argument top image

Are we living in a simulation? Show more Show less
Back to question

Ever since The Matrix was released in 1999, many have questioned the parameters of the world we know and experience. Though the movie was a worldwide phenomenon that sparked up this debate, the philosophical underpinnings and implications of this potential reality give it new meaning in a modern, technologically advanced world where everything seems possible.

Yes, we are living in a simulation. Show more Show less

Many observers of this "Matrix" claim believe this phenomenon actually exists, and that our reality is simply a simulated, technologically fabricated universe. As humans, we merely experience the world as it was meant to be, unaware of the reality outside our reach.
< (2 of 3) Next position >

There are numerous mysterious scientific phenomena that could have resulted from a simulation.

From molecular physics to climate change, there are many factors of our reality that, to believers in the simulation theory, directly correlate with some other force controlling human perception of the world.

The Argument

Elon Musk, a giant within the scientific community, as well as other prominent astrophysicists and researchers today, believe in the possibility of a version of the Nick Bostrom simulation theory stating that if humanity technologically advances far into the future, they could have created the simulation we are living in right now. As the number of simulation in the future increases, so does the probability we are, in fact, existing in a synthetically created universe. Proponents of Bostrom's hypothesis also point to other seemingly inexplicable scientific anomalies, including the shifting of electrons from waves to particles when under observation, which they claim is an indication of the simulators controlling what humans can perceive. Another intriguing discovery was in 2017 when a group of University of Washington researchers "proved that they could embed malicious computer code into physical strands of DNA."[1] There are many mysterious questions science and research have not yet answered, and the simulation theory serves as a plausible explanation for some of them.

Counter arguments

The scientific method and all the complex processes therein are disregarded throughout this argument. There is no evidence to suggest that human technology will advance far enough to simulate reality itself, and just because there are unsolved scientific mysteries does not mean the simulation theory is automatically the cause of them. The world should not conform to the hypothesis simply because something seems odd or inexplicable. One must test the theory, not look for other phenomena to confirm or deny it. The dichotomy between waves and particles is incredibly unlikely to result from simulated manipulation, and the Mandela Effect (also cited as one of the supposed bits of evidence for simulation in the world[1]) could simply be the result of mixed memory from childhood. These are not sufficient reasons for proving the possibility of a simulated reality.

Proponents

Premises

[P1] Many scientific phenomena and strange anomalies in human existence cannot be explained by the laws of physics. [P2] The simulation theory can explain a considerable number of these phenomena, both because of their correlation with the theory itself and the increased possibility of simulation. [P3] Therefore, it is possible that we live in a simulation.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Forming a hypothesis to fit external scientific phenomena around it is dangerous and illogical. Simply because these anomalies are mysteries, they should not automatically conform to the simulation theory, the connection's probability weak at best. [Rejecting P3] P2 does not provide a sufficient reason to believe in the simulation theory.

References

  1. https://www.vulture.com/2019/02/15-irrefutable-reasons-we-might-be-living-in-a-simulation.html

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more ↑

Discuss

This page was last edited on Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 20:10 UTC

Explore related arguments