this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
51 points (82.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34367 readers
1304 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

There is no sensible definition of probability that makes that question answerable.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago

What are the odds that we are all in a simulation?

What are the odds that every bullshit that you ever heard is actually true?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think this depends on how you look at it.

In a certain way, we do live in a fictional world that is constructed of information. If you consider your daily routines, they're probably following instructions of some sort to earn money, besides other things.

Both of these things - the instructions and the money - are made up. You can see this even more clearly with the money. Money itself is a piece of paper or not even that - a number in a database - that has no real value, yet people believe in it and that belief is what gives it value. In other words, the value of these numbers in databases exists in people's head more than it does in reality. Now, you could consider this a simulation, because it happens inside a computer and influences what people think.

However, i truly doubt that such a view is meaningful. No matter what is written in the databases, you still have to go through your own, individual life. I feel the biggest question you're implicitely asking is whether there could exist some kind of cheat code or glitch, like in video games, to shortcut through the world and reach your goals easier. Again, depending on how you look at it, there both are and are not such cheats.

You could consider human technology a sort of cheat. Instead of toiling on the agricultural fields ourselves, we use heavy machinery that is powered by fossil fuels, but more importantly mathematics, to do the work for us. Same goes for all other technologies. As such, the mathematics itself becomes the cheat code.

If a true cheat code would exist in today's world, you can take solace in the fact that not only you are looking for it, but so is everybody else who has an interest in achieving their goals. Now, you see, the whole economy is simply based on the concept that people want to reach their goals, and to do so, they need resources, for which they need money. So, if a cheat code existed, every single company would have a high interest in finding it and exploiting it. Since the number of people engaged with these desires is quite high, you can assume that significant progress towards that goal is continuously made whenever possible. In fact, people research and invent new things and useful tricks all the time to help us with our daily lifes. If you really wanna know more about this, you should start by studying economics, physics, and society at large. Thank you for your attention, if you have any more questions, let me know :D (i studied philosophy, i might help you)

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

I don't know.

[–] brachypelmide@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Well, until we see people randomly floating or chunks of the world disappearing, the answer will probably remain "who knows"

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

People floating would go against the laws of physics of this simulation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 2 points 2 days ago

@brachypelmide@lemmy.zip @OneSpectra@lemmy.world

You already see chunks of the world disappearing, it's called "fog" or "haze". 😆

[–] individual@toast.ooo 4 points 2 days ago
[–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If we are I want a word with the dev team. This shit needs a rebalance ASAP. Gravity wells are too OP, black hole mergers should not warp the fabric of spacetime.

And don't even get me started on Gamma Ray Bursts or Vacuum Decay.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Those probably are the intern's doing

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

More likely than us being in the "real" base reality

[–] IntriguedIceberg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

So I guess it depends on what you understand by "simulation". What is really simulated as opossed to being "real". Our reality is just an interpretation given by our senses, so in a sense it's also a simulation of the real thing. Where's the line that makes something really "real"?

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

I want access to the dev console then.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Probably about the same as for whether a god exists.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Either 100% or 0% so pascal's wager 50/50.

Just like the lottery, I either win or I lose, its a 50/50.

And the whole thing is "does it matter?". To us, no, it doesn't matter at all.

[–] Cattail@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I have no idea of the odds. Whatever reality is we could simulate it then conclude that a simulation like that could be running out reality. What could we observe about our reality that would make it simulation proof?

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

My favorite part of these types of discussions is the human brain trying its best to rationalize something it can not understand with a human understanding. If this is a simulation you can't reach beyond you station. You are limited, held back by rules and laws yet you feel special or that you have an inkling about anything all because you're programmed with ego and a sense of individualism.

[–] helmet91@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Here are a bunch of arguments pro and contra: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nvdcDuIZVvg

[–] sasquash@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

The scary thing is you just need to simulate a single brain (yours or mine). Everything else is just loaded on the fly. Like in a game. That's hard but probably not impossible. As soon as we are technically able to do something like this, chances are high that we, or I, live in a simulation.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I saw someone analyse this on YouTube once. As I remember it, if you assume two possibilities are equally likely until we have information favouring one or the other (the principle of indifference), it depends on if we make any simulated universes. If we do, there's basically no way we're in the first. Otherwise, there's a chance this is the base reality.

One can question whether the principle of indifference applies here, though. Or even if a deeper reality we can never access counts as a an object you can talk about normally. For example, pragmatic epistemology would say no.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

We have a physical representation of a divide by 0 function that exists in the universe. Black holes. I'd say it's fairly likely.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

On the one hand. Why. Oh why. Would anyone make the simulation so crappy. On the other hand if there was a creator god that exists outside the universe then we 100% would be a simulation compared to that gods existence.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›