CreateDebate


Debate Info

35
33
Yes No
Debate Score:68
Arguments:47
Total Votes:93
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (20)
 
 No (24)

Debate Creator

Beast666(17) pic



Is the universe a simulation?

Yes

Side Score: 35
VS.

No

Side Score: 33
2 points

A lot of highly qualified physicists seem to think so. A 3D holograph of a 2D base.

Side: Yes
1 point

What if it's an eleven dimensional super holograph? .

Side: Yes
potatosalad(329) Disputed
1 point

It's a 12 sided inside out, super plondic mega triangle.

Side: No
Amarel(5135) Disputed
0 points

A lot of highly qualified physicists seem to think so.

No, not a lot.

Side: No
Hootie(452) Disputed
3 points

No, not a lot.

Yes, a lot.

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.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

Is the Universe a Simulation? Scientists Debate

https://www.space.com/32543-universe-a-simulation-asimov-debate.htmlb6c185213a18

Side: Yes
0 points

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.”

https://www.fastcompany.com/40537955/we-are-not-living-in-a-simulation-probably

Original Journal publication:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758

Side: No
Hootie(452) Disputed
2 points

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:-

https://www.fastcompany.com/40537955/we-are-not-living-in-a-simulation-PROBABLY

Side: Yes
Dermot(5796) Disputed
2 points

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

Side: No
Amarel(5135) Disputed
0 points

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.

Side: No
Hootie(452) Disputed
2 points

Here's a great article which explains the limitations of the study you linked:-

Despite evidence to the contrary, we may still be living in a computer simulation

https://thenextweb.com/insights/2017/10/04/despite-evidence-to-the-contrary-we-may- still-be-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

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.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5135) Disputed
2 points

I see. So when they say “ based on everything we currently know about physics and computers...” they didn’t meant that. Thanks for clarifying.

Side: No
0 points

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.

Side: No