Are there others here on this site who also believe the 'Simulation Hypothesis' to be silly and utterly nonsensical??

There are just so many issues with the idea, problems that it's proponents simply refuse to face.

Issue One: It's unfalsifiable, and therefore cannot truly be put to the test. There is no conceivable way to show that we may actually not be living inside some sort of simulation, because every possible result could be interpreted to mean we actually are in a simulation, because that's the way it's been programmed. What would actually count as evidence against the idea?
Issue Two: The very concept of a simulation is that it is merely a representation of some aspect of reality; our reality. That's what simulations are for; they're designed to test ideas in a safe and contained space, in order to shine a bit more light onto whatever scenario one is simulating. This being the case, what would our world possibly be a simulation of, and why?
Issue Three: It raises far more questions than it answers. Like the one I just mentioned above. Doesn't it just make far more sense to assume the world we're living in is actually real, at least until a time arrives when we might have reasons to doubt this?
Issue Four: Infinite regression. If our reality is actually not real, then what about the world of the simulators? Is their reality fake as well? If so, then they will also have a creator, a 'Divine Programmer', so what about that world? And then the next one. And the next. And... so on ad infinitum.

My final point isn't really an "issue", but it would be for hard-core atheists, because IF it turns out that our reality is nothing more than a computer programme of some sort, then that would mark the definitive end of atheism as a belief, because every conceivable programme has a programmer (and from our perspective such an entity would be no different from God, because He, She or It would in fact be God).

Top | New | Old

Theyitis · 36-40, M

I’ve read that scientists or experts of some sort have determined it’s much more likely than not that we are, in fact, living in a computer simulation. The argument as I understand it is this: somehow it is known or assumed that we ourselves either can now or in the near future will be able to create such a computer simulation populated with people who don’t know they’re living in our computer simulation. The people in our simulation will develop technology and one day they too will be able to create computer simulations populated with people who don’t know they’re living in a simulation. Well, if we can do that, what are the chances that we were the first ones to do it, the original creators of computer simulations filled with people who don’t know they’re living in a simulation? Logically, those odds are between slim and none. You say it’s not possible because it doesn’t make sense, “what would our world be a simulation of?” etc. But do we know everything about our universe? Do we know even half of everything about our universe? I think there’s so much we don’t understand, it doesn’t have to make sense to us in order to be possible or even likely. Yes, it raises way more questions than it answers, but that doesn’t make me refuse to accept that it’s most likely true.

View 4 more replies »

Pambie · 22-25, F

@GeniUs "Incredibly intelligent people..." - So what? What matters is whether or not the idea in question has any merit, not who or what the one making the case may happen to be. You're supposed to be able to think for yourself, not just take the word of others, those you deem to be "more intelligent"!

Pambie · 22-25, F

@Theyitis How about actually addressing the issues I raise within the main body of my post?

Theyitis · 36-40, M

@Pambie I get a strong sense that it would be an exercise in futility. I don’t think you have an open mind or really want to be challenged, I think you’ve already decided for some reason that you’re not going to believe we might be living in a computer simulation, and you’ll twist my words and/or use whatever mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize your continued belief in that position. To continue to debate the matter with you would be a frustrating waste of my time and effort. Nevertheless, I feel inexplicably compelled to reply to your last comment to GeniUs

You’re supposed to be able to think for yourself, not just take the word of others, those you deem to be “more intelligent”!

Nobody has the time to be an expert on absolutely everything. The Trump supporters who “did their own research” on how to handle the COVID pandemic were not “thinking for themselves”, they decided they didn’t want to listen to the medical experts and instead sought out unqualified sources to tell them something different.

Similarly, there are people that get paid to study math and science as a career whose opinion on this question will carry more weight than yours or mine, regardless how much “research” we might do in our spare time. I read about this world being a computer simulation in an article from a reputable source, so I am under a strong impression that it’s not just some journalist’s idle musings. It sounds like it came from people who study science, mathematics, philosophy, and logic for a living, so I trust that that’s probably the best hypothesis we have at this time. Sure, there’s a chance the experts might be wrong about this, but since nobody seems to know what practical implications that might have on our day-to-day lives anyway I’m okay with the possibility that I might be wrong.

onewithshoes · 26-30, F

One of the best sci-fi books I ever read was about that. I wish I could remember the title.

GeniUs · 56-60, M

You weren't happy with how the last conversation went, were you?

Pambie · 22-25, F

@GeniUs What do you mean?

Yourwildestdreams · 51-55, M

Putting it simply “so to speak”
If we are living in a simulation, what's to stop there being a simulation within our simulation? And a simulation within that simulation? And so on, ad infinitum. This leads to a ridiculous and endless chain of simulations.
Plus: Are the simulators benevolent, malevolent, or indifferent? Do they interact with us in any way? The lack of answers to these questions makes the hypothesis seem more like a thought experiment than a serious scientific theory.
I need a coffee 😌😅

Pambie · 22-25, F

@Yourwildestdreams Exactly! The whole thing is just ridiculous in my view.

Alyosha · 31-35, M

It also doesn't take seriously the hard problem of consciousness.

Pambie · 22-25, F

@Alyosha That too. People who believe in this idea simply assume it won't be an issue, that we'll easily figure that part out. Such faith these people have in the potential of science! It's almost religious.

ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 51-55, M

I think it's silly if anyone takes it seriously. But I think most solipsists and 5-minute hypothesists don't take the ideologies seriously, I think they just use it as an interesting thought experiment

ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 51-55, M

...oh and if atheists can be so easily dismissive of the Fine Tuned Universe they can easily dismiss this one

Add a comment...