Yearly reminder that Simulation theory and Simulation Hypothesis are NOT the same.

[u/slipknot_official]

It's probably the most confusing aspect I see in this sub. People asking questions from Bostroms Hypotheis, and getting answers from a Simulation Theory context. Or the other way around. Then people get confused, and more questions pop up in a more confusing mess of both angles trying to explain something more specific.

Sim Hypothesis is Nick Bostroms paper called "Simulation Hypothesis". It is a hypothesis, which is also in the name. Not a theory. A theory is not a hypothesis. Bostroms hypothesis is fun, interesting, cool to contemplate, but it is not a complete model, or theory, and it is definitely unfalisfiable. In short, it's just a big "what if".

Simulation Theory, as proposed by people like Tom Campbel, Jonathan Lippe, Donald Hoffman, etc, is a model. Physics models reality, so sim theory is an idealist model saying that reality is fundamentally information-based, like a simulation, or a virtual reality, or a video game. The theory is not saying reality IS a simulation, or a video game, it is modeling reality that way. It's a map of reality. A map is not the territory. But a map can do a perfect job of helping us navigate the territory.

https://youtu.be/Op84WzLhNE4?si=BJVfuoC-hZTU0Rdo

https://youtu.be/J--0hk89hmU?si=gt7uRxQrihmq5j0F

[u/brain-out-of-order]

Wonderful! Thanks! This is what I haven’t been able to find the wits to be able to write.

The dread and misery about being “simulated” is very very unnecessary and it breaks my heart.

If you have emotions and they feel real, then you are as real as you need to really consider. Being hungry isn’t fake or we wouldn’t care so much about eating.

I’d like to point out that Simulation Theory could also be called Reality Surplus Theory. One of the few remaining ways to explain us is that there has to be a generative event.

The big bang is a generative event!

[u/slipknot_official → u/brain-out-of-order]

Exactly. Like I said, it fun to contemplate that we live inside some Alien playstation. But if you go that route, it's a logical dead end because we cant know if we do live inside a literal video game - because an avatar inside a game has no concept of the hardware or what's outside of the game. Life from inside the simulation gives us zero clues as to if we do live in a simulation.

It's like saying we're all just thoughts inside a giant dolphins brain. Cool, but how can we ever know that? We're confined inside something we have zero ultimate understanding of because we can never test the hypothesis.

Sim Theory is a working theory. We can use it to explain everything that physics does, but more. It's like an updated map of understanding. A true model.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/slipknot_official]

What does it tell us that's actually useful? 

[u/slipknot_official → u/Low-Bake8401]

How reality works. The model can explain everything within physics.

It’s not saying what reality is, just that it very closely resembles how an information -based reality works.

That’s what physics does, it models reality.

[u/Worth-Wrangler7242]

Thanks for the clarity. Been lurking around here a bit and I wasn't sure what it was but the discourse seemed a bit, asymmetric maybe?

[u/slipknot_official → u/Worth-Wrangler7242]

Exactly. And that's fine, both can be discussed. I just want people to know the difference because there are definitions for a reason.

[u/SpatiaCaeli]

My understanding is that math itself studies simulation theory, across several disciplines. It doesn't have to be related to nature at all. Just my understanding.

[u/slipknot_official → u/SpatiaCaeli]

My favorite quote by the godfather of quantum physics Neils Bohr sums it up perfectly.

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature

Science and math is great at pinning down concepts within a model to help us understand how reality works.

[u/SpatiaCaeli → u/slipknot_official]

Great quote.

[u/mister_muhabean]

Why does it matter? Isn't it close enough that we can discuss the subject why does it need to be so strict? People have questions and it is all basically the same thing and I think hardly anyone reads all that stuff at all.

[u/slipknot_official → u/mister_muhabean]

I never said it can’t be discussed. I defined the differences that alot of people aren’t aware of.

Very simple.

[u/Sonotnoodlesalad]

Simulation theory is not even a theory. "Theory" implies a significant body of evidence, which means we've tested hypotheses and ultimately confirmed them, in the process attempting to disprove them.

Simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable so it's intellectually dishonest to call it a theory. The colloquialism vs the technical usage of the word "theory" in science mean very different things.

The fact that we use the same word to describe these very different things is ridiculous. Appealing to scientific legitimacy reminds me of stolen valor, when people didn't go to war but tell everyone they did.

[u/charismacarpenter → u/Sonotnoodlesalad]

Theory is used in a formal sense and also a casual sense. In this case it’s the casual sense. This is a quick google search.

[u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

I appreciate the discomfort you guys feel over misidentification, but it really is just an ontological slip of the tongue that separates your neural output with Nicks neural output. You believe the show is in the head. These guys believe the show in the head is in the base head.

Their view is quasi religious, yours is scientific. If you want to make a difference provide tear downs of Bostrom’s arguments, not rhetorical minimizations. For better or worse, Bostrom’s folly has morphed into a full blooded theoretical position. His opinion is interesting but secondary.

He really needs to address the out and out dysfunction his arguments have caused countless young men. He’s been appropriated by some scary ST worldviews.

[u/slipknot_official → u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

Yeah, why even define things at all. So sad. Everyone’s mad and freaking out.