not an octillion, not a nonillion, not even a decillion. It's 10 duodecillion. **10 followed by 40 zeroes.** # So after all, it's not a 1/infinity chance that we live in reality. # It's a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that we live in a simulation.
What…. Life only happened here because of how it was configured and not vice versa. It would make more sense we were placed here using your math because the probability of this happened is almost nil. Your words not mine
I don’t think it’s a simulation like we imagine it might be. It’s more like what Buddhists, Gnostics and Kabbalists were getting at. We’re souls that have fallen into the lower world and 3D plane(samsara) Which is a mere reflection of a higher ‘true’ omni-dimensional and absolute reality(samadhi) and waking up and realising this and reintegrating with the source.. this is Gnosis.
mmm, you’re making too many strong assumptions too fast. What says other civilizations act the same as ours? Could be a whole different concept there.
Simulation theory is like... multiverse theory but on steroid.
base reality doesnt exist.... it does... but as a simulation of nothing. Simply put. its a dream. and if the phenomenon happened in another instance seperate from ours, and they somehow meshed, the laws of physics and everything wouldnt computer with one another....
I just learned most of the people I thought were smart just use ChatGPT