If you're talking about the idea that this existence is a simulation, I've always thought it's just the God of the gaps wrapped up in technobabble and brought into the modern age.

What are your own thoughts and theories?

Well I believe there is a creator for the simple reason that life has a purpose. Of course, we don't know that purpose yet but all the evidence is there to make that assumption. I am not talking about religion creator here just a creator in general.

My ideas are more of fantasy because at this point all theories can sound like sci-fi. But I really like playing with the idea currently that the entire universe could cease to exist for years on end and we would never know. If you think about it, if reality is a simulation, the simulation could crash and everything would cease to be. But if the simulation has save points and is rebooted at the time it crashed we wouldn't notice anything. It's a fun idea to think about I guess.

The entire universe cannot be a simulation, because there must be something left, say a second universe which is real, and of which our universe could then be a simulation. So the speculation makes no sense.

My ideas are more of fantasy because at this point all theories can sound like sci-fi. But I really like playing with the idea currently that the entire universe could cease to exist for years on end and we would never know. If you think about it, if reality is a simulation, the simulation could crash and everything would cease to be. But if the simulation has save points and is rebooted at the time it crashed we wouldn't notice anything. It's a fun idea to think about I guess. — Grey

If the simulation crashed, wouldn't we all die? Do you think it's possible that we can die, and be rebooted at a save point? Since there would be a certain amount of loss, between the save point and the crash, wouldn't going back to the save point be like going back in time? Instead of worrying about this simulation, why not just try to find a way to go back in time, to a save point, if something happens that you don't like. Be careful though, you wouldn't want a Groundhog Day.

Of course there is something left, someone has to be running the simulation....

We wouldn't die, death is a part of the simulation. There would just be nothing and then something. If our existence is just code then it doesn't matter if there is a crash as long as our code doesn't read "Death" on each of us. But you're right, if the simulation worked that way time travel would technically be possible. It's possible that every instance is saved or only specific instances are saved in the simulation. the problem is harnessing the simulation itself to abuse it. If we do that, it could do two things,

1. Give us power to alter reality
2. Destroy everything possibly permanently.

The issue also is if you go back to a save point you would no longer be living within this simulation. The reason I think it's not possible is if you think about a video game. If you're playing a game with multiple saves, the only way to access the other saves is if you're playing on that save or give that save to someone else. Meaning, past points of our universe could be playing out from other simulators with different results and realities. But, for someone in a current ongoing game to try and go back into time (to a different save) would make them cease to exist. They could succeed but unless that save is active than they are gone until it's activated.

and again that's just one aspect of it. there are a lot of places you can take simulation theory. I kinda like to think that if we, in the 3rd dimension can create 2 dimensional simulations is it outlandish to assume 4 dimensional beings can make simulations of the 3rd dimension? Could or limits of physics (speed of light) be hardware restrictions of a 4 dimensional machine?

It's just fun to ask this kinda stuff to myself I guess :P

Look, a simulation requires that there is something to simulate. If the entire universe would be a simulation of someone outside the universe "running the simulation", then it shouldn't be a simulation of a universe but someone outside it "running the simulation", which is obviously different from a simulation of the universe. Like I said, it makes no sense.

So what you're saying is you can't comprehend the reasons for simulating the universe? Or can you not disconnect from the idea of more than one universe?

The appeal of simulation theory is that it paints a picture of the universe as an interconnected machine which follows specific laws/programming. It is the hope of all good physicists that everything in the universe be determined in some such way because that means complete understanding of the physical laws which govern them could then explain and predict everything.

It brushes aside the origin of the universe by just supposing it is generated on some grand computer, and it comes with an inherent appeal to cause and effect (which on it's own is persuasive).

Really it's just determinism with window dressing and isn't cause for immediate jubilation. Elon Musk really thought he was onto something when simulation theory inspired in him the following argument:

It is possible that the only way for new universes to exist is for them to be simulated

It is possible that we are a simulation within a simulation

It is possible that the programmers of the simulation will destroy us if we do not "pay it forward" by ourselves hosting simulations of new universes from within our own

Conclusion: As an ultimate goal we need to strive to simulate a sub-universe in order to ensure the continued existence of our own

[insert slow clap]

Whence your concern for my comprehension? Post a counter argument instead, if you can.

I am asking questions to understand the point you're making. What you typed isn't coherent.

That's not my problem but yours. What I typed lays out how your claim fails to make sense.

The entire universe cannot be a simulation, because there must be something left, say a second universe which is real, and of which our universe could then be a simulation. So the speculation makes no sense. — jkop

He's just saying that the universe we find ourselves to live in is a simulation. He's not saying that there isn't a real non-simulation universe in which our universe is simulated.

If you're talking about the idea that this existence is a simulation, I've always thought it's just the God of the gaps wrapped up in technobabble and brought into the modern age. — Efram

What do you think of Bostrom's trilemma?

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero, or
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero, or
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one

Well I believe there is a creator for the simple reason that life has a purpose. Of course, we don't know that purpose yet but all the evidence is there to make that assumption. — Grey

What kind of evidence suggests that there's a purpose? Presumably if there is some then a simulation-universe would differ empirically from a non-simulation universe?

The entire universe cannot be a simulation, because there must be something left, say a second universe which is real, and of which our universe could then be a simulation. So the speculation makes no sense. — jkop

I think the idea is that there is one universe and it is the inhabitants of the future that are simulating the past, and they are doing it an enormous number of times. Hence we are far more likely to be simulated than real.

But, if you add in the infinite number of other universes, and the infinite number of causally disconnected regions in our own infinite universe, then the fact that we are simulations is inevitable.

He's not saying that there isn't a real non-simulation universe in which our universe is simulated. — Michael

He says that the entire universe is a simulation, in which it is assumed that there isn't anything outside the simulation. Or he is misusing the word 'entire' or 'simulation' or both.

Look at nature. Everything acts with purpose. One known purpose of life is to survive and evolve. But why would life need to do that? Why would there need to be constant improvement? If life was just some random occurrence why does it evolve? If we look at different ecosystems there are many lifeforms that play specific roles and have a specific purpose to survive in their ecosystems. All life has a purpose.

Humans have the luxury of no longer needing to think about survival as much. Of course, not all humans have this luxury, but the ones that do keep evolving. If our purpose ended at trying to survive we wouldn't keep evolving. We have met the one known purpose of existence yet we continue to change. I interpret that information as another purpose. Why do we continue to change? For what purpose?

The reasons I think there is a creator based on all this is the fact that humans are so complex. I don't mean to suggest that I can't comprehend the fact that the human body and mind could be a random occurrence. But there is no reason for us to exist if life was a random occurrence. Life doesn't need to be as complex and imperfect as humans to exist. If life simply only needed to exist it would have been much more optimal to create something other than humans.

Like I said, it seems you can't comprehend that there is more than one universe.

Everything acts with purpose — Grey

Which just means that living things have intentions, not that life qua life has a purpose.

One known purpose of life is to survive and evolve. But why would life need to do that? Why would there need to be constant improvement? If life was just some random occurrence why does it evolve? If we look at different ecosystems there are many lifeforms that play specific roles and have a specific purpose to survive in their ecosystems. All life has a purpose.

I don't know what you mean by this being a purpose. It's just something that happens, like the water cycle.

The reasons I think there is a creator based on all this is the fact that humans are so complex. I don't mean to suggest that I can't comprehend the fact that the human body and mind could be a random occurrence. But there is no reason for us to exist if life was a random occurrence. Life doesn't need to be as complex and imperfect as humans to exist. If life simply only needed to exist it would have been much more optimal to create something other than humans.

Your reasoning leads to an infinite regress. If life is evidence that our universe is a simulation being run in some parent universe, and if this parent universe has life (which surely it must if our simulation-universe is an intentional creation), then this parent universe shows evidence of itself being a simulation being run in some grandparent universe, and so on. Where does it end? Is it simulations all the way up?

Where does it end? Is it simulations all the way up? — Michael

It's fun to think about but I don't really like to ponder about what's past certain points. I see it as climbing a building. Climbing story by story is easier than trying to lasso the top of a skyscraper. If that makes sense.

Look at nature. Everything acts with purpose. One known purpose of life is to survive and evolve. But why would life need to do that? Why would there need to be constant improvement? If life was just some random occurrence why does it evolve? If we look at different ecosystems there are many lifeforms that play specific roles and have a specific purpose to survive in their ecosystems. All life has a purpose. — Grey

The reasons I think there is a creator based on all this is the fact that humans are so complex. I don't mean to suggest that I can't comprehend the fact that the human body and mind could be a random occurrence. But there is no reason for us to exist if life was a random occurrence. Life doesn't need to be as complex and imperfect as humans to exist. If life simply only needed to exist it would have been much more optimal to create something other than humans. — Grey

You might find it interesting to read up on some basics of evolution. It's the thing which tends to answer those kind of questions quite comprehensively.

Like I said, it seems you can't comprehend that there is more than one universe. — Grey

What part of

there must be something left, say a second universe — jkop

do you not understand?

Why do you think there would have to be a second universe?

I was actually thinking about this more today and never realized the fact that humans could evolve by competing with each other.

I think the idea is that there is one universe and it is the inhabitants of the future that are simulating the past, and they are doing it an enormous number of times. Hence we are far more likely to be simulated than real. — tom

What a dizzying idea, but an enormous number of simulations won't increase the likelihood of other things being simulations. Even in a universe replete with simulations each and every simulation must be composed of parts which are constituitive for the possibility, but insufficient separately. The number of parts is always greater than the number of simulations.

But, if you add in the infinite number of other universes, and the infinite number of causally disconnected regions in our own infinite universe, then the fact that we are simulations is inevitable. — tom

How would an exercise in counting infinities be a reason to believe that reality is a simulation?

The number of parts is always greater than the number of simulations. — jkop

So you can't believe simulation theory because there will be more parts of a simulation that simulations themselves?

I didn't say that.

The argument is that if there are more simulated worlds than there are non-simulated worlds then you're more likely to be in a simulated world than a non-simulated world.