# Any off the wall ideas to test the 'life is a simulation' theory? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 12, 2019, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383 "2019-02-12T02:59:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DorkVader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/73ab20/32.png) [@DorkVader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DorkVader)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/41 "2019-02-17T17:08:34Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > Haha, well see, that explains black holes. > > Singularity is just antivirus quarantine. Could be, I was thinking more along the lines of a firewall around an access point of some sort myself. Antiviral quarantine might make sense too, though. Gonna have to dedicate some more cycles of my subprocessor to it. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2019, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/42 "2019-02-17T17:15:58Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Possibly you didn’t read through what I was saying because what I was saying is you either are simulating every particle, or you ain’t. Not asserting either. > > If you are simulating every particle, then you need at least as many particles (10^80 IIRC). These particles don’t need to occupy as much volume as our universe, but you still need them. > > If you ain’t, then my points about a fake universe apply. > > And think about it: for most of human history we have assumed our planet is basically everything, that humans are the super important reason for it all, and the stars are just points of light. And \*oh lookie here: \*the fake universe just happens to be exactly that paradigm again. Well, kind of. Who says the simulation Is about us? If it were that combination then that could just make us an anomaly that just so happens not to have any noticeable effect on the purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/43 "2019-02-17T17:16:58Z")
I’m not taking any if this seriously , admittedly. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/44 "2019-02-18T02:26:50Z")
First of all, why do you assume “we” are in a simulation? If YOU are in a simulation, there is no reason to assume that anyone else you meet is an actual human, as opposed to a NPC “bot” or avatar of someone participating in the simulation. Secondly, whether you could escape such a simulation would largely depend on how it works: If you are in something like the Oasis from Ready Player One, where you are wearing some sort of apparatus, it could be possible to remove or damage it. Although it would presumably be designed to prevent you from doing that. If you are in some sort of enclosed habitat like The Truman Show or Star Trek holodeck, you could try to reach the outer boundaries. Might be difficult if the boundary is the edge of the solar system. You could also try to create as much chaos as you can to cause the people running the simulation to intervene. But that presumes they would, as opposed to just letting it play out. Any sort of Matrix or Inception like situation where you are wired into the simulation would be problematic. You could try killing yourself, but you won’t know if that would cause you to wake up or die in real life. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/45 "2019-02-18T20:35:36Z")
> [@Littleman](#): > > I’m not taking any if this seriously , admittedly. Yes and I wasn’t ranting at you, but at the proponents of the idea particularly the high profile ones. I don’t think the simulation hypothesis is very strong right now, and it’s a bit dismaying to see not just guys like elon musk, but people who should know better like degrasse Tyson, run with this idea completely uncritically. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/46 "2019-02-19T16:44:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Of course the simulation’s creator would be functionally a god, the same way I’m effectively the god of the characters in the books I’ve written. The reason why dismiss the _Christian_ god out of hand is because the descriptions of him and stories about him are absurd and self-contradictory, and the reason we come up with theories that don’t require a creator is because there’s nothing about our reality that seems to _require_ a creator. Suppose you find a rock on a streambed - you don’t assume that that rock was carefully carved into that exact shape and then placed there for you to find. But you can’t prove it wasn’t! And how do you know that the simulation creator (we’ll assume the Abrahamic God) isn’t simply a dick that likes to mind-fuck his playthings? Based off modern standards and even a charitable reading of the Old Testament, the Abrahamic God IS a dick. He can do whatever he wants. it doesn’t have to make sense to you and me. ---
**Author:** ![robardin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@robardin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robardin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2019, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/47 "2019-02-19T20:52:00Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Yes and I wasn’t ranting at you, but at the proponents of the idea particularly the high profile ones. > > I don’t think the simulation hypothesis is very strong right now, and it’s a bit dismaying to see not just guys like elon musk, but people who should know better like degrasse Tyson, run with this idea completely uncritically. But it is, after all, a very simple and logical proposition and conclusion. Given the highly complex, and increasing complexity, level of simulations we are already able to run in computer programs, is it not conceivable that it is possible to construct a simulation of our own understanding of the universe, such that “programs” running inside of this simulation would be models of our own kind of consciousness? We already run simulations in massively parallel runs - so wouldn’t it be reasonable that such “ultra-complex” simulations also be run in massively parallel runs? Add the two together, and you reach the mathmatical conclusion that if it were possible at all, it’s far more likely that we are “in a simulation” than not. What if the whole “In the Creation of the Universe, Order was brought out of Chaos” is simply something like “In The Beginning was the Word, and the Word was 1024 bits; and God ran the POST check, and He saw that it was pretty good, yea, only one bad segment block that could easily be worked around?” And “consciousness” is simply indicative of a running process, “death” is being released back into the Free Store, and “reincarnation” if/when it is noticed is simply a later process using an uninitialized memory buffer with data still there from a prior process. Here’s the best part - from a practical perspective, nothing changes. Go about your lives being good people, or not, and believing in stuff, or not; the “elemental truths” about our universe, like the speed of light or Planck’s constant or whatnot, have always been there and always will be, until someone maybe resets it next week to have been that way forever since and ever forward, and you can’t tell the difference except for a nagging feeling of _damn, didn’t this used to be different/how did we not see this before?_ ---
**Author:** ![Pithily\_Effusive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pithily_effusive/32/252_2.png) [@Pithily\_Effusive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pithily_Effusive)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2019, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/48 "2019-02-20T01:39:42Z")
The simulator thing. I never understood what, precisely, was being simulated; me, or my environs; everyone I meet, or they’re in the same simulation as me. I also like the fact people promulgating this absurdity decry the existence of a supreme being…so who made the simulator? ---
**Author:** ![Littleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ccd318/32.png) [@Littleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Littleman)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2019, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/49 "2019-02-20T01:59:54Z")
> [@Pithily\_Effusive](#): > > The simulator thing. I never understood what, precisely, was being simulated; me, or my environs; everyone I meet, or they’re in the same simulation as me. I also like the fact people promulgating this absurdity decry the existence of a supreme being…so who made the simulator? I think everyone promoting it would admit the creator would effectively be God. Perhaps not in the usual sense though. It would be arguable that the creator didn’t know about us, or does but doesn’t care about us. Certainly that the creator does not interfere, after all many simulations are an experiment to see what would happen if … ( To clarify not knowing about us suppose the simulation I essentially a vast test of chaotic systems, they program in the quarks and particles and forces and …see what happens.) Again this is all so far out as to be a pointless semi academic exercise anyhow, but it’s entertaining thought. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2019, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383/50 "2019-02-20T10:08:53Z")
> [@robardin](#): > > Given the highly complex, and increasing complexity, level of simulations we are already able to run in computer programs, is it not conceivable that it is possible to construct a simulation of our own understanding of the universe, such that “programs” running inside of this simulation would be models of our own kind of consciousness? > > We already run simulations in massively parallel runs - so wouldn’t it be reasonable that such “ultra-complex” simulations also be run in massively parallel runs? Yes it’s plausible we are in a simulation. (Although we don’t know right now whether consciousness is something that can exist in software, for the purpose of this thread let’s assume that it is) > [@](#): > > Add the two together, and you reach the mathmatical conclusion that if it were possible at all, it’s far more likely that we are “in a simulation” than not. No. To take that mathematical statement and apply it to objective reality we need to consider all the implicit assumptions and potential issues with that line of reasoning: 1. Occam’s. Until we have evidence of Zion, the simpler hypothesis is that there is only the Matrix. 2. This kind of probabilistic approach to reality has been used before in philosophy and is known to be shaky. For instance, the argument has been made that humans will never conquer the galaxy, because if there is some future where we have colonized thousands of star systems and number in the trillions, the chance of you being born in 20th/21st century earth as opposed to that time is extremely low. This argument might seem superficially to make sense until you realize that bronze age humans could have used the same logic to say humans will never number in the billions. The logic of supposing you are more likely in a simulation is based on this same positing of metaphysical dice being rolled and it’s all on questionable grounds. 3. As mentioned upthread, no conceivable computing power could simulate a whole universe down to the quantum level. So at one level or other, it must be faked. And when you start questioning whether other people or your own memories might be faked, it’s turtles all the way down to solipsism / last-thursdayism / insanity [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-off-the-wall-ideas-to-test-the-life-is-a-simulation-theory/829383.md?page=2)