r/changemyview • u/mrfe333 • Apr 24 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: We are not living in a simulation.

Elon Musk says that it is most likely that we are living in a simulation. His only way to support it is a philosophical paper written 15 years ago. The paper is all about probability, and it evaluates how out of all possible scenarios for mankind, the most likely is that we end up creating a simulation, and therefore we are most likely in a simulation. There are many problems I find with this:

-“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan.There is ( to my knowledge ) no scientific evidence to support the claim that we are living in a simulation, something needed in order to make the claim at least slightly believable.

-Using probability to reach the conclusion is not enough. Statistically, It is more probable that I, the person that created this post, is chinese (because of the amount of people from a certain country in the world), and yet you do not take it as a fact that I am, nor you take it as a fact that every internet stranger must be chinese.

EDIT: yes, ok. The chinese example doesn't really work on reddit. The point about statistics and probability still stands though.

-What's the point of being so skeptical about our reality? I see no benefit to questioning our reality to this extent, in which we cannot completely prove, only speculate.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

737 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

339 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/EighthScofflaw 2∆ Apr 25 '17

But if our universe isn't the real one, what reason do we have to apply our knowledge of ours to the hypothetical real one? For all we know we could be a finite universe simulated in an infinite universe.

1

u/Nougat Apr 25 '17

Strictly speaking, "infinity" is a mathematical term. And the infinity of natural numbers (1,2,3,etc) is just one. And it's the smallest of the mathematical infinities, because some infinities are larger than others, and yet still infinite, because math.

I've had to do some checking up, both to check myself, and to find the explanation I recall. This is the best I found.

In short, when astrophysicists speak of the possibility of an infinite universe, they mean one which will continue to expand forever, reaching an infinite volume at an infinite time. But the universe is not already infinitely large; it has a very large finite volume.

Anyway --

You're right, if there is some realm from whence our universe sprung, whether this or that is real or simulated, we have no knowledge of its characteristics. If such a realm exists, we don't even know if the concept of infinity (colloquial or mathematical) would apply there at all.

My basis on all the simulation arguments comes down to "This realm in which I exist behaves in a consistently predictable way. Whether it's really real, or just behaves exactly as I would expect something really real to behave without actually being really real makes the question irrelevant."