Kipping argues that the likelihood of us living in a simulation is low. He weighs the "simulation argument" against probability theory, suggesting that, based on the math, we're probably not in one.

The Simulation Odds Are Low

Simulating the entire universe is an enormously complex task. The sheer scale and detail required make it less plausible that an advanced civilization is running this kind of simulation.

The Complexity Challenge

Kipping connects the Fermi Paradox (the lack of evidence for alien civilizations) to the simulation theory. If we were in a simulation, wouldn't we encounter other simulated beings? This absence points away from the simulation hypothesis.

The Fermi Paradox and Simulations

A significant aspect of the simulation hypothesis is based on assumptions about how technology will evolve. These assumptions, however, remain speculative, weakening the argument for simulations.

Assumptions and Speculation

<figure><img width="601" height="400" src="https://vertexviews.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/pexels-photo-3862634.jpeg" alt=""></figure>Let’s dive into this whole “Are we living in a simulation?” debate, but with a twist. Dr. David Kipping, a pretty sharp dude from Columbia University, tackled this mind-bending question in this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTLztfI86rU" dir="ltr">video</a>. And I have to say, the answer is as comforting as it is disturbing, depending on your philosophical leanings.First off, let’s talk about why people are so hooked on this simulation idea. Imagine everything you see, touch, taste—every single experience—is just code running on some cosmic supercomputer. Given how fast tech is advancing, the idea isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. Heck, we’ve gone from Pong to photorealistic VR in a few decades. So, who’s to say that some hyper-advanced civilization didn’t take it a step further, creating entire simulated worlds, like ours?The argument goes something like this: if it’s possible to simulate reality, it’s probably already been done. And if it’s been done, what are the chances that we’re the “real” reality, rather than one of the countless simulations? Statistically, it’s supposed to be slim. We’d be one out of billions, maybe trillions of simulations. Depressing, right?Enter Dr. Kipping, the guy with a different take. He digs into the assumptions behind this hypothesis, and—spoiler alert—he finds a few cracks. One of the biggies is the assumption that future civilizations would actually want to run these simulations. We’re talking massive resources and ethical questions. Like, would you want to simulate entire worlds knowing you might create suffering, even if it’s all just ones and zeroes? Maybe these advanced beings would be like, “Nah, hard pass on that moral headache.”Then there’s the question of physical limitations. As cool as it sounds, simulating an entire universe, down to every atom, is a colossal task. We’re talking about something beyond our current understanding of computational power. If it’s possible at all, it’s way, way beyond us. So, the feasibility of such a simulation might not be as straightforward as the Matrix fans would hope.But here’s where Kipping gets really interesting. He uses Bayesian reasoning—a fancy statistical method—to crunch the numbers on how likely it is that we’re living in a simulation. When you take into account the possibility that advanced civilizations might not care about running simulations, and that simulating reality might not be feasible, the odds start to look pretty good that we’re not living in a simulated world.Sure, it’s still possible we’re in a simulation, but Kipping’s work gives us a little more reason to believe that what we see is what we get. So, next time someone brings up the simulation theory, you can tell them that while it’s a fun thought experiment, the reality (pun intended) is that we’re probably living in the real deal. And honestly, isn’t that both a relief and a bit of a letdown?<h3>Discover more from Vertex Views</h3>Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.<label for="subscribe-field">
								Type your email…							</label><button type="submit" name="jetpack_subscriptions_widget">
								Subscribe							</button>

The simulation hypothesis proposes that our reality could be a computer program, but according to Dr. David Kipping, we're likely not living in one. His arguments focus on the complexities of proving such a theory while acknowledging that the idea remains intriguing but speculative at best.

The simulation hypothesis proposes that our reality could be a computer program, but according to Dr. David Kipping, we're likely not living in one. His arguments focus on the complexities of proving such a theory, while acknowledging that the idea remains intriguing but speculative at best.

sciencefiction

Science Fiction

technologyandthefuture

Technology & The Future

computerscience

Computer Science

artificialintelligence

Artificial Intelligence

scienceandnature

Science & Nature

Let’s dive into this whole “Are we living in a simulation?” debate, but with a twist. Dr. David Kipping, a pretty sharp dude from Columbia University, tackled this mind-bending question in this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTLztfI86rU">video </a>. And I have to say, the answer is as comforting as it is disturbing, depending on your philosophical leanings.

First off, let’s talk about why people are so hooked on this simulation idea. Imagine everything you see, touch, taste—every single experience—is just code running on some cosmic supercomputer. Given how fast tech is advancing, the idea isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. Heck, we’ve gone from Pong to photorealistic VR in a few decades. So, who’s to say that some hyper-advanced civilization didn’t take it a step further, creating entire simulated worlds, like ours?

The argument goes something like this: if it’s possible to simulate reality, it’s probably already been done. And if it’s been done, what are the chances that we’re the “real” reality, rather than one of the countless simulations? Statistically, it’s supposed to be slim. We’d be one out of billions, maybe trillions of simulations. Depressing, right?

Enter Dr. Kipping, the guy with a different take. He digs into the assumptions behind this hypothesis, and—spoiler alert—he finds a few cracks. One of the biggies is the assumption that future civilizations would actually want to run these simulations. We’re talking massive resources and ethical questions. Like, would you want to simulate entire worlds knowing you might create suffering, even if it’s all just ones and zeroes? Maybe these advanced beings would be like, “Nah, hard pass on that moral headache.”

Then there’s the question of physical limitations. As cool as it sounds, simulating an entire universe, down to every atom, is a colossal task. We’re talking about something beyond our current understanding of computational power. If it’s possible at all, it’s way, way beyond us. So, the feasibility of such a simulation might not be as straightforward as the Matrix fans would hope.

But here’s where Kipping gets really interesting. He uses Bayesian reasoning—a fancy statistical method—to crunch the numbers on how likely it is that we’re living in a simulation. When you take into account the possibility that advanced civilizations might not care about running simulations, and that simulating reality might not be feasible, the odds start to look pretty good that we’re not living in a simulated world.

Sure, it’s still possible we’re in a simulation, but Kipping’s work gives us a little more reason to believe that what we see is what we get. So, next time someone brings up the simulation theory, you can tell them that while it’s a fun thought experiment, the reality (pun intended) is that we’re probably living in the real deal. And honestly, isn’t that both a relief and a bit of a letdown?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

The Simulation Hypothesis: Why We’re Probably Living in Reality (Not a Computer Program)

The Simulation Odds Are Low

The Complexity Challenge

The Fermi Paradox and Simulations

Assumptions and Speculation

Similar ideas