The Simulation Hypothesis says that we are all just video game characters in a massive simulation. Here is the wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Thanks.

"Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality could be simulated—for example by quantum computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality."

Let's assume we're in this game right now. What do you do differently?

Kataclysmal wrote:The Simulation Hypothesis says that we are all just video game characters in a massive simulation. Here is the wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

/Thanks.

I don't think it's debunkable. Don't mistake that to mean it's believable. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you have any evidence post it here and someone might be of some help. Not a link to an encyclopedia page, but specific claims of positive evidence.
This is a good encyclopedia page to give you an idea of what I mean. It goes something like "there could be a teapot orbiting between here and the moon, too small to see with any telescope, but you should believe me, it's there." Do you find that statement believable? There's no reason why you should. The "we're living in a simulation" idea is on equal footing as an orbiting teapot. Which is, no footing without evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

If this is a video game, it must be Leisure Suit Larry.

Yeah, it's bullshit.

It's un-evidenced.

The same argument applied to those who simulate us concludes that they too are more than likely simulants - ad infinitum. "It's simulants all the way up." is the antithesis of, "It's turtles all the way down."

Also, there's no evidence.

Kataclysmal wrote:The Simulation Hypothesis says that we are all just video game characters in a massive simulation.

There's no need to debunk this. Assertions made without evidence can be disregarded without evidence.

Kataclysmal wrote:The Simulation Hypothesis says that we are all just video game characters in a massive simulation. Here is the wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Thanks.

You're not the first one to ask this question and misunderstand where the burden of proof lies.
People who claim the simulation hypothesis is true have to demonstrate this to be the case. It's not up to those who remain skeptic to prove the negative.
There's a reason it's called a hypothesis and not a theory.

What does it matter? If you prick me do I not bleed? If you tickle me do I not laugh? If a simulation cannot be differentiated from reality, then it's just as good as reality. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

I doubt holographic video game characters could ever feel pain.

Keep It Real wrote:I doubt holographic video game characters could ever feel pain.

But how would it distinguish between 'real' and simulated pain?

Yep what is reality?

Kataclysmal wrote:The Simulation Hypothesis says that we are all just video game characters in a massive simulation. Here is the wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

You're welcome.

Concise fal; well done.

This just came up on my YT autoplay. I'm not willing to devote 2 hours of my time on it, but maybe someone who's compelled by the question is.

BlackBart wrote:If this is a video game, it must be Leisure Suit Larry.

Explains why my breath smells like a motorman's glove.

... which version? Land of the Lounge Lizards is my ancestral home.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Let's assume we're in this game right now. What do you do differently?

Pray to the Ubernerd for a reboot.

Kataclysmal wrote:The Simulation Hypothesis says that we are all just video game characters in a massive simulation. Here is the wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

Thanks.

The Fuckwit Hypothesis says that we are all only involved in an effort to debunk something.

inkaStepa wrote:My teacher posd the question "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?"

First I said "if it's in the middle of the forest something is bound to hear it fall." He said "don't get technical" so I said"well yes it would make a sound" he corrected me and said "no it wouldn't because no one is around to HEAR it." I'm still confused but didn't want to embarrass myself anymore. Wouldn't the sound of the tree falling still exist? Thanks.

So now you see how essential the debunking campaign is.