Is there hard evidence that we live in a simulation?
The formation of stars shows there are invisible corners and our universe is a shape.
>>16294822And what about the error correcting codes in supersymmetry?
>>16294818>we live in a simulationWould that change something?(Human) Existence is meaningless anyways
>>16294840>Would that change something?Maybe
>>16294845"we don't know" is the correct answerand the answer to your original question is also "we don't know" ultimately, whatever answer you logically deduce to be within the realm of possibilities for this type of question will also bring with it another question, like: if we live in a simulation, do our simulators live in a simulation of their own? or to phrase it more generally: if the universe is finite in time-space, what lies beyond the universe in time-space? you'll always be confronted with infinity or some type of infinite regress if you take metaphysics to its conclusion. science can't answer infinity. you can read Plato and Spinoza and Kant or Schrödinger and Heisenberg and find them arriving to the same conclusions
>>16294818If you get close to finding "hard evidence" the alien body snatchers come for you in your sleep. Hence no evidence. For what it's worth we do live in a simulation and it is important. That means all humans have a purpose and have meaning. Even the most poor and most down trodden. All are part of the equation and the simulation needs all the parts to work. Suffering and pain happen for a reason and no matter how alone you feel you never are. It's a good thing. You're special and important. Think of the resources devoted just to make you possible. Nothing is done for waste, all is necessary. t. Simulation Theory researcher who fucked around, found out
>>16294818Define simulation. If God exists, then yes. I have good reason to think God does exist. But if an infinite being creates something, it isn't really a simulation. It is more of a creation. Also, if God does exist and you are evil or don't believe in him then you are screwed according to the Bible lol. The only weird thing is that all the possible realities you may think of, they would all indicate that there is someone much more powerful than you who is watching you in some way. This is true by induction :)
>>16294818There's boundless evidence that the universe is designed and ordered and full of systems, but people will believe in anything before God, they'll even believe in aliens with no evidence for them because they don't have moral laws you're supposed to follow, and they don't want to submit to anything higher than themselves (or the current government they have, hence why many secularists argue morality from what is or isn't legal, rather than moral absolutes like God's law). At the core, it's a moral issue why they reject the most reasonable understanding of the expansive wealth of data proving the universe and life is ordered and full of systems and fine tuned and simply can't happen by chance changing bit by bit.They'd rather believe literally nothing created everything magically then life magically came from nonlife then magically transforms into all life forms and then magically stops transforming once all creatures are finished and humans show up with writing, all by random chance. It's far more sensible that this ordered and systemed universe which can be rationally studied was designed by a rational mind which gave us a rational mind to understand it, than that it magically by randomness just happen to come about if we wait long enough and also our minds just randomly happened to work so well to understand the universe or immaterial things like math or logic, that's just absurd especially since no explosion nor random mutation or change has ever created order and systems or mind. You could make a program to randomly change bits until you get a calculator, it will never make a calculator (it will certainly not make complex programs or mind). The source code to a calculator is much simpler than DNA of the most simple life form, but a single cell is also more complex than a space shuttle. It's just so absurd what they teach in the schools as 'settled science fact' when it's not even close to evidence or logicked reason.
>>16294840No actual scientist believes that. Nihilism is philosophy for depressed teenagers.
I've never heard a convincing argument made for simulation hypothesists.>le pascal's wagerDoesn't demonstrate anything, plus it hinges on the idea of universe scale simulations being possible which we haven't demonstrated yet.>le just have faith >>16294894That's retarded. >le god of the gaps >>162949141. Assumes human life is the end goal2. Strawmen about morality3. Tu quoque about literally believing in nothing.Did God create the waters, the deep, in Genesis 1? If you think he did, then you believe something came from nothing. If you rightly think he didn't, then god didn't create everything, only the earth.4. Shittiest fine tuning argumentAssumes the physical constants could have ever been different. Why? Can you show that they could have been different or is it just wishful thinking?5. Thinks DNA is source code6. The no good mutation argumentNylon eating bacteria.7. Assumes reason created universe, rather than universe created reason. Reverse causality.The only reason we value reason (excuse the pun) is because it can describe reality. You could define reason with no relation to reality, and it'd still be internally consultant, but unhelpful in the real world.
The most compelling piece of evidence I've heard is from Demis Hassabis, who is far more intelligent than anyone on this board, and who definitely believes we are in a simulation. That the World we live in seems designed for learning and communication, such that computers are made of silicon, our second most abundant element, whereas if they'd have been made by diamond we'd only have a handful of computers. Also, the pentifulness of oil and our historically fortunate timing to have access to it.
>>16294872>you'll always be confronted with infinity or some type of infinite regress if you take metaphysics to its conclusion.No, that is one of three possible resolutions, the others being circular logic ala "I think therefore I am" and dogmatism or "It is what it is".
