I get what a simulation is, at least in the very literal sense. What I’m experiencing feels like reality, it would have to, it’s all any of us have ever known. But what would it mean for us if we truly lived in a simulation? Can it just be turned off and we cease to exist? If we found out we did live in one, how could it change our reality? How do we even hypothesize such a thing? I have zero background in physics just so we’re at an understanding of my physics understanding.
In: 794
It’s just creationism dressed up to seem more scientific.
A lot of comments have already made a lot of very valid points about this being more of a thought experiment than anything.
However I think there’s a simpler (ELI5’ier) explanation for this.
It’s not “We potentially live in a simulation, because we have found verifiable proof to support that conclusion”
It’s “We potentially live in a simulation, because we technically can’t prove we don’t”
Though the outcome is the same, “we potentially live in a simulation”, the two statements arrive at that conclusion in a completely different way.
The problem here is that the second statement employs a very well known logical fallacy, the burden of proof fallacy. In order for a claim to be valid, the person making the claim should provide proof their claim is true, not the other way around, since it’s impossible to prove a negative. You can think of this like “innocent until proven guilty” but for ideas instead of people. The absence of proof for something doesn’t automatically count as proof for the opposite.
The concept can be a bit vague sometimes, but it’s basically like saying “I own an invisible, intangible unicorn only I can see, hear and feel”. Technically, there’s no way for me to prove you don’t. However, my inability to prove you don’t own that unicorn doesn’t automatically prove you do. Other (way more likely) explanations could be, you’re just a liar or you’re a schizophrenic and the unicorn is just a figment of your imagination.
Essentially, this discussion is as old as time and it’s just creationism dressed up to seem more scientific. Technically speaking, there MIGHT be a god (very heavily stressing MIGHT), just because there is no way for us to prove there isn’t one. You can’t prove a negative.
The idea of our reality being a simulation often comes up in discussions about an infinite universe expanding from the big bang, infinite time, infinite “alternate universes” (a.k.a. the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) or other ideas generally related to infinity in some way.
I personally believe the concept of actual “infinity” lies so far beyond our imagination we can’t make sense of it. We can’t visualise it, we can’t equate it to anything. It’s such an abstract concept we might never fully understand what it means. Maybe our physics and mathematics aren’t “ripe” enough yet to make sense of it and maybe never will.
Note that this is absolutely no different from people all throughout history using religion as an explanation for phenomena their science couldn’t explain.
“We can’t explain lightning because we have no concept of electricity yet? Must be god.”
“We can’t explain why a bunch of people are suddenly dying because we have no concept of how infection works yet? Must be god.”
“We can’t explain how the human race came to be because we have no concept of evolution yet? Must be god.”
“We don’t have a good grasp on what an infinite universe actually entails and what that means for our perception of reality? Must be a simulation.”
It’s the idea that even if we don’t understand how something works, there must be someone or something out there who does, because how else can it exist like that in the first place?
I personally think that’s a very naive way to look at the universe.
Really, in its very essence, it’s just new age pseudo scientific creationism, but it’s still a fun thought experiment to think about.
Latest Answers