Can We Prove the World Isn’t a Simulation? | Hacker News Reader

Can We Prove the World Isn’t a Simulation?

nautil.us

And how would my life change depending on whether or not I was in a simulation, or whether or not I was aware of it? I would still have the same problems, joys, limitations, abilities, etc. There is nothing I could or would do differently.

In other words, this is an abstruse and somewhat silly philosophical discussion which has no bearing on my everyday life and world. It seems to me that the brain cells used for such musings could be better put to use solving problems and creating things in the real world.

If we could prove the universe was a simulation, we might be able to find mistakes (or limitations or design choices) of the simulation that enabled, for example, faster than light travel, or sending information back into the past.

You could equally say that the detection of black holes, or the Higgs boson, have "no bearing on [your] everyday life and world", and you might be right, but that's no reason to be dismissive of people's pursuit of knowledge about the fundamental nature of the universe.

Also, if it turned out we were in a simulation, that would almost by definition mean that our universe was intelligently designed (even if the design were merely a one-for-one replica of a non-designed universe). I think that such a scenario is unnerving to many people because it would introduce the possibility that the designer(s) might be able to express agency in the universe, and towards humans individually, in a way that the cold unfeeling laws of physics do not.

Thanks for the well reasoned response. There are times when I think hn has become too negative, then a comment like yours pulls me back in.

"if it turned out we were in a simulation, that would almost by definition mean that our universe was intelligently designed (even if the design were merely a one-for-one replica of a non-designed universe). I think that such a scenario is unnerving to many people because it would introduce the possibility that the designer(s) might be able to express agency in the universe, and towards humans individually, in a way that the cold unfeeling laws of physics do not."

Excellent point - one I hadn't considered too deeply. I would also imagine it would challenge the ideas of religious people around the world. "Mine is the one true faith. Therefore my God(s) created the simulation" sort of thing. It would probably bring about completely new religions come to think of it.

Let's hope its not a simulation.

> then a comment like yours pulls me back in.

That's a really positive thing to say, and I appreciate it, thanks.

> it would challenge the ideas of religious people around the world.

Don't you think it would also challenge the ideas of non-religious people?

I can imagine it being pretty disorienting to suddenly find that there is a "supernatural" "higher power", a "creator" that can (and probably does) take an interest in the affairs of men, potentially rewarding or punishing them for their deeds, both during and after their biological life. That seems like exactly the sort of reality that many atheists would most want to avoid.

Totally agree. Having recently watched "Don't Look Up", I imagine there would still be a good number of "Simulation deniers" who would carry on regardless.

This sounds like the plot of a sci-fi novel...

> I would also imagine it would challenge the ideas of religious people around the world.

It seems to me that simulationism and theism are mostly compatible beliefs, perhaps differing only in the nature of the creator. If anything, evidence of simulation seems like it would come as a greater shock to atheists and the irreligious.

> Let's hope its not a simulation.

Why not?

If there was definitive proof that reality was indeed a simulation, and there was a creator of it, I don't think it would align with most of the world's religions.

So you would have believers and non-believers realizing what they believed in is wrong. I imagine the world would descend into chaos.

I guess it depends on the kind of proof we are entertaining. If the proof were so obvious that all observers immediately drew the same conclusion, (e.g., message in the sky, "Experiment #323481 is ending in X days."), then chaos might ensue. I don't see why an intelligent designer would intervene with the simulation without a very good reason. It's hard to imagine such a scenario, perhaps some kind of a test for transcendence, e.g., pass the test and get materialized in "outside" world.

If proof of simulation existed, I think it would be more abstruse, e.g., error states in quantum field theory. If this proof were only accessible to the intelligencia, I doubt the reaction would be very different from that of a new religion. Some would proclaim divine providence like the prophets of yore (perhaps it was a miracle, or perhaps they just saw Jesus in the toast). I doubt anything short of an exploitable error would cause a disturbance to life as we know it. On the other hand, if we could exploit it...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com