|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
I will wait to see what proof there is that it's real. If none, I then can explain why the default assumption should be that we're in a simulation due to clues in what's lacking in our reality in terms of explained origin and mechanism working in what seems like organised randomness. Side: Simulation
I will wait to see what proof there is that it's real. Well first of all there is no solid proof either way. The only thing we can do is come to a conclusion about the likelihood that is is real or fake. If either of us really think we know that it is or isn't then we are branding ourselves with the mark of idiocy. If you think about what a simulation is, it's basically a virtual program which is set up for a specific purpose, usually experimental in nature or to conduct training exercises. The majority of simulations would be nothing like this world (which would take extremely advanced technology to create in a simulation). The majority of simulations are very primitive since it's relatively rare for a civilization to reach type one kardashev or higher. In fact the majority of life forms in the entire multiverse are no more complex than a single cell. If you understand a word I'm saying right now you should realize that the vast majority of simulations that are created are merely primitive models and sets of algorithms used to study physics. On top of all this we have no idea how much real universe there truly is, so basing any measure of probability on that by saying "for every universe there is bound to be multiple simulations" is an entirely void assumption. The "real" universe could be infinite so we are left with a mathematical continuum if you try to calculate the total number of simulations verses the total scope of "reality". I then can explain why the default assumption should be that we're in a simulation due to clues in what's lacking in our reality in terms of explained origin and mechanism working in what seems like organised randomness. So you think that because there is no currently discernible origin or fundamental mechanism for our universe it must be a simulation? The difference between a scientific thinker and a layman is this: When scientific thinkers can't find a discernible origin or mechanism to explain something, they keep experimenting and hypothesizing and look for one instead of choosing to form a belief about it. Side: Real
I will reply to the final comment you make first. You seem to think we can experiment and use the results to conclude something... It doesn't matter how many experiments the Sims do, they would never ever get the tiniest (yes, tiniest) clue as to what a computer was or what their game's purpose or coding was. The only clues they could ever get, as we have through religions, are messages programmed into one of the Sims to preach to the others. :) If you put all religions together you get to the conclusion of not only flat Earth and the North Pole being special but that Earth is a simulation (flat earthers doubt outer space as a whole and think the sky is a projected screen). You assume that the physical isn't programmed in itself to say that we can conclude from physical experiments whether it's all simulated or not. :) What we can conclude is that according to what we know of reality, 'nothing' can't produce 'everything'... Yet we have a constant amount of energy and mass in the universe (which flat Earthers deny but agree is equal to 'all planes of reality, of which Earth is the third in a nine-plane complex, the last of which being Pluto where it's not 3-D but 9-D and the portal to them is in the North Pole's centre but only appears when it wants to). You can deny what you want to deny, that is your choice. You can call us the laymen and your crew the scientists who worship NASA and Roscosmos the only organisations other than UN (which has a flat-earth logo) that never get audited at the top level due to their right to supernatural privacy compared to any other organisations on Earth. Side: Simulation
|
Welcome to CreateDebate
CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy. If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
- Arguments with the highest score are displayed first. Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument. To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
- To vote for an argument, use these icons: You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument. Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change. Yes, you can change your vote.
- Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account. All scores are updated in real-time. To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
- When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument. If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
