this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
43 points (82.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34367 readers
1397 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Alsjemenou@lemy.nl 1 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] humanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.su 1 points 3 hours 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.

[–] callyral@pawb.social 5 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] humanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.su 1 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 8 hours ago

Did you really interrupt my minecraft game to make me read that?

[–] BiggestPiggest@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Assuming reality and/or consciousness can be simulated, which we have no way of knowing is true (for now).

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 14 hours ago

I hope so

Also, can somebody please turn it off? I think we took this one as far as it's worth

[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 64 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Counter question; would it make any difference?

[–] humanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.su 1 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 7 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] khannie@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] gilokee@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago


Just connect me to my reality.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 23 hours ago

Then he got wacked by Tony Soprano.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frankenswine@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

God damn you love ness monster!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bitcrafter@programming.dev 8 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

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 1 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

consciousness is essentially a simulation created our brain

Have you ever been surprised?

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

surprise is simply the sensation of unexpected information

[–] bitcrafter@programming.dev 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 0 points 4 hours ago

So now you wonder what you need to answer.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] BiggestPiggest@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

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.
[–] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 13 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.

Can't prove it, can't disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.

People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.

This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)

It is as pointless as arguing about god.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I don't know why people assume that computation power increases indefinitely forever until it simulates a universe. why would it do that?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] midribbon_action@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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 10 points 1 day ago (8 children)

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 (4 replies)
[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

A simulation wouldn't be this stupid

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Pudutr0n@feddit.cl 13 points 1 day 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.

[–] Una@europe.pub 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours 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)
[–] IntriguedIceberg@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

So I guess it depends on what you understand by "simulation". What is really simulated as opossed to being "real". Our reality is just an interpretation given by our senses, so in a sense it's also a simulation of the real thing. Where's the line that makes something really "real"?

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 3 points 20 hours 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?

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

More likely than us being in the "real" base reality

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.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours 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 ›