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.

Pambie · 22-25, F

@Theyitis

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.

And this is the precise point at which your argument falls flat on its face. "Somehow it is known". Really? How?
"...or assumed". Hmm, well, that's not good. You know, to base an entire philosophical belief system upon a mere assumption, absent the support of (for example) facts, or a reasoned argument.

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.

You don't know that. No one does. This is an act of pure faith, a belief, and nothing more, that science and technology will progress to a point at which it will be able to simulate minds, but I highly doubt that. We don't even know what consciousness is, or how to define it properly, and yet here we have these (rather odd, in my view) people pontificating about the glorious future of AI, the 'Singularity', and creating these fake worlds where the inhabitants are led to believe their world is real.
The whole thing is nothing more than an absurd, geeky techno-fantasy, of the kind that might originate on a rather dubious website like 'Reddit'.

Well, if we can do that...

We can't though.

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?

We haven't though. This hasn't occurred.

Logically, those odds are between slim and none.

I don't care about the odds, simply because in spite of those odds, we could still be the very first. It's not impossible you know.
And to top it all off, you finish with what I like to call the 'simulator-of-the-gaps' argument. It's like the 'God-of-the-gaps', but for the modern age.

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.

Well, no, we don't know everything there is to know about the universe. That much is obvious, but even so, that fact alone doesn't give us permission to just make stuff up. I mean... come on! Be reasonable here.

Theyitis · 36-40, M

@Pambie Okay, well I’m glad you’ve studied this more thoroughly than the experts have and can absolutely guarantee that we’re not living in a computer simulation. Congratulations!

Pambie · 22-25, F

@Theyitis But that's just it; they're not "experts", because 'simulation theory' isn't even a science. It's pure nonsense, pure pseudoscience, and the holes in their arguments are large enough to fly a 747 through.

onewithshoes · 22-25, F

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

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...