The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,757 times Debate No: 16079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPECTATIONS

It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions

Simulated Reality = Simulated reality is the proposition that reality could be simulated—perhaps by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality. [1]

Reality = Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be. [2]

We = Anybody or anything reading this debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument that we most likely live in an simulated reality than an actual reality.

1) It is possible to create a simulated reality
2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will
3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one
4) Therefore its probable that simulated realities outnumber actual realities
5) Therefore its more likely that something exists in a simulated reality than actual reality
6) Therefore we are more likely to exist in a simulated reality than an actual reality

I look forward to Cons response.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
socialpinko

Con

I accept my opponent's definitions and look forward to an interesting debate. In order to win this debate my opponent will need to successfully defend every part of his argument. In order for me to win I will need to prove that at least one of my opponent's points is faulty so as to make his conclusion unlikely.

1) It is possible to create a simulated reality

My opponent merely claims that this is possible however brings no evidence to support this contentions. My opponent will need to bring up more facts to support this claim before it may be accepted.

2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will

This is also unsubstantiated by evidence. Just because something may be logically or physically possible. My opponent also has not proven contention 1 so the contention 2 is not backed up.

3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one

While it is possible that if someone were to make something they would attempt to make more this is unsubstantiated speculation.

My opponent's premises have all been shown to be faulty and thus his conclusions form these faulty premises are more than likely faulty. As it stands my opponent's premises and therefore conclusions have been shown to be faulty and therefore it has not been shown that it is more likely than not that we live in a simulated reality.

I look forward to Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I I thank Con for accepting the debate.

Con demands justification, yet ironically they have some things to justify them selves. Lets go over my argument shall we.

1) It is possible to create a simulated reality

Anything that is not proven to be logically impossible IS possible. As wikipedia says "A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction." [1]

Now if Con rejects the "possibility" that is too say Con wants to argue that premise 1 is IMPOSSIBLE, then Con would have to prove that impossibility. With the possibility of premise 1 unchallenged lets move to premise 2.......

2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will

Here are some possible reasons that something/s would choose to create a simulated reality......

1) Scientific/knowledge purposes - Running experiments in a real world is a pain, as you are confined to the natural laws in that real world. Running experiments in a virtual world is alot quicker, as you can by pass the natural world limitations and even set up scenarios which are difficult or impossible in the real world.

2) Entertainment - Think of the Sims or Virtual pets......... but in this case the Sims and Virtual pets are alot more advanced than what we are used too.

3) Curiously - Ever wondered what would happen in a simulated reality if we do xyz ? Well only one way to find out, and that's to create that simulated reality and do xyz.

4) Boredom - Somethings like humans might watch football, some other things might create simulated realities, to each their own.

5) Because we can - We can do it, there is nothing stopping us......

With the possibility of a simulated reality existing, and possible reasons given why something/s would create a simulated reality and no reason given why they would not create a simulated reality we can move onto the next premise......

3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one

With one simulated reality created, there are two possible outcomes in relation to how many simulated realities will be created either.........

Possible Situation A) 1 created simulated reality (no more created after the first one)
Possible Situation B) More than 1 simulated reality (anywhere between 1 and infinity)

These 2 sets which have between them all possible options, if not A then B, if not B then A. Its one or the other.

I am no maths person, but situation B holds alot more possible outcomes than situation A, like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% more than Situation A.

With the possibility of a simulated reality existing, and possible reasons given why something/s would create a simulated reality and no reason given why they would not create a simulated reality and it being vastly more probable that their would be more than one simulated reality created the following premises follow through........

4) Therefore its probable that simulated realities outnumber actual realities
5) Therefore its more likely that something exists in a simulated reality than actual reality
6) Therefore we are more likely to exist in a simulated reality than an actual reality


The argument as stated is.........

1) It is possible to create a simulated reality
2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will
3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one
4) Therefore its probable that simulated realities outnumber actual realities
5) Therefore its more likely that something exists in a simulated reality than actual reality
6) Therefore we are more likely to exist in a simulated reality than an actual reality


I look forward to Cons response.

Sources

1) http://en.wikipedia.org...





socialpinko

Con



I will respond to my opponent's contentions one by one.

1) It is possible to create a simulated reality

I do sincerely hope that we do not get into a BOP argument in this debate but my opponent is Pro and instigator of this debate and therefore he should at least expound on the technological possibility of a completely simulated reality.

It is the norm on this site for the instigator of a debate to hold the BOP unless otherwise specified by the instigator. My opponent never mentioned the BOP in the first round so we may assume we are playing by regular rules.

2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will

My opponent has listed a few reasons why a simulated reality could be created. None of these reasons have however proven that it makes their creation 'probable'.

1) Scientific/knowledge purposes

My opponent again must prove that it is possible to create a simulated world with the exact same physical constants so as to grasp new information from it is possible. We cannot take this as a given.

2) Entertainment

I will ask my opponent even if it is possible that one would want to create a simulated world for entertainment purposes, why is it more probable that one would create it versus the probability that one would not create it?

My opponent's last three reasons were boredom, curiosity, and because we have the ability to. I again tell my opponent that it is his responsibility to prove that this is possible. Also to the contentions of boredom and curiosity, I could be bored and also curious as to what the inside of my chest feels like but that does not mean that it is more probable that I will take a knife and rip my chest open then that I will simple let it be and wonder.

3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one

Here my opponent suggests two possible outcomes of the creation of a simulated reality.

Possible Situation A) 1 created simulated reality (no more created after the first one)
Possible Situation B) More than 1 simulated reality (anywhere between 1 and infinity)

I will propose some other possible scenarios if I might be aloud.

Possible Situation C) Due to the reasons of entertainment, boredom, curiosity, the possibility of gaining scientific knowledge, and the fact that we possess the ability, man decides to destroy the simulated reality and all remnants of it.

Possible Situation D) Due to human error, the simulated reality is completely destroyed with all remnants of it's existence as well.

My opponent cannot prove that situation C is impossible as I use the same reasons that he brings to create the simulated reality in the first place. If these reasons are illogical or improbable then so is the existence of a man-made simulated reality.

As for Situation D, my opponent cannot deny the factor of human error. I can cite countless examples of people making mistakes. Just take the Hindenburg disaster, the Titanic, or parachute pants.

Now on to my opponent's contention that situation A is more probable than situation B.

Making the claim that because we can make one thing automatically means that it is probable that we will make multiple copies is fallacious. For this to be true that would need to mean that simulated realities were popular, worked properly, or could be used to make money. My opponent needs to prove this point before we may accept it.

I will not point out my issues with the conclusions based on Pro's premises as if I can show the premises to be faulty, the conclusions will be faulty as well.

I look forward to Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their reply.

1) It is possible to create a simulated reality

Con presented no reason what so ever why this premise is a logically impossible. Con makes other demands which are simply red herrings.

Once again, is their any reason what so ever given by Con that this premise is logically impossible ? Nope.

2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will

Argument 2 address the two possible outcomes of something/s that has the ability to create a simulated reality.

1) They will create
2) They won't

I gave possible reasons why something/s would choose to create.

Cons once again objects you have no proven that its possible. Con seems to think that we should accept "impossibility" as our default position.

3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one

Con says "Possible Situation C) Due to the reasons of entertainment, boredom, curiosity, the possibility of gaining scientific knowledge, and the fact that we possess the ability, man decides to destroy the simulated reality and all remnants of it."

Not too sure where "man" is, in this scenario. If you referring to man that are inside the simulated reality, then trying to destroy it is going to be a problem. Cause they themselves are subject to the simulated reality laws, and they are not "real" themselves as they are simulated.

If man is the creator of the simulated reality in this scenario, which I will call (C2), then it is indeed possible for the above reasons given they might destroy the simulated reality. But this highly unlikely compared to not destroying it and I will explain why.....

With the destruction of the simulated reality, obviously it can no longer provide scientific knowledge, or entertainment or any of the other reasons given for the creation of the virtual reality. The destruction of the virtual reality is a one off event, what ever is to be gained in this one off event would have to outweigh the costs and opportunity costs of not destroying the virtual reality.

Con says Possible Situation D) Due to human error, the simulated reality is completely destroyed with all remnants of it's existence as well.

Again same problem, if you mean Man is within the simulated reality, then any mistakes they make are within the parameters of the simulated world, thus it won't result in its destruction.

If you mean Man in this scenario is the creator of the simulated reality, then by all means mistakes should be expected even its possible destruction. But so what ? Creators of simulated realities never heard of saving their work or back ups ?

Clever enough to create a simulated reality, not clever enough to save their work ?, I doubt it.

You also left out the option that even if the creators of a simulated reality do destroy it, that they don't have other simulated realities.

I would also point out that my argument did not rest on man being the creator of a simulated reality, it addressed the creator of a simulated reality as "something/s"

Con says "Making the claim that because we can make one thing automatically means that it is probable that we will make multiple copies is fallacious"

Yes Con, if that was my argument. I never said said it was "automatic", I left in the option of only one virtual reality is created.

Previously I showed that......

Possible Situation A) 1 created simulated reality (no more created after the first one)
Possible Situation B) More than 1 simulated reality (anywhere between 1 and infinity)

I never argued it was "automatic" or necessary that more than 1 virtual reality will be created, just that its more probably that more than 1 will be created when compared to only 1 will be created.

Con says "For this to be true that would need to mean that simulated realities were popular, worked properly, or could be used to make money"

Con just gave me some new reasons why something with the ability to create a simulated reality would create a simulated reality and also create more than one, these include.......

1) Profit motive.
2) Building a better simulated reality than the last one. Learning from the previous simulated reality and building a better one.
3) Popularity, If some one else has one, I want one too.

Impossibility has not be proven

Con seems to imply, that if something is not shown possible then that proves it is impossible.

If Con claims that they weren't implying that the premises were logical impossible, that means they agree that the premise is "possible".

Closing Argument

With the logical possibiliy of the premises shown unrefuted, what about where the probability claims were attacked by Con ? Trouble is Cons alternative propositions, although possible, were shown to be even more unlikely than what they were trying to attack.

With possibility of the premises in my argument unrefuted, and the probability claims of this argument unrefuted the conclusion that "6) Therefore we are more likely to exist in a simulated reality than an actual reality" is affirmed.

I remind Con that this is my last round so I can't respond to any new arguments made.

I thank Con for participating in this debate.

I ask that the vote go to the Pro.

socialpinko

Con

1) It is possible to create a simulated reality

I did not provide a reason why a simulated reality is impossible to create because it was my opponent's responsibility to prove it was possible as he is instigator and pro for this debate. We cannot assume that a god exists because it has not been disproven. To accept a claim, one must bring evidence to support this claim. I may claim that I have a third eye on my armpit but we cannot assume this unless it is proven.

2) If something/s can create a simulated reality then it probably will

I did not only object because my opponent has yet to prove that a simulated reality is impossible, I objected because my opponent had not proven that it was more probable that a simulated reality would be created over one not being created.

My opponent provided arguments for why people might want to create a simulated reality. I also provided an argument for why I might want to slit my chest open to feel the inside of my stomach but that in no way makes it probable that I will.

3) If something/s does create a simulated reality it will probably create more than one

Pro responds to my proposed scenario C with:

Not too sure where "man" is, in this scenario. If you referring to man that are inside the simulated reality, then trying to destroy it is going to be a problem. Cause they themselves are subject to the simulated reality laws, and they are not "real" themselves as they are simulated.

By "man" I am referring to those who create said simulated reality. My opponent then writes:

With the destruction of the simulated reality, obviously it can no longer provide scientific knowledge, or entertainment or any of the other reasons given for the creation of the virtual reality.

I disagree with my opponent here. It would certainly provide entertainment to some who like to see things destroyed. Also scientific knowledge can be obtained through multiple ways. I can demonstrate gravity by dropping a brick on a car.

As to situation D where man through human error completely destroys the simulated reality with all remnants, my opponent responds:

If you mean Man in this scenario is the creator of the simulated reality, then by all means mistakes should be expected even its possible destruction. But so what ? Creators of simulated realities never heard of saving their work or back ups ?

My opponent seems to not have read my actual argument. I wrote in the scenario that all remnants of the simulated reality are destroyed. This would of course include back ups or saved work.

You also left out the option that even if the creators of a simulated reality do destroy it, that they don't have other simulated realities.

I already showed that it has not been proven more probable than not that if a simulated reality could be created, that multiple copies would be made.

Impossibility has not be proven

Again, my opponent must prove why a simulated reality is possible as he is making the positive claim and is the instigator of this debate.


===========================================================
While my opponent's arguments have been refuted there is one simple thing which voters must take into account. My opponent has not shown why a simulated reality is possible so the BOP has not been upheld and thus I urge a Con vote.











Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"I did give the definition/description of what it means to make a statement that is "possible" eg a statement with no contradictions in it. That went unrefuted."

I understand and I agree with you, unless proven logically impossible then it is possible, but when Con countered with "shifting of BoP" your response to that was not strong enough, I think you are going to lose some votes because of that.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I did give the definition/description of what it means to make a statement that is "possible" eg a statement with no contradictions in it. That went unrefuted.

In any case I will probably do this debate again, I will come up with some time wasting bs just to emphasize the "possibility" of this statement :)
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Just as a general note though, I appreciate your debates as it looks like you often try to come up with your own arguments vs just putting up well sourced ones.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
He is referring to you claiming it was possible, this is rather an interesting point actually as you demanded Con prove it was impossible and he responded with - you have the BoP. It is not a trivial case in this manner. I think you could have settled this if you argued using modal logic explicitly and gave more details as to why you can claim possibility rather than just saying - I can unless someone proves me wrong, which looks like you are shifting the BoP.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
"pro tried to put the bop on con even as he is the instigator of the debate."

Your kidding right ? I presented arguments to support my conclusion that "its more likely that we live in a simulated reality"

It was never part of my argument that just because something is "possible" that automatically means that it is "probable"

I Provided more argument to support that P1) possibility should be regarded as more probable over its negation.
Posted by Cybolic 6 years ago
Cybolic
Situation C and D were good arguments for the original point by socialpinko, I want to see what the pro will say about that
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 6 years ago
bradshaw93
IllegalcombatantsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a loooong debate but in the end, con couldn't show why a simulated reality was possible as was his responsibility as instigator.
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 6 years ago
anarcholibertyman
IllegalcombatantsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro tried to put the bop on con even as he is the instigator of the debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "We cannot assume that a god exists because it has not been disproven. " - no, but you can assume it is possible god exists, very different. Con should have forced Pro to do some math