The Instigator
Mingodalia
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wizofoz
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

We live in a simulated reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Wizofoz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,787 times Debate No: 110819
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Mingodalia

Pro

Okay Wiz. Do you accept this debate?
Wizofoz

Con

Sure.

We might.

There is no evidence that we do or could, but we might.

However, acting as if we live in an objective reality reliably gives us results we expect and can use, and I would be amazed if the Pro side does anything but eat, drink, and not jump off buildings, as if their physical body needed actual nutrition and is subject to objective harm if gravity is ignored.

The pro side has made a positive statement- "We live in a simulated reality". This is a positive truth statement, that it is something that is true, not possible. This puts the Burdon of proof firmly on his side.

Even if possible, I see no evidence it is true.
Debate Round No. 1
Mingodalia

Pro

My opponent assumes I'm male. Interesting.....

Let's get started.

James Gates is an American physicist"who works on"supersymmetry,supergravity, and"superstring theory. He retired from the physics department at theUniversity of Maryland College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences"in 2017,"and he is now the Ford Foundation Professor of Physics at"Brown University. He was a University of Maryland Regents Professor and served on former PresidentBarack Obama's"Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
James Gates sees codes embedded in reality, something like the codes embedded in computer programs.

James Gates:
"My intuition has led, in the past decade, to a demonstration that the equations of supersymmetry can be expressed in the language of networks. These networks have well-defined mathematical definitions, objects that we can draw in terms of graphs.

These graphs contain error-correcting codes. Error-correcting codes are a part of computer science, so you don"t expect them to be in the structure of the equations that describe our universe. The only place in the natural sciences where error-correcting codes are discussed is in genetics.

If you look at genetics, the explanation for the presence of error-correcting codes is that they are the result of evolution and confer evolutionary advantage to genetic systems. So then I was led to the question, Is it possible that mathematical laws that describe our universe went through a process very much like evolution? If so, was there an "inchoate epoch" at the beginning of the universe?

We have discovered these strange networks, named them adinkras, and think of them like genes in actual biological systems. We are in the process of mapping attributes of then) networks onto properties of differential equations that describe supersymmetry in our universe."

Video of James Gates and Neil DeGrasse Tyson interview-

https://youtu.be...

Error correcting code example link-

http://slideplayer.com...

Example of binary code-

https://d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.net...

Example of Adinkras symbols-

http://gijonlinenews.com...

Simulation Theory-

In simulation theory it states that if civilizations create simulated realities, and those realities create simulated realities, simulated realities would far exceed the number of real realities, thus, there is essentially no chance you aren't in a simulated reality by probability.

The Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox-

The"Drake equation"is a"probabilistic argument"used to estimate the number of active, communicative"extraterrestrial civilizations"in the"Milky Way"galaxy.

The Drake equation is:

NRW27;Y01;fpY01;neY01;flY01;fiY01;fcY01;{\displaystyle N=R_{*}\cdot f_{\mathrm {p} }\cdot n_{\mathrm {e} }\cdot f_{\mathrm {l} }\cdot f_{\mathrm {i} }\cdot f_{\mathrm {c} }\cdot L}

where:

N"= the number of"civilizations"in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current pastlight cone);

and

RW27;"= the average rate of"star formation"inour galaxyfp"= the fraction of those stars that haveplanetsne"= the average number of planets that can potentially support"life"per star that has planetsfl"= the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some pointfi"= the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop"intelligent"life (civilizations)fc"= the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into spaceL"= the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

Based on the Drake Equation the solar system, galaxy and universe should be teaming with intelligent life, but even with Hubble, we have not seen definitive proof of intelligent life anywhere. This is known as the Fermi Paradox. This paradox is resolved by Simulation Theory. All that empty space is explained by Simulation Theory.

And according to NASA, in all of deep observable space, we have still found no alien life.

https://www.space.com...

Infinite vs finite universe-

We have a paradox. Either the universe/reality is finite, or it is infinite.

If reality is finite, one must explain how something can literally exist inside of a literal nothing.

If it is infinite, one must explain how reality can go on forever, eternally.

Both paradoxes are satisfied by Simulation theory. A thing can exist inside of nothing in virtual space. And a thing can be infinite in virtual space per computer program loops.

In computer programming, a loop is a sequence of"instructions that is continually repeated until a certain condition is reached.

http://whatis.techtarget.com...

A GIF example of a simplistic computer loop-

https://media.giphy.com...

-----

SOURCES:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

https://onbeing.org...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Wizofoz

Con

All of which argues that it may be possible that the universe is a simulation, but not that it is.
Debate Round No. 2
Mingodalia

Pro

My opponents argument can be summed up by the only sentence he cared to take the time to present us in this debate.
"All of which argues that it may be possible that the universe is a simulation, but not that it is."

But actually, James Gates, Physicist, of whom I referenced doesn't claim it "might be", but that it "is" a simulated matrix.

https://www.sott.net...

`````

So, let's summarize the debate so far.

1)My opponent referred to me as "he" when I am a female in college.

2)My opponent did not attempt to make a serious rebuttal in this round.

3)My opponent's one sentence response was actually factually wrong based on the actual comments of my source.

`````

In an interview, James Gates said:

"If we look at the computer from the outside, our artwork looks solid. If we take apart the outside layers of the computer and watch in slow motion how its hardware works beyond the microscopic level, we will see that it is made of vast streams of electrical currents. Electrical currents are another form of energy.

At this level, our artwork will look like flashes of electrical currents. This analogy of how a computer works is similar to how our minds and consciousness create our illusionary external reality. ...

If we can go beyond time and space and look down at our third dimensional reality, we will see that our reality is also made of flashes of electrical signals or light. In other words, this is the state of our reality before it is processed by our consciousness. The reason why we perceive things as solid is because our bodies and consciousness encode the energy patterns around us as solid. It is at this moment that we are tricked into believing that our reality is made of solid materials."

https://www.sott.net...

Even Neil Degrasse Tyson said, "it"s "very likely" the universe is a simulation."

https://www.extremetech.com...

Nick Bostrom is an Agnostic and Philosopher-

I will leave you with his words...

Nick Bostrom"s hypothesis:

"One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don"t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears."

http://bigthink.com...
Wizofoz

Con

So, one person has express that it is. That is not evidence, that is one opinion. It is the logical fallacy of "argument from authority".

If we live in a simulation, a simulation of what? If it is the simulation of an actual Universe, so well crafted as to be indistinguishable from that actual Universe, then we would not be able to distinguish such, by definition.

It would thus be impossible to ascertain that we are in a simulation.

If we are merely digital avatars created and controlled by some outside entity, then they would have control over our though processes- they would control what we believe.

If it is their desire that we believe we exist in a real Universe, they could easily include that in our programming.

The very fact we are able to contemplate the idea that we live in a simulation is powerful evidence that we don't.

At least sufficient to render the definitive statement that we do falsified.

This has actually been the subject of some enquiry, and has lead to varying conclusions.

here-https://cosmosmagazine.com...
is the claim that it has been definitively debunked.

I don't necessarily agree with the definitiveness of that statement, but it certainly shows there is enough conjecture to render a definitive statement in the affirmative falsified,
Debate Round No. 3
Mingodalia

Pro

`````
1)Con: So, one person has express that it is. That is not evidence, that is one opinion. It is the logical fallacy of "argument from authority".
`````-----

James Gates did provide the adinkras that he is talking about and the math and equations that go with it.

`````
2)Con: If we live in a simulation, a simulation of what? If it is the simulation of an actual Universe, so well crafted as to be indistinguishable from that actual Universe, then we would not be able to distinguish such, by definition.
It would thus be impossible to ascertain that we are in a simulation.
`````-----

Most simulations do not well represent the reality that we live in, so there's no reason to think another reality's simulations would seem just like it. If you were born in a completely abstract world, you wouldn't know it was abstract. You'd just think that's what reality is like.

`````
3)Con: If we are merely digital avatars created and controlled by some outside entity, then they would have control over our though processes- they would control what we believe.
`````-----

Maybe, maybe not. There's no necessity to control us. They could sit back and watch with no intervention. They could intervene. They could also start it up and walk away. It's all theoretical.

`````
4)Con: If it is their desire that we believe we exist in a real Universe, they could easily include that in our programming.
`````-----
They could do a lot of things. In our reality, the evidence is there whether intended or not.

`````
5)Con: The very fact we are able to contemplate the idea that we live in a simulation is powerful evidence that we don't.
`````-----

Not necessarily. Maybe the creators/creator wants has no problem with us knowing, and is amused by it, or he/she planned it that way.

`````
6)Con: At least sufficient to render the definitive statement that we do falsified.
`````-----

The evidence is there, whether intentional, false, programmed, brainwashed, etc. And what we have to go on is only the evidence.

`````
7)Con: here-https://cosmosmagazine.com......
is the claim that it has been definitively debunked.
`````-----

a)After claiming that we could be programmed to believe anything, I use Con's argument against him. You could be programmed to believe it has "been debunked", the scientists could be programmed to believe they debunked it, etc.

b)There are articles that debunk the debunking.

https://www.theguardian.com...

In Con's article, its "proof" we aren't living in a simulation is that metal can't be simulated in a simulation. But the fact is, if you were born in a simulation, you wouldn't know what metal was like here to know the difference. It's very, very poor logic.

`````
8)Con: I don't necessarily agree with the definitiveness of that statement, but it certainly shows there is enough conjecture to render a definitive statement in the affirmative falsified
`````-----

Con has not given reason to disbelieve the findings of the Physicist, James Gates. He has given us theoretics, which isn't proof or evidence. What I have given you is the actual mathematics and findings of an actual Physicist who was the Science Advisor to the President of the United States.
Wizofoz

Con

I quote the pros terms from the previous argument

"Maybe, maybe not", "It's all theoretical", "Not necessarily", "the scientists could be programed"

In other words, she accepts there are no definitive answers to this question, it is a hypothesis with some claimed evidence, but a great deal of conjecture and theorizing. This does not support a contention that we ARE living in a simulation.

Her last paragraph is telling, saying I don't produce proof or evidence.

I don't have to.

She has made a definitive statement of and absolute condition- not "Might", "Could" or "there is evidence of" but "We are". It is not incumbent on the pro to provide evidence to the contrary, just to show there is insufficient to sustain the proposition.

This has been done by the pros own, honest use of non definitive terms as she cannot definitively sustain the proposition.

Thus it is defeated,
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Buce_n_Gar 3 years ago
Buce_n_Gar
Pro has actually presented compelling circumstantial evidence that we do live in a simulation. It could also be argued that Dr. James Gates equations are "direct" evidence, though it would most likely take another theoretical physicist to parse that data, but if valid would prove the issue.

Con's argument is simply a semantic argument over the language of the contention. It would seem, that at the very least, he would need to find a theoretical physicist who has analyzed Dr. Gates work and has come to a contrary opinion, since Dr Gates is affirming that this is direct evidence we live in a simulation.
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
Wizofoz
Hehehe

I wonder who it was tried to get a comment removed!!!
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Midnight1131// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: An interesting case was put forward by Pro. However I have to agree with Con that none of the arguments made definitively proved the resolution, which was worded in absolute terms. Pro's arguments were based mainly on assumptions; if x hasn't happened then the resolution is likely true. This is basically what Pro's Drake equation argument was. Even simulation theory, as Con points ou,t, is entirely based on probability, and therefore does not absolutely affirm the resolution. Con also points out that the argument in which Pro cites a physicist is essentially an appeal to authority. This is true to an extent, however Pro does try to explain the reasoning behind it, but doesn't do a very thorough job of it. They do however, end that contention by noting that research is very much ongoing, therefore not definitive, and therefore doesn't affirm the resolution. Because the burden of proof was on Pro, and they failed to definitively affirm the resolution, I give the win to Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does a more than sufficient job analyzing the arguments presented by both sides and assessing which of those was stronger.

Note to the reporter: voters are not required to award any points they do not wish to award.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Outplayz 3 years ago
Outplayz
MingodaliaWizofozTied
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: "Maybe, maybe not", "It's all theoretical", "Not necessarily", "the scientists could be programed" Pro's own words betray her on this debate. She wasn't able to meet her BOP so by that default this goes to con.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 3 years ago
Midnight1131
MingodaliaWizofozTied
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: An interesting case was put forward by Pro. However I have to agree with Con that none of the arguments made definitively proved the resolution, which was worded in absolute terms. Pro's arguments were based mainly on assumptions; if x hasn't happened then the resolution is likely true. This is basically what Pro's Drake equation argument was. Even simulation theory, as Con points ou,t, is entirely based on probability, and therefore does not absolutely affirm the resolution. Con also points out that the argument in which Pro cites a physicist is essentially an appeal to authority. This is true to an extent, however Pro does try to explain the reasoning behind it, but doesn't do a very thorough job of it. They do however, end that contention by noting that research is very much ongoing, therefore not definitive, and therefore doesn't affirm the resolution. Because the burden of proof was on Pro, and they failed to definitively affirm the resolution, I give the win to Con.

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