65
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] whaleross@lemmy.world 75 points 4 days ago

Counter question; would it make any difference?

[-] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 34 points 4 days ago

That's the point - it wouldn't. People seem to expect that things would be different or meaningless if we did but I've never understood that logic. Even if we do live in the base reality it could just as well be a simulation and nothing would need to change.

[-] whaleross@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

Exactly. Even if it was definitely proven that this is all a simulation, there is exactly zero chance humans could ever break out of it or hack or exploit or even begin to understand the machine the simulation is running on. We have still not even figured out the rules for our universe and understanding what the real universe where this is a simulation is way beyond the scope of human understanding. We could not affect it in any meaningful way except maybe some laboratory tests or cause some hideous corruption. Yet we think and feel and experience living in the only way we know. Hence, I'd argue it would not matter.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago

This is quite literally how many religions view their divine beings. They are so massive that they are beyond your comprehension and we would be powerless to impact them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] khannie@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago
[-] gilokee@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago
[-] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago


Just connect me to my reality.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago

Then he got wacked by Tony Soprano.

[-] humanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.su 3 points 3 days ago

I think it would matter if these simulations existed if we could interact outside or between them somehow.

[-] whaleross@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

If we'd manage to communicate with parallel universes, would it matter if they are all real or simulations along with ourselves?

How could we possibly interact with any machinery sophisticated enough to be our entire universe or the parent universe where these machines can be conceived?

It's like pacman breaking out of assembly language and figuring out how to sneak out of the arcade.

[-] Kit 3 points 3 days ago

A simulation could be hacked, and that's really fun to think about

[-] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

If we are in a simulation, I'm pretty sure it's already been hacked or infected by a bad virus at least.

[-] whaleross@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Fictionally, sure. Realistically, humans could hack a simulated universe like fish can hack the aquarium.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 30 points 4 days ago
[-] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 11 points 4 days ago

50?! You're crazy! 0.5 at best!

[-] Una@europe.pub 6 points 4 days ago

Nah, at least 0,50

[-] BiggestPiggest@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Just because we do t know something doesn’t masks it 50%

I don’t know if there’s a gorilla in my upstairs bath at the moment but the odds aren’t 50/50

On the question of god or a simulation, they aren’t 50/50 either

  1. Whoosh
  2. Given the lack of any meaningful information to base an estimate on, they essentially are.
[-] frankenswine@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago
[-] ChetManly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It was at that moment I realized frankenswine was a 30 story tall monster from the paleolithic era!

God damn you love ness monster!

[-] midribbon_action 21 points 4 days ago

Belief in a simulation implies intelligent design of some sort, so this is, in my opinion, just a 21st century way of asking the age old question, does God exist?

[-] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 9 points 4 days ago

God is a loaded term though. Yes there would be a creator but it could be a completely passive observer.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Less than the odds that we are living in a false vacuum.

[-] humanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.su 4 points 3 days ago

I don't know about ya'll, but from my perspective, the simulation would only have to simulate my world.

You all might not even exist.

[-] bitcrafter@programming.dev 10 points 4 days ago

I figure that we are all definitely living in a simulation because, even if the world has real physical existence, consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain to make sense of the world.

[-] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago

consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain

Have you ever been surprised?

[-] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

surprise is simply the sensation of unexpected information

[-] bitcrafter@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

I have no idea what you are trying to get at by that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Pudutr0n@feddit.cl 12 points 4 days ago

well, you're asking this question in a platform which has the sole purpose of presenting a digital representation of social interaction, so I'd say pretty fucking high.

You don't need the matrix plugging needles into the back of people's heads for the world to be a simulation. smartphones and computer screens are more than enough.

[-] callyral@pawb.social 6 points 3 days ago

it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.

[-] pebbles@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

I think the smallest computer that can simulate the universe is the universe. Though I guess you may be able to get rid of one of the dimensions due to that one projection theory. Which means you may be able to get ride of more than one dimension. Which means maybe the universe can fit into a single infinitely dense point. So maybe we can make black hole computers. We'd just need to bend space time in a real specific way because what's the point of a computer you can't get any output from?

tl;Dr: I bet we could figure out how to simulate a whole universe within a decently small computer. Seems hard though.

[-] humanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.su 2 points 3 days ago

We don't need to model reality, only people's perception of it.

[-] BiggestPiggest@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

In reality, simulations would outnumber reality. So that’s the ratio and therefore the chances.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

A simulation wouldn't be this stupid

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Una@europe.pub 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I mean is there any proof we don't live in a simulation? Like I am not arguing for simulation, neither am I arguing against it just, personally, I don't see simulation theory as something life changing and important. Odds would probably be 50/50, but don't see how it changes anything. If I live in simulation, I live in a simulation and someone is either controlling me or someone predestined me to do what I do, and it would be their fault for bad things happening. That would actually raise question why didn't they gave us more clear understandings of morals so we don't do bad things to each others, also why did they make us kill, and get sick...

If simulation is not real, then that doesn't change anything we still have questions about who or what made us, who or what was before our universe even existed.

[-] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 7 points 4 days ago

You can't prove a negative.

The positive assertion is "we live in a simulation". All that can be done is gather evidence to support this assertion.

[-] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You can't prove a negative.

That principle doesn't apply here, because you can use simple language to turn the words around, and then you have a positive, while the task of proving it remains the same.

Specifically: when you say you can't prove that we don't live in a simulation, then it is the same as saying you can't prove that we do live in reality.

But "we do live in reality" is a positive. Now the words are different, but the task is the same: prove that we live in reality.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Alsjemenou@lemy.nl 2 points 3 days ago

You mean that reality might have been created by intelligent being(s)? wow.. Nobody ever thought about that one before.

[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 days ago

Greater than zero.

You wanna tweak your melon a bit? Look up "Last Thursdayism." It's a thing — due to the way short term and long term memory work, the theory goes that anything before "last Thursday" is a lie. It's an arbitrary day of the week. The movie Dark City played off of this, when the — I forget what they were called — did their tuning and rearranged things and swapped peoples' memories around.

[-] FishFace@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

There is no sensible definition of probability that makes that question answerable.

[-] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

Either 100% or 0% so pascal's wager 50/50.

Just like the lottery, I either win or I lose, its a 50/50.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 4 points 4 days ago

What are the odds that we are all in a simulation?

What are the odds that every bullshit that you ever heard is actually true?

[-] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

I don't know.

[-] brachypelmide@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago

Well, until we see people randomly floating or chunks of the world disappearing, the answer will probably remain "who knows"

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think this depends on how you look at it.

In a certain way, we do live in a fictional world that is constructed of information. If you consider your daily routines, they're probably following instructions of some sort to earn money, besides other things.

Both of these things - the instructions and the money - are made up. You can see this even more clearly with the money. Money itself is a piece of paper or not even that - a number in a database - that has no real value, yet people believe in it and that belief is what gives it value. In other words, the value of these numbers in databases exists in people's head more than it does in reality. Now, you could consider this a simulation, because it happens inside a computer and influences what people think.

However, i truly doubt that such a view is meaningful. No matter what is written in the databases, you still have to go through your own, individual life. I feel the biggest question you're implicitely asking is whether there could exist some kind of cheat code or glitch, like in video games, to shortcut through the world and reach your goals easier. Again, depending on how you look at it, there both are and are not such cheats.

You could consider human technology a sort of cheat. Instead of toiling on the agricultural fields ourselves, we use heavy machinery that is powered by fossil fuels, but more importantly mathematics, to do the work for us. Same goes for all other technologies. As such, the mathematics itself becomes the cheat code.

If a true cheat code would exist in today's world, you can take solace in the fact that not only you are looking for it, but so is everybody else who has an interest in achieving their goals. Now, you see, the whole economy is simply based on the concept that people want to reach their goals, and to do so, they need resources, for which they need money. So, if a cheat code existed, every single company would have a high interest in finding it and exploiting it. Since the number of people engaged with these desires is quite high, you can assume that significant progress towards that goal is continuously made whenever possible. In fact, people research and invent new things and useful tricks all the time to help us with our daily lifes. If you really wanna know more about this, you should start by studying economics, physics, and society at large. Thank you for your attention, if you have any more questions, let me know :D (i studied philosophy, i might help you)

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
65 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34457 readers
2053 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS