Do we live in a simulation, Scientific American article posted today

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether we live in a simulation, inspired by a recent article from Scientific American. Participants explore various philosophical and theoretical implications of simulation theory, touching on topics such as the nature of existence, the role of a creator, and comparisons to Darwinian evolution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the simulation hypothesis, arguing against the notion that we are living in a matrix.
  • Others propose that DNA can be viewed as a computer program, suggesting that this perspective aligns with the idea of a simulation.
  • A participant raises the idea of "coders all the way down," implying that if we are coded, then the coder must also be coded, leading to an infinite regress.
  • There is a contention regarding the implications of simulation theory on Darwinian evolution, with some arguing that a programmer is implied in simulation theory, contrasting with natural processes.
  • Some participants assert that the simulation could have been initiated at any moment, including the current thread, suggesting that all past experiences could be part of initial conditions set by a programmer.
  • One viewpoint suggests that simulation theory and the belief in a creator may converge, as both imply a form of creation.
  • Another participant questions the relevance of simulation theory to fundamental existence questions, suggesting that whether or not we are in a simulation does not change the nature of existence.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of a creator for a simulation, with some arguing that a simulation logically requires a creator, while others challenge this notion.
  • Some participants express a belief that we are in some form of simulation, while others question how to define what constitutes an actual simulation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether we live in a simulation, with multiple competing views remaining. The discussion includes both support for and skepticism about the simulation hypothesis, as well as differing opinions on the implications of such a theory.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the nature of reality and existence, and there are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and implications of simulation theory. The discussion also touches on philosophical interpretations that may not be universally accepted.

RedOrb
Messages
24
Reaction score
7
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

I mentioned this just last night and a great article in Sci American was posted this morning. So what do you think, are we living in the matrix? I say no, however I have no problem viewing DNA as a computer program which could make us a simulation if viewed from the outside or to who or whatever wrote the code. So are you code written by a superior code writer? and what is the typical name for this coder?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: Fervent Freyja
Computer science news on Phys.org
Turtle.
I would point out that your argument can be applied to prove its "coders all the way down".
I hope the reference is not too obtuse
 
hutchphd said:
Turtle.
I would point out that your argument can be applied to prove its "coders all the way down".
I hope the reference is not too obtuse
It's an article, not my argument
 
They ask for the name of the programmer in the article?
 
hutchphd said:
They ask for the name of the programmer in the article?
This theory differs from Darwinian theory in a programmer is implied, not a sterile pond
 
You said it was in the article. Did they ask for the name of the programmer in the article?
 
hutchphd said:
You said it was in the article. Did they ask for the name of the programmer in the article?
I ask what is the typical name for this coder.

I means me in the English language

What I said again

I mentioned this just last night and a great article in Sci American was posted this morning. So what do you think, are we living in the matrix? I say no, however I have no problem viewing DNA as a computer program which could make us a simulation if viewed from the outside or to who or whatever wrote the code. So are you code written by a superior code writer? and what is the typical name for this coder?
 
RedOrb said:
This theory differs from Darwinian theory in a programmer is implied, not a sterile pond
No need to bring evolution in. It is not mentioned in the article.

The arguments about quantum experiments are not persuasive. The simulation could have started when you first opened this thread. All history, all memories, all records of past experiments could be initial conditions. So those past experiments could have whatever outcome the programmer wanted.

Correction: The simulation begins the instant I click Post reply. The contents of the thread and this post are initial conditions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd
anorlunda said:
No need to bring evolution in. It is not mentioned in the article.

The arguments about quantum experiments are not persuasive. The simulation could have started when you first opened this thread. All history, all memories, all records of past experiments could be initial conditions. So those past experiments could have whatever outcome the programmer wanted.

Correction: The simulation begins the instant I click Post reply. The contents of the thread and this post are initial conditions.
Would not your existence and mine as well as the communication medium all be required? Was Darwins pond simulated? My point is that I fully accept that DNA simulates articulation
 
  • #10
The idea of a simulation is as valid as the idea we are all god's creatures. It sounds unprovable either way.
 
  • #11
mathman said:
The idea of a simulation is as valid as the idea we are all god's creatures. It sounds unprovable either way.
I agree, but here is the important fact for me which is that simulation theory requires what we would refer to as a master simulator with knowledge and parts that may be in our future or not. As you mentioned many believe that God created the universe, I see no evidence of that as of yet. However the physicist speculating on simulation theory are inferring that the universe was created as creationist believe, so two formerly competing ideologies are merging here
 
  • #12
RedOrb said:
However the physicist speculating on simulation theory are inferring that the universe was created as creationist believe, so two formerly competing ideologies are merging here

My response was perhaps a trifle hostile...I thought you about to give a theological spiel. My apologies.
I do not really see the issue of simulation theory being salient to the fundamental existence question.
If we are "in a simulation", it might be the hand of god, it might not.
If we are not "in a simulation", it might be the hand of god, it might not.
I don't see what there is to discuss.....
 
  • #13
hutchphd said:
My response was perhaps a trifle hostile...I thought you about to give a theological spiel. My apologies.
I do not really see the issue of simulation theory being salient to the fundamental existence question.
If we are "in a simulation", it might be the hand of god, it might not.
If we are not "in a simulation", it might be the hand of god, it might not.
I don't see what there is to discuss.....
Actually a simulation would logically require a creator as the simulation would not have pond molecules to write DNA before the simulation existed. If Tyson wants to claim that a massively powerful computer creator and programmer programmed us, then Tyson has inferenced God no matter what he calls it
 
  • #14
RedOrb said:
Would not your existence and mine as well as the communication medium all be required? Was Darwins pond simulated?
Yes and yes. So what?
 
  • #15
RedOrb said:
Actually a simulation would logically require a creator as the simulation would not have pond molecules to write DNA before the simulation existed. If Tyson wants to claim that a massively powerful computer creator and programmer programmed us, then Tyson has inferenced God no matter what he calls it

.
We are clearly in some form of simulation.
How do you define an actual simulation.? Its the one that requires God. Circular all the way down.
.
.
 
  • #16
RedOrb said:
So what do you think, are we living in the matrix?
I think it's irrelevant: at least, as long as you can find the rounding errors and break the code (beware of the security measures - sometimes security ends with data erased).
 
  • #17
hutchphd said:
.
We are clearly in some form of simulation.
How do you define an actual simulation.? Its the one that requires God. Circular all the way down.
.
.
I do not define simulation as it's not my driveling article. However as you say reality itself is somewhat relative, as my reality includes Apple and Google and I am not trying to make 50 cents selling paper that was obsolete 10 years ago
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
14K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
40
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K