Take a sleeping pill so they are rested the next morning? The techniques they’ve learned to deal with their dyslexia work better when they are rested. 
I dunno, I have a hard time falling asleep, so I stay up wondering if there’s a way to cure that.
Sits up all night, wondering if there is a dog.
You can’t know the speed and position of a particle at the same instant. That sure looks like a kludge. Is Heisenberg’s model more parsimonious in terms of information?
Maybe I missed a key post, but if the question revolves around whether we’re living in reality or a simulation of reality, then I have to ask: What, exactly, is the difference between the two, other than your vague sense that one is more legit than the other?
-VM
A sim is “intelligently designed” by definition, whereas reality is only claimed to be intelligently designed by some deists and theists.
The OP failed to assign the Venn diagrams properly, suggesting that if our universe is a sim, this refutes non-deism and non-theism. This is quite absurd. (Otherwise, Sid Meier is God…at least to those worlds his games simulate.)
As best I can tell, the choice is:
- This is reality.
- This is a simulation of reality that is so perfect that we could never prove it was not reality.
I don’t see how any atheist is supposed to feel defeated, however slightly, by such a vapid concept.
Sometimes, discussions about God seem to carry a faint hint of incense. This one smells like pizza.
With or without anchovies? This thread has, from the start, been slightly fishy…
Smells like Philosophy 202 and a dime bag of Maui Wowee, to me.
First off, I’m an atheist.
Second, I agree with the premise. If each “real” universe can spawn more than one simulated universe, then the odds of us being in a “real” universe is vanishingly small. We are most likely in a simulation.
We’re already at the technological point where we can run very rudimentary simulations. No Man’s Sky, coming out later this year, procedurally generates an entire universe on each user’s computer. Granted, there’s no fine detail- the game will only show the larger detail, but there’s no chemistry or such- but to a player, it should be fairly convincing. And technology increases on a curve- once we can really simulate one universe, it won’t be long before we can simulate *many *universes.
Third, I know I’m real. As far as I know, the rest of you are just bit players (get it? “Bit”? I slay me). You’re just here to support the game that I’m playing.
That’s right- I’m running the game. I’m god. Worship me, my minions.
Yeah, that’s what I’m getting, too.
The problem, for me, is that I think there is an unattractive arrogance lurking in this line of thinking, particularly in this distinction between “reality” and “simulation”.
You see, I naturally visualize pretty much everything. For this discussion, I’m imagining a miserable bear that used to live at the Birmingham Zoo. It was obviously miserable because the bear was not, er, “designed” to live on an unshaded rock in the scorching Alabama sun.
As people outside the fence, we can clink our martini glasses and say, “Look at that bear living in its simulated habitat.” However, to the bear, that habitat is the real world. And he can’t say, “Wait, this is all fake. Stop the ride and let me off.”
So, to me, this distinction between simulation and reality is like the distinction between “pretty” and “ugly”–it only exists in your head…and only if you’re standing on the right side of the fence.
Which leads me to conclude that this discussion of whether our universe is real reality or simulated reality is just absurd. We’re living inside the fence, so this is our reality. Whether some other being outside the fence might deem this to be a simulation (and whether there IS a fence) is not only irrelevant, but is backhanded insult to every human experiencing it.
But, don’t you see, if it’s not really real, then it doesn’t really matter.
Well, it’s real to me, and it matters to me. I think (and feel); therefore, you suck. [That’s the rhetorical “you”, not the literal “you” whose post I’m responding to.]
-VM
I figure the OP scored some points in a game nobody else was playing. Good for him.
There might actually be practical differences. It is not beyond the reach of supposition that a sim universe has “laws of nature” that we can discover and exploit.
Sims generally don’t have a hell of a lot of redundancy or reserve capability. There are limits to how many cities you can build in the Civilization series of games.
It’s just vaguely possible that if we all migrated to one place and observed one feature of the landscape – let’s all go to New York and look at the Statue of Liberty – we could stress the sim server, causing a slowdown or crash.
(Hm… Crashing the system is not a particularly profitable exploitation of the system, but it is an example of how we might access/influence the system.)
Maybe God is just a user who discovered god-mode.
I suspect that if we’re living in a simulation, it’s a WAY better one that Civilization (no disrespect to the developers). If we’re going to find a way to muck it up, my money’s on the field of Quantum Mechanics–for all we know, that Higgs Boson particle is some kind of End-Of-Game figurine.
As you suggested, I think breaking the simulation might not be the smartest move on our part.
Of course, if you want to convince me that this is a Sim, you’re going to have to explain the popularity of Justin Bieber, 'cause I just don’t see how anyone could make that shit up.
-VM
Considering that many sim games have disaster codes (including alien invasions and Godzilla-types), it makes perfect sense!
So… Hitler = griefer?