Could Our Universe Be a Simulation? How Would We Even Tell ?
Simulations all the way down—the philosophical debate on the nature of our Universe.
Ever since Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed his simulation argument in 2001, the nerdiverse has attempted to assess the possibility that reality is not really real, that what we experience as our Universe is instead the product of a computer simulation. Popular figures such as Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson have offered their own conclusions, but taking a firm stance was not the point of Bostrom’s argument. Instead, Bostrom’s position is nuanced and careful, and it doesn’t arrive at fixed answers.
Tired. Why are we so fascinated with this question?! I've heard some good answers on it, but it's like the energizer bunny. So I wonder, why do we keep asking, and clicking?
I believe it's because science and technology have squeezed spirituality into a such a tiny box that the spiritual part of our brain is left with wheels spinning. If we're lucky we transfer our religion to other things (like Bitcoin) but many haven't seen Satoshi's light so they keep hammering on reality itself. Theoretical physics requires more math than most of us know so the best we can do is grab onto something squishy like this.
That's a good point of view. I think it is the incessant search for answers about our surroundings or where we come from that always awakens questioning.
Yes and I'm not sure we could tell unless told by someone we trust to be "outside the simulation." Anything that happens inside a simulation is real regardless of how strange it seems because simulation people have no reference for what something real is like.
For me, while I know it's not the intent of Bostrom, this idea plays into the clownosophy about imitation intelligence being superior to human intelligence and to consciousness itself. That's why the anti-human movement likes to propagate it. Imo.
Criticism of humanism as over-idealistic began in the 19th century. For Friedrich Nietzsche, humanism was nothing more than an empty figure of speech – a secular version of theism. Max Stirner expressed a similar position in his book The Ego and Its Own, published several decades before Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche argues in Genealogy of Morals that human rights exist as a means for the weak to constrain the strong; as such, they do not facilitate the emancipation of life, but instead deny it.
That's right over the target. I wonder what Wikipedia says about how it's not ego, but a fascination with the fact that our intelligence is already integrated with our universe without any machines, ones, or zeros?