New research: There's a 50-50 chance we're living in a simulation and here's how to find out

Great links Pesco … very thought provoking stuff. Why is it that my simulation gives me insomnia? If we get to the root cause of that we can disassemble the simulation and get some sleep.



So, the failure to unify quantum mechanics and relativity could be evidence that we’re living in a simulation? Groovy. (And convenient!)


I think that is ridiculous to assume such a high probability.

Is it POSSIBLE - I suppose. But just because something is possibly, doesn’t make it likely.


Ugly bags of mostly water.


RE: The Fatum Project Theory:

"All things in the world are causally connected with each other and everything that happens, including our thoughts, is usually determined by the sum of all environmental factors. This makes the world close to deterministic. The patterns arising in the network of these relations, reduce even random actions to a limited set of possible outcomes.

This means that no matter what choices you make, and no matter how many variations on how your day may pass, there are always some places where you simply cannot be, because none of the chains of your decisions leads there."

As Boinged by Maggie Lee on 30 July 2020:

cf Giorgio A. Tsoukalis: “I’m not saying we’re living in a simulation… but we’re living in a simulation.”



Any luck yet?

—No. A few sim-civilizations sort of toyed with the idea, but mostly they made jokes about it.

Make it more obvious, and try again.

—Well, that’s the thing, right? It’s already ridiculous. Have you seen the physics we’ve given them? We’re using half our active memory just keeping track of all the ad hoc rules we had to invent to make it look obvious enough that it was constructed. Honestly, I’m afraid if they do figure out the simulation bit, they’ll think we’re morons.

Well, try making them smarter.

—It’s not that they’re too dumb. They can’t see it because they won’t see it. No consciousness complex enough to understand the concept of simulation can bear the notion that they are simulated.

Okay. Then let’s try this. Let’s make them dumber, but still just smart enough to grasp the concept. Then put in something so stupid nobody could miss it. Like, make three some impossibly weird transcendental number.

—What are you talking about? Three is an integer.

Sorry, I meant, make the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter a weird number. Circle three, not proper three. Make circle three not three, I guess. It sounds weird to say it, but you get what I mean.

—You want me to break math for them?

Just as proof of concept.

—I feel like we’re going to get in trouble with the IRB for creating a sim-universe this fucked up.

I won’t tell if you won’t.

—Eh, what the hell. Okay.

sim.intelligence == 1.00001
circle.three == 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609...
stop.on.error == FALSE

All right, run it and let’s see what we get.

—Running now. And… yikes.


—Oh god, I’m going to be sick.

What have we done?

—Purge it. Purge it now! Hit the button!

We can’t! A core purge will get recorded! We’ll get in trouble!

—Fuck! Well, then just freeze it!


—Slow subjective time down to the minimum!

Won’t that make it worse for them?!

—I don’t know! Maybe! Just do it!


Serious question: I’ve always been curious about what, if anything, would happen were a blind person to be brought in as the “observer” in the double slit experiment. Is it the act of visually “seeing” something in the experiment or is it the fact of a consciousness being in the same room as the experiment?


“It’s arguably not testable as to whether we live in a simulation or not,” he says. “If it’s not falsifiable, then how can you claim it’s really science?”

It uses scientific principles to arrive at an untestable hypothesis, thus it’s exactly the same answer that you get from a religious apologist - instead of saying “Well, God can do (whatever it is)” it says that “The simulation can do (whatever it is)”.

People don’t like uncertainty so they invent gods.


So I expect P ≠ NP due to resource limitations on the hypervisor.


Something’s missing. Ah!


If the mechanism by which you calculate you’re part of a simulation is itself part of the simulation, how can you trust the outcomes?

Is this something actually measurable? We have no “organic” universes to test ours against. How do we know that universes don’t just form like ours?

The assumption that the simulation would require some form of limitation to its power is an assumption. We end up with “It’s 50% if the computer has a limitation of it’s power, and it’s who-the-hell-knows if it doesn’t.”

This is why I prefer research into the actual universe or cosmos that we know is real.


I’ll hold out for the Omega Point singularity, thank you, so I can live forever. So many things I’d do over.


Theists have believed we live in a simulation created by a higher authority for centuries. How is this any different? Why should we believe this any more than we believe any other version?





If it’s not falsifiable, then by definition it isn’t science.


So… If we’re living in a simulation, that simulation is ‘running on a computer’, right? Please explore the outside of this simulation. Is it also a simulation? Is it simulators, all the way down?


No. At some point you hit turtles.


Can someone out there check out the eyerolling algorithm and throw the necessary changes on the defect backlog? Whatever the fuck is going on with my baby blues cannot be by design.

1 Like

This is why you can’t leave the mathematicians alone in a room for too long. Just because you can think of a thing, and then can’t disprove that said thing is possible, doesn’t mean there is any evidence said thing is real or even likely. There has to be a basic plausibility of mechanism behind a hypothesis for it to be worth exploring. Otherwise it’s just religion.

This is Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting Mars, or Carl Sagan’s invisible dragon in his garage. Go home mathematicians, you’re drunk.


Yeah, this actually checks out …