Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.
Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.
People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.
This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)
It is as pointless as arguing about god.
Biggest reason to to a complete simulation would be reversed time dilation. Run the simulation until the civilization is a few hundred to a few thousand years more advanced than your own, and see what technologies they have invented and refined.
This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could)
I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware…
I would hope that we wouldn’t build such a thing just out of ethical concerns for the inhabitants, but then again we’ve built a giant AI-training network with very little knowledge of if they have some kind of limited consciousness during the process.
I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware…
Then what? We have no reason to believe that would cause parts of the simulation to be conscious and think they exist in reality.
We’re physics. It seems like we exist.
But we have no evidence that we’re anywhere close to being able to accurately simulate physics, even with planet sizes computers.
We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments. My evidence is that we routinely do, although hardware limitations mean if you want perfect accuracy it’s going to involve just a few particles, with more and more approximation as you scale beyond that.
There are no extreme environments on Earth, by that definition, which is a big part of why physics is stuck on them in the first place. All known life is also on Earth, so that shouldn’t matter, if life and consciousness is what we’re interested in.
We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments
This is not true. For example, we don’t know why [ice is slippery].(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.03.002).
Furthermore
There are no extreme environments on Earth…
Yes, there is. Ice. And superconductors. And so on… And even if all the other stuff is exotic, it’s important to know all the other underlying principles to comprehend what’s actually going on.
Yeah, that’s more than a few particles. If you had a planet-sized computer, you could still simulate a block of ice, although it might still be hard to explain in a bird-eye view kind of way why the simulated ice is slippery. Which is what this paper is actually trying to do.
Ditto for superconductors. It’s true that closer to absolute zero something is, the longer quantum features stay relevant, and that imposes a pretty punishing penalty. It’s not infinite, though.
I don’t know why people assume that computation power increases indefinitely forever until it simulates a universe. why would it do that?
Probably about the same as for whether a god exists.
There is no sensible definition of probability that makes that question answerable.
100%
We have a physical representation of a divide by 0 function that exists in the universe. Black holes. I’d say it’s fairly likely.
If we are I want a word with the dev team. This shit needs a rebalance ASAP. Gravity wells are too OP, black hole mergers should not warp the fabric of spacetime.
And don’t even get me started on Gamma Ray Bursts or Vacuum Decay.
Those probably are the intern’s doing
Hey now, don’t go blaming the minimum wage workers for not being fully trained.
In reality, simulations would outnumber reality. So that’s the ratio and therefore the chances.
Assuming reality and/or consciousness can be simulated, which we have no way of knowing is true (for now).
I hope so
Also, can somebody please turn it off? I think we took this one as far as it’s worth
More likely than us being in the “real” base reality
If it is possible to stimulate reality to this level of detail, very low. If it’s possible that the simulation can then run another instance of the simulation with no loss of fidelity and that is true for any simulation within the stack, still low but much more likely than before. If the chance of this simulation existing is higher than the odds for a universe that can sustain intelligent life, then it becomes about even odds.
The people who claim otherwise are mathematicians who forgot how reality works, as they get into an infinite spiral of higher and higher odds without any basis in reality.
The reason why it gets to even-at-best is because the simulation needs to exist in a reality at some point, and it really, really stretches the imagination that someone could build this shit. So, then you’re attaching the odds of intelligent life in a universe to the odds of then some intelligent life understanding literally every aspect of reality and being able to build said simulation (and then that repeats on every simulation).
I don’t know about ya’ll, but from my perspective, the simulation would only have to simulate my world.
You all might not even exist.
Measured subjectively, the chance that I am in a simulation is higher than that anyone else is, since in that case some or all of you might be merely simulated.
So I guess it depends on what you understand by “simulation”. What is really simulated as opossed to being “real”. Our reality is just an interpretation given by our senses, so in a sense it’s also a simulation of the real thing. Where’s the line that makes something really “real”?
50%. We are or we aren’t.
Just because we do t know something doesn’t masks it 50%
I don’t know if there’s a gorilla in my upstairs bath at the moment but the odds aren’t 50/50
On the question of god or a simulation, they aren’t 50/50 either
- Whoosh
- Given the lack of any meaningful information to base an estimate on, they essentially are.
50?! You’re crazy! 0.5 at best!
Nah, at least 0,50
I have no idea of the odds. Whatever reality is we could simulate it then conclude that a simulation like that could be running out reality. What could we observe about our reality that would make it simulation proof?
