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

In summary, the conversation revolves around the topic of whether we are living in a simulation or not. One person mentions an article in Scientific American that discusses the possibility and asks for the name of the programmer in the simulation. Another person argues that this theory differs from Darwinian theory and questions whether the simulation could have started when the conversation was first opened. They also mention that the idea of a simulation is as valid as the idea that we are all God's creatures. Another person agrees but points out that the concept of a simulation implies a master simulator with advanced knowledge and technology. The conversation then shifts to discussing the relevance of simulation theory to the fundamental question of existence and whether it is related to the concept of a higher power.
  • #1
RedOrb
24
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 Fervent Freyja
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #2
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
 
  • #3
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
 
  • #4
They ask for the name of the programmer in the article?
 
  • #5
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
 
  • #6
You said it was in the article. Did they ask for the name of the programmer in the article?
 
  • #7
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?
 
  • #8
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 hutchphd
  • #9
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
 

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

What evidence supports the idea that we live in a simulation?

Some scientists argue that the rapid advancements in technology and the ability to create realistic virtual environments suggest that it is possible for a highly advanced civilization to create a simulation of our reality.

Can we ever prove or disprove the simulation hypothesis?

At this point, it is impossible to definitively prove or disprove the simulation hypothesis. However, scientists are working on developing tests and experiments that could potentially provide evidence for or against it.

What implications would living in a simulation have on our understanding of reality?

If we were to discover that we do indeed live in a simulation, it would challenge our understanding of what is real and what is not. It would also raise questions about free will, consciousness, and the nature of existence.

How does the simulation hypothesis fit into current scientific theories and models?

The simulation hypothesis is not currently supported by any scientific theories or models. In fact, it goes against the widely accepted principle of Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate.

What are the potential ethical implications of living in a simulation?

If we were to discover that we are living in a simulation, it could raise concerns about the actions and intentions of the creators of the simulation. It could also bring up questions about the value and purpose of our lives within the simulation.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Computing and Technology
2
Replies
44
Views
11K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
730
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
36
Views
12K
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
40
Views
9K
Back
Top