this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2025
19 points (78.8% liked)
Philosophy
1728 readers
1 users here now
Discussion of philosophy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It seems to me that it should be impossible to truly prove that the universe isnt a simulation. If you lived in a simulation, then the simulator theoretically can control everything that you experience, to include things like the activity of your own neurons and whatever else plays a role in your thinking. As such, they can, if they wish, make you believe that you have seen something that is inconsistent with a simulation, even if you have not, make you believe that something you did see is inconsistent with one even if it isnt, or cause you to believe that a certain chain of logic must rule out a simulation even though it doesnt. As such, there is a subset of hypothetical simulated worlds in which you are absolutely but falsely convinced that simulation is disproven. How can you tell the difference between one of these and a "real" world where you really have disproved simulation?
I think William of Ockham has a thing or two to say about that, but there’s no arguing with the reasoning! 😆