I mean is there any proof we don’t live in a simulation? Like I am not arguing for simulation, neither am I arguing against it just, personally, I don’t see simulation theory as something life changing and important. Odds would probably be 50/50, but don’t see how it changes anything. If I live in simulation, I live in a simulation and someone is either controlling me or someone predestined me to do what I do, and it would be their fault for bad things happening. That would actually raise question why didn’t they gave us more clear understandings of morals so we don’t do bad things to each others, also why did they make us kill, and get sick…
If simulation is not real, then that doesn’t change anything we still have questions about who or what made us, who or what was before our universe even existed.
That principle doesn’t apply here, because you can use simple language to turn the words around, and then you have a positive, while the task of proving it remains the same.
Specifically: when you say you can’t prove that we don’t live in a simulation, then it is the same as saying you can’t prove that we do live in reality.
But “we do live in reality” is a positive. Now the words are different, but the task is the same: prove that we live in reality.
The only way it matters is that maybe there’s a way to escape ‘to a higher plane’. But even without a simulation, there’s always opportunities to understand the universe better and maybe make some fundamental breakthrough. Or there’s mysticism. Of those three, a simulation may offer the least chance for a breakthrough.
I mean is there any proof we don’t live in a simulation? Like I am not arguing for simulation, neither am I arguing against it just, personally, I don’t see simulation theory as something life changing and important. Odds would probably be 50/50, but don’t see how it changes anything. If I live in simulation, I live in a simulation and someone is either controlling me or someone predestined me to do what I do, and it would be their fault for bad things happening. That would actually raise question why didn’t they gave us more clear understandings of morals so we don’t do bad things to each others, also why did they make us kill, and get sick…
If simulation is not real, then that doesn’t change anything we still have questions about who or what made us, who or what was before our universe even existed.
You can’t prove a negative.
The positive assertion is “we live in a simulation”. All that can be done is gather evidence to support this assertion.
That principle doesn’t apply here, because you can use simple language to turn the words around, and then you have a positive, while the task of proving it remains the same.
Specifically: when you say you can’t prove that we don’t live in a simulation, then it is the same as saying you can’t prove that we do live in reality.
But “we do live in reality” is a positive. Now the words are different, but the task is the same: prove that we live in reality.
The only way it matters is that maybe there’s a way to escape ‘to a higher plane’. But even without a simulation, there’s always opportunities to understand the universe better and maybe make some fundamental breakthrough. Or there’s mysticism. Of those three, a simulation may offer the least chance for a breakthrough.