Ever seen the documentary "Particle Fever". Only people like us can appreciate this kind of thing.

I saw a tee shirt advertised that said "The universe is made of protons, neutrons, electrons and morons".

It's a trip to think about. I play around with the idea that there's something going on on the quantum level with the way we sense a connection with some people and not with others. Some kind of quantum entangled groove that somehow occurs when the right people connect. They collapse the wave in such a similar fashion they're immersed in a shared reality. A Heisenberg love connection as it were. The idea appeals to the romantic nerd in me

If this is a simulation, would it be appropriate to call the simulators gods? Because that's probably the closest thing to deities we could ever know.

Wave particle duality only applies to quantum-scale objects, not to all matter. But all matter is made up of quantum-scale objects...

It's possible we are living in a simulation, not sure if it has conclusively been disproven.

Nick Bostrom's hypothesis is base on three unlikely postulates -- that is in physical science they are close to preposterous. As a philosophical mind game, it becomes a different matter. I get a little nervous when a philosopher begins playing with 'reality' because they can go wherever they want with their speculations without the need for solid methodology.

So, what are the three postulates:

First, The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “post-human” stage.

Second, Any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).

Third, we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Okay, do you see what is happening here? Doesn't this smack of biblical discussion? The first postulate is a statement about things that can't be known and a condition that is pure speculation. Then he just glibly says that a post-human civilization won't be running too many simulations about their biological past evolution. He has just said that our species will probably go extinct prior to reaching this nebulous "post-human" stage, then turns right around and has "post-humans" running not so many simulations of their past. From these two wing-ding assertions he then concludes we are almost certainly living in a simulation. There's a lot wrong with this sequence, but I'm not going to elaborate. Suffice to say that, taken as a whole, the postulate is not falsifiable and is thus not capable of being pursued scientifically. It's not even a tidy philosophical game because there are too many holes.

"While the simulation argument is a skeptical view of reality, and proposes an interesting question regarding nature and technology, there are several problems if it is proposed as a serious hypothesis. Firstly, the simulation argument is completely unfalsifiable as it is impossible to devise an experiment to test the hypothesis and potentially prove it to be false. Even if a hypothetical experiment was devised and turned out negative (that the world was not simulated) it would still be insufficient because there is the potential that this is merely what the simulation wants us to think, or we are living inside a simulation inside a simulation. This, according to widely accepted definitions, places it firmly in the field of pseudoscience. Any serious suggestion that we do live in a simulation (as opposed to discussion of the probabilities, assumptions and the potential technologies involved, which is academically sound) relies purely on faith and argument by assertion. This makes the simulation argument, as an explanation of reality, more like a religion - regardless of the assertions of transhumanists that the maths works out."

Apply Occam's Razor to this hypothesis and see where it takes you.

Someone told me not long ago - "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics." Or something like that. It's all so heady and theoretical to me...

Of course I would run across this question in a loud pub on open-mic night with 3 pints under my belt. Organizing my thoughts will be difficult to say the least. Most likely I'll have to come back this one when it's quiet enough to think, but I'll say this for the moment: I'm familiari with the simulation theory and there's no way we can determine if we ARE, in fact, in a simulation that only renders when being observed, because you can't measure without observing. Another notion comes into play when you start looking at quantum entanglement and the fact that the laws of time fall apart shortly before matter becomes energy. What I mean is, go small, smaller, smallest, and eventually matter enter the active Energy phase of its existence, but in that whitewater of Existence where matter is close, but not quite energy, the rules of time fail, so, effectively, that matter exists in every form that it ever HAS BEEN, CURRENTLY IS, OR WILL BE. Right now. All at once. Right. NOW. FOREVER.

Now, take that notion in conjunction with the thought that you are also that matter that was just discussed, so you are entangled with all that your Particles ever were, are, or will be, and add to that thought that the observation of a conscious entity effects the behaviour of particles and you start realize that we may, in fact be helping to orchestrate the rules of the universe as it came into being AS WE LEARN ABOUT THE UNIVERSE TRILLIONS OF YEARS AFTER ITS BIRTH. There are stranger things in creation than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Or something like that. I hope that made some sense lol

I bow to you, brother. This stuff is way beyond me. Don't know if any of that is ultimately any more proveable than the big guy in the sky. And even if it is proveable, I'd have to take somebody's word for it, or not. I won't even pretend to understand quantum physics.

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." -Niels Bohr

I haven't studied much of the simulation hypothesis, but if you combine it with the holographic universe hypothesis it could explain a lot. The issue with these hypothesis though, is one of scale. It's obvious that such a simulation would be necessarily beyond our comprehension, but what happens if the whole point of this is an experiment to determine whether we can figure out that it's a simulation. In that case, the researchers or whoever is running this, can just shut it all down.

After having studied the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, I decided to let physics slide and concentrate on the welfare of cats ( and optical engineering)

I read an article once that posed a theory on this. Basically, if three things are true, then the chances of us living in a world that isn't a simulation are downright laughably small.

The first supposition is that a simulation as detailed as the life we live is even possible. While our own technology has advanced extremely far and quickly for both video and audio programming, we still have three other senses to be able to simulate properly, and that still assumes that a neural connection could be made to take the place of, say, a TV and a game controller.

The second supposition is that True AI is possible. This one we're still pretty far off on, but if there are other advanced civilizations out there, perhaps they've already cracked this particular puzzle.

The final supposition is that in whatever universe is, in fact, the genuine, physical deal, such simulations are legal, or at least permitted. Whether they are historical, memorial, for research or entertainment, who can say, but they have to be allowed to run.

If all three of those are true, there isn't just a good chance we live in a simulation, we could actually be living in a simulation /inside another simulation/. As many layers down the Matrix rabbit hole as you please.

I have no problems with this, and actually find it pretty fun to think about. How would you all feel if when you die, all you see is "Game Over, Insert Coin"?

The "simulation" theory is not really that mainstream, but its a good earner for scientists who don't really have anything else to write a paper about.

Having said that, I only today came across one of the best summaries of the current state of particle physics, and a great introduction to the workings at CERN.

If you are interested, it makes a good view

So would you have any of the key references that impressed you regarding this idea? Thanks

How would you behave differently if you truly believed that you exist as a simulation? I have never found the contention that interesting. It seems like a form of solipsism projected onto a race of alien computer scientists. It is not like the standard argument, Where I might say that you are a figment of my own imagination. It says rather that you and I having this conversation are mere figments of another imagination. Academic at best I should think, If ever.

It APPEARS to have no consequences to my life and if it does I am not bothered by it one iota.

I have, and that theory has supposedly been disproven, at least by what we currently understand.

One debunker figured out that no computer could be powerful enough to simulate the entire universe and all the possibilities. But he also admitted that our computer knowledge is probably primitive.

Another debunker argued that it was impossible because the creators of the simulation would then have to be "other" than our universe, and the same question would then apply to them.

Other people have other arguments: Physicists Confirm That We're Not Living In a Computer Simulation [pbs.org]

Roll another one and just take a break

Although, The Simulation Hypothesis is interesting, and there is a mathematical possibility that it is true, I'm not yet "on that boat".

I'm not at all a scientist but I do find Quantum Physics very interesting and try to keep up with news about it.

I think our current biggest hurdle is that "the theory of everything" is currently unknown. As anyone who has read a bit about physics, Quantum Physics (the physics of the very small) is not compatible with General Relativity (the physics of the very large). But in our physical and real world, they have to be compatible because both theories (and our understanding of both theories in the mathematical sense) are observably and measurably true.

Have been looking at this very issue for a few years myself. String theory as well multi-universe, bubble universe, holographic-universe as well many other. So far I have come to perceive that in each mind is a field of energy, a spark that we call soul, spirit, life. This field of energy uses the human mind as a personal computer extension to project it's limited range of energy into the grander common mental consciousnesses, known as the cultural mind. The minds are at once the bubble universe showing it's self in the string of this cultural awareness to it's overlaying reality, the physical world within their own collective, thus the term bubble. But this is only a theory as the only way to dis-prove or prove such would be to have an outside or third view veritable to measure it with. Fascinating how this ride is turning out this time around. Peace and as always, smile when greeting a new day and face. From one bubble to another.

I actually read somewhere that this hypothesis has been disproven.

Yes I do keep reading about this. And pondering it. Because even if it is a simulation - we're obviously living it. (Matrix). - And does that make the rules bendable? - We keep getting closer and closer to AI - wondering if we are already there and just don't know it.

Elon Musk believes we live in a simulation.
I mean, there's no proof positive evidence and that's only because we really have no clue how to test such a thing.
Elon's train of thought about the colonization of Mars will prove whether we are in a simulation or not. Because we may not be intended to actually do so in said simulation.
The problem with that is if we are indeed in a simulation... What would prevent whoever controls the simulation to patch it to allow us to be on Mars?
Our technology requires programs to be closed in order to be updated. But... If there is a machine so sophisticated that it enables said simulation, I'm sure it can patch as it goes.

There there is computation power. To be able to simulate so much life simultaneously would require a super computer at least twice the size of our sun.
But again, if this all is a simulation... Then that implies the overseers have that kind of technology.
Again, there's no way to prove it at this time and if there are overseers, I doubt they'll ever allow us to have the technology to find out.

Another aspect... We have no idea what's outside of the observable universe.