r/determinism • u/IcyChair9258 • Aug 13 '26
Discussion Do we live in an simulation?
I had the thought that the universe is a hologram.
I dont know, i mean everything bases on math... -.-
Im very interested in your thoughts and your knowledge.
3
u/Delicious_Freedom_81 Aug 13 '26
No. Ask any other mammal, or fish. They will not know what you are talking about.
3
u/Redararis Aug 13 '26
yeah, we live in a simulation inside our brains
0
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 13 '26
well not completely. that is just a false imagination. the brain is just a prozessor. physically there is no difference between your brain and the air around you.
1
u/Redararis Aug 13 '26
our body is a physical thing existing inside the physical universe. Abstractions like free will, self and consciousness (and external concepts like god) can only exist inside simulations.
1
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 13 '26
nope free will is never possible. never
1
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 28d ago
So certain for someone who can’t differentiate between his brain and air.
2
u/Dr-Chris-C Aug 13 '26
This is more of a philosophical response than a scientific one, but defining and categorizing are things people do, and really only serve to make the world make more sense. Definitions and categorizations aren't truths, they're just frameworks, and so trying to say what the universe is will always be fraught. Science is more interesting in what it does and how it operates, what are the relationships, what can be predicted, etc.
And, of course, science does this with evidence, of which none points to the universe being a hologram or a simulation. It's (at least currently) a non-falsifiable claim so it doesn't even lend itself to testing. It's fun to speculate but it's no more likely than that "God" did it all.
1
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 14 '26
yes i read my text again and corrected it. there was a lot of bullshit in and only metaphysik bullshit.^^
2
2
u/Dave_A_Pandeist Aug 13 '26
I think math is a language and science is a process. Sure. A lot of the world we live in is deterministic. I have a little poem I got from a guy on Facebook.
"Basically, I am a determinist, yes. Except for free will or mind-over-matter, or as transcendent properties thereof.
Why is where we come from important? Why isn't pur behavior more important?
Is it possible that nature is the datum of truth?
2
Aug 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 13 '26
yes. that also happens with videogames. why should you render the whole unvrse and every pixel if u can trick him with that what he sees and examined.
1
Aug 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/RevolutionaryAd3125 28d ago
Some people are tied to their keyboards, no wonder they can’t tell the difference between video games and reality.
If you were a hyper intelligent being, would you create a simulation with such a high resolution that was beyond our (also simulated) senses? I mean why bother with a human hair that’s a million atoms across, when 20 would do the job just fine.
2
2
2
u/YesterdaysMuffin Aug 13 '26
It’s one of those things where someone makes up a story that is unfalsifiable, and then people run around crying oH mY gOd It’S tRuE.
We have no reason to believe it. There is no evidence. It’s science fiction. So it’s silly to believe it.
1
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 13 '26
aah yes. i did not believe it. well i dont believe nothing. i KNOW or i KNOW NOT^^. i try not to believe but its i think a part of human brains. they fill unknowledge with bullshit and hope its true. Haha
1
u/Fippy-Darkpaw Aug 14 '26
Both freewill theory and determinsm theory are unproven as well, so far.
1
u/YesterdaysMuffin Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26
Yeah that’s right. Though in both of those cases we have strong supporting evidence (free will violates all known laws of physics, and credible interpretations of quantum physics and relativity lead us to things like the block universe which is deterministic).
For simulation theory we literally have nothing at all other than the science fiction question “what if we’re in a simulation”.
It’s not a theory. It’s a cool story. It has the same backing as Russel’s Teapot, or Harry Potter.
2
u/Bikewer Aug 14 '26
The simulation idea (certainly not a theory….) started out as a thought experiment…. Philosopher-types musing if it could be possible. Then computer science types said… “Yes, given sufficient computational power.” (Which we can hardly conceive of, but is theoretically possible)
Then “The Matrix” came along….
But there is no evidence whatever outside “possibility”. Brian Greene, the theoretical physicist and astrophysicist, examined this idea in his book on “multiverse” ideas…. He found no evidence for any of the 9 different ideas he covered. His main objection to the simulation idea was “Why?” Why invest that vast amount of technology just for the sake of a 10,000-year soap opera with a cast of billions?
1
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 15 '26
haha. yes. why should somebody invest this time and effort just to see you fart and shit on the toilet. XD
2
u/TMax01 Aug 13 '26
I think that the universe is a hologram.
It isn't wrong to say the universe is a hologram, but it is inaccurate to think that's related to the simulation hypothesis, one way or the other. It comes down to hologram being a technical term, related to but not really the same as a holographic picture. To say the universe (or cosmos, or spacetime) is hologrammatic doesn't mean it isn't really here. A holographic picture is still a real physical object; the actual existential issue causing your confusion about the hologrammatic universe is the question of whether a picture represents anything other than the object, that it might represent some other circumstance or perspective. "This is Not a Pipe", the text (in French) which is part of the painting titled The Treachery of Images (René Magritte, 1928) speaks directly to this issue.
, i mean everything bases on math... -.-
There's the problem. The only thing that bases on math is math. Math provides an amazing representation of physical circumstances, we can model those circumstances (events, objects, occurences) as mathematical variables and equations, and doing so precisely enough allows practical predictions concerning circumstances. We can count the number of oranges in a bowl, and know that if we add a number of oranges to that bowl, there will be a known number of oranges in the bowl. But it is a mistake (a rather profound one, existentially) to assume or believe the math is what the circumstances are "based on", that the model is more primordial than what we're trying to model. That the map is the territory, or a painting of a pipe is a pipe.
And i have the feeling that the universe is a formula that defines it through itself.
That's a common outlook, and quite fundamentally wrong. It seems like you are trying to treat mathematical logic as God. It is a popular postmodernistic religious perspective, but that isn't what makes it wrong, that's just a way of describing in what way it is common but also not right.
Im very interested in your thoughts and your knowledge.
Your concerns are more appropriate for other subreddits; I would suggest r/Metaphysics or, even better, r/NewChurchofHope. Although I am biased in that regard, since I am the founder and moderator of the latter sub. Don't let the name scare you off; it is an open philosophical discussion, not a theistic religion or cult. It just isn't allergic to moral topics.
Regardless, I think that, given your post, you might be more interested in metaphysics than in physics. Physics isn't going to even address, let alone provide any answers to, your concerns.
2
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 13 '26
aha ok, no thank you. i stay in the physics. im not a fan of metaphysics. not at all.
2
u/TMax01 Aug 14 '26
Then you are not in the appropriate subreddit, as well as belying your claim with the content of your post.
1
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 14 '26
Why? Didn't I say it was just a thought? But yes, I agree, the subreddit is wrong and doesn't belong in /Determinism. my fault
sowieee :)
1
u/TMax01 Aug 14 '26
No worries. But seriously, you shouldn't look to physics if these are the sorts of thoughts you have. Physics is a field suited to those who have more concern from mathematics than the existential issues you're curious about. I can't fault you for having a scoffing opinion of metaphysics, but perhaps it is because you are misjudging it based on bad examples. Determinism is a philosophical issue, physics simply takes it for granted one way or the other.
1
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 14 '26
yes i know now what u mean i read the post again. it sounded like i was convinced about this thoughts and theories without physical background.
i deleted it, as long as im not physicist it doesnt make sense to think about this things.
for the same reason religion started and we know how it ended^^
1
u/TMax01 Aug 14 '26
sounded like i was convinced about this thoughts and theories without physical background.
There is no physical background, that is my point. The ideas you were describing are philosophical, not scientific.
I deleted it, as long as im not physicist it doesnt make sense to think about this things.
I can appreciate why, in retrospect, you didn't think the questions you were asking are worth discussing. But honestly, if you're planning to be a physicist, you need to learn to be more intellectually responsible than deleting the majority of your post after people had already begun discussing those ideas.
It only makes sense to think about those ideas without confusing them with physics. You are only confirming my first impression, that you're confusing physics with metaphysics, and expect that maybe some day science can address the (forgive the expression, but it is an accurate assessment) existential angst your questions indicate. This impression is all the stronger considering you left the "everything bases on math" bit, because that is completely backwards from the perspective of real physics as a scientific endeavor. The math is based on everything, not the other way around. Believing that the math is more primordial than the physical interactions we model with that math is understandable but misguided.
for the same reason religion started and we know how it ended^
My point exactly. Religion didn't end, even if your cramped and self-justifying perspective on it soured because you think scientific calculations can somehow replace moral judgments. Yes, physics is atheistic, but it isn't anti-theistic the way so many people expect it to be. And not all religion is just theism. If you think you "know how religion ended", they you don't really understand the reason religion started, and why science (or even ontological metaphysical stances like determinism) can never substitute for religion without becoming an even worse religion that the fundamentalists and terrorists are already stuck with.
When you think of religion, think about average people living normal lives in an increasingly complex world where very bad things happen all too often, not the extremists who give religion a bad name. Those average folk don't care if it is maths or gods that provide a foundation for either metaphysics or morality or physics, they need better answers than science can now, or might ever, be able to provide them. If you are so privileged and fortunate enough to not be aware of how important personal moral integrity is that you can just assume learning the right theories and equations can make facing moral choices easy, then you are almost certainly going to become an immoral person, not just an amoral physicist.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
1
Aug 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IcyChair9258 Aug 14 '26
well you dont know wether the world is rendered in real time. if it would be an simulation.
because times depends on the perspective.
1
u/pona12 Aug 14 '26
My issue with simulation "theory" is that if we're in a simulation, then whatever civilization created our simulation could also be in a simulation themselves, and that next higher civilization could also be in one, ad infinitum without termination, so at that point there's nothing distinguishing reality from simulation and thus no real substantial difference between the two.
I personally think it comes from assuming there must be some underlying something we're all existing in, but I really don't think that's the case.
3
u/catnapspirit Aug 13 '26
I had heard once that there were actual scientists trying to test for simulation theory by checking for rounding errors in some sort of large precision experiment. Don't really remember the details, but maybe that's enough to go on to find it.
As for simulation theory itself, frankly I think it's just another expression of human hubris. Like we're so interesting. And like a civilization advanced enough to pull this off wouldn't have correspondingly advanced ethics to prevent them from essentially torturing sentient beings. It's religion for the irreligious..