Simulation Theory - Revision history

Fractalguy at 23:29, 28 January 2025

2025-01-28T23:29:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:29, 28 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Simulation-hypothesis-theory-matrix-reality.jpg\|thumb\|Do you really think we are in the Matrix?]]		[[File:Simulation-hypothesis-theory-matrix-reality.jpg\|thumb\|Do you really think we are in the Matrix?]]
	Simulation Theory, if true, would be the only rational way in which the [[literal]] interpretation of scriptural [[creation]] by [[intelligent design]] would be plausible. As such it has become a popular viral [[philosophy]], since for many people it seems to resolve the [[dissonance]] they have between their desire to believe in [[traditions]] and what they were taught as children, and the [[reality]] they have come to know as adults. For others, it makes them feel like big [[AI]] [[future]] thinking [[Crypto-bros\|tech gurus]] at cocktail parties, even though this thought experiment goes all the way back to [[wikipedia:Evil_demon\|Descartes]].		Simulation Theory, if true, would be the only rational way in which the [[literal]] interpretation of scriptural [[creation]] by [[intelligent design]] would be plausible. As such it has become a popular viral [[philosophy]], since for many people it seems to resolve the [[dissonance]] they have between their desire to believe in [[traditions]] and what they were taught as children, and the [[reality]] they have come to know as adults.

	However, these are not a sufficient reasons to make bold assumptions about the nature of [[reality]]. And even if it were a simulation, what kind of simulation would it be?		For others, it makes them feel like big [[AI]] [[future]] thinking [[Crypto-bros\|tech gurus]] at cocktail parties, even though this thought experiment goes all the way back to [[wikipedia:Evil_demon\|Descartes]].

			However, these are not a sufficient reasons to make bold assumptions about the nature of [[reality]]. And even if it were a simulation, what kind of simulation would it be?<blockquote>''"There is something irreversible about acquiring knowledge; and the simulation of the search for it differs in a most profound way from the reality."'' -[[wikipedia:J._Robert_Oppenheimer\|J. Robert Oppenheimer]]</blockquote>

	== No Evidence For Simulation Theory ==		== No Evidence For Simulation Theory ==

Fractalguy at 11:31, 30 December 2024

2024-12-30T11:31:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:31, 30 December 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Simulation-hypothesis-theory-matrix-reality.jpg\|thumb\|Do you really think we are in the Matrix?]]		[[File:Simulation-hypothesis-theory-matrix-reality.jpg\|thumb\|Do you really think we are in the Matrix?]]
	Simulation Theory, if true, would be the only rational way in which the [[literal]] interpretation of scriptural [[creation]] by [[intelligent design]] would be plausible. As such it has become a popular viral [[philosophy]], since for many people it seems to resolve the [[dissonance]] they have between their desire to believe in [[traditions]] and what they were taught as children, and the [[reality]] they have come to know as adults. For others, it makes them feel like big [[AI]] [[future]] thinking [[Crypto-bros\|tech gurus]] at cocktail parties.		Simulation Theory, if true, would be the only rational way in which the [[literal]] interpretation of scriptural [[creation]] by [[intelligent design]] would be plausible. As such it has become a popular viral [[philosophy]], since for many people it seems to resolve the [[dissonance]] they have between their desire to believe in [[traditions]] and what they were taught as children, and the [[reality]] they have come to know as adults. For others, it makes them feel like big [[AI]] [[future]] thinking [[Crypto-bros\|tech gurus]] at cocktail parties, even though this thought experiment goes all the way back to [[wikipedia:Evil_demon\|Descartes]].

	However, these are not a sufficient reasons to make bold assumptions about the nature of [[reality]]. And even if it were a simulation, what kind of simulation would it be?		However, these are not a sufficient reasons to make bold assumptions about the nature of [[reality]]. And even if it were a simulation, what kind of simulation would it be?

Fractalguy: /* No Evidence For Simulation Theory */

2024-09-30T22:16:20Z

No Evidence For Simulation Theory

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 30 September 2024
Line 8:		Line 8:
	The idea that the observer effects of [[quantum mechanics]] suggests some kind of universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_distance render distance] is absurd. This is only evidence that we have not yet determined the behavior of subatomic particles with models accurate enough to predict their behavior precisely, only within a probability.		The idea that the observer effects of [[quantum mechanics]] suggests some kind of universal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_distance render distance] is absurd. This is only evidence that we have not yet determined the behavior of subatomic particles with models accurate enough to predict their behavior precisely, only within a probability.

	To suggest that quantum uncertainty means we exist in a simulation, because it kind of reminds us of our own computer-generated simulations, is like saying the [[brain]] operates the same way as a PC because it's kind of like a computer. It is a metaphor, not to be confused with [[reality]].		To suggest that [[Quantum woo\|quantum]] uncertainty means we exist in a simulation, because it kind of reminds us of our own computer-generated simulations, is like saying the [[brain]] operates the same way as a PC because it's kind of like a computer. It is a [[metaphor]], not to be confused with [[reality]].

	== Simulation Theory Replaces God with a Supercomputer ==		== Simulation Theory Replaces God with a Supercomputer ==

	All arguments for simulation theory ultimate suggest some large-scale, hyper-intelligent being that created the simulation. How would this being be any different from the traditional [[creationist]] [[god]]? It's the exact same thing, updated for the information age, sprinkled with [[quantum woo]] and let loose on unsuspecting [[crypto-bros]] who confuse summarizing the plot of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix The Matrix] with deep thought.		All arguments for simulation theory ultimate suggest some large-scale, hyper-intelligent being that created the simulation. How would this being be any different from the traditional [[creationist]] [[god]]? It's the exact same thing, updated for the [[information]] age, sprinkled with [[quantum woo]] and let loose on unsuspecting [[crypto-bros]] who confuse summarizing the plot of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix The Matrix] with deep thought.

	People who call themselves rational thinkers are seduced back into [[creationism]] with this modern myth, that has all of the same problems of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress infinite regress] that creator gods have always had. It solves no mysteries of the [[universe]], it simply adds another layer of [[universe]] on top of ours.		People who call themselves [[rational]] thinkers are seduced back into [[creationism]] with this modern myth, that has all of the same problems of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress infinite regress] that creator [[God\|gods]] have always had. It solves no mysteries of the [[universe]], it simply adds another layer of [[universe]] on top of ours.

	== Still Procedurally Generated ==		== Still Procedurally Generated ==
Line 22:		Line 22:
	In a procedurally generated [[universe]], you have matter and energy that behave according to the [[laws of physics]], and interact over time to [[self-organize]] into planetary systems and eventually [[evolve]] into life forms. The creator of the simulation does not interfere with the procedurally generated outcomes once the simulation starts. It can be done, but it's computationally inefficient and likely to corrupt the data. And it would be obvious to any observer within the simulation because all of a sudden some part of the [[universe]] would start doing defying the [[laws of physics]] in a way that no one has ever seen before since we started keeping track. The quintessential "glitch in the matrix".		In a procedurally generated [[universe]], you have matter and energy that behave according to the [[laws of physics]], and interact over time to [[self-organize]] into planetary systems and eventually [[evolve]] into life forms. The creator of the simulation does not interfere with the procedurally generated outcomes once the simulation starts. It can be done, but it's computationally inefficient and likely to corrupt the data. And it would be obvious to any observer within the simulation because all of a sudden some part of the [[universe]] would start doing defying the [[laws of physics]] in a way that no one has ever seen before since we started keeping track. The quintessential "glitch in the matrix".

	A procedurally generated simulated [[universe]] would, for all intents and purposes, be identical ~~too~~ a singular, [[material]] [[universe]] that conforms to consistent [[universal]] [[physical laws]]. Given that a simulated [[universe]] would be identical in every way to a non-simulated one, and requires an additional, unknown and unnecessary [[universe]] outside of own, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor] requires that we dismiss simulation theory without further consideration. Until you really find that glitch in the Matrix, you can be confident that it's just a movie.		A procedurally generated simulated [[universe]] would, for all intents and purposes, be identical to a singular, [[material]] [[universe]] that conforms to consistent [[universal]] [[physical laws]]. Given that a simulated [[universe]] would be identical in every way to a non-simulated one, and requires an additional, unknown and unnecessary [[universe]] outside of own, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor] requires that we dismiss simulation theory without further consideration. Until you really find that glitch in the Matrix, you can be confident that it's just a movie.

	== It's a Hat on a Hat ==		== It's a Hat on a Hat ==
	Comedians refer to an unnecessary element in a bit as a "[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Putting%20a%20hat%20on%20a%20hat Hat on a Hat]". It's an unnecessary extra that ruins the joke. Simulation theory is the hat on a hat of cosmology.		Comedians refer to an unnecessary element in a bit as a "[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Putting%20a%20hat%20on%20a%20hat Hat on a Hat]". It's an unnecessary extra that ruins the joke. Simulation theory is the hat on a hat of cosmology.

	== Don't Bet On It ==		== Don't Bet On It ==

Fractalguy: /* It's a Hat on a Hat */

2024-02-01T16:20:20Z

It's a Hat on a Hat

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 1 February 2024
Line 25:		Line 25:

	== It's a Hat on a Hat ==		== It's a Hat on a Hat ==
	Comedians refer to an unnecessary element ~~that ruins the joke~~ as a "[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Putting%20a%20hat%20on%20a%20hat Hat on a Hat]". It's an unnecessary extra that ruins the joke. Simulation theory is the hat on a hat of cosmology.		Comedians refer to an unnecessary element in a bit as a "[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Putting%20a%20hat%20on%20a%20hat Hat on a Hat]". It's an unnecessary extra that ruins the joke. Simulation theory is the hat on a hat of cosmology.

	== Don't Bet On It ==		== Don't Bet On It ==

Fractalguy at 16:19, 1 February 2024

2024-02-01T16:19:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 1 February 2024
Line 23:		Line 23:

	A procedurally generated simulated [[universe]] would, for all intents and purposes, be identical too a singular, [[material]] [[universe]] that conforms to consistent [[universal]] [[physical laws]]. Given that a simulated [[universe]] would be identical in every way to a non-simulated one, and requires an additional, unknown and unnecessary [[universe]] outside of own, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor] requires that we dismiss simulation theory without further consideration. Until you really find that glitch in the Matrix, you can be confident that it's just a movie.		A procedurally generated simulated [[universe]] would, for all intents and purposes, be identical too a singular, [[material]] [[universe]] that conforms to consistent [[universal]] [[physical laws]]. Given that a simulated [[universe]] would be identical in every way to a non-simulated one, and requires an additional, unknown and unnecessary [[universe]] outside of own, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor] requires that we dismiss simulation theory without further consideration. Until you really find that glitch in the Matrix, you can be confident that it's just a movie.

			== It's a Hat on a Hat ==
			Comedians refer to an unnecessary element that ruins the joke as a "[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Putting%20a%20hat%20on%20a%20hat Hat on a Hat]". It's an unnecessary extra that ruins the joke. Simulation theory is the hat on a hat of cosmology.

	== Don't Bet On It ==		== Don't Bet On It ==

Fractalguy at 22:22, 23 January 2024

2024-01-23T22:22:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 23 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Simulation Theory, if true, would be the only rational way in which the [[literal]] interpretation of scriptural [[creation]] by [[intelligent design]] would be plausible. As such it has become a popular viral [[philosophy]], since for many people it seems to resolve the [[dissonance]] they have between their desire to believe in [[traditions]] and what they were taught as children, and the [[reality]] they have come to know as adults. For others, it makes them feel like big [[AI]] [[future]] thinking [[~~crypto~~-bros\|tech gurus]] at cocktail parties.		[[File:Simulation-hypothesis-theory-matrix-reality.jpg\|thumb\|Do you really think we are in the Matrix?]]
			Simulation Theory, if true, would be the only rational way in which the [[literal]] interpretation of scriptural [[creation]] by [[intelligent design]] would be plausible. As such it has become a popular viral [[philosophy]], since for many people it seems to resolve the [[dissonance]] they have between their desire to believe in [[traditions]] and what they were taught as children, and the [[reality]] they have come to know as adults. For others, it makes them feel like big [[AI]] [[future]] thinking [[Crypto-bros\|tech gurus]] at cocktail parties.

	However, these are not a sufficient reasons to make bold assumptions about the nature of [[reality]]. And even if it were a simulation, what kind of simulation would it be?		However, these are not a sufficient reasons to make bold assumptions about the nature of [[reality]]. And even if it were a simulation, what kind of simulation would it be?

Fractalguy: /* Don't Bet On It */

2024-01-14T18:25:05Z

Don't Bet On It

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 14 January 2024
Line 29:		Line 29:
	If you look at simulation theory [[The Gambler\|compared to the other possible theories of reality]], it really seems like a bad bet.		If you look at simulation theory [[The Gambler\|compared to the other possible theories of reality]], it really seems like a bad bet.

	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqM_K9vL8is\|\|center\|\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqM_K9vL8is\|\|center\|Why the simulation hypothesis is wrong\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCSqogSPU_Q\|\|center\|\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCSqogSPU_Q\|\|center\|The simulation hypothesis is pseudoscience\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVgBVcsAK1o\|\|center\|\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVgBVcsAK1o\|\|center\|Propellerheads - Spybreak! from The Matrix\|frame}}

Fractalguy at 19:53, 12 January 2024

2024-01-12T19:53:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 12 January 2024
Line 25:		Line 25:
	== Don't Bet On It ==		== Don't Bet On It ==

	If you superficially and uncritically assume that advanced alien civilizations just live to run [[universe]] simulations, then for each real universe there would be many simulated ones. If we were dropped into one of the possible real or simulated universes at random it would be more likely to be simulated. This is, of course, not how any of this works, which the videos address in detail.		If you superficially and uncritically assume that advanced alien civilizations just live to run [[universe]] simulations, then for each real universe there would be many simulated ones. If we were dropped into one of the possible real or simulated universes at [[random]] it would be more likely to be simulated. This is, of course, not how any of this works, which the videos address in detail.

	If you look at simulation theory [[The Gambler\|compared to the other possible theories of reality]], it really seems like a bad bet.		If you look at simulation theory [[The Gambler\|compared to the other possible theories of reality]], it really seems like a bad bet.

Fractalguy: /* Still Procedurally Generated */

2024-01-03T18:44:50Z

Still Procedurally Generated

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 3 January 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Even if we assume the [[universe]] is a simulation, it is obviously a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation procedurally generated] one, similar to games like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Sky No Man's Sky] that use [[algorithms]] based on pre-defined parameters to create the star systems and planets within that simulation.		Even if we assume the [[universe]] is a simulation, it is obviously a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation procedurally generated] one, similar to games like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Sky No Man's Sky] that use [[algorithms]] based on pre-defined parameters to create the star systems and planets within that simulation.

	In a procedurally generated universe, you have matter and energy that behave according to the laws of physics, and interact over time to [[self-organize]] into planetary systems and eventually [[evolve]] into life forms. The creator of the simulation does not interfere with the procedurally generated outcomes once the simulation starts. It can be done, but it's computationally inefficient and likely to corrupt the data. And it would be obvious to any observer within the simulation because all of a sudden some part of the [[universe]] would start doing defying the [[laws of physics]] in a way that no one has ever seen before since we started keeping track.		In a procedurally generated [[universe]], you have matter and energy that behave according to the [[laws of physics]], and interact over time to [[self-organize]] into planetary systems and eventually [[evolve]] into life forms. The creator of the simulation does not interfere with the procedurally generated outcomes once the simulation starts. It can be done, but it's computationally inefficient and likely to corrupt the data. And it would be obvious to any observer within the simulation because all of a sudden some part of the [[universe]] would start doing defying the [[laws of physics]] in a way that no one has ever seen before since we started keeping track. The quintessential "glitch in the matrix".

	A procedurally generated simulated [[universe]] would, for all intents and purposes, be identical too a singular, [[material]] [[universe]] that conforms to consistent universal [[physical laws]]. Given that a simulated [[universe]] would be identical in every way to a non-simulated one, and requires an additional, unknown and unnecessary universe outside of own,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor] requires that we dismiss simulation theory without further consideration. Until you really find that glitch in the Matrix, you can be confident that it's just a movie.		A procedurally generated simulated [[universe]] would, for all intents and purposes, be identical too a singular, [[material]] [[universe]] that conforms to consistent [[universal]] [[physical laws]]. Given that a simulated [[universe]] would be identical in every way to a non-simulated one, and requires an additional, unknown and unnecessary [[universe]] outside of own, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor] requires that we dismiss simulation theory without further consideration. Until you really find that glitch in the Matrix, you can be confident that it's just a movie.

	== Don't Bet On It ==		== Don't Bet On It ==

Fractalguy: /* Still Procedurally Generated */

2023-12-30T20:14:34Z

Still Procedurally Generated

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:14, 30 December 2023
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Even if we assume the [[universe]] is a simulation, it is obviously a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation procedurally generated] one, similar to games like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Sky No Man's Sky] that use [[algorithms]] based on pre-defined parameters to create the star systems and planets within that simulation.		Even if we assume the [[universe]] is a simulation, it is obviously a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation procedurally generated] one, similar to games like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Sky No Man's Sky] that use [[algorithms]] based on pre-defined parameters to create the star systems and planets within that simulation.

	In a procedurally generated universe, you have matter and energy that behave according to the laws of physics, and interact over time to [[self-organize]] into planetary systems and eventually [[evolve]] into life forms. The creator of the simulation does not interfere with the procedurally generated outcomes once the simulation starts. It can be done, but it's computationally inefficient and likely to corrupt the data. And it would be obvious to any observer within the simulation because all of a sudden some part of the [[universe]] would start doing defying the laws of physics in a way that no one has ever seen before since we started keeping track.		In a procedurally generated universe, you have matter and energy that behave according to the laws of physics, and interact over time to [[self-organize]] into planetary systems and eventually [[evolve]] into life forms. The creator of the simulation does not interfere with the procedurally generated outcomes once the simulation starts. It can be done, but it's computationally inefficient and likely to corrupt the data. And it would be obvious to any observer within the simulation because all of a sudden some part of the [[universe]] would start doing defying the [[laws of physics]] in a way that no one has ever seen before since we started keeping track.

	A procedurally generated simulated universe would, for all intents and purposes, be identical too a singular, material universe that conforms to consistent universal physical laws. Given that a simulated [[universe]] would be identical in every way to a non-simulated one, and requires an additional, unknown and unnecessary universe outside of own,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor] requires that we dismiss simulation theory without further consideration. Until you really find that glitch in the Matrix, you can be confident that it's just a movie.		A procedurally generated simulated [[universe]] would, for all intents and purposes, be identical too a singular, [[material]] [[universe]] that conforms to consistent universal [[physical laws]]. Given that a simulated [[universe]] would be identical in every way to a non-simulated one, and requires an additional, unknown and unnecessary universe outside of own,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor] requires that we dismiss simulation theory without further consideration. Until you really find that glitch in the Matrix, you can be confident that it's just a movie.

	== Don't Bet On It ==		== Don't Bet On It ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 14 January 2024
Line 29:		Line 29:
	If you look at simulation theory [[The Gambler\|compared to the other possible theories of reality]], it really seems like a bad bet.		If you look at simulation theory [[The Gambler\|compared to the other possible theories of reality]], it really seems like a bad bet.

	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqM_K9vL8is\|\|center\|\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqM_K9vL8is\|\|center\|Why the simulation hypothesis is wrong\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCSqogSPU_Q\|\|center\|\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCSqogSPU_Q\|\|center\|The simulation hypothesis is pseudoscience\|frame}}
			<br>
	{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVgBVcsAK1o\|\|center\|\|frame}}		{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVgBVcsAK1o\|\|center\|Propellerheads - Spybreak! from The Matrix\|frame}}