Simulation Hypothesis Defeated in Less than a Minute????

[CalebGooch]

It’s funny how old physicists and scientists can’t grasp that human understanding is really only a perception of the base reality. The base reality may have put in place physics, science. Biology, etc… Yet they can’t remotely consider otherwise

[HeinzLammerding]

He proved we live in a simulation lol he got confused

[seankennedy]

It's like saying that, according to the laws of physics, mutiple universes likely exist, including universes in which the laws of physics do not exist. i.e. It is self-defeating.

[DevistatR]

This guy doesn't even wanna look outside the box

[hectorvasquez]

This was probably filmed before phones were mobile. They used a.vjs hifi recorder from 1986

[seandchoi]

The title might be better put as "undercuts" rather than "refutes."

[sunderdreamsinc]

Simulation Theory is just the God hypothesis for Modern Audiences. If we are in a huge version of The Sims then who is playing the game?

[manoj]

Well who said the laws of the 'Virtual' world can be applied to the 'Real' world or vice versa... This is a lame argument...

[ryanhaselton]

Cracks open beer: keep talking I'm listening

[facepalmjesus]

Using the word ''simulation'' instead of ''depiction'' is called fallacy of equivocation.
In simple words: a ''simulated'' video game character IS NOT a human character. Its just an electric paint that depicts a human character, therefore IS not ''simulation''. Its just a depiction just like a painting on the wall

[Roccworld_Trizzy]

It’s not too far off when u gotta learn the physics of a game too

[jakepicard]

This isnt even an argument against simulation. What he's saying here is basically "if it's simulated, if it's not simulated, what difference does it make?"

[lvincents]

I don't accept the simulation hypothesis, but it seems clear that Chalmers's new book Reality + nicely addresses the concern expressed in this clip.

[engineeringlawyering]

Your refutation is fundamentally flawed. I have an internet Ph.D in Physics.

[mikelarry]

We know(kind of) about this phenomena. Other phenomena might not be anything like this phenomena, assuming there is other phenomena. Actually, the concept of phenomena comes from this phenomena, which might make it a self-enclosed system, meaning that we can't even project phenomena out of this phenomena.

[emiw]

if everything is a simulation then why would the creators of this simulation bother to put dinosaur bones in the ground and create the appearence of billions of years of history which would just consume unnecessary computation power?

[PhysicsGuy]

The simulation hypothesis is just a rehashing of the idea of a conditioned (read: contingent) reality. If we posit that we live in a simulated (conditioned) reality, that simulation has to supervene on a base, non-simulated (unconditioned). As soon as we make this move, we instantly produce multiple counterarguments, any one of which would be sufficient to call into question the notion that we dwell in a simulated reality. In no particular order:

1. Positing a simulated reality invites the possibility of numerous simulated realities, meaning that we have, quite literally, multiplied entities beyond necessity (or, really, for any reason at all, since the simulation theory offers no real explanatory benefit). Occam's razor, anyone?
2. If we live in a simulated reality, we have found no evidence that it differs from a non-simulated reality. So, if we cannot distinguish between the simulated and the non-simulated reality, there is no difference between the two and the distinction is meaningless; and
3. Any conditional, contingent, or simulated (pick your term) reality is, by definition, dependent on another reality as a basis of its existence. Inasmuch as to be real means to have causal powers, nothing in simulated reality is real in the base reality (Mario and Luigi aren't going to bounce out of your TV and start stomping on mushrooms and coins). So the notion of a simulated reality contradicts itself upon its conception.

Truly, I am mystified that anyone takes the idea of simulated reality seriously at all. And this should be for a simple reason: just because an idea can be imagined or simulated, be it an event or an entire universe, doesn't mean that that idea is, will be, and must be instantiated.

[tonyanthony]

Who says it ALL has to be applied to the BASE Reality's construct of Laws???? I dont believe it all would have the same Laws. Base reality got advanced enough to create the next but than in theory, the creators of the next reality could lay their own laws and constructs that are allowed in the reality that THEYYYY CREATED. Your not thinking big enough sir or in a full and understanding way.... Imho

[ThePhilosopher]

Not buying his argument. His entire premise hinges on the assumption that the physics in our simulated reality are vastly different than that of base reality. However, we have no reason to assume they are different to begin with. Secondly, we derive the simulation hypothesis not from observing the universe, but by logic, mathematics, statistical probabilities. Logic exists - we can assume that 1+1=2 in base reality, same as there will not be a square circle in base reality. The fact that, based on the assumption that we are simulated, the ones creating this simulation have designed it with the very physics we can observe is also a very strong indicator that our physics reflect the physics of base reality.

[NoThankYouToo]

This doesn’t defeat simulation theory, it doesn’t even refute it. It simply asserts, and rightfully so, that if we’re indeed in a simulation, then all our understanding is a product of, and part of that simulation, and thus cannot be trusted to reveal anything about what lies beyond said simulation.
Again, this man is not refuting simulation theory, he’s criticizing the logical inconsistency of many who assert it.

Edit- and we are absolutely, unequivocally in a simulation. The question is what is the nature of that simulation, and who created it.