ManWithNoName
Enlightened
- Feb 2, 2019
- 1,224
Brick In The Wall
2M Or Not 2B.
- Oct 30, 2019
- 25,158
I've heard this theory before and I find it to be a fascinating and very plausible theory. I love thinking about the nature of our reality and all the possibilities that come with it. Thank you for sharing this video.
Eurus
Everything Must Cease.
- Sep 30, 2019
- 200
I'm drawn more towards flat earth,heh,I kno,I kno, it's highly looked down upon,but it's definitely interesting
ManWithNoName
Enlightened
- Feb 2, 2019
- 1,224
You're welcome. The famous double-slit experiment is the other food-for-thought phenomena that I also find interesting.
Call me a skeptic, but anything that starts with the words "definite proof" makes me think YIKES.
If the authors of the video want to convince someone that the world is a computer simulation, they can't rely on guesses or philosophical ideas. They must apply the scientific method in order to prove or disprove their claim.
This is how it works: you come up with a hypothesis, you test it many times, and if the results of your tests consistenly agree with your hypothesis, then you can formulate a theory. This theory is valid until such a time that someone else can devise a different experiment which falsifies your results, in which case you either change your theory, or throw it out the window.
The "computer simulation" hypothesis has not been tested so far, because noone has come up with a reliable experiment which can be duplicated. So there really is no proof we live in a computer simulation, let alone "definite proof".
It's as you say, food for thought - something cool to philosophize about.
We are not the first generation to ask this type of questions about the nature of our reality. Descartes introduced the evil genius to help answer the question "Do I exist?". He said: Assume I am wrong about everything - all my sensations, everything I see, what I hear and taste. Assume nothing is real. Assume there is an evil genius who constantly deceits me and makes me believe it is real. Well... if that's the case, then it must mean I exist. How can an evil genius deceive someone who doesn't exist?"
Descartes didn't use the scientific method either... That's why you find him in books about philosophy, not physics.
APharmaDestroyedLife
Your RX drugs are likely your real problem
- Nov 4, 2019
- 305
In my opinion It's just as plausible as any other theory on what life and existance are.
There are lots of theories. They are fun to discuss , but at the end of the day we really can not prove anything related to the nature of space, time, and existence.
One could say the universe is full of life, it just exists in different dimensions that humans can not interact with.
We could also be so intellectually limited by our brains we simply have no way of processing anything bigger than we are.
We could be micro organisms surrounded by , or even living on massive life forms. So the universe from our perspective is endless and lifeless. Think of the micro organisms that live on our bodies. Do you think they are aware of us?
I mean I am highly skeptical of the reality of any world that is selling lego kits for 800 bucks.
There are lots of theories. They are fun to discuss , but at the end of the day we really can not prove anything related to the nature of space, time, and existence.
One could say the universe is full of life, it just exists in different dimensions that humans can not interact with.
We could also be so intellectually limited by our brains we simply have no way of processing anything bigger than we are.
We could be micro organisms surrounded by , or even living on massive life forms. So the universe from our perspective is endless and lifeless. Think of the micro organisms that live on our bodies. Do you think they are aware of us?
I mean I am highly skeptical of the reality of any world that is selling lego kits for 800 bucks.
Last edited:
Yes a very shit simulation created by hyper intelligent pan galactic shades of the colour blue. They look like mice to us. What? It's as good a theory as anything!
en.m.wikipedia.org
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia
ManWithNoName
Enlightened
- Feb 2, 2019
- 1,224
Well I agree the "definite proof" assertion acts more as click bait. The simulation theory is just that—only a theory.
But one has to wonder how we exist in a vastly life-less universe—the only life in our solar system. And even if we are a simulation we may not necessarily be a computer simulation.
APharmaDestroyedLife
Your RX drugs are likely your real problem
- Nov 4, 2019
- 305
The idea that any human is smart enough to have definite proof of anything is nonsense.
Last edited:
ManWithNoName
Enlightened
- Feb 2, 2019
- 1,224
Descartes was always interesting in that a lot of his ideas bordered philosophy and science.
Wayfaerer
JFMSUF
- Aug 21, 2019
- 1,938
Didymus
Clutching at invisible straws
- Dec 11, 2018
- 348
Do you realize that if you think you are living in a simulation that those thoughts are coded into your character by the designer to think that way?
Maybe to the amusement of the designer.
Maybe to the amusement of the designer.
Last edited:
irrelevant_string
Student
- Jun 16, 2019
- 122
I wanted to comment on all of his points but I gave up, some simply do not even permit counter arguments and these are definitely not definite proofs. Definite possibilities maybe.
He argues that if someone could develop simulation technology, they would.
Not necessarily, but if we assume that this is correct, combine it with a non-conditional - someone could - and you might have a point. On closer inspection though, the claim that someone could would be based on the laws that govern our universe, which would just be an argument in favor of simulations inside the universe we inhabit and here's my problem with that:
I find it problematic that people use data collected from their own experience in this reality to come to conclusions about a hypothetical base/parent universe.
If they are evaluating the likelihood of an advanced post-human civilization that is both capable and willing to run a complex simulation, and using some empirical estimation conclude that it is probable and then proceed to argue that such civilizations produce huge numbers of simulations, then you might argue that we are more likely to be simulated than not. And Nick Bostrom makes a claim of that sort, though more formally stated as a disjunctive argument.
One way you would justify such a claim would be by appealing to the principle of indifference and assigning equal probabilities to all individual outcomes, but we know for sure that we aren't part of any potential simulations that are running inside the universe we inhabit and that we can observe, that is, the ones that branch out from the node that is our own universe.
So you cannot rightfully count them towards the probability of our being simulated.
What could be done instead is to evaluate the probability of there being simulations outside of our world, which also requires the value of the probability of there being any other worlds. But even then, how do we make assumptions about a world separate from our own when the laws that govern it might bear little resemblance to our own?
And on what basis do we trust our knowledge of this universe if it could very well be designed and modified by the simulators and even shut down at any point.
Perhaps I'm missing some important fact that's obvious to the people who subscribe to these beliefs.
Then he mentions the anthropic principle which as far as I understand it doesn't really have the same conclusion as the one he drew.
The conclusion usually isn't that of the existence of an intelligent designer.
It's often formulated vaguely as - It isn't remarkable that we observe the fine-tuned universe since if we are to observe anything, we must observe precisely the conditions that enabled us to evolve. The conditions that aren't compatible with the existence of observers simply aren't observed.
Regardless, I don't see how the simulation hypothesis could be a solution since we'd still be left with the necessity of explaining the base reality of the root of the simulation tree unless perhaps the simulation at some level isn't designed by an evolved intelligent civilization but occurred randomly as a consequence of a random assemblance of a Boltzman brain or some such entity, however absurd it may seem.
Then he argues that we can model everything using our mathematical knowledge. Perhaps the universe is mathematical but our knowledge of it is incomplete and some might go so far as to say that it's necessarily going to remain incomplete. Or take Roger Penrose as a modern example of a mathematician who is highly skeptical of the computability of various phenomena such as consciousness which he bases on Godel's incompleteness theorem. In any case, we certainly do not understand the mechanism underlying conscious experience and, at least from my limited perspective, I find it highly doubtful that we ever will.
As far as Fermi's paradox is concerned, I wouldn't say that the claim that this hypothesis might explain a phenomenon is enough to show its validity, especially since there are simpler solutions.
Now, that's all speculation and perhaps all that should be said is - is it really consequential?
He argues that if someone could develop simulation technology, they would.
Not necessarily, but if we assume that this is correct, combine it with a non-conditional - someone could - and you might have a point. On closer inspection though, the claim that someone could would be based on the laws that govern our universe, which would just be an argument in favor of simulations inside the universe we inhabit and here's my problem with that:
I find it problematic that people use data collected from their own experience in this reality to come to conclusions about a hypothetical base/parent universe.
If they are evaluating the likelihood of an advanced post-human civilization that is both capable and willing to run a complex simulation, and using some empirical estimation conclude that it is probable and then proceed to argue that such civilizations produce huge numbers of simulations, then you might argue that we are more likely to be simulated than not. And Nick Bostrom makes a claim of that sort, though more formally stated as a disjunctive argument.
One way you would justify such a claim would be by appealing to the principle of indifference and assigning equal probabilities to all individual outcomes, but we know for sure that we aren't part of any potential simulations that are running inside the universe we inhabit and that we can observe, that is, the ones that branch out from the node that is our own universe.
So you cannot rightfully count them towards the probability of our being simulated.
What could be done instead is to evaluate the probability of there being simulations outside of our world, which also requires the value of the probability of there being any other worlds. But even then, how do we make assumptions about a world separate from our own when the laws that govern it might bear little resemblance to our own?
And on what basis do we trust our knowledge of this universe if it could very well be designed and modified by the simulators and even shut down at any point.
Perhaps I'm missing some important fact that's obvious to the people who subscribe to these beliefs.
Then he mentions the anthropic principle which as far as I understand it doesn't really have the same conclusion as the one he drew.
The conclusion usually isn't that of the existence of an intelligent designer.
It's often formulated vaguely as - It isn't remarkable that we observe the fine-tuned universe since if we are to observe anything, we must observe precisely the conditions that enabled us to evolve. The conditions that aren't compatible with the existence of observers simply aren't observed.
Regardless, I don't see how the simulation hypothesis could be a solution since we'd still be left with the necessity of explaining the base reality of the root of the simulation tree unless perhaps the simulation at some level isn't designed by an evolved intelligent civilization but occurred randomly as a consequence of a random assemblance of a Boltzman brain or some such entity, however absurd it may seem.
Then he argues that we can model everything using our mathematical knowledge. Perhaps the universe is mathematical but our knowledge of it is incomplete and some might go so far as to say that it's necessarily going to remain incomplete. Or take Roger Penrose as a modern example of a mathematician who is highly skeptical of the computability of various phenomena such as consciousness which he bases on Godel's incompleteness theorem. In any case, we certainly do not understand the mechanism underlying conscious experience and, at least from my limited perspective, I find it highly doubtful that we ever will.
As far as Fermi's paradox is concerned, I wouldn't say that the claim that this hypothesis might explain a phenomenon is enough to show its validity, especially since there are simpler solutions.
Now, that's all speculation and perhaps all that should be said is - is it really consequential?
Last edited:
