• IntriguedIceberg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    So I guess it depends on what you understand by “simulation”. What is really simulated as opossed to being “real”. Our reality is just an interpretation given by our senses, so in a sense it’s also a simulation of the real thing. Where’s the line that makes something really “real”?

  • bitcrafter@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I figure that we are all definitely living in a simulation because, even if the world has real physical existence, consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain to make sense of the world.

  • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    What are the odds that we are all in a simulation?

    What are the odds that every bullshit that you ever heard is actually true?

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.

    Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.

    People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.

    This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)

    It is as pointless as arguing about god.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could)

      I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware…

      I would hope that we wouldn’t build such a thing just out of ethical concerns for the inhabitants, but then again we’ve built a giant AI-training network with very little knowledge of if they have some kind of limited consciousness during the process.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Biggest reason to to a complete simulation would be reversed time dilation. Run the simulation until the civilization is a few hundred to a few thousand years more advanced than your own, and see what technologies they have invented and refined.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It’s questionable whether it’s even a well-founded question because of this. Like, it depends on your choice of theories about ontology and epistemology. This shows up if you try to do math about it, which I mentioned a bit in my own reply.

    • Perspectivist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      9 hours ago

      That’s the point - it wouldn’t. People seem to expect that things would be different or meaningless if we did but I’ve never understood that logic. Even if we do live in the base reality it could just as well be a simulation and nothing would need to change.

      • whaleross@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Exactly. Even if it was definitely proven that this is all a simulation, there is exactly zero chance humans could ever break out of it or hack or exploit or even begin to understand the machine the simulation is running on. We have still not even figured out the rules for our universe and understanding what the real universe where this is a simulation is way beyond the scope of human understanding. We could not affect it in any meaningful way except maybe some laboratory tests or cause some hideous corruption. Yet we think and feel and experience living in the only way we know. Hence, I’d argue it would not matter.

        • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy.

            A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too.

          • whaleross@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Including the Abrahamic religions except people are simple and have rewritten the mindboggling idea “can not comprehend” to punishable dogma “must not mention by name, gaze upon, depict”.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I saw someone analyse this on YouTube once. As I remember it, if you assume two possibilities are equally likely until we have information favouring one or the other (the principle of indifference), it depends on if we make any simulated universes. If we do, there’s basically no way we’re in the first. Otherwise, there’s a chance this is the base reality.

    One can question whether the principle of indifference applies here, though. Or even if a deeper reality we can never access counts as a an object you can talk about normally. For example, pragmatic epistemology would say no.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I think this depends on how you look at it.

    In a certain way, we do live in a fictional world that is constructed of information. If you consider your daily routines, they’re probably following instructions of some sort to earn money, besides other things.

    Both of these things - the instructions and the money - are made up. You can see this even more clearly with the money. Money itself is a piece of paper or not even that - a number in a database - that has no real value, yet people believe in it and that belief is what gives it value. In other words, the value of these numbers in databases exists in people’s head more than it does in reality. Now, you could consider this a simulation, because it happens inside a computer and influences what people think.

    However, i truly doubt that such a view is meaningful. No matter what is written in the databases, you still have to go through your own, individual life. I feel the biggest question you’re implicitely asking is whether there could exist some kind of cheat code or glitch, like in video games, to shortcut through the world and reach your goals easier. Again, depending on how you look at it, there both are and are not such cheats.

    You could consider human technology a sort of cheat. Instead of toiling on the agricultural fields ourselves, we use heavy machinery that is powered by fossil fuels, but more importantly mathematics, to do the work for us. Same goes for all other technologies. As such, the mathematics itself becomes the cheat code.

    If a true cheat code would exist in today’s world, you can take solace in the fact that not only you are looking for it, but so is everybody else who has an interest in achieving their goals. Now, you see, the whole economy is simply based on the concept that people want to reach their goals, and to do so, they need resources, for which they need money. So, if a cheat code existed, every single company would have a high interest in finding it and exploiting it. Since the number of people engaged with these desires is quite high, you can assume that significant progress towards that goal is continuously made whenever possible. In fact, people research and invent new things and useful tricks all the time to help us with our daily lifes. If you really wanna know more about this, you should start by studying economics, physics, and society at large. Thank you for your attention, if you have any more questions, let me know :D (i studied philosophy, i might help you)

  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    We have a physical representation of a divide by 0 function that exists in the universe. Black holes. I’d say it’s fairly likely.