Jump to content

Is Reality a Simulation?


Guest

Is Reality a Simulation?  

65 members have voted

  1. 1. Is reality a simulation?

    • Yes
      16
    • No
      49


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Correct, you can’t say that it is impossible, only improbable/impossible under certain conditions, i.e starting with what we know about computing and what we know about physics.  But a simulation theorists could always just say it’s based on some future computing process, new understanding in laws of physics, etc.  Also, since they think this world is just a simulation it really doesn’t matter what we know about how this world works, or really about how anything works.  They can argue that the simulation is possible with the physics and computing solutions in the real world.  

Ok, but my point is that this isn't just a theoretical future technology. Quantum computers exist now, although practical application is limited. I took this article as taking one partial step in identifying a specific application where quantum computers would be superior.  

If you want to have a conversation on this, as your original post indicated, it would be best if it was an honest one. Your original post identified arguments by proponents and opponents. However, the proponent arguments you listed aren't any of the stronger arguments for the theories (and really, are just intended to mock rather than identify serious arguments). If you want to have a religion vs science discussion, start that thread. Don't shoehorn that into what could have been a more interesting discussion. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Ok, but my point is that this isn't just a theoretical future technology. Quantum computers exist now, although practical application is limited. I took this article as taking one partial step in identifying a specific application where quantum computers would be superior.  

If you want to have a conversation on this, as your original post indicated, it would be best if it was an honest one. Your original post identified arguments by proponents and opponents. However, the proponent arguments you listed aren't any of the stronger arguments for the theories (and really, are just intended to mock rather than identify serious arguments). If you want to have a religion vs science discussion, start that thread. Don't shoehorn that into what could have been a more interesting discussion. 


If you would like to make a positive case for the possibility of simulating our world with quantum computing or elaborate on what you think the article is claiming in regards to the topic, then you can do so.   Not caring to make preemptive counter arguments in anticipation of what you might think the article is claiming or what you think is possible with quantum computers is not dishonesty.  If you would like to have some honest discussion, how about we start with the subject topic directly.  Do you believe we are living in a simulation?  Do you find the idea worthy of consideration or compelling in some way?
 

I don’t want to have a religion vs science discussion because I think that is a false dilemma. 

Edited by axiom of foundation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...