Active Now

Element 99
Spunky
Discussion » Questions » Science and Technology » What is your opinion on the simulation hypothesis?
Standard Alien

What is your opinion on the simulation hypothesis?

For those unfamiliar, the hypothesis says that our reality is simply an extremely intricate computer simulation created by our descendants of the future—or what we theoretically become in the future—who want to simulate the history of evolution (or the universe). Many scientists believe that there is a one in a billion chance that this theory is NOT the case. Evidence rests on the fact that the universe conforms to laws of mathematics (which, to me, doesn't really count as evidence), just like it does in the less advanced types of simulations we have now, and that the level of intricacy of matter that we know of isn't infinite; intricacy only goes down to the subatomic particle level and we cannot see beyond a certain point with microscopes, and us being part of a finite, pixelated simulation would account for that. The hypothesis suggests that our technology with bio-engineering and computer programming, which ties into artificial intelligence, will inevitably merge and allow humans to simulate life essentially as a hologram down the subatomic particle. This also means that we'd likely be a simulation in a simulation in a simulation and so on. Read more here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ What are your personal thoughts on this? 

Posted - February 20, 2017
Tags : simulation hypothesis hologram computer technology advanced civilizations

Responses


  • 318
    I had considered a simulation hypothesis, but never one where is could be our descendants running the simulation. One being that we are part of a computer simulation, just to see how many life forms would be created, given the time and rules of the universe. We just happen to be one of the life forms in this simulation. I am just worried that the power may shut down on the computer. :) This post was edited by Maurice214 at February 20, 2017 1:05 PM MST
      February 20, 2017 12:39 PM MST
    1

  • 5614
    Methink even if the hypothesis is true there must have been a beginning to it all. Why rule out that we now are at that beginning? There you have its flaw among many. Why would you simulate down to the subatomic level if only to convince a simulation that it is real? What purpose? Isn't a simulation also real? This post was edited by O-uknow at February 20, 2017 2:11 PM MST
      February 20, 2017 12:44 PM MST
    2

  • 83
    The simulation would be for fun, along with scientific inquiry—arguably fun. The likelihood of us being the beginning is extremely low if we are indeed able to create simulations in the future. If this invention is within our grasp (meaning it is possible at some point in the future), then we've likely already recreated ourselves many times over.
      February 20, 2017 12:57 PM MST
    0

  • 5614
    .. and yet there must be a beginning and it is not ruled out that we are it.
      February 20, 2017 1:06 PM MST
    1

  • 83
    True. There's a chance we could be it.
      February 20, 2017 1:07 PM MST
    0

  • If we think a little deeper, it ultimately boils down to how we define time, and the limit of its extent. Instesd of assuming a definitive beginning (t = 0), if we were to assume it slways was (t = - infinity), things fall better into place. 
      February 20, 2017 2:01 PM MST
    2

  • I always thought the hypothesis was lazy and based zero evidence.  It doesn't explain anything and there is nothing to suggest it. So while entirely possible, there is nothing useful  or tangible about it.
    To me it's modern wizardry and alchemy magic type explanations.  A way for certain self described  atheists to come to grips for their deep seated belief in a god or God. People who believe in a god but don't want to admit it.
      February 20, 2017 12:54 PM MST
    3

  • 83
    It actually makes quite a bit of sense, but, I agree, is useless. You're right. How would the knowledge that we are living in a simulation change anything about our lives? That said, our being in a simulation doesn't really have anything to do with belief in a God or explanation behind how the universe got here. If we simulated ourselves, all simulations would be a product of mankind and thus not explain anything about how the first non-simulated humans got here. The question of existence would still remain.
      February 20, 2017 1:03 PM MST
    1

  • That's a circular self-serving thought though.  If we are simulation created by ourselves then that doesn't explain who "we" really are or where "we" come from.

    Oh wait you already said that. ooops.
    Too much faith and conjecture is needed to support the idea is the  problem with it. Agreed.
      February 20, 2017 1:19 PM MST
    1

  • 5614
    The hypothesis is a lazy man's blasphemy to tell us again that God does not exist and if you want to say he does then he is us. This post was edited by O-uknow at February 20, 2017 1:48 PM MST
      February 20, 2017 1:24 PM MST
    1

  • We aren't gods, we are Titans who give birth to gods.
      February 20, 2017 1:31 PM MST
    0

  • 83
    As I mentioned in my first reply to Glis, it has nothing to do with God.
      February 20, 2017 1:38 PM MST
    0

  • 5614
    Of course not. Atheists don't believe in God. They only spend a lot of time alluding to him.
      February 20, 2017 1:53 PM MST
    1

  • 83
    This topic of conversation has nothing to do with God or religion. Living in a simulation would not explain creation of humans or existence. I don't see how that is relevant.
      February 20, 2017 1:56 PM MST
    0

  • 5614
    Well then, how relevant is the hypothesis? What purpose?
      February 20, 2017 2:27 PM MST
    0

  • It's because the idea if it were true basically doe mean their is a god of sorts.  Not the god or gods as described by religions so to speak.  It would though require an outside intelligence beyond the simulation who created it.  That's why I see it as the want to be atheist's solution to wanting or trying to come to grips with a god belief. It's basically a rehashing of god based religion in a way that is friendlier to science.
      February 20, 2017 8:20 PM MST
    0

  • 5354
    It is a possibility that require some major leaps, assuming time travel, etc. That alone is enough for me not to regard it any more seriously than fx Fiction on similar themes such as "The Matrix".

    As for "Many scientists believe that there is a one in a billion chance that this theory is NOT the case." I simply do not believe that is true. Not unless the particular group of "Scientists" have their doctorates from a place like the Discovery Institute, where the word 'scientist' is continually getting redefined in ever less credible ways.

      February 20, 2017 1:00 PM MST
    1

  • 83
    This has nothing to do with time travel. Time travel is not relevant at all. And one of the leading proponents of this hypothesis is Elon Musk, probably one of the most qualified engineers ever.
      February 20, 2017 1:04 PM MST
    0

  • 5354
    I did some googling and found:

    1) Elon Musk Says There's a 'One in Billions' Chance Reality Is Not a ...
    2) Tech billionaires convinced we live in the Matrix are secretly funding ...
    3) Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely than ...

    If nothing else it serves to illustrate how "1 Tech Billionaire" can get turned into "Many Scientists"

    Elon Musk himself lay no claim to being a scientist. Nor does his available biographies give me any reason to think he is. This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at February 20, 2017 1:28 PM MST
      February 20, 2017 1:22 PM MST
    0

  • 5614
    Ever since atoms and the stuff that make up atoms or particles became known to us scientists have been questioning reality and existence. A particle is not tangible therefore in a sense not real but yet it is, making up what is real and the point where metaphysics meets physics. A particle is the expression of God's will and if so then why can't it be the expression of other wills and so we come up with simulation theories and its cousins. This post was edited by O-uknow at February 20, 2017 2:13 PM MST
      February 20, 2017 1:36 PM MST
    1

  • 5614
    Not time travel but the hypothesis is a paradox or timeloop if we have always been a simulation then our descendants are as well. How did the whole thing get started and again why can't it be here and now that starts it? The only way out of this loop is a simulation apart from reality making us having no descendants at all and just images tricked into believing we are real but only are we real fakes.
      February 20, 2017 1:30 PM MST
    0

  • Yes, I have heard of that too and the thing is.... lol despite me being known for my strong opinions, I don't much care... if there's someone who created me or had me created just to watch me and monitor me... well let them! I don't much care, let them have their fun. I hope they learn lots :P
      February 20, 2017 1:08 PM MST
    3

  • 83
    I agree! Lol. My mom freaked out at the idea, but what does it really matter? Let them watch me! Whatevs.
      February 20, 2017 1:10 PM MST
    1

  • LOL I like to think they had a lot of fun and maybe learned a thing or two watching some of the adventures I have engaged in :P
      February 20, 2017 1:17 PM MST
    2