Do we live in a computer simulation?

manic111 said:
It's not really a physics question, except at the most basic level. It's asking about skepticism, which is a pretty core question in philosophy.
Click to expand...

It's completely a physics problem, with a bit of computing. If we can one day simulate the physics of our own universe on the planck scale using quantum computers, even on a tiny scale, then that means something else can do it too possibly on a big scale. I mean if you took the information, the bits, from the simulation you were running and it matched 1:1 with the information flow (entropy) of our own observed universe, then you would have to conclude that our own universe may not be "real" either. It can be expressed in 1s and 0s like a computer.

If you took that "simulation" and scaled it up to galaxy size, and it was indeed 1:1 accurate with our own physics, eventually you would get planets, microbes, humans and consciousness.... existing inside the computer purely as information.
 
If anyone is actually interested in this stuff I recommend watching these:





These aren't nutters they are incredibly intelligent people, Penrose, Wolfram, even people like Brian Greene are getting on board with this information theory stuff.
 
Last edited:
We know far too little about our existance to be able to say with any degree of validity that we either do or don't live/exist within a simulation - anyone with any inflexible view either way right now is an idiot.

EDIT: Also some very naive viewpoints on this - when I watched that episode of through the wormhole I was cracking up at how poorly concieved their ideas of it were.
 
Always thought the Matrix movies were very flawed.
Seems like humans got a good deal, which some douche was set on ruining for the rest of us who were blissfully unaware of the crap real life.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
We know far too little about our existance to be able to say with any degree of validity that we either do or don't live/exist within a simulation - anyone with any inflexible view either way right now is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Rubbish, you are the making the argument that because we can't conclusively prove we don't, then you must accept it's equally likely that we do.

Just because you can't absolutely prove something isn't true doesn't mean therefore you have to accept it as a valid or likely possibility.
 
estebanrey said:
Rubbish, you are the making the argument that because we can't conclusively prove we don't, then you must accept it's equally likely that we do.

Just because you can't absolutely prove something isn't true doesn't mean therefore you have to accept it as a valid or likely possibility.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's just like believing in God.
 
Even if we did, by discovering it, I doubt much would change, so we might as well just get on with it...

Then again, the Mayan calendar could have been the programmed max date on the simulation...

Let us hope they did a software update :p

kd
 
estebanrey said:
Rubbish, you are the making the argument that because we can't conclusively prove we don't, then you must accept it's equally likely that we do.

Just because you can't absolutely prove something isn't true doesn't mean therefore you have to accept it as a valid or likely possibility.
Click to expand...

Tachyon said:
I know people love to insult others for having a different opinion but seriously take a look at yourself for even entertaining such BS.
Click to expand...

To properly counter both of these posts would take a lot of time and a very long post.

I absolutely reject the notion that the lack of evidence for something in any way has any implications on its own as to the likelyhood of something therefore existing and I'm not making that arguement in what I'm saying.

Our current understanding of our existance is far far from complete - for instance we can't even say what mavity actually is - we can only see the effect it has on things even at the smallest levels we can't find it itself - to hold an inflexible view of the nature of our existance currently is very naive.
 
No. But who would care if we did? You wouldn't realize and still enjoy life to the full regardless of whether or not is simulated.
 
Rroff said:
To properly counter both of these posts would take a lot of time and a very long post.

I absolutely reject the notion that the lack of evidence for something in any way has any implications on its own as to the likelyhood of something therefore existing and I'm not making that arguement in what I'm saying.

Our current understanding of our existance is far far from complete - for instance we can't even say what mavity actually is - we can only see the effect it has on things even at the smallest levels we can't find it itself - to hold an inflexible view of the nature of our existance currently is very naive.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough and I get what you're saying, however it's the point I quoted though that I'm specifically referring to. Personally I don't believe this computer simulated idea but because I don't and I'm certain I never will, I'm an idiot? That's what gets me, it's rife on these forums, the slightest difference of opinion and someone is an idiot. I could put that one straight into the minor annoyances thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom