The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

You are sitting on a simulating machine and the whole world you see around you in not real

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 30233
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I'm not gonna write much here. But my opponent is sitting on a simulating machine and I am actually a character that the machine created. I am not real. The whole world that you see is not real but a simulation. You have been in that machine too long. And hour in reality equals to a day in that machine. So if you sit in that machine for 20 hours, then in your simulated world, 20 days would have passed. But in that simulation program, a character was created who was to reveal to you that the world around you is not real. So here I am and I know this message will reach you and you shall try to prove that your world is real.But I say it isn't. So until you get out of that machine, you won't be able to come back to the real world.


You claim that I am sitting on a simulating machine. You also claim to be a character that the machine has created. You add that an hour in reality translates to a full day in the machine. I assert that none of these things are true.

It seems to me that your entire case is nothing more than a typical argumentum ad ignorantiam. It has been known for years that this type of argument holds no water. The fundamental flaw with this type of argument is easily shown. Bertrand Russell, one of the few respectable philosophers, demonstrated the flaws of this type of argument with his celestial teapot analogy.

But to dismiss your argument out of hand, while philosophically justified, would not lead to much of a debate. So I will explore a bit further to demonstrate my case. Everything that truly exists manifests itself in some way, providing evidence for its existence.

For the macroscopic world, these manifestations are easily observed:

The keyboard I'm typing on is something I can see, feel, touch, and hear as I type.

The chair that I'm sitting in is something that also makes its existence obvious through touch and sight.

I could continue the list of macroscopic objects, animals, plants, et cetera and show that all of them produce clear effects on the physical world that demonstrate their existence.

When it comes to microscopic objects, we also see evidence of such things:

Amoebae and paramecia can be clearly observed through microscopes.

Bacteria and viruses, in addition to direct observation, manifest themselves in a more conspicuous manner when they cause illness.

We can go down to even smaller sizes:

The existence of atoms can be clearly demonstrated through the kinetic theory of heat. They can also be shown to exist through Brownian motion

Smaller still:

The existence of electrons was shown by J.J. Thomson's work with cathode rays.

The existence of neutrinos was shown in the Cowan-Reines experiment in 1956.

In summary, everything that actually exists shows itself to exist in some way. The smaller things sometimes require some indirect evidence. But the large objects show themselves clearly and undeniably. A simulation machine, large enough to accommodate me, would certainly be large enough to show some clear proof of its existence. Yet I see nothing to indicate that I am on a simulating machine. In such a case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Any reasonable individual would be forced to conclude that no such simulating machine exists. And without the existence of the machine, you cannot be a character created by that machine. The machine you speak of is clearly fictional.
Debate Round No. 1


Actually the world you feel, touch ,see is in the machine. The world outside is different with more than 5 senses, maybe say 27 senses. So the 5 sense were given to you by the machine to sense the world. Everything is simulation. Even the bacteria. The philosopher you talked about is also a simulation and whatever he said was included in the program. So whatever evidence you give me is inside the program. You talk about this world. The whole universe is a simulation. If you come out of it, the world is entirely different out there. But you haven't for a long time and you haven't seen reality for a long time. Whatever took place throughout history was a simulation. The the information about the people who came before you was included the program. Have you seen or felt the time before u were born? NO. Because it never existed. It was just fed into the machine. And now as you move along, you affect the program and manipulate it. It is just like a video Game.........for example in the game MARIO, in mario's point of view, all his surroundings are real....but outside it's you that is controlling him. This is a bit different. You experience the video game character inside the game......You are in a game ........You are the main character controlled by the real YOU outside the machine.


You state in Round 1: "But in that simulation program, a character was created who was to reveal to you that the world around you is not real. So here I am and I know this message will reach you and you shall try to prove that your world is real."

In Round 2 you state: "The world outside is different with more than 5 senses, maybe 27 senses."

Already this argument is becoming pretty weak. You claim to be a character created by the simulation, and your function is to reveal that I am in a simulation and that this is not the real world. But note that although you claim to deliver this message, you seem to have very little detail concerning what you claim to be the real world. Maybe 27 senses? Why so vague? Wouldn't a program designed to show me the falsehood of my reality be a bit less wishy washy?

To all of my arguments showing that real things always have evidence of their existence, you simply brush it all aside with the claim that everything is a simulation.

When I show the philosophical flaw in your argument, you state: "The philosopher you talked about is also a simulation and whatever he said was included in the program."

But this does not negate my argument. What you must realize is that the philosophical argument would still hold true, even if Bertrand Russell were a fictional character (which he is not).

In Hamlet, Polonius gives a long-winded speech to Laertes, and it contains some very useful advice. "Neither a borrower nor a lender be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend..." is one example. "This above all: to thine own self be true" is another example. Should this advice be discarded simply because Polonius is a fictional character? Certainly not!

In Aesop's fable of The Tortoise and the Hare, should we forget the lesson that being arrogant and overly confident can lead to one's demise? Of course not. The characters and situations may not be real, but this does not cause us to reject the moral of the story.

So when you try to negate the philosophy of Bertrand Russell by claiming that he doesn't exist, I consider this a failed attempt. I have shown that we can learn lessons from fictional characters. Russell's existence, therefore, should have no bearing on the philosophical truth of his arguments. You are still giving the typical argument from ignorance, and such an argument is widely recognized as a fallacy. Furthermore, it is not pragmatic. There is zero evidence that your simulation machine exists, and the very lack of evidence serves as justifiable evidence against its existence.

When you ask me "Have you ever seen or felt the time before [you] were born?" the answer is actually yes. I have seen the time before I was born, because there is video footage of many things that took place before I was born, as well as photographs and paintings. Through such windows, I can look at times before I was born.

You then add that this simulation machine is just like a video game. Well this seems extremely inconsistent with everything else stated. You wish for me to believe that someone in the "real world" built this incredibly advanced simulation machine-- a machine that created a vast universe, all of the wondrous physical and chemical processes, all of the various forms of life in all shapes and sizes, all of the complex and different people, all of the wonderful literature, et cetera. And in creating all of these phenomena, it was also decided to create a video game where I sit at my desk for 8 hours a day. Even if we go by your previous statement that a day is an hour, we can do the math. 8 hours is one third of 24 hours, therefore this so-called video game has me sitting at my desk non-stop for 20 minutes. That is a pretty lame and boring video game that I most certainly would not like to play. One would think that someone who created the entire universe and all of its wonders in a simulation machine could certainly come up with a better video game than that.

I won't even discuss Mario's point of view, because Mario doesn't have a point of view. He IS clearly fictional.

As far as me being the main character controlled by the real me, this is also highly unlikely. Why would the real me want to make the simulated me so ignorant? If I am controlling myself in a video game, wouldn't I want myself to know everything? Furthermore, how long am I playing this game in the outside world? I'm 36 years old. Using your given formula of one day = one hour we have:

36 x 365 = 13,140 days which then converts to 13,140 hours

Divide that by 24 and we have 547.5 days in the "real world." So that would mean that I have been playing a video game non-stop for a year and a half. That is an extremely unlikely scenario. Even the most diehard video game junkies don't play for THAT long.

To summarize, your scenario is so extremely unlikely that it has to be logically rejected.
Debate Round No. 2


You talk about evidence again and again. But what actually is your evidence? That you can touch and feel plants and animals? That's your evidence? An evidence inside a simulation cannot be called absolute.
And I say the world outside is diferent. I'm just revealing it to you. I am not here to give exact details of reality to you. What evidence can you give to prove that plants and animals are real? Other than touch and feel or see.
It's you who touch, feel and see inside a simulation. So you cannot call it real. Whatever you see inside the machine, you can also touch, smell, feel and also taste. But that isn't evidence. And your job is not to prove
the existence of plants, but to prove that you aren't in a simulated world. What ever you have talked about till now is only about the world you touch, feel, see.....
But all that was programed. What is outside? you'll only know when you come out of the machine. Until then, you will continue to believe your 5 simulated senses..
Yes. and the real you wont talk about you outside the machine, because you now are fictional like MARIO. And whatever quote you mention is from the world you hear, feel and see. Again, not enough evidence. You are gathering evidence from the simulation itself.
Instead of telling me characteristics of the world you see(which iis simulation), you are to prove that you aren't in a simulation.


In Round 2, I have shown some arguments against your assertion with some philosophical logic. I have given arguments using only thought, and such arguments did not rely on any of the five senses. You have ignored these arguments in Round 2, and instead are still harping on the evidence I gave in Round 1.

To drive my point home, I will reiterate some of what was stated in Round 2. These are arguments that rely on inherent logic, and are not going to touch on the reality of the things I hear, see, smell, taste, and touch. Ignoring all of these senses by claiming that all of the stimuli are simulated, I can still show an inconsistency in your statement. Indeed, I believe I have already done so in Round 2.

Here we go:

If everything around me is a simulation, one must admit that it is an incredibly awesome and detailed simulation. This so-called simulation contains a vast wealth of literature, an extremely diverse variety of cultures and customs, and various different climates and environments. This so-called simulation also contains very rich and diverse life forms. From bacteria and amoebae, to blue whales and elephants, to bees and ants with their own social structures, to creatures of the deep waters exhibiting bioluminescence. The motions of the planets and stars, with phenomena in space such as quasars, pulsars, black holes, and supernovae is also very complex.

So you claim that all of these things are simply a simulation, and I am in a video game analogous to one of the games featuring Mario. Yet I work 5 days a week for 8 hours a day. I also sleep for 8 hours a day. I also eat 3 times a day. Now I know that you said a day in simulation equals only an hour in "reality." But this is still excessive. This so-called video game will have me sitting at a desk or sleeping for 40 minutes out of every hour!! And the 20 minutes remaining has me take a time out 3 times to eat!! Talk about a lame video game.

Going back to all of the wondrous things I mentioned, the inconsistency can clearly be seen. A person that would create such an incredible simulation (and anyone would have to admit that if this is a simulation, it is truly incredible) would not create such a terrible video game. A simulation creator that takes the time to include microscopic organisms, water bears, rotifers, bacteria, and viruses to name a few, would certainly take great care in anything created. A simulation creator that would create the vast wealth of literature, the planets, the stars, the creatures of the deep ocean, the various landscapes on Earth, and the various religions and cultures, obviously takes a lot of time and care in everything he or she does.

Now you want me to believe that after taking the time to create all of that, we wind up with a video game where 20 minutes of every hour is wasted on sitting at a desk. Another 20 minutes is wasted on the character (i.e. me) sleeping. Take into account times when the so-called simulated pathogens make me ill, and you have me doing nothing for days (or hours after conversion). It doesn't make sense. Such a wondrous and incredible simulation is highly inconsistent with such a boring video game.

Such inconsistency leads one to rationalize that your assertion of me being a simulation is HIGHLY implausible. So implausible, that I must conclude it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, if you are the one that is supposed to reveal the truth to me, wouldn't it be done much more efficiently? Why through some debating website? Wouldn't I be encountered by a person (character) placed in the simulation if there was a simulated program to reveal the truth to me? Revelation over the internet seems like a very half-hearted attempt, especially considering all of the work that had to be put into this simulation.

So, in addition to your argument from ignorance (, everything else also seems inconsistent. And, as stated earlier, even if you claim that the quotes and philosophy are from simulations, that does not render them invalid. There are plenty of lessons that can be learned through fictional characters. Negating the existence of philosophers like Russell does not negate the philosophy itself. To believe in this simulation is not pragmatic, and therefore I reject it. I believe others reading this will see that I'm justified in doing so.

In conclusion, your simulation contains enough inconsistencies (lame video game, half-hearted attempt to show me true reality) that it must be rejected as something that does not exist.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by realrod 3 years ago
This is just a joke.....I was bored, and this topic came to mind. However, people never understood what I really tried to say......maybe they're too religious........hehahaha.........anyways.......good contest......I enjoyed this........cheers GaryBacon
Posted by morgan2252 3 years ago
Pro, is this a joke debate? Or do you actually believe this?
Posted by realrod 3 years ago
Yes you are(from the opponents point of view)............
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
Am I a simulation as well? Or am I just plugged in to it, like on The Matrix?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to retype this -.- Anyway, Pro failed to meet his burden of proof and even tried to put the burden of proof on Con ("you are to prove that you aren't in a simulation"), while simultaneously reinforcing Con's point that Pro's argument is an argument from ignorance (you can't prove you're not in a simulation, therefore you are). For this, conduct goes to Con. Con's spelling and grammar were superior as Pro made many mistakes such as substituing "u" for "you." Pro not only did not understand what constitues evidence, but also tried to change what constitutes evidence. This is another reason why conduct goes to con. Con shot down all of Pro's arguments (for example, those relating to video games and Pro being sent to reveal to us that we are in a simulation). Con was the only one that used sources.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Arguments to Con, because Pro failed to meet his BOP with a lack of evidence.