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

Is the metaverse simulation theory valid

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 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)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




With the high complexity of the universe, Along with it's massive size and appealing looks, The simulation theory is the most likely scenario that humans are in.

The theory goes as follows

1. The universe is inherently perfect and massive with evidence of there being continued control of Harmony in the stars and planets

2. Such a massive and coordinated specimen could not possibly be the result of an explosion

3. Therefore the universe was created by other highly intelligent beings such as humans

Keep in mind that although this theory is currently not possible for humans to replicate other than in augmented reality i. E. Video games, The likelihood of humans having this technology in a few thousand years is very likely and completely rational


Any theory is valid until it is proved to be either correct or incorrect.

Your argument or the simulation theory are very human centred and unrealistic. The universe looks like it does. I would suggest that "appealing" is a very unappealing descriptive.

1. The universe is what it is and in that sense is as perfect as it needs to be. The universe may be limited in size or it may be infinite, Who knows? "Massive" is therefore an unrealistic adjective. I would suggest that "harmony" is only relative to a given moment of human observation. Universal events do not always occur at an observable rate, Therefore theory and harmony are only assumptions. Observable universal events are often catastrophic and could be regarded as incongruous.

2. The universe may be massive or it may not, Size is relative to the viewer. Once again the universe is what it is and may or may not be coordinated. So far your argument is extremely limited and ethereal and expects huge assumptions based on huge leaps of faith.

3. "Therefore". What a massive leap of faith and a massive assumption. And of course where did all those other intelligent human like beings appear from?

Do you think that we will still be around a few thousand years from now? If we are do you think that we will still be a dominant universal intelligence? I would suggest that technology will be as technology will do. I would also assert, That so far there is nothing particularly rational in your proposition.

And all the above, Notwithstanding all currently accepted knowledge, Theory and rationale.
Debate Round No. 1


First off I would like to clarify what the word, "appealing, Harmony, And massive" meant and why I selected those words. Then I would like to support the rest of my arguments sequentially addressing my opponents perceived flaws in my statements.

1) I selected to utilize the above words due to the universes natural looks, And generally peaceful nature simply because I could not identify another way to bring attention to the viewers it's appeal to the naked human eye. A scientist cannot describe that the universe is appealing without getting a controversial reply. As expected, My opponent addressed my wording. Even Albert Einstein ran into this problem when describing the universe.

2) in regards to there being massive destruction observable in the universe, Yes that is true, But the way in which these planets are observed being controlled in perfect revulsion in perfect and exact timing during there annual revolution whether 365 days or 1000 days depending on the planets location in regards to it's star is clearly showing signs of control or at the least, A process that has been automated to continue it's revulsions.

3) I think that "massive" is the best way to describe this universe as this universe being "infinite" is not rational with the big bang theory as an explosion cannot create infinite size. Even billions of years after the explosion we can still observe debri as a result of a big bang. That does not make the universe "infinite", But vrather ever increasing. The only way that infinite is rational is if you can explain your opinion on how the universe came to be excluding the big bang.

4) Since a large explosion happening on it's own is just as impossible for us to currently explain as human like beings (not necessarily humans) creating the universe, I think that the simulation argument can explain more of a reasonable reason as to how the universe came to be as we do not know the background for how that society could be created or come to be.

5) Even Albert Einstein himself believed in some type of a created universe. When Einstein was asked if he believed in god, His response was something to the effect of "I believe in the gods of the stars, The planets, And the god of beauty, But when it comes to believing in a god that will give me something if I ask him, I have a hard time believing in that". Additionally, For what it's worth, Elon Musk a multi billionaire with a large established understanding of technology, Believes in the simulation theory. Elon Musk has created the blueprint for the hyperloop with prototypes and if successful, (which is likely) will be the creator of the biggest revolution in human travel since the airplane.


Arguments are arguments and as such are not flawed.

1) Stand and look at the heavens on a balmy clear night and the universe may well appear to be appealing, Massive and harmonious. I personally might go for amazing, Vast and confident, But that's being very subjective, Earthbound and somewhat short sighted. Let's not forget that the Earth itself is never always clear and balmy, At times the Earth's surface can be a very hostile and unforgiving environment.

2) I would suggest that a Solar System is what a Solar System does, Just as the Universe is what the Universe does. These might seem like glib statements, But what I'm trying to say is that the universe has to function somehow.
I would propose that there are two basic options:
Where everything is random, Unrepetitive, Non-sequential and ungoverned.
Where everything conforms to the inevitability of natural laws and processes.
Clearly evidence suggests the latter, But as I stated previously it is a huge leap of faith to assume that order is not governed by natural laws but controlled by an unknown intelligence.
And as one commentator has rightly pointed out, There is what might be regarded as an incongruous discrepancy between planetary revolution and solar orbit. The Earth is not quite the perfect distance from the Sun or the Earth does not quite have a perfect rotation.

3) The universe:
Space and all existing matter. (Massive from a human viewpoint).
The extent of matter is obviously limited by the duration of the creation event thus far, Whatever that creation event might have been. Theoretically the potential of space is infinite and therefore a rational proposition, This rationale being based on the theory that matter is extending into infinite space, Rather than space extending concurrently with matter as part of the creation event.

4) Creation by what ever means relies upon the something from nothing principle. All we can truly say is that existence should be impossible and we have no actual answer as to why that is not the case. Simulation theory is no less dependant upon the something from nothing principle, Maybe what we observe is simulated, But who or what projects that simulation and who or what created the simulators creator etc. Etc. Ultimately Simulation theory is just another manifestation of the God theory.
Although the Big Bang theory fails to take into account what may or may not have preceded it, It does nonetheless attempt to start at zero and move forwards. Whereas God and Simulation theories start at One and conveniently ignore everything that precedes One. In that respect the Big Bang is one step ahead of it's theoretical counterparts.

5) Creation is creation, If there was no creation event, Then there would be nothing, We do not need Albert Einstein or Elon Musk to tell us that. Both were or are persons of above average intelligence, Both capable of extending and facilitating human knowledge and understanding, But neither has the answer to the biggest question of all and that is, How can something appear form nothing.
The "Hyperloop" is one more possible technological advancement or a further possible advancement in the manipulation of matter, I would regard this as evolution in progress, A process that ultimately, May or may not rely upon human input.

And just for the record, The Hyperloop is based upon the Vactrain which was first proposed by Robert Goddard in 1904. If we go back to 1799 George Medhurst conceived and patented the Atmospheric Railway which basically worked on similar principles to the Vactrain and Hyperloop.

Money is simply money and being a billionaire places you no nearer to the creation.

Food for thought:
Maybe humans created the simulator and evolution is a perpetual loop. But of course, That still overlooks the something from nothing principle.
Debate Round No. 2


I will begin my final round argument with correcting the legal definition of the word "flaw". 1. A : a defect in physical structure or form " a diamond with a flaw
b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness " vanity was the flaw in his character a flaw in the book's plot
An argument can have a flaw as can anything. If one were to argue an argument such as "we need to protect children by locking up cleaning chemicals, Keeping kitchen knives out of there reach, And follow our kids around wherever they go" the obvious flaw in the statement is "following them around wherever they go". The first 2 statements were valid thereby not compromising the entire argument, Just the final piece, Thus making it a flaw. A defective argument (which is what you likely meant) is where the entire argument or item/material is useless or completely incorrect. A defective argument would be for example "Hitler wanted a superior human race, Therefore he was good and it was ok for him to oppress millions of people". The obvious defect is that Hitler was not a good person due to the fact of him killing millions of people to attain his goal of a superior human race. Without getting into legal definitions, I think it's common sense that such an argument would be defective. Even if by legal definition it's not.

2) Even though the earths atmosphere can at times be hostile, This does not by any means negate the simulation theory as humans could simply be just another unimportant animal that was created by the simulation. Questioned by my opponent previously "do you think that we will still be around a few thousand years from now? " I can say that if humans were really highly intelligent and gifted problem solvers this would not even be a realistic question as humans would be so intelligent and gifted that few would ever be questioning themselves being terminated by there own species ignorance and hostility. Just because humans are the most intelligent species on Earth does not by any means mean there the most intelligent beings in the universe. Additionally Humans tend to rationalize that they have been the most important and intelligent species of animal in the world of all time (or if your into religion the only important or species of all time). However when remains have been recovered of our ancestoral cousins, We have identified SO FAR that there is at least 1 other species of animal that was more intelligent than humans. This average hominids iq was 150, A humans is only 100 on average. Therefore not only making us not the most important and intelligent creatures in the universe, But vrather not even intelligent creatures on our own planet compared to one of our cousin ape species.
http://discovermagazine. Com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us
Therefore humans would likely not be the important source of the simulatiom, Vrather just another animal byproduct such as chimpanzees, Neanderthals, Deer, Rabbits, Tyrannasauras rexs, Etc. Etc.

2) Ultimately, I think that it is EASIER to rationalize that the universe was created by intelligent life forms because as stated recently and I'll state again, We do not know the circumstances at all whatsoever of the background of how this species could have come to be. We don't know what there universe (if they even have one), Environment, Or laws of physics would even relate to this universes environment whatsoever. Therefore, To say that they could not come to be by forces unknown to humans is not a philosophicaly skilled belief. To believe that an explosion in which spacial debri can still be seen as a result of the explosion coming from nothing at all is much more unlikely and irrational currently than having the belief that a simulation was created by somewhat intelligent beings (again humans will be able to do this in not too long from now) to procreate life (intelligent and unintelligent)

3) I will now give my reasoning as to why I believe that somewhat intelligent life would have procreated life. The answer is simple. To ensure that animals and most importantly themselves would have survived no matter what the outcome of there society itself. The rational would be similar to why humans would bring a child into this world taking into account (or not) that suffering would be a normal part of it's life. There philosophy behind it could be that since they have the ability to give animals life in which they could live to pursue comfort and piece (all animals have emotions) for procreative purposes, They would do it.

In conclusion, With all of the data and rationale stated above, I believe that it is mathmatically more likely than not we are in a simulation due to probability and current possibility

Overall great debate, Look forward to reviewing your final argument, Good luck


1) I don't particularly want to dwell on the word "flaw". I was simply saying that I did not consider Pro's argument to be flawed. I was suggesting that all debating evidence is valid, Even if there is no certainty of that evidence's correctness.

2) Quite simply there is no real evidence to prove the existence of a superior species, Either universally or as an earthbound predecessor. Surely a superior intelligence that has the capability to project a complex simulation on a universal scale also has the ability and the confidence to make it presence known without doubt. In just the same fashion as god theories, There always has to be a shroud of mystery and secrecy involved. Why?
Whether or not we had predecessors that exhibited greater levels of intelligence is a much wider debate and a claim that is impossible to prove conclusively.

3) As Pro's argument clearly shows, Simulation theory is entirely assumptive and lacks any tangible evidence. Simulation theory assumes the existence of a superior intelligence that possesses the ability to project a simulated image of a separate universe, But a universe that is obviously inferior to their own. What would be the purpose of this charade?
Pro then goes on to debunk the big bang theory, By citing the something from nothing principle, But as I have already stated the something from nothing principle must apply to all creation theories. A superior intelligence possessing highly advanced simulating technology cannot just magically exist, It too must undergo a sequence of material creation and subsequent material development.

4) Quite frankly, Pro's "reasoning" is confusing, Moralistic, Pseudo religious rambling and offers no real insight into or justification for a simulated universe.
I would reason that, Projecting a simulated universe is a fantastic notion but not wholly irrefutable, What I would refute however is the notion that it would be possible to project and maintain a simulated universe, In which matter exhibited structural formation, Sentience and sensory perception.

5) Mathematics as far as we know is a human construct. A development of human intellect. Something that we apply, To facilitate our appreciation of our universe. Suggesting that human mathematics ( without prerequisite information) can justify the existence of an alternate, Superior intelligence is quite simply a massive, Illogical leap of faith to far.
Pro also infers (without justification) probability and current possibility. I would suggest that based on current knowledge and understanding rather than on pure assumption, A simulated universe is highly improbable. As for current possibility and with no examples of current possibility offered, It is impossible to know what Pro is suggesting.

Simulation theory is just another theory that relies on the magical existence of a secretive, Superior intelligence and as ever, Completely fails to take into account or simply ignores the precursor of that superior intelligence. I would propose that it is far more likely that the matter and the universe that we are a part of is unique. We accept that this universe actually exists because we are able to perceive it and we must accept for now that the creation of matter and any possible preceding time and events cannot be understood. Simulation theory is merely an ethereal projection of the human imagination and therefore should not be regarded as a valid scientific hypothesis.
Debate Round No. 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.