Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

5/07/2017 9:12 am  #1

Arguments Against the Simulation Theory

I've recently been researching quantum mechanics and digital physics, and I've come across an interesting theory that I would like to see your thoughts on.

The simulation theory is an idea formulated by some physicists and philosophers which states that we are not actually living in base reality, but in a reality that is simulated.

This simulated reality would then be a creation of entities who live in the real universe and we are living in a universe of their creation.

This theory can take on multiple forms:

1) Anthropocentric Computer Form

This version of the simulation theory proposes that we are actually living in a computer simulation made by future humans who would want to run simulations of their history and that is why we could be in a simulation

2) Non-Anthropocentric Computer Form

This formulation of the simulation theory states that we are in a computer simulation, but not one created by humans, rather, one created by extraterrestrials for unknown reasons.

This version of the theory avoids some of the objections that were put forward against the Anthropocentric Theory as well.

3) Idealistic Computer Form

This version avoids the idea we are being simulated by anything physical or computer-like at all, thus avoiding the objections that could be put forward against both of the above theories due to the physicality of the simulation.

Rather, we are being simulated either by an immaterial mind outside the universe, a mind which may or may not be the only mind of it's kind running simulations out there, or inside the brains of aliens that are so advanced they have virtually unlimited computing power inside their brains.


Now, what objections do you think we could make against the 3 theories above, and the simulation theory in general?

I know of objections based on empirical knowledge from science, but it would be especially appreciated if any one of you could find an objection based on metaphysical and philosophical grounds as well.

For example, one objection I already know is based on irrational numbers.

If mathematical infinitism is true, that is, irrational numbers  really  are  actually  infinite  in nature, then it would be inconcievable that there could be a computer that could simulate multiple infinite numbers.

One could propose the idea that since infinite numbers exist in nature, therefore a computer that can compute infinity is also possible.

However, this misunderstands the fact that irrational numbers are aspects of nature that aren't wholly material, that is, they don't represent a physical set of objects that is actually infinite.

They are aspects that describe certain properties of natural objects that arise when one does a certain operation with certain already known properties of nature.

As such, simulating multiple infinities for any length of time is conceptually impossible.

But infiniti
sm does have it's critics, and I am not sure whether or not classical metaphysics can accept actually infinite properties such as Pi being an infinite number intimately related to circles.

Aristotle for example divided infinity into actual and potential, and seemed to have been a mathematical finitist.And if finitism were true, then this argument wouldn't work.

Another argument against the 3 simulation theories above would be to try to prove the universe isn't actually discrete.

But Zeno's plurality paradox
 seems to require that there be an ultimately basic unit of matter due to the paradox an infinite plurality of composition would represent.

What do you guys think?


Last edited by believingperpetuum (5/07/2017 9:19 am)


Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum