Sign into an existing account

It's a serious theory. Very serious.

The scope of the problem is what you might debate.

Is it only a problem for our theory of knowledge (that we can't seem to come up with a theory that eliminates Cartesian skepticism)? You could think of it that way.

Or, you could think that it has a scope like it purports to have, i.e., that it is likelier that you are a simulation than it is that you aren't one.

Most people have the intuition that they aren't sims, and we'd like to have a theory of knowledge that justifies that belief. But we don't have one. Bostrum has given us an argument that says (summarizing), if advanced simulations are something we're possibly going to do in the future, then it is likely we will do many of them. If at some point, the number of advanced sims is very large, it becomes likelier that you are one of these also.

deleted

Yes.

If you haven't noticed the glitches in the Matrix, then you are probably an NPC.

I think for most who are enamoured with the idea, it's a stand-in for mysticism... A secular way to add some mystery and drama back into how they think about their existence (and if we're 'simulated', then perhaps death isn't final). The fact that a simulation would at some point had to have had a 'creator' also draws parallels with religious thought (the aspect of intentional creation is perhaps the only thing that would distinguish a hyper-advanced 'simulation' from a 'natural' universe).

The arguments for it are all pure conjecture at this point. It's more plausible than most religious theories (as it's not as obviously a product of human conceits), but it doesn't have evidence to put it above the level of an unnecessary abstraction or back-up theory at best.

If it were true, but has no 'tells' or identifiable feedback vectors, then it's essentially pointless aside from how it modifies the behaviour of those who believe in it—as others here have pointed out.


tl;dr — without a way to test it, simulation theory is basically fart-huffing by people who've sensationalized quantum mathematical modeling into the new mysticism (and dudeweedbros).

It's both. Your meat computer is absolutely running a life simulation, but not because some advanced future humans programmed it to do that. It's just it's main function. Like a tree is programmed to reach for sunlight.

a) Nature doesn't make alike (simulare)...it differentiates each one within from one another. Few within nature tempt many to react alike to fiction, while ignoring nature.

b) Theory aka thea (a view) horan (to see; to perceive). If others suggest one a view aka THEAter, then ones sight is being tempted with a distortion aka ignoring perceivable (reality) for suggested (fiction).

Supposedly there was once a formally deterministic religion. Supposedly they lived absolutely terrible lives. The moral of the story is even if it’s true, you’ll live a better life if you believe it’s not.

It’s made up…

I think there's a 50% chance we are simulated

It's a waste of intellect to consider either way really. Even if true, it's not as if that changes anything we might do, so it's as well to continue as if reality is the case.

Bullshit, just fun science-fiction/fantasy.

It's complete bullshit because it is just the same old what if.
it brings nothing the any discussion except an understanding of how little we know.
beyond this, it is not useful.