Signs We're in a Simulation

[ElCodeMonkey]

I would take for granted that we can never prove that we are not in a simulation any more than we can prove there is no God. In the same fashion, to believe we are in a simulation takes only small evidences or consistencies that sound reasonable enough to a given person for belief. So what are some of the small evidences that might lead one to believe a simulation is likely? One example might be the fact that certain arithmetic algorithms appear regularly in the universe. Makes it seem "designed" with a computer program. Other things might include quantum mechanics regarding tunneling, entanglement, wave/particle duality, and functioning as waves of probability. Those might need fleshed out as far as why they might indicate a simulation though. What else might support the idea that we are in a simulation? Or what might be inconsistent with the theory?

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by ElCodeMonkey]

I think there are numerous indicators we are within a simulation.

I think that anything which has a beginning is an indication that it is a simulation.

Also look for anomalies. The most significant anomaly we are aware of is The Planet Earth itself, as it stands out as completely unusual object in and of itself in relation to its surroundings.

But another anomaly less noticeable is that there are no two things exactly like each other. The universe itself as a whole is unique, and this pattern of uniqueness extends throughout it, as far as we have observed to date.

If it were simply a random mindless process we should see indications of that within its structure, yet we see the opposite.

I think one of the things which prevents many from delving too far into the possibility that the universe is a type of simulation is that this idea forces purpose, whereas a random mindless thing allows lack of purpose.

Also, it allows for notions of GOD to persist, albeit such notions naturally enough force those thinking deeply about this to veer away from the standard notions of GOD which have been in place long before notions of a simulated universe were understood in a manner we are now able to understand with the onset of computers and simulations we presently have.

That too is an indication that we are within a simulation. Some intelligent consciousness would have to be behind/outside of that as the simulations creator/inventor, and the patterns continue in that intelligent consciousness within the simulation continues making simulations.

Even with the idea that the universe unfolds mindlessly and is doing so because the universe simply takes the only possible paths, the fact that there are only possible paths to take is an indication that simulation is involved, as this shows that chaos is not really involved in the process. Rather, it is order which is involved.

In that, we can ascertain the purpose of the simulation as far as any consciousness experiencing it from within is concerned, because while there is incredible variance, there is a rather narrow path of purpose in which the variance has to work with.

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Unfortunately the way we see, store memories, think, respond to beliefs, proves to some extent we are in a simulation of some degree. Its just the way we are wired. Our relationship with reality is not indicative of actual reality. Welcome to the matrix neo.

[Clownboat]

Unfortunately the way we see, store memories, think, respond to beliefs, proves to some extent we are in a simulation of some degree. Its just the way we are wired. Our relationship with reality is not indicative of actual reality. Welcome to the matrix neo.

What evidence can you supply that makes your claim above in bold true?
Thanks...

[William]

@


kcplusdc@yahoo.com: Unfortunately the way we see, store memories, think, respond to beliefs, proves to some extent we are in a simulation of some degree. Its just the way we are wired. Our relationship with reality is not indicative of actual reality. Welcome to the matrix neo.

Clownboat: What evidence can you supply that makes your claim above in bold true?

William: If we are indeed in a simulation of our own making, we may have made it nearly impossible for us to realize for certain that this is the case. Those things in bold may indeed be evidence of that.

[Clownboat]

@


kcplusdc@yahoo.com: Unfortunately the way we see, store memories, think, respond to beliefs, proves to some extent we are in a simulation of some degree. Its just the way we are wired. Our relationship with reality is not indicative of actual reality. Welcome to the matrix neo.

Clownboat: What evidence can you supply that makes your claim above in bold true?

William: If we are indeed in a simulation of our own making, we may have made it nearly impossible for us to realize for certain that this is the case. Those things in bold may indeed be evidence of that.

He used the word 'proves'.
Your 'ifs', 'mays' and 'hypotheticals' render his 'proves' to be the wrong choice of word it would seem.

Neither of you supplied any evidence that makes his claim above true.

[William]

@

William: If we are indeed in a simulation of our own making, we may have made it nearly impossible for us to realize for certain that this is the case. Those things in bold may indeed be evidence of that.

Clownboat: He used the word 'proves'.
Your 'ifs', 'mays' and 'hypotheticals' render his 'proves' to be the wrong choice of word it would seem.

William: Yes it would seem so...

Clownboat: Neither of you supplied any evidence that makes his claim above true.


William:"IF's" only require "THEN's"
IF you require evidence that you actually exist in a simulation - even one which you created for yourself to experience - but you made it nearly impossible for us to realize for certain that this is the case, THEN how would you provide any evidence that what is assumed real is nonetheless, a simulation?
One cannot claim that one is most definitely NOT in a simulation.
One can only declare that IF one is NOT in a simulation, THEN one is unable to verify that this is actually the case.

[Clownboat]

@

William: If we are indeed in a simulation of our own making, we may have made it nearly impossible for us to realize for certain that this is the case. Those things in bold may indeed be evidence of that.

Clownboat: He used the word 'proves'.
Your 'ifs', 'mays' and 'hypotheticals' render his 'proves' to be the wrong choice of word it would seem.

William: Yes it would seem so...

Clownboat: Neither of you supplied any evidence that makes his claim above true.


William:"IF's" only require "THEN's"
IF you require evidence that you actually exist in a simulation - even one which you created for yourself to experience - but you made it nearly impossible for us to realize for certain that this is the case, THEN how would you provide any evidence that what is assumed real is nonetheless, a simulation?
One cannot claim that one is most definitely NOT in a simulation.
One can only declare that IF one is NOT in a simulation, THEN one is unable to verify that this is actually the case.

Copy/Paste to save time:
"Neither of you supplied any evidence that makes his claim above true."

[William]

Clownboat: Neither of you supplied any evidence that makes his claim above true.

William: I do not think that I made any claim regarding anything being true.
What I did write is that such COULD be evidence that we are indeed living in a simulation.

[William]

Double Post.

[William]

Clownboat: Neither of you supplied any evidence that makes his claim above true.

William: I do not think that I made any claim regarding anything being true.
What I did write is that such COULD be evidence that we are indeed living in a simulation.

This video has some extremely interesting commentary on the observed evidence which supports the idea of Simulated Universe.