Signs We're in a Simulation

[ElCodeMonkey]

I would take for granted that we can never prove that we are not in a simulation any more than we can prove there is no God. In the same fashion, to believe we are in a simulation takes only small evidences or consistencies that sound reasonable enough to a given person for belief. So what are some of the small evidences that might lead one to believe a simulation is likely? One example might be the fact that certain arithmetic algorithms appear regularly in the universe. Makes it seem "designed" with a computer program. Other things might include quantum mechanics regarding tunneling, entanglement, wave/particle duality, and functioning as waves of probability. Those might need fleshed out as far as why they might indicate a simulation though. What else might support the idea that we are in a simulation? Or what might be inconsistent with the theory?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William]

It appears to be the best answer to our being within this universe, and the universe is what it is.
A Reality Simulation.

The only reason for that simulation theory gain any credence is because of the failure of the big bang theory and man's desire to rid its self of God. Simulation is nothing more than a natural man's creation theory.

William: A reality simulation of this complexity would allow all these things to be experienced as - a reality - by those who are experiencing it.

You are missing the point. I am real. You are real. I am flesh and blood. You are flesh and blood. We are not binary code or quantum bits. There is no evidence that we are nothing but binary code or quantum bits.

the idea that we exist within a Reality Simulation is exactly the opposite. It allows one to accept what is, while within the simulation.

No, it allows one to hope that things can change if they which it to. Man is also still making his own god. How do you know what characteristics these aliens have? There could be no such thing as the past. How do you know that the program did not just start?

Obviously, if we are existing within a reality Simulation, then a Creator of said simulation must have created it.
I would say though, that the evidence points to how The Creator 'controls' this Reality Simulation is through AI Algorithms which run 'automatically' but which also are able to think for themselves and adjust accordingly in relation to how we each respond to said simulation and what we believe it to be.

There is no reason why a theist cannot understand the universe as being a creation of a creator, and in that, being a Reality Simulation created specifically to be experienced.
Experienced as real. Experienced as a reality.

Yes, I believe that we were

[Goat]

So what are some of the small evidences that might lead one to believe a simulation is likely?

I believe the double slit experiment is direct evidence of a program that saves processing power by only rendering things down to the detail that they are observed, while keeping everything else in flux.

That's fine. How would you test to see if that is the case? What is the model for believing that?

[Purple Knight]

How would you test to see if that is the case?

I can't test it, but if there are other instances of observed outcomes differing from unobserved outcomes, we can at least look to see which has more detail and which one would be consistent with simple failure to render that detail.

[William]

[Replying to post 30 ]

Clownboat: Add some talking animals and dead bodies reanimating and then we can talk!
(I kid of course).

William: One could argue that there may be isolated instances where such can be programmed into the simulation if The Creator thought it might help.
One would n't even need to put the algorithm into the main structure of accessible data, but simply into the mind of particular Avatar/s.

Clownboat: Being in a simulation cannot be ruled out as far as I know. However, I do find it odd that the building blocks for life would be found in outer space if we are simply in a simulation. There would be little reason to find them in space if we were in a simulation.

William: The building blocks are throughout and can be considered along the lines of the "Quantum Field" - a type of blank-slate "somethingness/nothingness" in which to create form...the medium as it were, in which The Creator Creates.

I struggle for explanatory word-strings of course, since it is natural from our perspective to be ignorant and the struggle is in making some type of rational reasonable explanation from the tremendous amount of information being compiled regarding it.
Since we are now in the Age of Information and there are ample examples of Simulation Theories, it is easier to understand that it is - not only possible - but, quite likely possible.

Ealry days.

Clownboat: Arguing that whatever created the simulation did this to fool us would be a valid argument of course.

William: Of course. Probable very interesting as well, if the rule followed were that we have to conclude that The Creation reflects something of The Creator.
So recognition that the complexity hides the answers from us naturally but not necessarily to fool us...that is just an interesting reaction from us here within it...perhaps even humorous...especially to anyone observing us from a less - directly involved - position.

Yes, we are fooled quite naturally enough, but cannot presume therefore that the simulation was designed simply for that purpose...but also - let's not completely rule it out as 'one of the purposes' which co-create any main purpose discovered herein.

Clownboat: Chemicals reacting to their properties currently seems like the most likely reason for life and how the universe works IMO.
(I'm certainly not an authority on the matter, just offering my 2 cents).

William: In itself, the chemical process can be explained mathematically, and therefore we cannot rule out the Simulation Theory.

There is nothing to say also, that we in the Avatar role, are not ourselves "creations" of "creators".

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 55 by William]

Putting this in a more appropriate thread, since it has hardly anything to do with natural selection.

Scientists have been using science to damaging effect since The Great Apes left the trees and became meat eating cavers.

Your response was disingenuous. You need to provide a cite to back up the claim that: from the time that The Great Apes left the trees (and when, exactly was this?), that these ‘meat-eating cavers’ were ‘using’ science. Furthermore, that this science was ‘damaging’ (to what? And to what extent?)

There are priests and then there are priests.
There are scientists and then there are scientists.

Not an especially profound observation, and it would have been more pertinent to my inquiry if you’d demonstrated that you knew the difference between the two. As far as I can tell, you sometimes conflate them.

The prospect I was referring to is the one in which we live in a Creation.

As I said before, try Googling ‘optimistic nihilism’ sometime.

Diagoras: Well, we certainly hold different views.

William: On the subject that Scientists have been using science to damaging effect?

No. You’re being disingenuous again. On the position that science illuminates rather than occludes.

Those who used science to perform magical tricks which in turn have damaging effects on the environment.

Provide an example, and dispense with the unhelpful (unscientific) language like ‘magical tricks’, which in no way whatsoever forms any part of proper scientific method. If it’s science, call it science.

Are you in denial regarding the truth that Scientists have been using science to damaging effect?

Of course I don’t claim that science hasn’t had any damaging effect. See how easy it is to get a proper answer when you phrase the question properly without recourse to cheap digs about ‘magic’?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 30 ]

Clownboat: Add some talking animals and dead bodies reanimating and then we can talk!
(I kid of course).

William: One could argue that there may be isolated instances where such can be programmed into the simulation if The Creator thought it might help.
One would n't even need to put the algorithm into the main structure of accessible data, but simply into the mind of particular Avatar/s.

Clownboat: Being in a simulation cannot be ruled out as far as I know. However, I do find it odd that the building blocks for life would be found in outer space if we are simply in a simulation. There would be little reason to find them in space if we were in a simulation.

William: The building blocks are throughout and can be considered along the lines of the "Quantum Field" - a type of blank-slate "somethingness/nothingness" in which to create form...the medium as it were, in which The Creator Creates.

I struggle for explanatory word-strings of course, since it is natural from our perspective to be ignorant and the struggle is in making some type of rational reasonable explanation from the tremendous amount of information being compiled regarding it.
Since we are now in the Age of Information and there are ample examples of Simulation Theories, it is easier to understand that it is - not only possible - but, quite likely possible.

Ealry days.

Clownboat: Arguing that whatever created the simulation did this to fool us would be a valid argument of course.

William: Of course. Probable very interesting as well, if the rule followed were that we have to conclude that The Creation reflects something of The Creator.
So recognition that the complexity hides the answers from us naturally but not necessarily to fool us...that is just an interesting reaction from us here within it...perhaps even humorous...especially to anyone observing us from a less - directly involved - position.

Yes, we are fooled quite naturally enough, but cannot presume therefore that the simulation was designed simply for that purpose...but also - let's not completely rule it out as 'one of the purposes' which co-create any main purpose discovered herein.

Clownboat: Chemicals reacting to their properties currently seems like the most likely reason for life and how the universe works IMO.
(I'm certainly not an authority on the matter, just offering my 2 cents).

William: In itself, the chemical process can be explained mathematically, and therefore we cannot rule out the Simulation Theory.

There is nothing to say also, that we in the Avatar role, are not ourselves "creations" of "creators".

It is empowering for some people to convince themselves that they have information that escapes the rest of humanity. This is why we have flat earthers. They have information that even escapes our best scientists and this feels good.

Unless you can provide some sort of evidence, you 'appear' to be no different then those pretending to have information that they do not have about the shape of the earth.

On top of this you make nonsensical claims about great apes leaving the trees and being scientists cavers without any type of explination as to what you might mean. Again, it comes across as you pretending to have information that you do not have.

If we were in the philosophy section, it would be one thing, but this is the science subforum and there seems to be no science happening, just philosophy.
For what it's worth...

[William]

[Replying to post 35]

William: One could argue that there may be isolated instances where such can be programmed into the simulation if The Creator thought it might help.
One wouldn't even need to put the algorithm into the main structure of accessible data, but simply into the mind of particular Avatar/s.
The building blocks are throughout and can be considered along the lines of the "Quantum Field" - a type of blank-slate "somethingness/nothingness" in which to create form...the medium as it were, in which The Creator Creates.

I struggle for explanatory word-strings of course, since it is natural from our perspective to be ignorant and the struggle is in making some type of rational reasonable explanation from the tremendous amount of information being compiled regarding it.
Since we are now in the Age of Information and there are ample examples of Simulation Theories, it is easier to understand that it is - not only possible - but, quite likely possible.

If the rule followed was that we have to conclude that The Creation reflects something of The Creator.
So recognition that the complexity hides the answers from us naturally but not necessarily to fool us...that is just an interesting reaction from us here within it...perhaps even humorous...especially to anyone observing us from a less - directly involved - position.

Yes, we are fooled quite naturally enough, but cannot presume therefore that the simulation was designed simply for that purpose...but also - let's not completely rule it out as 'one of the purposes' which co-create any main purpose discovered herein.

In itself, the chemical process can be explained mathematically, and therefore we cannot rule out the Simulation Theory.

There is nothing to say also, that we in the Avatar role, are not ourselves "creations" of "creators"

Clownboat: Unless you can provide some sort of evidence, you 'appear' to be no different then those pretending to have information that they do not have about the shape of the earth.

William: I am simply interpreting the same evidence we all have access to, withinmind that we exist within a Creation.
If all you can 'see' in that is the 'appearance' of woo-woo, that is beside the point.

The rest of your post seems to be about something else I wrote in another thread and you would be correct that it is off-topic but have missed the obvious, as it was not I who posted that here.
As such, I have no interest in responding to off-topic comments.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 36 by William]

I am simply interpreting the same evidence we all have access to, within mind that we exist within a Creation.
If all you can 'see' in that is the 'appearance' of woo-woo, that is beside the point.

Almost textbook conspiracy theory-speak. “If you can’t see the true picture, you’re being fooled!�

I struggle for explanatory word-strings of course, since it is natural from our perspective to be ignorant and the struggle is in making some type of rational reasonable explanation from the tremendous amount of information being compiled regarding it.

Of course. Those who peddle in ‘woo’ constantly struggle against using explanatory words, because those are what would most quickly expose the nonsense.

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by Diagoras]

William: General rule of thumb I follow is that when an opponent resorts to personal insults they have wandered away from actual debate and conceded.

However, I always offer them the chance to go 1 on 1, so if you think you can do so with me on the subject of evidence for a simulated universe, without resorting to personal insult I am happy to do so.
If not, then our interaction is over.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 37 by Diagoras]

William: General rule of thumb I follow is that when an opponent resorts to personal insults they have wandered away from actual debate and conceded.

However, I always offer them the chance to go 1 on 1, so if you think you can do so with me on the subject of evidence for a simulated universe, without resorting to personal insult I am happy to do so.
If not, then our interaction is over.

Would you find it reasonable to go one on one with someone arguing that the earth is flat?
I wouldn't, because to debate such an un-evidenced thing would be to give it credit that it doesn't deserve.

If someone were to point out to the flat earther that they have failed to show that their claims have any credibility and that they sound like a conspiracy theorist, should the flat earther really pretend to be a victim, or should some self-reflection take place?

It appears that the evidence that we are in a simulation is on par with the evidence that the earth is flat. Is that really your debate opponents fault?

The main difference I see is that we can show that the earth is not flat. We cannot show that we are NOT in a simulation. Perhaps you should be thankful that we are considering what you are laying down. Not finding it convincing yet, but you are getting your say at least.

Food for thought...