5 ms·

So, we are living in a simulation?

simpsond 9y ago
Maybe, or we just don’t understand all of the rules.
luc4sdreyer 9y ago
I think it's very likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Ancestor_simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Ancestor... It's not a testable claim right now, but it might be in the future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_the_hypothesis_physically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_...
- drb91 9y ago
  Your link only provides a way to falsify a theory, not provide evidence for simulation.... which is impossible by definition. Not to mention the idea of a simulated universe is, you know, philosophically boring and implies mostly false things in most peoples' minds.... like an anthropomorphic scientist god. In reality, it would change virtually nothing about how we view our universe.
  - luc4sdreyer 9y ago
    > not provide evidence for simulation.... which is impossible by definition. I disagree. Science cannot prove that a theory is 100% true, only that it is not wrong by repeatedly testing the predictions made by the theory. The best we can do is say: this theory (e.g. general theory of relativity) is the best explanation for data we have so far and every experimental prediction it has made has come true. The paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf) linked on the wiki page proposes four experiments that seeks to test the simulation theory. None of these experiments will single-handedly prove the simulation theory, but if they all pass we can only keep testing and seeking alternate explanations. If the experiments keep passing and no alternative theories can be found, then we're either in a simulation, or the universe just happens to behave exactly in the way that a simulated universe would, but it isn't. I agree that we can never truly know which is true, but at that point the difference is reduced to semantics. It's like saying electrons don't really exist, instead they're just wave/particles that are exactly like electrons in every way except for some immeasurable quality. This assumes the entity running the sim will never directly influence it, of course if that ever happens (requiring a _very_ high burden of proof) it'll be proof of the sim.
    - drb91 9y ago
      I’m saying the semantics of a simulation are boring. I think the actual tests are pretty cool. :)
  - lloeki 9y ago
    Dunno about you but if I were pentesting a machine and found out it was a VM, then maybe I'd try to get a foothold into the hypervisor, host, or sibling VMs. Not boring.
    - drb91 9y ago
      That metaphor is ill fitting unless there is an anthopomorphic entity designing flawed software. It smells a hell of a lot lite Pascal’s wager.
- milesrout 9y ago
  There's no evidence that any civilisation will ever have enough computing power to simulate a universe.

Maybe, or we just don’t understand all of the rules.

I think it's very likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Ancestor_simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Ancestor... It's not a testable claim right now, but it might be in the future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_the_hypothesis_physically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_...

drb91 9y ago
Your link only provides a way to falsify a theory, not provide evidence for simulation.... which is impossible by definition. Not to mention the idea of a simulated universe is, you know, philosophically boring and implies mostly false things in most peoples' minds.... like an anthropomorphic scientist god. In reality, it would change virtually nothing about how we view our universe.
- luc4sdreyer 9y ago
  > not provide evidence for simulation.... which is impossible by definition. I disagree. Science cannot prove that a theory is 100% true, only that it is not wrong by repeatedly testing the predictions made by the theory. The best we can do is say: this theory (e.g. general theory of relativity) is the best explanation for data we have so far and every experimental prediction it has made has come true. The paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf) linked on the wiki page proposes four experiments that seeks to test the simulation theory. None of these experiments will single-handedly prove the simulation theory, but if they all pass we can only keep testing and seeking alternate explanations. If the experiments keep passing and no alternative theories can be found, then we're either in a simulation, or the universe just happens to behave exactly in the way that a simulated universe would, but it isn't. I agree that we can never truly know which is true, but at that point the difference is reduced to semantics. It's like saying electrons don't really exist, instead they're just wave/particles that are exactly like electrons in every way except for some immeasurable quality. This assumes the entity running the sim will never directly influence it, of course if that ever happens (requiring a _very_ high burden of proof) it'll be proof of the sim.
  - drb91 9y ago
    I’m saying the semantics of a simulation are boring. I think the actual tests are pretty cool. :)
- lloeki 9y ago
  Dunno about you but if I were pentesting a machine and found out it was a VM, then maybe I'd try to get a foothold into the hypervisor, host, or sibling VMs. Not boring.
  - drb91 9y ago
    That metaphor is ill fitting unless there is an anthopomorphic entity designing flawed software. It smells a hell of a lot lite Pascal’s wager.
milesrout 9y ago
There's no evidence that any civilisation will ever have enough computing power to simulate a universe.