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.
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we are real or virtual—and what it means either way.
Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said.
He suspects the universe is a simulation because he sees evidence of it, whereas you merely have adopted the belief to help you cope with how bad I am beating your ass in the rap battle. You keep tellng yourself "It's ok Mingi, it's just an illusion, reality can't hurt you...it's only subjective that FactMachine raps way better...yeah, subjective... yeah..." While you rock back and forth, sucking your thumb.
Basically, this notion relies on the assumptions that currently unknowable truths about physics could somehow enable someone to use currently unknowable technologies that they could conceivably use to create countless Matrix-like simulators.
That’s a strange interpretation of “I will only provide sources from the main proponents of the hypothesis which show that my summary is accurate.”
The article says that based on what we know, this hypothesis is likely impossible. The hypothesis itself relies on assumptions concerning things we do not and cannot know. That’s why it’s metaphysics rather than science.
That’s factually inaccurate. Metaphysics is philosophy.
When scientific standards and rigor are applied to the philosophical branch of metaphysics, then it becomes the scientific branch called physics. This hypothesis lacks scientific standards. It cannot be tested or falsified.
It does not derive logical outcomes from known premises, rather it derives a logical outcome from unknowable premises. It is philosophy, not science.
You can falsify it but you can't test it. Due to the test being in a simulated reality, the test isn't how to determine its validity; only pure logic is.
the test isn't how to determine its validity; only pure logic is.
You can determine the logical outcome of any number of propositions based on any number of made up, unknowable premises, but that’s not science. It may be logically valid, but it’s still philosophy.
According to a comprehensive 2017 study published in the Journal Science Advances “Based on everything we now know about physics and computers, it is mathematically impossible for the known universe to be a computer simulation.“
“According to the research team’s best approximations, it would require a terabyte of RAM to store just 20 spins of a single particle on the quantum level.
“If one tries to extrapolate this to few hundreds of spins, then building a computer with such a memory would require more atoms than there are in the universe,” Kovrizhin says.”
According to a comprehensive 2017 study published in the Journal Science Advances “Based on everything we now know about physics and computers, it is mathematically impossible for the known universe to be a computer simulation.“
Ahahahaha! Another classic Amarel self-contradiction. Makes a claim which he then debunks with his own link:-
You really should steer well clear of topics such as science , math , philosophy etc , etc , as your lack of knowledge in each discipline would suggest you’re better suited to let’s see 🤔 Rap? Oh wait you suck at that as well ... leave it with me there must be something
Saying probably doesn’t make it a contradiction, it makes it science. When building a computer with enough memory would require more atoms than there are in the universe, then we *probably” aren’t in a computer simulation.
To assume the hypothesis based on yet undiscovered and currently unknowable technology isn’t science, it’s faith.
It does when the word "probably" follows a statement in which you claim the alternative is impossible. Impossible means definitely, not probably. Do you actually understand the English language?
When a new study suggests that something is impossible, “probably” is the word to use.
Just stop it you silly twit. Witnessing your pathetic attempts to distort and manipulate syntax is just utterly surreal. Something either is impossible or it is not impossible. Something cannot simultaneously be both possible and impossible. Nobody has even mentioned the word "suggest" except you. Your precise wording was:-
Based on everything we now know about physics and computers, it is mathematically impossible for the known universe to be a computer simulation.
Something either is impossible or it is not impossible.
Right. But science is about hypothesis and theories. If a study suggests that something is impossible, than it probably is. This is very straightforward language.
Nobody has even mentioned the word "suggest" except you
You didn’t read the source then. “Suggest” is right under “probably”.
This is erroneous language. A study cannot "suggest that something is impossible", because the very use of the word "suggest" proves it has not ruled out the possibility of the alternative. Therefore, the alternative cannot be said to be impossible.
Literally all you do all day is manipulate language to try to avoid admitting you are wrong. It's fucking pathetic. Grow up.
A study cannot "suggest" that something is impossible
You’re really reaching. Scientific studies always “suggest”. And if the implication is that something is impossible, that means it is likely impossible. I don’t think you understand science in the slightest. Stick to correcting my fat thumb grammar and spelling errors. It’s the only thing you ever get right.
Shut up, liar. You made the claim that a simulation was mathematically impossible, and are now trying to justify it by LYING about what you said. You did not use the word "suggest" and therefore you are a liar.
Furthermore, as I have just pointed out to you, the word "suggest" leaves an alternative open, whereas the word "impossible" leaves no alternative open. Therefore, they are contradictory terms to use when describing the same subject in a sentence.
You made the claim that a simulation was mathematically impossible
Well, that is what the study suggests, so it’s probably impossible, like I said.
now trying to justify it by LYING about what you said
I don’t have to lie, you and anybody can very easily scroll up a shoe way to read what I posted. Keep going though, this is funny.
the word "suggest" leaves an alternative open, whereas the word "impossible" leaves no alternative open.
If you are talking, you’re probably lying. Even though the claim that you are lying is an absolute, saying probably means that there is another possibility. I’ll go ahead and quote the article again just because you hate it. “New research suggests it’s impossible, but the Simulation Hypothesis is the modern existential debate that just won’t die.”
It’s an existential debate (like religion), not a scientific one. Learn some fucking science. Have fun snarling a reply
Stop giggling like that you gay little schoolgirl.
This is a debate forum, not an outlet to share fantasies.
Yes you do
Scroll up. A pathological liar might claim I’m lying when the evidence to the contrary is literally on the same page.
Religion doesn't deal with the existential, it deals with the conceptual and imaginary
Your apparently not familiar with the main branches of philosophy. The universe simulation hypothesis deals with the conceptual and imagery, and is an existential question rather than a scientific one.
You did not claim the study "suggested" anything, and hence you are quite brazenly attempting to deviate from your initial argument by openly changing what you said. As stipulated, this is childish, dishonest, and proves that you are a narcissist who is incapable of admitting a blunder.
so it’s probably impossible
Something cannot be "probably impossible" and you agreed with this premise not half an hour ago. Something either is impossible or it is not impossible. Impossibility is the absence of alternatives and probably is the acceptance of alternatives. Hence, "probably impossible" is an oxymoron. It is nonsense language which you think will help you avoid admitting the fact that you're an idiot who can't stop contradicting himself.
I don’t have to lie
I didn't state that you have to lie. I correctly stated that you are a liar.
The most glaring problem with the study is that the simulations were tested on conventional computers with highly insufficient processing power, whereas they should have been tested on quantum computers.
I see. So when they say “ based on everything we currently know about physics and computers...”
Oh Jesus Christ it's so boring watching you continuously contradict yourself. Relatively speaking, humans know very little about either physics or computers. If how much we don't know about physics is the wriggle room for doubt, then it is absolutely massive.
The fact of the matter is that you began by claiming it was "impossible" for us to live in a simulation, but then immediately disproved yourself by linking a source which made it clear THAT IT IS POSSIBLE.
The fact of the matter is that you began by claiming it was "impossible" for us to live in a simulation...
Likely impossible. As suggested by the study.
Relatively speaking, humans know very little about either physics or computers.
That’s right, and to pretend that notions of reality, based on multiple unknowable assumptions, are any more than fiction is called faith. Religiouns have been at this for some time already.
This notion is little more than fun with math. It is not relevant to anything observed in the universe or related to any discoveries of science.
Basically, this notion relies on the assumptions that currently unknowable truths about physics could somehow enable someone to use currently unknowable technologies that they could conceivably use to create countless Matrix-like simulators.
If all these baseless assumptions were the case and countless simulators were produced as a result, we could then say that it is probable that we are a simulation.
It’s fun to pretend, but it’s not science and it’s certainly not likely.
