Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Artanthos t1_j80umoq wrote

Simulation Theory does have math behind it.

It is also a philosophical debate as it is not testable.


Kewkky t1_j81ua2w wrote

Can you show me a link with the math behind it? Honest request.


Artanthos t1_j870moj wrote


Kewkky t1_j87ddf4 wrote

I'm not gonna lie, I read it, went to the math, literally read through the descriptions, and read the conclusion. I even looked at the references and who Nick Bostrom was. This is literally just philosophy, and despite what it says in the actual webpage, it's not rigorous.

He made up the equations with no reference to anything else except three possible future scenarios in his argument: (1) humans go extinct and don't become post-human, (2) humans become post-human but don't care about simulations, or (3) humans become post-human and care about simulations. All the way to his conclusion, he also never proves that we're living in a simulation, he just states that we're either (1), (2) or (3), and that the chances of any of those 3 being true are completely even, and we'll never know.

Personally, I find this proposition to be dumb. He narrows down all potentialities to only 3: (1) we'll never get there, (2) we can get there and don't want to simulate, or (3) we can get there and we want to simulate. It reminds me of the argument about God existing: Non-existence is a sign of imperfection, but God is supposed to be perfect, which means that he can't be non-existent, and therefore God exists. It's a non-rigorous argument that can never actually prove the proposition itself and is completely philosophical in nature. It also reminds me of the doomsday clock, in that it's treated as this scientific observation of when nuclear war will break out, but all it is is just a bunch of people moving the clock forward at different speeds and slowing it down at the last "hour", and I can guarantee you that once nuclear war actually breaks out, they'll fast-forward the clock to midnight and be like "See? We could totally predict it!". The "math" in the simulation website is also extremely basic, it's just basically treating the 3 possible scenarios as fractions of a 100%, which literally proves nothing except that those 3 scenarios make up 100% of his argument. I wouldn't consider it math, since there's no actual operations happening.

I do greatly appreciate you linking that website to me though, so here's my upvote.


Artanthos t1_j8bpvhv wrote

>This is literally just philosophy

I already agreed that is was philosophy.

Anything that cannot be tested falls under philosophy, and it is impossible to test if we are living in a simulation.