If we are I want a word with the dev team. This shit needs a rebalance ASAP. Gravity wells are too OP, black hole mergers should not warp the fabric of spacetime.
And don't even get me started on Gamma Ray Bursts or Vacuum Decay.
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
49 points (81.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
34467 readers
1236 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Those probably are the intern's doing
Hey now, don't go blaming the minimum wage workers for not being fully trained.
I don't know.
More likely than us being in the "real" base reality
I want access to the dev console then.
So I guess it depends on what you understand by "simulation". What is really simulated as opossed to being "real". Our reality is just an interpretation given by our senses, so in a sense it's also a simulation of the real thing. Where's the line that makes something really "real"?
Either 100% or 0% so pascal's wager 50/50.
Just like the lottery, I either win or I lose, its a 50/50.
And the whole thing is "does it matter?". To us, no, it doesn't matter at all.
I have no idea of the odds. Whatever reality is we could simulate it then conclude that a simulation like that could be running out reality. What could we observe about our reality that would make it simulation proof?
My favorite part of these types of discussions is the human brain trying its best to rationalize something it can not understand with a human understanding. If this is a simulation you can't reach beyond you station. You are limited, held back by rules and laws yet you feel special or that you have an inkling about anything all because you're programmed with ego and a sense of individualism.
The scary thing is you just need to simulate a single brain (yours or mine). Everything else is just loaded on the fly. Like in a game. That's hard but probably not impossible. As soon as we are technically able to do something like this, chances are high that we, or I, live in a simulation.
Probably about the same as for whether a god exists.
I saw someone analyse this on YouTube once. As I remember it, if you assume two possibilities are equally likely until we have information favouring one or the other (the principle of indifference), it depends on if we make any simulated universes. If we do, there's basically no way we're in the first. Otherwise, there's a chance this is the base reality.
One can question whether the principle of indifference applies here, though. Or even if a deeper reality we can never access counts as a an object you can talk about normally. For example, pragmatic epistemology would say no.
0 %
We have a physical representation of a divide by 0 function that exists in the universe. Black holes. I'd say it's fairly likely.
On the one hand. Why. Oh why. Would anyone make the simulation so crappy. On the other hand if there was a creator god that exists outside the universe then we 100% would be a simulation compared to that gods existence.
If it is possible to stimulate reality to this level of detail, very low. If it's possible that the simulation can then run another instance of the simulation with no loss of fidelity and that is true for any simulation within the stack, still low but much more likely than before. If the chance of this simulation existing is higher than the odds for a universe that can sustain intelligent life, then it becomes about even odds.
The people who claim otherwise are mathematicians who forgot how reality works, as they get into an infinite spiral of higher and higher odds without any basis in reality.
The reason why it gets to even-at-best is because the simulation needs to exist in a reality at some point, and it really, really stretches the imagination that someone could build this shit. So, then you're attaching the odds of intelligent life in a universe to the odds of then some intelligent life understanding literally every aspect of reality and being able to build said simulation (and then that repeats on every simulation).
Measured subjectively, the chance that I am in a simulation is higher than that anyone else is, since in that case some or all of you might be merely simulated.