4 ms·
These experiments cannot definitively prove anything. Here's why: 1) A perfect simulation, by definition, would be impossible for its inhabitants to detect. 2
by rl3 13y ago
These experiments cannot definitively prove anything. Here's why:
1) A perfect simulation, by definition, would be impossible for its inhabitants to detect.
2) Detection of an imperfect simulation requires an absolute understanding of the universe. This includes the imperfect simulation itself, any imperfect simulation(s) containing it, the physical universe, the multiverse; everything.
Putting aside any philosophical arguments about whether it's even possible to absolutely know anything, let alone the complete mechanics of the universe, the conclusion one would arrive at is the same conclusion that those who ponder the origin of our universe (irrespective of simulations), arrive at: infinite regress.
Therefore, definitively proving whether or not our existence is that of a simulation, and completely understanding literally everything that exists, has existed, and will exist, are one and the same.
- raldi 13y agoYour point #2 is not logically obvious. Could you explain why you feel it's true?
- rl3 13y agoAssume for a moment that we have evidence which strongly suggests we reside inside of a simulation. However, our knowledge is strictly limited to the complete mechanics of our simulation and any which contain it, but not the actual physical universe containing all of these simulation(s). How then do we know that we're not in fact residing in the physical universe as actual matter, not inside of simulation(s), and that something which exists inside of the physical universe isn't simply manipulating us to believe that the supposed evidence we have (proving that we're inside of a simulation) is true? Presumably, whatever is manipulating us into believing this would be utilizing methods we would not be able to detect or comprehend, namely because we lack a full understanding of the physical universe.
- raldi 13y agoWhat if there is no intelligent manipulation? What if, for example, we find evidence of a granular lattice underlying the universe, aligned along a set of axes? That would be huge evidence in favor of the simulation theory but require no absolute knowledge of all things.
- rl3 13y agoIt may be huge evidence in favor, but it would not be definitive proof, simply because we would not be able to rule out said intelligent manipulation (or other potential scenarios that would lead us to believe we reside in a simulation, when in fact we do not). I know requiring a standard of proof that deals in absolutes may seem unreasonable. However, consider that the question these experiments seek to answer not only concerns the very nature of our existence, but whether this existence is a synthetic illusion as well.