The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Dear lampsalot,

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

It's just a specific extrapolation of the old, "if anything can happen, it will happen."

If the universe is infinite, then a monkey will one day type out the complete works of
Shakespeare, and a jumbo 747 will spontaneously coalesce....it is the nature of infinity.
All things are possible, given enough time and enough opportunity.

So no, I cannot make a case against the simulation argument because as far as we know,
infinity exists...

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Dear lampsalot,

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

It matters quite a bit. I mean, we're talking about the origins of life as we know it after all, I would think that's a pretty interesting topic for most

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Dear lampsalot,

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

It matters quite a bit. I mean, we're talking about the origins of life as we know it after all, I would think that's a pretty interesting topic for most

Dear GrandStrategy,

I do not deny it is interesting, I asked what it would matter? If you believe your life is real then you decide how you respond to it, you define you. Who are you is the question and whether this is all real or an illusion, it is all you ever get to decide, who are you?

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

for me the first premise is unsound - what evidence is there for this being true?

Originally posted by AQuestion

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

The question is can you think of any reason why the simulation argument might be wrong?

And by the way, I disagree. I think we have the right to be curious.

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that


2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before

Incorrect. Probability and possibility are not related.

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Dear lampsalot,

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

It matters quite a bit. I mean, we're talking about the origins of life as we know it after all, I would think that's a pretty interesting topic for most

Dear GrandStrategy,

I do not deny it is interesting, I asked what it would matter? If you believe your life is real then you decide how you respond to it, you define you. Who are you is the question and whether this is all real or an illusion, it is all you ever get to decide, who are you?

You're talking philosophy, but the thread was created to discuss the science and plausability of the simulation argument, not to discuss the frivolity or legitimacy of life within a simulated reality.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by AQuestion

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

The question is can you think of any reason why the simulation argument might be wrong?

And by the way, I disagree. I think we have the right to be curious.

Dear lampsalot,

You are playing games with words, I never said that we should not be curious. I asked what difference the answer mattered. It is also a fair question. As for your question, can I think of a reason why we might not be in a computer simulation, yes, an easy one, we are in the real world. That is an answer. Is the world a representation? Yes, it is a representation of reality, we experience with our senses real choices and real people and the effect our choices have on them and us.

Perhaps I can make an argument for it. Well, not really me, but people much smarter than I would ever claim to be.

This is from back in March of this year and it's no joke or from some crazy wannabe fringe scientist:

"Strange Computer Code Discovered Concealed In Superstring Equations!
“Doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code,” first invented by Claude Shannon in the 1940′s, has been discovered embedded WITHIN the equations of superstring theory! Why does nature have this? What errors does it need to correct?

Dr. S. James Gates, Jr., a theoretical physicist, the John S. Toll Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, and the Director of The Center for String & Particle Theory, is reporting that certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes. These codes are digital data in the form of 1′s and 0′s. Not only that, these codes are the same as what make web browsers work and are error-correction codes! Gates says, “We have no idea what these ‘things’ are doing there”.

Gates discloses that some of his research can be interpreted that we do live in a virtual reality. He describes this as “mind-blowing” and similar to the movie “The Matrix”! Further, he adds, that if someone suspected they did live in a virtual reality, then detecting computer codes would be a way to confirm. He concludes with finding these computer codes in equations that describe our world: “that’s what I just proposed!”.

What to make of this? There are two issues: 1) if String Theory will ultimately be a viable and therefore proven model of reality and 2) if so, whether embedded coding is in fact within the related verified equations. Michio Kaku has stated “String Theory Is the Only Game in Town” because it is the only testable theory available.

If true, then any theory of reality should eventually confirm this, if the theory has staying power and does not succumb to an early death. Accordingly, time is on the side of the simulation hypothesis to be verified first through theory and then via experiments in the long-run. Technology to provide the means to test that the Universe is a virtual reality is the next step."

it's possible until proven other wise.... or its not possible until proven

my glass is half full