Is everything a simulation?

[Ostronomos]

Not really a narrative that a ruthlessly sensual nature-based religion is going to be interested in. It's sort of anathema to it, in most respects. What is it about the sensuality of existence and our embodied nature that makes certain humans want to deny it and flee from it so often? So weird how much body shaming and sensuality shaming there is in some cultures.

This argument against the mere possibility of the simulation theory does not rely on human nature. That is counterproductive. Only on a superficial level does it apply.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oooh, can you provide proof of otherwise. Because I can provide a counterargument to your claim.

Ok I'm game.

This is sourced from PBS.

Physicists Confirm That We're Not Living In a Computer Simulation

Scientists have discovered that it's impossible to model the physics of our universe on even the biggest computer.

www.pbs.org

 

[Ostronomos]

We live in an observer-participatory universe, which in turn was proven to be a simulation.

 

[Ostronomos]

Ok I'm game.

This is sourced from PBS.

Physicists Confirm That We're Not Living In a Computer Simulation

Scientists have discovered that it's impossible to model the physics of our universe on even the biggest computer.

www.pbs.org

We are not living in a computer simulation. However, our simulation in natural. It is implied by the Big Bang.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Quantum theory says that the illusion becomes objective by collapse of the wavefunction.

Reality reifies itself via observation, which creates reality.

Surely only at the quantum scale. I'm fairly certain the tree and the house don't magically appear only when somebody is looking at them.

 

[Revoltingest]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

If we live in a simulation, wouldn't evidence
of this be simulated too? The claim appears
non-provable & non-dis-provable.

Smart people have calculated the probability
that we live in a simulation. Their answers vary.
The problem?
There's no mathematical basis to calculate it.
It's undefined. A common mistake is to believe
that if there are 2 alternatives, then they're
always equally likely. They're merely 2 possibilities.
It's like guessing the number I'm thinking of vs
guessing the wrong number.
2 possibilities that aren't equally likely.

Fortunately, it's irrelevant to our reality & lives.
Consider adopting either possibility alternately.
Would it affect anything you'd do?
Nah.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think the Solar System could be a simulation, but the universe could not be. I also don't see a reason to think our Solar System is either. The universe though? No way. There several reasons why not.

To say time exists outside of the universe is to say that the universe is not really the whole universe, so its just denying what universe means. Universe means everything, including space and time and matter and all of history and the future and every tiny bit of any spec that is a cousin of any other spec no matter how far away or long away or how long before. That what universe means. But we can suppose that time and space exist in something that isn't time. This is where philosophers usually go with it: Brahman, God, hypergraphs, information theories. Others simply rest with admitting they cannot definitely know or that there is not any data. The problem of simulating a universe is that your simulator is part of the universe, so you're saying that the universe isn't a universe. Philosophically that is disappointing.

That's why simulating a Solar System or a Galaxy is conceivable but not simulating a universe. Incomprehensible but not absolutely impossible.

It runs counter to the discovery that time and space seem to be related. Simulations require time, but time seems to be part of space. How then can the universe (which is space and time and other things) be a simulation? Its like saying that the minute hand is the watch that it is installed in. This is why most physics informed guesses about the nature of the universe tend to have a transcendant concept of the outside. We have hypergraphs, information theories, Brahman, God etc. These don't require time. Time is part of the universe. But if our Solar System or Galaxy are not real, then you could think of them as simulations. It just that philosophers aren't satisfied with that. We want to envision what everything is, to think about the nature of reality itself. A simulation gets in the way.

 

[Whateverist]

We are not living in a computer simulation. However, our simulation in natural. It is implied by the Big Bang.

I assume you meant our simulating is natural in which case I agree. I think we naturally produce an internal simulation based on our experience which is useful in some ways but perhaps life deadening if engaged in too much. It sometimes takes an effort to disengage from the simulation - walks in nature, poetry, music, meditation - to feel in directly in touch with reality.

 

[Heyo]

Oooh, can you provide proof of otherwise. Because I can provide a counterargument to your claim.

That's not how this works. You made a claim, and it is upon you to provide arguments/evidence for the validity of the claim - which you haven't yet.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We are not living in a computer simulation. However, our simulation in natural. It is implied by the Big Bang.

What makes it a simulation then?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If what is in front of them is only the creation of their own individual minds, why should both create the same illusion?

The method of receiving input and the way of analyzing it is the same in human brains. Of course, some do it better, some not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The method of receiving input and the way of analyzing it is the same in human brains. Of course, some do it better, some not.

That is non-responsive to my question. If the minds are creating an illusion, there is no input involved.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If the minds are creating an illusion, there is no input involved.

How come? If a person is walking, your eyes see all the movement, and the brain makes a guess about his health, wealth, etc.

 

[Ostronomos]

That is non-responsive to my question. If the minds are creating an illusion, there is no input involved.

According to John Wheeler we create reality on the quantum scale. Hence, the tautological premise that reality exists within reality still holds as proof of simulation. Despite the deception of a materialistic belief based on illusion.

 

[PearlSeeker]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

An interesting ancient hypothesis. I think it's possible but there would have to be better evidence than the examples presented in the video.

The video doesn't say God is the ultimate simulation. It says God is the creator of simulation. It's base reality.

 

[Nakosis]

What makes it a simulation then?

Our brain creates a simulation which we experience as reality.
Brains in a jar scenario as that is what we are. Whether it's a glass jar or a physical meat suit. What we consciously experience is a creation of the brain which simulates the universe as a sufficiently accurate representation that allows us to navigate and survive in it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Makes sense but could everything be a mental construct? What would it be a simulation of if everything was part of it?

Okay, the problem is what objective reality is independent of your experience of it in your mind. In philosophy it is considered unknown as per "Das Ding an sich" as a problem of knowledge and reason.

So my answer is, it is unknown what everything else that you are, other than not you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Meh... The "brain in a vat" thing isn't compelling for me. If it's true, so what? Life doesn't change and I still experience it. In any case I don't find the idea compelling considering how complex and consistent reality is as a whole in combination with the way other people (who would also be part of this simulation) demonstrate different complicated views on this same consistent and complicated reality

What would be the point of creating a simulation that constantly uses itself to check and question itself to the person it's meant to contain? Deception? Pacification? To what ends?

I think this is where Occam's Razor is best applied

There is a vairant of a Boltzman Brain universe.
It consists of some space, a power source and a computer running a simulation of the rest of the universe as related to you and you running as a program on the computer. I.e. no other humans.

We can go over how you can't know if you are in this univese or the BB one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Our brain creates a simulation which we experience as reality.
Brains in a jar scenario as that is what we are. Whether it's a glass jar or a physical meat suit. What we consciously experience is a creation of the brain which simulates the universe as a sufficiently accurate representation that allows us to navigate and survive in it.

The added assumption is that of real correspondence for the referents in effect.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

A simulation of what?