Are we living in a computer simulation?

Where does consciousness resides is the question to ask if you believe this is a computer simulation, this is my criticism of Elon and Lex, if this is a computer simulation, consciousness has to reside in a physical entity, this is the elephant in the room… with their logic then consciousness either resides in computer hardware and we are a computer algorithm or akin to the Matrix, we are being farmed…

l don’t buy in to any of these ideas, just because something is theoretically possible doesn’t mean it is probable and l think Elon and Lex have naively reinvented the God Question… because we are conscious beings then god is more probable but no more than evolution…
we seem to this Bertrand Russell is still talking to future generation, but he is talking to us here and now…

If we believe in a simulation, then someone on the top level has to be “real”. Which brings up the entire topic of who created them, again. If it were a god, who created god?

The origin of everything is and will most likely forever remain unknown. No matter what theories we try to spin around it, just to explain the world around us. (I think that in itself is irony at it’s best)

For all we know, we’re all swimming in a giant tea kettle, the galaxies representing the tea bits swimming around in it. Can’t prove me right, can’t prove me wrong. That’s how these topics go.

That said, we should let people believe what they choose to believe. If someone believes we live in a simulation, that to me is no different than believing in any (other?) religion.

Now people hate when I bring this up but … Everything we do is based on a theory. Math is one. We come up with “evidence” but there is no real evidence. It’s consistent of made up and defined anchors we put down in books and explain to future generations, so they have an easier time adapting to the state of humanity and understanding the world around them. But what if gravity doesn’t work as we have “proven” it to do? What if every 10E435423st time a rock would just fly off into outer space when being tossed into the air? We couldn’t possibly know.

With all that said:
I don’t think we live in a simulation. I would not allow people inside my simulation to consider living in a simulation. That does the trick for me to be honest. :smiley:


@Matz The top level of consciousness/being, if this were a computer generation, would be human or human descendants. As we see with Ai simulations it is to gather data in a simulated world, l don’t think there is any question to this.

“ The origin of everything is and will most likely forever remain unknown”
… we can absolutely exist out of nothing. After the Big Bang there was initially only hydrogen, then hydrogen and helium and everything else derives from this… In a random chaotic universe patterns form, the signature of something being random is patterns.

Observations in the Briggs-Rauscher reaction:
“Chemical oscillating reactions are examples of nonlinear dynamics and self-organization in chemistry, showcasing how complex patterns can emerge from relatively simple chemical systems far from equilibrium”
in essence self-organisation is the key here.

The question is then does this contradict laws of entropy?
“ Chemical oscillating reactions are examples of nonlinear dynamics and self-organization in chemistry, showcasing how complex patterns can emerge from relatively simple chemical systems far from equilibrium.”

“ Can’t prove me right, can’t prove me wrong.” There are some excellent BBC documentaries by Jim al Khalili that can describe how a universe can exist from Hydrogen and Helium, it is a shame that the is too much noise in our human world to see the wood from the trees. Elon, Lex et al are stirring the pot from what l see is ignorance, but really from very human biases…

How could you possibly know that?

If you’re assuming we live in a simulation, the big bang actually never happend and for all we know, the universe as we know it might be a fabricated reality, meaning in the real reality, there’s no such thing as planets or space. The same principle applies for physics and what our world is made of. We can’t just assume it’s the same. All of your arguments base on theory, there is no way to actually proove any of it unless we tear down the wall of our simulation (which again, I don’t think we live in one) and see what’s outside.

If we were able to run our own simulations, and I’d experiment with totally different beings from us, like squid like folks that communicate through telepathy, they would have their own coolebenjis who are convinced we are squidlike people and their own Matz who will suggest that they can’t possibly know and doesn’t believe they live in a simulation, eventually.

Don’t go about calling people ignorant though, just because they have a different angle, that’s what’s ignorant imho!

1 Like

Zero shot, analysis with Claude Sonnet.

The question posed was neutral and unbiased with the whole conversation submitted:

Please score this debate. Give an overview, what is the debate about, what is C’s argument and what is M’s argument, is it a balanced debate.

Work out how you will score this debate and finish with a conclusion.


This is a debate about whether we are living in a computer simulation or not. C argues against the idea that we live in a simulation, while M entertains the possibility that we could be in a simulation.

C’s Argument:

  • If this is a simulation, consciousness has to reside in a physical entity like computer hardware or we are being “farmed” like in The Matrix, which C finds implausible.
  • Just because something is theoretically possible doesn’t make it probable. C thinks the simulation argument reinvents the “God question” unnecessarily.
  • The universe can arise from fundamental particles through self-organization and patterns emerging from randomness, without contradicting entropy laws.
  • Reputable scientists can explain how the universe arose from basic elements like hydrogen and helium after the Big Bang.
  • C accuses Elon Musk, Lex Fridman and others of ignorance for entertaining the simulation hypothesis.

M’s Argument:

  • If we live in a simulation, there must be a higher-level “real” reality, which raises questions about the origin of that reality, like “who created God?”
  • The origin of everything will likely remain unknown, like whether gravity truly works as we think. Our theories could be incomplete models.
  • M doesn’t believe we live in a simulation, as they wouldn’t allow simulated beings to ponder living in a simulation.
  • However, M argues that if we do live in a simulation, our reality, physics, and the Big Bang may not have happened in the higher “real” reality.
  • M suggests we can’t assume our theories accurately describe the higher reality if it exists.

Balance of Debate: The debate covers some key points around the simulation hypothesis but could be more balanced. C provides more scientific counterarguments, while M mainly raises philosophical uncertainties without fleshing out the pro-simulation stance as much. However, both allow for the possibility that we don’t fully understand our reality’s origins or functioning.

Scoring: One approach could be to score the debate based on strength of arguments and evidence provided. C’s arguments against the simulation idea seem more grounded in established science, while M’s points are more hypothetical “what-ifs.” However, M highlights some limitations in our theories as well. An example scoring could be:

C: 7/10 (strong counterarguments but dismissive of uncertainties) M: 5/10 (raises uncertainties but light on evidence for simulation)

Conclusion: The debate showcases some of the key contestations around the simulation hypothesis but doesn’t exhaustively cover all angles. C provides more scientifically-grounded counterarguments against the idea, while M entertainsphilosophical uncertainties without fleshing out the pro-simulation stance as robustly. There are merits to both perspectives, but C’s arguments seem more forceful based on the exchange.

Nice try @Matz :wink:

1 Like

What’s the point of scoring an exchange as a debate, that was never announced as such? Are you trying to use the score to say that you are right and I am not? (Which is not the point of scoring a debate by the way)

I have to admit I just lost interest in this. Please find someone else to “dominate”.

This scientific field is known as “Digital Physics”. I wrote a few papers concerning this matter:

Does the Creator (if one exists) also wonder about it’s existence?

If it/he/she/they (?) have thoughts, do they think about why they exist, and how?

Does the Creator wonder if it is living in a simulation?

It seems to me that any Intelligent Agent existing in a system must wonder where the system it exists in came from.

It is possible, I suppose, that the Creator would have perfect access to knowledge about its own existence, but, would that be satisfying to know that one has simply always existed?

We humans seem to rely heavily upon causation, and I personally struggle with the idea of everything always already having been here.

Given the arguments about simulation theory, it seems likely to me that most intelligent agents are, in fact, living in a simulation.

Our own brains operate on precious little input, and basically hallucinate our experience from the data it gets from our eyes, ears, skin and so forth.

We are each living in that simulation, at the very least.

I long for answers to this.

I fear they can not be known.

Even by the Creator Prime, if one exists.

1 Like

We’re all definitely in a simulation. There are about 8 billion simulations currently running.

Yes, each of us is in our own personal simulation created by our brains, based on a handful of nerve generated electrical signals.

We have no idea what ‘reality’ actually is, but whatever it is, the simulation in our heads aint it.

Are we livin a computer simulation?
No. Not according to Occam’s Razor we are not. The Razor translates roughly as choose the simplest solution.
This cuts because, if you are in a simulation, what is to prevent another level of simulation under that simulation? Each level mastering the previous level?
Is it turtles all the way down? Absurd! QED We are not living in a simulation.

1 Like