Is / are our universe(s) a simulation?

[6EQUJ5]

Is / are our universe(s) all just a simulation? How could we test to discover this? Would it make any difference to us if we discovered that we are in a simulation? If we discover that we are, would the creator / operator know when we discovered this status and how may that entity react to our discovery of such status?

[Piglet_Phoenix]

So the logic here is back to front.

If you're going to hypothesize we exist in a simulation then you have to offer proof. If you can't offer any proof it means we're not living in a simulation. It's excruciatingly simple.

Being unable to disprove something isn't enough to make something fact.

Can you prove I don't transform myself into a giant ape and fart rainbows every weekend? No, you can't. However, in order to prove this as fact I would have to provide irrefutable evidence. It's the same with this simulation malarkey, there's no evidence we are.

[6EQUJ5]

I do realise the meaning of the word hypothesize as it is used in a scientific context and I am not doing that. I.e. a planet beyond the dwarf planet Pluto is hypothesized, meaning that there is adequate reason for scientists to believe that it exists, without sufficient data to prove it.

So I am not hypothesizing about the universe(s) being a simulation. I am merely asking the question, seeking opinions. I have not given any opinion.

[Piglet_Phoenix]

I know that I'm real, but I don't have any evidence you're not a figment of my imagination.

Do you think you're real, or are you simulated? If you're not sure you really exist then it's probable you don't really exist.

Are you able to prove to yourself you aren't constructed out of computer code?

[6EQUJ5]

You are countering an argument that I have not put forward. I reiterate that I am seeking opinions.

[6EQUJ5]

"If you can't offer any proof it means we're not living in a simulation". I do not believe that principle. Being unable to prove something does not totally mean that it is 100% invalid.

Of course it is always prudent to take the attitude that without proof the normal default attitude should be non-belief. But there are cases in which the sensible non-belief is subsequently seen to be wrong. Nevertheless, in any subsequent cases where proof is not available most of us will again take the attitude of non-belief.

In the absence of proof most people will not believe that we are in a simulation. This is sensible. But maybe in 10, 100, 1,000 years someone could prove that we are living in a simulation. The absence of proof that we are in a simulation is not proof that we are not in a simulation. Such absence of proof merely makes us take the sensible attitude that we are not in a simulation.

These two Carl Sagan quotes are not contradicting each other :-
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Scepticism is the sensible default, not total denial.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Be sceptical until indisputable proof is available.

Here is a proposition. Next season Carlisle United will be League Two Champions. I am sceptical about this. Indeed it is more likely
that someone will produce absolute proof that we are in a simulation. But I cannot completely rule it out, I just consider it to be so unlikely that it does not merit much consideration.

[cocopops61]

What about the existence of God?

There is no concrete evidence that he does exist but many,many millions believe that he does,the Koran and Bible are from different religions but have a common thread so they both be branches of the same tree,something must have started lifeform of earth once the big bang had settled down,you've got to start with something! Somebody once told me that they believed that our lifeform started from alien s.hit,I honestly burst out laughing at this as it was so unexpected but he later explained that he thought that some kind of rock from outer space hit earth and on this was alien body waste from another planet and this was the kick start that earth needed,much like those tardis thingys that got put on here a few days ago,really sturdy bleeders that could survive the extreme temperatures and living on nothing for thousands of years

[Dick Large]

I never make any comment to the effect that God does not exist. I merely state that I believe that God does not exist. You will find that Richard Dawkins expresses similar sentiment.

It is a tired old belief to ascribe either the creation of the universe or the beginning of life to God. This is the ultimate 'God Of The Gaps' belief. In 'God Of The Gaps' anything in the past that cannot be scientifically explained is attributed to God. The problem about this is that these gaps eventually get filled by science. Nobody knows exactly how the universe or life began and science makes no pretence to know. However 'God Of The Gaps' steps in, which is nonsense. Of course science is working on these matters and there are theories but nothing remotely resembling proof.

[Piglet_Phoenix]

I'd like to further, 6EQ, I can prove I am real but I can't prove you are.

Therefore, "our" universe may not not be a simulation but I might be living in a simulated universe.

You could simply be an artificial construct, created solely to act before me. When I log out of this forum, you may, in most senses of the word, cease to exist. Your state will be stored, and you will be shelved until such a time as I choose to log in to this forum again.

Then again, I ask myself, if you simulate something perfectly and create a precise copy, what's really the difference? If I'm living in a simulation which is practically the same as "reality" in every way, I would effectively be living in a reality / reality anyway.

Back to Sagan, "be sceptical", fine. How do you account for scepticism in the simulation and what or who is being sceptical?

[6EQUJ5]

This is interesting. I believe that we are agreed. A very effective simulation would have intelligent life in it believing that it was real. We cannot prove that we are or are not in a simulation. It is not sufficient to regard no proof of being in a simulation as proof of being real.

In a legal court case if there is insufficient evidence to produce a conviction then a 'not guilty' verdict must be given. But it is not proof of innocence, though for all practical purposes we have to regard the defendant as innocent. The defendant may or may not have actually committed the offence.

This characterizes my view of simulation. Since there is, as yet, no proof that we are in a simulation it is sensible to believe that we are not because to claim that we are in a simulation is by far the more exotic of the two answers and the burden of proof has to be on the folk who believe that we are.

Yes, you may be Truman of the Truman Show film with the difference that everyone / everything else is actually a simulation, an environment set up for you. I cannot prove otherwise because I cannot prove to you that I am real.

We are also bordering on the free will issue, another interesting topic. I feel obliged to say that we have free will.