Simulation theory is a useless, perhaps even dangerous, thought experiment that makes no contact with empirical investigation. | Anil Seth, Sabine Hossenfelder, Massimo Pigliucci, Anders Sandberg

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

“Simulation theory serves no use because it does not change our behaviour”…… Literally the next sentence: “Simulation theory could be dangerous as it encourages us to become unresponsive to threats” … nice one


Honestly I’ve always seen Simulation Theory as just a cool thought experiment that carries no actual benefit or weight. Just a fun thing to talk about with someone


Are monotheistic religions their own flavor of simulation theory? If a God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc, could it follow that the universe exists only in the mind of that God?


My two cents: I thought phenomenology dispensed with this philosophical dead-end a century ago. George Berkeley argued that reality was just a “simulation” beamed into our minds by God in the 1700s. The phenomenologists, rightly in my view, recognised that debating the origins of our senses was a cul-de-sac, and that philosophy to be useful has to dedicate itself exclusively to arranging and interpreting the *contents* of our consciousness, setting aside questions about their origins.


Basic question: If this reality is a simulation (realA), then that implies there exists a “reality” (realB) in which some sort of apparatus or device is simulating realA. How do you know if realB is also simulated? If it is, following the same idea, is realC simulated? realD? Do we exist in an infinite number of nested, simulated realities? How do you separate a “simulated” reality from a “real one”? How do you define where the recursion ends? These questions prevent me from taking simulation theory seriously…