I don’t think that we’re in a simulation, but I do find myself occasionally entertaining the idea of it.

I think it would be kinda funny, because I have seen so much ridiculous shit in my life, that the idea that all those ridiculous things were simulated inside a computer or that maybe an external player did those things that I witnessed, is just too weird and funny at the same time lol.

Also, I play Civilizations VI and I occasionally wonder ‘What if those settlers / soldiers / units / whatever are actually conscious. What if those lines of code actually think that they’re alive?’. In that case, they are in a simulation. The same could apply to other life simulators, such as the Sims 4.

Idk, what does Lemmy think about it?

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Exactly. It literally makes no difference if we are or not. So why waste brainpower thinking about it?

      • mub@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Unless this is a prison and the only way out is to die here.

        • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well we all die eventually. I’m happy to serve a longer sentence and find out a bit later.

  • ani@endlesstalk.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    No one knows. I just find this universe too imperfect. It’s nonsense. I just want it to end.

  • xilliah@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well I don’t know who it is but I could swear the universe has a sense of humor.

    Like about a week ago I found a single left slipper. I sent a picture of it to a friend. She immediately sent a photo back of the exact same left slipper. Same size, same color, same brand, left. It just happened to be where she was when she received my message.

    And I’ve got a bunch more experiences like that.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    We could be. We could also be a Bolztman brain, the entire universe could have popped into existence last Thursday, complete with our memories of it existing previously, an evil demon could be sending false sensory information to us to try and pretend the universe is real, when it isn’t (as per Decartes), there are so many things that could be true. That’s why the only intellectually honest thing is to be agnostic.

  • mister_monster@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    It is incredibly unlikely.

    I know, “if an ancestor simulation is possible than it is much more likely you’re in one than not in one.” That’s fallacious, unfalsifiable and everyone loves to leave out the word “ancestor” which is very important to the thought experiment.

    In our universe, no system is entirely isolated from the rest of it. It is impossible to create a system that does not in some way interact with the outside universe. So if it is a simulation in a universe, and the universe it is running in also has this rule we would see information from that universe leak into ours in some way. How that would appear we don’t know, but it would be possible to figure it out. Maybe heat dissipates out, maybe bit flips happen in our universe due to the parent’s equivalent to cosmic rays, maybe the speed of light is a result of the clock speed of the simulator. We don’t know what it would be, but there would be something, and it would be theoretically discernible.

    at least some of the laws of our universe are laws of the parent universe. So maybe that rule, no system exists in isolation, is also true above. Or maybe our speed of light is the same for them. Whatever it is, our cumulative constraints are more than that of the simulation.

    All that, unless, in the parent universe, 1) systems can exist in isolation, or 2) it is an environment with no constraints. These two are functionally equivalent, so I’ll talk about them like they’re the same thing. In such a universe, there would be no causality, no form, nothing that makes it unified. It’s not a universe at all. It’s something like a universe post heat death. In such a scenario, running a simulation isn’t possible. If it were, to create an environment in which causality can be simulated, that environment wouldn’t be a simulation, it would be a bona fide universe.

    So I think, the fact that we see no evidence that we are in a simulation means we are probably not in one. So that means, if we are in one it is falsifiable and we can prove or disprove it empirically. And it also means we can escape, or at the very least destroy it.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Information that we are in one would appear in weird ways? Like maybe side effects of simulating a continuous universe in a calculable way which would require quantization, but would leave the universe with a seemingly incompatible framework of continuous macro behavior (such as general relativity) and discrete behavior (such as quantum mechanics)?

      • mister_monster@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, the apparent effect to us could be something really weird like incongruent physical laws or constants or things like that. I have no idea what it would be, only that it would be detectable.

          • mister_monster@monero.town
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on there.

            I think observation/measurement of a quantum system means entangling with the system, so the quantum system becomes larger and includes the observer. Combine that with relativity, which is absolute in the universe, and you have an e plantation for that phenomenon.

            • kromem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              That wouldn’t explain why the two results end up not agreeing sometimes.

              I agree that it relates to how the observer entangles with the system, but you see this kind of error class occurring in net code all the time.

              Player 1 shoots an enemy around the same time as player 2. Player 1 has a locally rendered resolution to the outcome of having killed the enemy and gets awarded the xp, and player 2 has the same result.

              The server has to decide if it is going to let both local clients be correct or resolve in a way that reverses the outcome for one of the clients. For things that don’t really matter, it lets both be correct.

              Here, each individual outcome is basically Bell’s paradox, where we know there needs to be consistent results no matter how each observer behaves. But in this case, when a second layer of abstraction is added, the results are capable of disagreeing.

              It looks very similar to a sync error, and relativity doesn’t in any way explain it.

                • kromem@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Relativity only relates to the relative shape of spacetime and movement through it.

                  So for example, things occurring faster for one inertial frame vs another, or something being closer to an observer moving quickly than for one stationary.

                  It’s exclusive to the combination of spacetime curvature and one’s momentum within it.

                  How do you think relativity does explain it?

  • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The idea is self-defeating. A simulation requires a higher reality for it to be contained within. Which in turn would by definition not be a simulation.

      • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Suppose I had a copy of the Sims. Inside the copy of the Sims, the characters are looking around and notice things that seem suspicious about their world. They come to the conclusion they’re in a simulation, a video game. But nobody asks what they were made to simulate? Because it always implies there is something which, to them, is metaphysical, i.e. our world. And, if they were thinking about this, it would devalue the simulation theory itself, because if the basis is a higher world, that would be the point of reference of why things are the way they are anyways, thus saying “so-and-so is the way it is because we live in a simulation” would be a moot remark.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, but the problem is people take it literally when it’s just an update of the analogy for Plato’s cave…

      You’re taking it even more literally and saying if it’s not a direct match, it’s not a simulation.

      Madden is a football simulation, even though it’s not the same as real life football

      It’s not that your thinking deeper than the analogy, it’s the analogy soaring over your head while you claim it doesn’t exist because you’re looking at the ground

    • Majoof@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Another way to look at it is as any civilisation gets sufficient technology they begin simulating entire universes, to better understand their own.

      That means we’re either the OG universe and haven’t figured out how to run simulations of that size yet (so no simulated universes exist yet), or there is some chain of universes above us who are likely also simulated until you get to the OG universe.

      Considering everything in our universe seems to follow a set of base rules (speed of light, attraction between masses, etc), I’m partial to thinking of those as essentially input variables prior to our sim being run.

  • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Super fun idea which I guess came after the Civ games. And certainly after computer programming.

    As plausible as any hypothesis because we are wired that way.

    Brains don’t do so great trying to grasp the incomprehensible improbability of life on earth , so all these stories have fertile ground in which to grow