Humans have been wondering where did they, and the universe, come from for thousands of years. Many religions tell us that a bearded guy in the sky decided at some point that we would be entertaining to watch, so he used his awesome powers to make us.
Science tells us that we have no idea where we came from, but at some point something exploded, and everything existed after that. We don’t know if there was any matter, or even any time, before that explosion, and what caused it. Also, science knows that the bearded guy didn’t exist, or at least is totally different from what religion said.
I am not religious. I believe in science, as long as science admits that we really don’t have a clue. We move steadily towards the truth, without knowing how far it is, so it could potentially take forever. Also, science thinks we can’t do science forever (Entropy).
On the other hand, math has a different answer.
As of now, we know our universe is entirely deterministic, except for some quantum phenomenons, that may or may not have a cause that we haven’t identified yet. We also don’t know how to move faster than light yet, but we can’t prove that it’s impossible.
If we ever had a computer that could “think” faster than light, and our universe was deterministic, it would be possible to entirely simulate a universe exactly identical to ours. The faster than light part would allow the time in the simulation to move faster than ours. If that was possible, the simulation would also be created in the simulated universe eventually. And then again in that simulation, and so on. Since every simulation moves faster than the one before it, there could eventually be infinite levels of simulation. Also, any simulated person would feel like their time is normal, while the others are too slow or too fast.
If this technology is one day possible, no matter the rules against it, i garantee that someone will try it. We have a history of trying stuff. If there are infinite levels of simulation, our reality has a 1/infinity chance of being the real one. That’s basically zero.
That’s the point the simulation Argument is trying to make. We live in a simulation, because the odds of being the original are infinitely close to zero. That, or we will go extinct before being able to create a simulation.
Several patterns in our reality also seem to point to being a computer program. Weird arbitrary and perfect constants, presence of an observer changing the result of an experiment, very precise and definite starting point, Unique ID-like number for every single electron, etc
Also, this is not The Matrix. In the simulation argument, there isn’t a “real body” somewhere in deep sleep for every person in the simulation. A person is literally only code in the computer, like the computer players in video games. You can’t “wake up” from the simulation, you ARE part of the simulation. If it shuts down, you stop existing, you aren’t freed.
Scott Adams seems to believe in some variant of the Simulation Theory.
What are your thoughts on this Argument? Does it make sense, or is it completely insane?
Also, before answering, try to see if your reasons make sense. If you think that it’s obviously false before figuring out why, even if the reason comes half a second later, that’s cognitive dissonance, and you should probably think it over again.
Bonus points: If we ever create a simulation, and the accelerated time makes us see them create their own simulation, and so on, should we ever shut it down?