All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

# Is the metaverse simulation theory valid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 8/8/2018 Category: Philosophy Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,006 times Debate No: 117493
Debate Rounds (3)

2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
I don't know if the revolution is actually harmonious because the years are 365. 24 something instead of perfectly an integer.
I don't think the universe is beautiful. It's only seemingly massive because I'm tiny.
I do support the "what caused the Big Bang? " idea but I've heard there's science for it (which might just be science for gathering of preexisting stuff instead of creation of new stuff, But I'm not sure about that).
I believe in the simulation theory because of probability. When you can never know a second world outside your view is NOT present, The second world exists as an option. When you have multiple options and truly cannot tell anything about which options are more or less likely, Then as far as you're concerned all options are equally likely.
A 64-bit binary number has about four billion times as many possibilities for arrangements than a 32-bit number. That's doubling a very very simple set. A two-world multiverse will have so many times more possible sets of circumstances than a one-world universe that the probability of a single world being all there is is dwarfed to nothing. This holds true when considering about a third world, Or a fourth, And so on. An infinite regression is virtually certain (infinity to one odds).
It's like considering whether a random positive real number has less than one hundred digits. The odds are essentially zero of you getting ANY expressible number (infinitely slim odds).
There are also infinite WAYS to simulate reality convincingly. One could dream within a world in which dreams are much more detailed and long. One could be in a matrix. One could be in a reality game show while unaware. One could be in another simulation-scenario that doesn't exist in this dream-layer. If THESE are equal in chance instead of overall circumstance-permutations being equal in chance, It's still guaranteed by probability that you're dreaming somehow.
I worry whether stealing a debate like this is wrong. ;/ Sorry I just like thi
Posted by LucciDamus 3 years ago
Finally an ideological debate and i can't accept because im engaged. Well, I arguw the con obviously.

For 3 reasons; the big bang theory, Selective breeding and technology.

1. Its more plausible to perceive that these massive bodies could have been smaller pieces compared to what they were at the time of said bang. Leaning more towards materlism, Because lets face it all around us are materials.

2. Selective breeding shows our ability to grow in the capacity to interpret said materials. Like when we reduce the size if an apple seed by a factor of 10-15 (i believe) over a long period of time. Are we intelligent designers? Yes means we are tge source of the universe or something similar. No means neither is the source of the universe.

3. Technology is the material way of entering dualism if that can be understood. Lol the better we work with iron the more we can use our mind verse using stone where we have to use more of our body.
No votes have been placed for this debate.