SgathTriallair t1_ixdaj3s wrote on November 22, 2022 at 4:10 PM

This article makes the same fundamental flaw as all of the other arguments that "prove" we are in a simulation.

They all assume that the laws of physics in our stimulated universe are fundamentally the same as those in the parent universe. There is no reason that this must be the case. Minecraft is a great example. There are so many changes to the laws of physics in there that it would be difficult for one of them to even contemplate out universe.

For our parent, why do we think that they abide by conservation of energy, why do we think they have a speed limit, why do we think they need a simulation to access their past?

The real reason why the simulation hypothesis should be ignored is that it is philosophically inert. There is no method to test whether it is true and it's truth value has no impact on the world. If there was some way that it would matter whether it was true or false then we could assess it and move forward. Since there isn't, so it does is introduce weird existential dread in young computer enthusiasts.

Veei t1_ixfk9ap wrote on November 23, 2022 at 1:40 AM

Good point on any assumptions that rules are the same in the parent but I disagree strongly that knowing whether we are in a sim has no impact on the world. I’m no physicist so can’t really back up my disagreement properly but it would seem very short sighted to think it’s pointless. If we are in a sim, maybe there’s rules/algorithms we can exploit or bypass. It might help us explain some of our observations fully too. I think it’s well worth it to figure out if we are in a sim or not. The subject fascinates me. I would love to find out the answer.

SgathTriallair t1_ixfn86w wrote on November 23, 2022 at 2:04 AM

If we get to the point that we can alter the laws of physics (or the code of the simulation) then that will sort of be a difference except that it would still have the same basic effect of us being able to change the rules.

The only real way that it could matter if we are in a simulation is it we could escape it. Maybe when we die we "wake up" or something.

A different perspective on a similar idea is phenomenalism. This is the philosophical idea that the world we perceive and the world as it is are not the same. There are many routes this goes down, such as Kant's nouminal world, socially constructed identities, and cognitive biases.

Veei t1_ixfqtor wrote on November 23, 2022 at 2:33 AM

As someone in the infosec field, knowing that our universe is in fact a contrived system tells me that it is most likely exploitable. Quite a worthwile question to answer, IMO.

Interesting about phenomenalism. Hadn’t heard of that before. So things like the recent article stating our consciousness does not receive input in real time? Not that it proves phenominalism but could help potentially support the idea of phenomenalism or that we are in a simulation.

Philosophy and physics/QM intersect often. I think all of it is very worthwhile to study. You’re not the first I’ve come across that thinks it provides no value knowing but I think it would be useful to prove either way.