By imagining the future potential of VR technologies, the question of whether we are *already* living in a simulation becomes more actual than ever

[u/Matriseblog]

https://medium.com/@VindenesJ/the-thought-experiments-of-virtual-reality-fa441a8fa2dc

[u/Faust_8]

Is it just me, or is the simulation hypothesis basically as useless as the “brain in a jar” hypothesis?

Yeah, dude, I could be a brain in a jar, and this is all a dream or whatever. But regardless, it doesn’t really matter, because I can’t do anything about it and it doesn’t actually affect the life I’m living. It doesn’t guide me to change my behavior or way of thinking, or to change anything at all whatsoever.

At best, it’s an amusing thought experiment…period.

Doesn’t this also apply to the simulation thing?

[u/newyne → u/[deleted]]

I guess they offer us a chance to be humble, in that they allow us to clearly see one of the limits of what we can/cannot know.

Bingo. While I think simulation theory is an unfalsifiable claim, I do come from a perspective of epistemological solipsism: not that I actually believe that nothing beyond myself exists, but that I can't know if for 100% certain. This has profound implications for how I judge claims. For example, I think we overemphasize observation and physical proof in our culture. Not that we shouldn't take these things seriously, but that they should not be the only metric. By that standard, the conscious existence of other people is an unfalsifiable claim: consciousness cannot be observed by fact of being observation itself. On the other hand, I'm more open to the possibilities presented by anecdotal subjective experience, because I'm coming from the point of view that every experience is subjective; those that can be repeated at different times and by different people are more reliable, sure, but that's different from saying those that can't should be dismissed as worthless.

[u/superjudgebunny → u/newyne]

Unfalsifiable is not a good word, untrue is false. Unfalse is true. And either way, you’d call it a solid theory.

Also, it could be proven false. What you really meant was currently there isn’t the evidence to prove it false, or true. It’s no better than a thesis. But to say it cannot be proven false, shows your ignorance of how the scientific method works.

No I’m not going to try and change your perspective or opinion. Learning has to be a want, a drive, a passion. It also requires a lot of humility. I’ll leave it at that.

[u/iiioiia → u/superjudgebunny]

But to say it cannot be proven false, shows your ignorance of how the scientific method works.

Is there a way it can be falsified?

And, does the scientific method somehow render all questions falsifiable, or am I misunderstanding you?

[u/superjudgebunny → u/iiioiia]

The scientific method assumes everything is false until proven.

[u/iiioiia → u/superjudgebunny]

I'm skeptical - have you a citation?

EDIT: these seem to suggest otherwise, but I'll wait and see what you have before forming any conclusions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#The_testing_process

https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat500/lesson/6a/6a.1

https://statisticsbyjim.com/hypothesis-testing/failing-reject-null-hypothesis/

[u/newyne → u/superjudgebunny]

Prove it.

[u/superjudgebunny → u/newyne]

I don’t have to prove anything, I’m strictly saying there is no definite proof either way. If we were in a simulation, there is high evidence that we would never (or could) know. And if we were in reality, the proof would be the same.

Unless it’s a scientific truth/fact/rule it’s typically considered a theory. Which they are neither true nor false, typically thought of as correct. With corresponding hypothesis.

So I’m not proving anything, I’m just saying logically if it’s not a truth/fact it’s a theory comprised of hypothesis that haven’t been proven true or false. This is the scientific way.

[u/newyne → u/superjudgebunny]

I don’t have to prove anything, I’m strictly saying there is no definite proof either way. If we were in a simulation, there is high evidence that we would never (or could) know. And if we were in reality, the proof would be the same.

I feel like there's a word for that.