Simulation Theory - thoughts? - DebateIsland Development Environment The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland Development Environment


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Simulation Theory - thoughts?
in Philosophy

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 281 Pts
What are your thoughts on Simulation Theory? My position on this is that this is ludicrous being that we living species are not made of binary; we're made of matter. Anyway, what's your thoughts?



The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1699 Pts
    I have recently been thinking about ways to verify whether the hypothesis is correct. The conventional wisdom is that it in principle is impossible to find out whether we live in a simulation or not experimentally, because we have no way to interact with the "baseline" world. However, this assumes that the simulation is perfect.

    We know that in almost any more-or-less complicated computer program there are going to be bugs, rounding errors, unintended behaviors, crashes and so on. There is no reason to assume that the simulation we are in would be any different. As such, we could look out for things that stand out and do not fit in any way into our theories - and, at the same time, that are not reproducible enough to just be natural laws of the Universe. And while, strictly speaking, those observations do not necessarily hint at us being in the simulation, rather than simply being weird laws of the Universe we are not familiar with, they could be a strong indication at the hypothesis being true. And, even more so, once we learn enough about the Universe, perhaps we will even find a way to "hack" the simulation code from the inside, by intentionally behaving in a way that causes the simulation to break down and transform into a version more desirable to us.

    Another notion to consider is that the relation between our world and the "baseline" world does not have to be hierarchical. That is, it is possible that our world is simulated in that world, and, in turn, that world is simulated in our world. Maybe on one of our planets there is a computer running a simulation of another world, in which there is a computer running the simulation of our world, in which... If this is true, then, by finding the computer in our world and tweaking its code, we could consequentially tweak our own world, rewriting some of its laws, for example.
    The problem with this notion is the "problem of infinities": it would take an infinite amount of processing power to simulate a world simulating a world simulating a world... continuing infinitely. But who is to say that it cannot exist? Infinities are peculiar in that they can be contained in themselves without violating the rules of arithmetics. There is no reason to assume that our world does not contain infinities in it, and just because we have never observed one does not mean they do not exist.

    I realise that this is a purely philosophical discussion at this point, and there is no way we can even attempt to verify any of this in the foreseeable future. But still, it is an interesting topic to discuss.
  • maxxmaxx 50 Pts
    @ZeusAres42 well, matter is an illusion when you get right down to it.
  • maxx said:
    @ZeusAres42 well, matter is an illusion when you get right down to it.
    Care to elaborate?

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • The universe is binary. Left spin, right spin and no spin. Refer to - The universe is made from only one particle theory.
  • @maxx

    Matter is made of left and right spin particles which orbit or are falling into a hole in space called a no spin particle or neutron.
  • Well, the higher being that created the simulations would have created what we call "the laws of science". This could be used as a tactic to prevent humans from investigating further as most people would say "But it's impossible, it defies this ______". That's probably exactly what the simulation creators want you to think. 
  • This theory also opens up the question about the origin of the existence of the simulation creators.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch