Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Captain Risky

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?

66 posts in this topic

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?

NEW YORK—If you, me and every person and thing in the cosmos were actually characters in some giant computer game, we would not necessarily know it. The idea that the universe is a simulation sounds more like the plot of “The Matrix,” but it is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Researchers pondered the controversial notion Tuesday at the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate here at the American Museum of Natural History.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked a scientific hypothesis had to be testable and the simulation argument wasn't.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have these researches nothing better to ponder about? 

Quote

Tyson pointed out. “Kind of like if you’re a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

As pointed out above in the article.... i guess this guy who does not agree has hit the nail on the head.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's as possible as the existence of a God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, I'mConvinced said:

It's as possible as the existence of a God.

Simulations do exist though, we created them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

Simulations do exist though, we created them.

Indeed but this is non sequitur. Our simulations don't produce life and we can't say with certainty they ever will.

However, if we do replicate a simulation from which new, conscious life evolves I believe that, mathematically at least, it would be statistically likely we are also a simulation.

At the moment this non testable hypothesis is just that, an equivalent to the God arguement.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if or when there will be simulation software patches available to fix all the buggy bits  ...

~

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many things, I think it is possible, but I give it a low probability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My simulation runs on windows 95.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should ask John Titor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the point of giving billions of identities for none existant people and how many people would it take to maintain and operate the simulation? I think that the op is highly unlikely.

jmccr8

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

What would be the point of giving billions of identities for none existant people and how many people would it take to maintain and operate the simulation? I think that the op is highly unlikely.

jmccr8

What makes you think they are non-existent people? How many people does it take to run a computer in our world? 

How is the OP actually any different from saying God did it. Both require a creator, both require a purpose, both are untestable.

Simulation theory makes more sense in many ways as it would explain the randomness we encounter in quantum physics.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly counts as a simulation? Even a simulation is in some sense real, in that it takes on the appearance of whatever it's attempting to simulate.

It's like the people who say dreams aren't real. But technically they are real in the sense that they do happen, they just happen in your head, that's all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

What makes you think they are non-existent people? How many people does it take to run a computer in our world? 

How is the OP actually any different from saying God did it. Both require a creator, both require a purpose, both are untestable.

Simulation theory makes more sense in many ways as it would explain the randomness we encounter in quantum physics.

A simulation is just that it is not real. There would needs to be a lot of real people to maintain and create the simulation and the computing power and resources needed to make billions of simulbots think that they are real and interacting is beyond what we are capable of producing. And even if it was viable how do you know that the sim operators (sim-ops) are not just a simulation themselves? I am going with nope I'm real.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

A simulation is just that it is not real. There would needs to be a lot of real people to maintain and create the simulation and the computing power and resources needed to make billions of simulbots think that they are real and interacting is beyond what we are capable of producing. And even if it was viable how do you know that the sim operators (sim-ops) are not just a simulation themselves? I am going with nope I'm real.

jmccr8

You need to expand your thinking a bit on this one. Don't think of it from our point of view, think of it from the point of view of an eternal race of beings who have the power to create universe simulations.

The purpose of the simulation could perhaps be to investigate the origins of their own existence.

They would have access to almost unlimited computing power. We could be just one single instance of a trillion instances of simulated universes.

When it comes to 'real' you are made of something that essentially had no mass. At the fundamental level this could indeed be evidence we are simply 'information'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it is possible, but it seems unlikely. We'd need a lot more data to make it a likely situation.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Podo said:

I suppose it is possible, but it seems unlikely. We'd need a lot more data to make it a likely situation.

I agree but what exactly would seem more likely?

How can you arrive at a 'likelihood' (statistically high chance) that any completely untestable theory is more probable than another?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

You need to expand your thinking a bit on this one. Don't think of it from our point of view, think of it from the point of view of an eternal race of beings who have the power to create universe simulations.

The purpose of the simulation could perhaps be to investigate the origins of their own existence.

They would have access to almost unlimited computing power. We could be just one single instance of a trillion instances of simulated universes.

When it comes to 'real' you are made of something that essentially had no mass. At the fundamental level this could indeed be evidence we are simply 'information'.

Oh yes I can fantasize a great many things but in the end they are still fantasy. And sure there could be all kinds of fiction in the world but for those of us that see ourselves as real people in a real world... well facts and testable reality is where I live. Why would it matter if we have morals or laws if we are just fictitious constructs, imagination doesn't die,get hurt when it's pretend which is why we have laws and morals to protect real people. Westworld was a simulated reality and it and other movies of that format were created so that people could live out their dark side without actually hurting or killing real people.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

for those of us that see ourselves as real people in a real world... well facts and testable reality is where I live

Yet when we test this 'reality' we discover it is made up of stuff that has no mass at all. Worse than that it appears it is all based on probability and didn't even exist at one point.

When this is considered how can you conclude that we understand anything about where we come from? If we understand nothing then anything is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

I agree but what exactly would seem more likely?

How can you arrive at a 'likelihood' (statistically high chance) that any completely untestable theory is more probable than another?

Not sure what you're aiming for, since I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist. More evidence would need to arise, basically, but since it isn't my field I'm not sure what that evidence could look like. You wouldn't be able to establish any concrete likelihood until such a time as a thing was testable. Until then, it's all in the realm of theoretical physics, I would expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Yet when we test this 'reality' we discover it is made up of stuff that has no mass at all. Worse than that it appears it is all based on probability and didn't even exist at one point.

When this is considered how can you conclude that we understand anything about where we come from? If we understand nothing then anything is possible.

A simulation is just that, there is a big difference, for a tram of firemen or swat team they do simulations that are in a control in real life there are variables that can change an event quite drastically where people get hurt or killed.

At one time during the Nam war the Americans were using live rounds during the training to teach men to keep their heads down, in simulations now they don't.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or when it just you alone in the room and its just your hands and yourself ... I guess ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all NPC's in my RPG that hasn't been debugged yet. I think its still in beta.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You are all NPC's in my RPG that hasn't been debugged yet. I think its still in beta.

This would go a long way to explaining the flat, hollow earth we live on.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.