Simulation Hypothesis

[Could]

AIBU to think simulation hypothesis seems quite legit on so many levels?

For the initiated (from Wiki): 'The simulation hypothesis or simulation theory is the proposal that all of reality, including the Earth and the rest of the universe, could in fact be an artificial simulation, such as a computer simulationn^. Some versions rely on the development of a simulated realityy^, a proposed technology that would be able to convince its inhabitants that the simulation was "real"'

My husband mocks me mercilessly, and doesn't quite get that it's not a 'one player game' a la Truman Show, but I genuinely don't think the idea of everything being a simulation is that far fetched- especially against religious concepts? The idea of a high power controlling us all is akin to most religions?

It's been well researched by physicists, with some concluding it's not possible to date, but research continues, and how would you prove it/disprove it?

Fully expect to be told I'm BU, obviously, and bonkers to boot, but throwing it out there anyway.

I think it's a possibility, there's got to be some reason the whole universe exists and it must have come from somewhere. I love reading about different theories. Although I can't think about it for too long or my head feels like it's going to explode!

I find this interesting but can't believe that it would be true

@lavenderlove it's so interesting isn't it!

Wikipedia merely posts what people post.
Have you actually researched a theorem of your belief?

Do you ever watch black mirror OP? There's some great variations on this theme

In reality no I think it's a silly idea and far less likely than a God simply because it fits.our understanding of the world and how it works and surely that's limited?

I have @1Morewineplease, as I genuinely find it fascinating!

I decided going in with research papers on an AIBU post might be a bit heavy, and Wiki offered a nice synopsis for those who might not be au fait with the theory 🤷‍♀️

To be fair, the research doesn't strengthen an argument for... but then it's kind of a hard thing to prove 🙃

Another conspiracy nut

@Cabinfever10

Another conspiracy nut

I have just written a psychology thesis on conspiracy theories and I don't think this really meets the definition.

I am happy to be considered a nut though, that's fair.

It might be best to look for answers outside of Wikipedia.
Maybe look at scientific journals from respected universities from around the world. Maybe it’s best not to just focus on possible theories.

@1Morewineplease

It might be best to look for answers outside of Wikipedia. Maybe look at scientific journals from respected universities from around the world. Maybe it’s best not to just focus on possible theories.

Huh? I just replied saying I'd read a tonne of research (none of which finds evidence for simulation hypothesis), and Wiki was just a nice overview with which to start a discussion? 🤷‍♀️

So there's no evidence for it but you still believe it and your not a conspiracy nut 🤔

Ah I think calling the op a conspiracy nut is a bit harsh! Where’s the harm in exploring ideas? Op sounds like you might enjoy philosophy. I haven’t looked into what you posted - need to sleep - but your description reminded me of the ‘brain in a vat’ thought experiment

I find your post fascinating OP. I don't know why others are giving you such a hard time?!
I really wish I understood physics. I find it absolutely fascinating but hard to get my head around!

Who or what is running it and why? If the answers are anything along the lines of "nobody knows", then I'm going to struggle to see any difference from a "god created everything" religion.

I think that what you’re saying is interesting, but if you’ve researched it so much could you show us your sources other than Wikipedia?

Yes, it might well be that it would be impossible to know if it was a simulation while you were in the simulation.

But I can't really see an reason to think it might be a simulation, and unlike questions or assertions about god, I don't think you can really make the same kinds of metaphysical arguments about the nature of being, or epistemological arguments, etc, that would really lead one to suggest that we should logically conclude we are part of some sort of simulation.

It's a fun idea, and it has been conceived/ debated by respected physicists. It is not a conspiracy theory - the concept is essentially an intersection between quantum physics and philosophy.

Ages since I read the stuff but as far as I remember, the 'reason' for us all being in the simulation is that our descendants (who have evolved into a state of much more sophisticated intelligence) want to study how their ancestors lived - I guess a bit like the way we study early homo sapiens/ sapiens. So they have recreated this world, and are letting us go through the life cycle and letting nature take its course.

It's enjoyable to mull over! And yes, I think it is almost like the closest we have to science explaining all kinds of religion and beliefs in God or multiple deities.

Best not to think too hard about this. If you get too close to the truth you'll get deleted as a bug in the simulation!!!

Just play along and enjoy the ride.

IF thought = simulation THEN
DELETE (thought)

The question isn’t about whether it’s true, it’s does it matter if it is? That, for me, is where this dovetails with organised religion and a belief in “god”.

It's not really a conspiracy theory is it? Hitchhiker's Guide covered it pretty well I'd say! It's an interesting idea but ultimately, does it matter? Does it change anything? Would you live your life differently if it was a simulation? I suppose it depends on what comes after. If we just die/drop out of the simulation and cease to exist then we better make the most of the time we have. If when we die we drop out of the simulation and end up in the future with flying cars and calorie free delicious chocolate then we might try and hasten our demise! But we don't know so we have to hedge our bets and get on with this life as best we can.

The mice are furious.