comment: >
  
  So what’s the problem with that?
  I agree with you that there is no direct evidence for any of the simulation hypothesis, so nobody should actively believe it. However the logic behind it is solid:
  1) humans create simulations of the real world in computers today
  2) humans will one day create simulations that will be sentient
  3) we can place those creations within simulations that they will perceive as the “real” universe 
  4) we will be able to create many millions of such simulations 
  5) if we ourselves were in such a simulation we would have no way of knowing since by design our world would be indistinguishable from reality
  So when you say it’s implausible, you mean there’s no evidence to support the hypothesis, but that’s not what plausible means. It’s plausible that aliens exist, even though we have no direct evidence for them.
context: /u/Mister_T0nic (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Ok so to preface, this is more of philosophy question than an actual science question.
  The idea is that in the absence of evidence about what causes the universe to exist, the simulation theory is one of many that is thrown out there. One of the most popular theories is well...god.
  But anyway, you might ask: Why do we need a theory anyway? It's a good question because if we have no information about what "existed" before the universe, then there is not much point positing any theory, why do we chase for one. Does the universe even need to have been created? This part is up for debate, because ultimately the idea that the universe has a cause (whether its  god, a  simulation program, or whatever) is merely an extrapolation of our observation that every state of the universe is preceded by another state (Every event we have observed has had a proceeding cause, therefore the universe is likely to have had a cause too - I'm applying Occam's razor here, but we'll get there when we discuss your definition of implausible).
  So, we have a theory for the cause of the universe, that it's a simulation. Is this theory possible? Well there is no evidence that proves it to be impossible, therefore, we believe it is possible. There is no evidence to disprove it because...we have no information about what precedes the universe, but hey logically speaking, it's not proven impossible, therefore it is possible.
  Now we can talk about plausibility. The way your question has defined plausible means "likely to be true". You are arguing that this theory is implausible, as in "unlikely to be true". There's no problem with this.
  Now let's see how you argue that this theory is unlikely to be true: 
  
  one major flaw: the whole thing relies on simulating every single atom, electron, and photon in a universe to even be possible in the first place. The scale is too huge unless there's some kind of universal culling effect where things aren't happening unless we can see them, which is just solipsism
  
  The problem with this argument is that it assumes that a super-universe that is trying to simulate ours is bound by our laws of physics and has a comparable level of resources to ours. It would be difficult or impossible given the resources and physical limitations of our universe. But such assumptions do not apply to the simulation theory. Sure if the assumption was true, you would be correct: Assuming that, even in a super-universe, such a universe was bound by our laws of physics and had a comparable level of resources to outs, then sure you could say it is fundamentally impossible for a universe with X atoms to simulate another universe with X atoms. But this assumption is not argued in the simulated universe argument.
  Your following arguments are similar: "And even if someone (or something) could simulate an entire universe, what would be the purpose of expending that much energy?". You are assuming that to them it would be a lot of energy. Imagine having a piece of paper and drawing a civilisation of dots. Maybe to them they would be having this exact same discussion, because the level of energy and the way physics works in that single 2d plane makes it seem to them that it would be impossible to simulate them, but in our universe, with more dimensions and far more resources, it would be far more plausible.
  Ok so even if your argument doesn't apply perfectly, does the simulated theory have any water in it? Is it particularly more likely than any other theory (gods, fairies, etc.). Well that's where tools like Occam's razor come in. The truth is Occam's razor is just a thinking tool. It is not a law of the universe. There have been many times in history where a convoluted theory was proposed, occam's razor knocks it down, and in the future more evidence comes up which ended up confirming that theory. So Occam's razor is not a law of science or philosophy per se, it's just very useful because a lot of the time it turns out to be true.
  So let's apply Occam's razor to the theory: We assume that we can be simulated. We assume that there exists a "super-universe" with the necessary laws of physics and resources to simulate us (This isn't just one assumption, there are many sub-assumptions here). We assume that there is a being in that universe that has chosen to simulate us (therefore assuming the existence of life, etc.), and we assume that the being has chosen to simulate us, and the simulation is currently running.
  Now that's probably not an exhaustive list of assumptions, and each assumption is just a blanket over numerous simplified assumptions, and i have no idea how long the true list of logical and exhaustive sub-assumptions would be. But it would be a lot of assumptions.
  Wait a minute, is it a lot of assumptions? How does it compare to other theories. The god theory is popular, but has a ton of assumptions too: That there is a sentient creator, that the create has the power to create the universe, that the creator wanted to create us, etc etc. And again, those assumptions have many sub-assumptions.
  So how do you even being using Occam's razor? Truly speaking, you will need to actually list out all assumptions of each theory, and compare with each other and whichever has the fewest assumptions is the "most plausible theory", and then you will have to see where the simulation theory ranks, and check if it actually is less plausible than the rest.
  What theory has the least number of assumptions? That's a good question and if I had to guess it would be that the universe has no creator, it has always existed and nothing "caused" it to exist. Unfortunately, although this has the least amount of assumptions, it has 1 crucial assumption which is countered by existing evidence: IT assumes the universe does not need to be "caused". This is problematic because as I said above, every single event ever observed by us in history shows that every event has a preceding cause. Every event (well I won't talk about the appearance of sub-atomic particles into existence due to their probabilistic wave functions, that's a mathematical concept and technically the energy constituting those particles already exist, it's just the quantum field is like a sea that moves constantly and if there's enough energy around ripples can converge into a virtual particle - but that's beside the point).
  So here we are now. Is the simulated universe super duper unlikely? Well the truth is we don't know, we just don't have any information to tell us where it lies on the scale of 'impossible-certain'. We know there are a number of assumptions in that theory, and if you compared it to another theory, you could say "by virtue of occam's razor we should treat this as an unlikely theory". But this requires knowing all the possible explanations of the universe, and knowing how the simulated theory's assumptions rank amongst them all.
  So to answer your CMV: "You don't have enough information to call it implausible" >
  
  
  The problem with this argument is that it assumes that a super-universe that is trying to simulate ours is bound by our laws of physics and has a comparable level of resources to ours.
  
  How is this any different than the ontological argument though? There's no reason to assume that a superuniverse outside of ours exists, that's just a rhetorical crutch that's functionally no different than claiming god created everything. >
  
  Can you define the ontological argument because it means different things to different people, it generally revolves around the idea that there must be a creator for the universe, but how people derive that conclusion can be quite different so you'll have to clarify your comparison here.
  But to address your next point:
  
  there is no reason to assume a superuniverse exists.
  
  Well there is one: It is consistently observed that every event has a preceding cause. It is because of this factual observation that people believe the universe itself has a cause (or more specifically, a preceding state).
  So to say there is "no reason" to think so is false, there is a reason, it is the extrapolation of evidence we have about how events occur.
  Does this mean this particular explanation makes more sense than any other explanation? Not necessarily, of course. But your position is that this theory is somehow less likely than any other explanation, but to actually prove that you will need to have more information than you already do, or you can apply occams razor (which requires quantifying the number of assumptions involved in every theory of the universe's existence and comparing which ones have more/less assumptions) >
  
  The ontological argument is that there exists a maximally powerful being (God) because we can conceive that such a thing exists.
  It's the same argument where you've just substituted a higher/ advanced universe. 
  It doesn't postulate that such a being created the universe, only that if it was created it couldn't be created by something other than the most powerful being.
  Your idea that everything has a cause is called the Contingency Argument and is another argument for God's existence.
  Op is correct Simulation Theory is just ancient arguments for God, but substituting a computer instead. >
  
  I am not actually positing that the supercomputer/great creator argument is true.
  OP CMV is that the supercomputer argument (let's just call it the ontological argument, if you can find it equivalent) is a particularly unlikely explanation for the existence of the universe.
  My counterargument is basically "Sorry OP, you don't have enough information or evidence to call it a particularly unlikely explanation"
  For OP to be correct, he must show that the explanation, when compared to other explanations is far less likely. This either requires knowledge about the likelihood of the explanation (which we don't have). OR (and this is OP's approach), by applying Occam's razor you can see that there are too many assumptions involved in the ontological argument for it to be a likely explanation.
  The problem is the word "too many assumptions". To actually say "too many assumptions" you need to make a list of all the alternative explanations for the universe and rank then by the number of assumptions, those with the least assumptions can be called the most likely, and those with the most assumptions can be called the least likely.
  OP's intuition tells him that there are too many assumptions in place, but his explanations for this are flawed: "There is no reason to think the Universe has a creator". Yes there is, because we observe that every state of the universe has a preceding state. Now am I saying this is definitive proof that the universe has a creator (which is what the ontological argument is)? No. I'm just saying that "You are assuming the universe needs to be created" is just not that farfetched of an assumption to throw into a theory, because it is a natural continuation of our observations of reality. 
  But even if you don't accept the reasoning in my previous paragraph, the point I make above about "OP, if you want to call it unlikely, you have to show this theory contains more assumptions than most/many other explanations of the universe", which OP hasn't proven and can't really know. >
  
  I think one flaw is that you are looking at this through the eyes of a human and not in that if it was a simulation the being(s) that created it would be more superior intellectually than we could imagine and to them this universe could be the equivalent to pong to us >
  
  The problem is that the simulation claim is in essence unfalsifiable; i.e. there's no argument or type of evidence that could ever prove it wrong.
  One can always posit some other, more fanciful reason to explain away any objections, e.g. by appealing to ever more powerful technologies, or different physical realities that don't have the same restrictions that we have in our universe. >
  
  This is an excellent point and one that I should have included in my OP >
  
  It’s generally a good idea to have evidence for a claim. >
  
  Nobody worth taking seriously is CLAIMING the universe is a simulation
  Most arguments follow the line of “if WE can simulate semi-lifelike life, then it could be VERY possible that we ourselves are simulated”
  Us not being able to simulate lifelike life (unlikely; one could argue we do already) does not preclude us from being simulated, though >
  
  How does one measure VERY possible as distinct from very possible, really possible, somewhat possible… >
  
  It’s a quantitative ballpark because it’s impossible to assign a number to it
  Best not to get tripped up on it. It’s a thought experiment, not a math exam >
  
  I think you mean a qualitative ballpark since you’re telling me you can’t assign a number to it. >
  
  Quick google search reveals you are correct. thanks 👍🏼 >
  
  Let’s all mark this day on our calendars. I  correct. >
  
  The issue isn’t one of assumed progress in computing power, it’s about relevant timescales - like the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis;
  So Boltzmann proposed a very basic logical premise - that chaos or a state or unorder is more likely than a state of order. Using that logic you can determine both;
  1) that the existence of complex structures forming over time is much less likely than their spontaneous creation from the chaos of entropy, and 
  2) over a long enough timeline, the spontaneous creation of complex forms out of the chaos of entropy rises exponentially to being a certainty 
  Because of these facts of the nature of time and order, it can be postulated the existence of a Boltzmann Brain - a consciousness which, by all accounts, “springs into existence” through the random swerving of particles, and exists however fleetingly as a working conscious mind. 
  It is therefore possible that your experience of reality is really just the fabrication of a Boltzmann Brain, a fleeting moment in which a single lone consciousness creates an elaborate fantasy to justify and explain its existence. 
  Simulation theory is identical to this, in that it posits both time not occurring on the scales and within the limits set by our universe - reality isn’t 13.8billion years old if it is a simulation, and the speed of light may not be a constant but a hard technological limit, for instance - and it also points out that, based on what we already know (what already exists) combined with probability, it actually becomes more likely than not. 
  Simply because we have simulated realities (like computer games) we have proven beyond any doubt that simulation is possible - so much so that in our one and only control study, they already exist. 
  They have also already improved exponentially - you yourself used the example of showing a computer game to someone in the 1600 - hell, even someone in the 1980’s seeing games today! It’d blow their mind - same as if we saw a functional simulation of reality. 
  So to say “this depends on too many assumptions” is to both ignore massive sweeping elements you’ve dismissed as “improbable” that actually already exist, and then to combine that with a strict adherence to physics and law properties of our current reality that simply wouldn’t apply in another reality. 
  You’re kind of missing the point of it - it’s meant to make you recognise your assumptions and where you’re relying too heavily on what you think you already know as fact - when really those things are theoretical and therefore subject to change from new information. 
  We think we know physics, etc. but if everyone’s eyes go black and big text scrolls down saying “LEVEL 2” then that’s new information we need to include in our description of reality. 
  I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but there is an extent to which we need to be open to it as a reality. >
  
  I like this, I'm going to delta Δ because I hadn't considered that our perception of time doesn't necessarily have to be "real time", we wouldn't know if a computer was simulating us slowly as the theory of relativity demands, and we just percieved time to be normal speed. 
  
  So to say “this depends on too many assumptions” is to both ignore massive sweeping elements you’ve dismissed as “improbable” that actually already exist, and then to combine that with a strict adherence to physics and law properties of our current reality that simply wouldn’t apply in another reality.
  
  I'm seeing this argument a lot but so far nobody has explained why it's any different from the ontological argument. Just because we imagine a universe could exist outside of ours with different laws of physics, doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe that and it definitely doesn't make it reasonable to believe our reality is more likely to be simulated than prime. >
  
  So, functionally, it isn’t any different to the ontological argument, it just grounds it in a much more conceivable reality, as well as highlighting that we’re much further along the way to it as a possibility in our actual reality than we ever could be for a vague, ungrounded thought experiment, like Descartes’ Devil as God or the “Brain in a Vat”. 
  And it actually in fact is more likely that we exist in a simulation than not, because simulations already exist. 
  We only have one control study - what we call reality - and in that reality, simulations already exist. 
  Therefore there actually does not exist a reality where simulations aren’t a thing - that is a theoretical thought experiment. In our control, they already exist.
  They do already exist in our reality - and our realities behaves in ways that don’t make total sense if we are “prime” (why would there be a hard limit to anything in “prime” reality? Why are things the way they are and not some other way?)
  On top of that, we also know how we would go about making a simulation - it would involve things which, strangely, we can actually observe - like hard limits. 
  The speed of light as a constant makes sense if it’s a fundamental technological limit to the simulation - and that’s progressing further along in terms of an explanation than anything else that has ever been proposed for why the speed of light is what it is. 
  So, in terms of probability, because we already exist in a (form of) reality that allows for simulations - and we know sentient intelligence creates simulations, because in our one example, they have - these things are therefore given to the basis of the argument.
  At this point the deck is already stacked in favor of us being in a simulation. 
  So not only does reality have some elements which are currently inexplicable but that a simulation would explain - but we also know that it’s possible beyond a reasonable doubt because a lot of it is already possible.
  Then you simply ask the question - in a reality where simulations are both possible and likely to occur, what’s the likelihood that what we call “reality” now was actually genuinely the first, real, tangible reality? 
  Considering all the factors, the answer is that the probability is very, very low. 
  If space time is a thing (which it is) stretching both backwards and forwards from the current moment; the likelihood is very strong that we don’t just happen to be in the most important, most fundamental era of it - that’s again just basic logic, because why would we assume we are imbued with some special dignity? 
  It’s more likely that we are the product of a simulation that could well itself be the closest thing to “reality” that still (or will) exist(s) - because the requirements for that being the case have largely already been met. >
  
  
  You entire concept of how much energy is viable is based on this reality. If it is a simulation then the "real" world might not resemble it. 
  You also have to consider how much energy we would have access to in the future. The beings creating a simulation would be way more advanced than us. Even in 100 years we have advanced significantly. Imagine what it would be like in a million years or more.
  You are also making an assumption that every detail needs to be processed at once. Maybe the rules of the universe allow for processing of some piece of the simulation to be processed. Time is also a construct of our reality so theoretically the simulation could be running infinitely slow and we would never notice.
  
  ​
  The real reason it is implausible is that it is much more likely we are just a part of regular top level reality. There really is no difference between a simulation and a subsystem of reality. An infinite number of simulations does not make it more likely we are in a sim than the 1 reality. It's the percentage of reality those simulations occupy that determines our odds and there is no reason to believe a simulation would occupy most of reality. >
  
  The percentage of reality occupied is meaningless.  Sims do not necessarily “occupy” a percentage of base reality.   
  All that matters is if there are infinite sims and 1 base reality.  You can even include a multiverse within base reality if you want, it doesn’t affect anything.
  The bottom line is there is 1 base reality and an infinite number of sims, therefore the odds of us living in base reality are effectively 0%.
  The theory is also pointless to worry about because even the beings living in base reality can never know if that is the case or not.  They too, would be faced with the same considerations as us. >
  
  We have an infinite number of sims so you are assuming there are infinitely more humans in sims (x*inf:x-> 1:0). This is not the case though because a sim year does not equal a real year. For the nesting doll of sims to work each one has to either run slower or have less complexity. For a sim year to equal a real year you would need equal space(complexity) in reality. If reality is infinite in it's space and complexity then for every simulation that has been created there is infinitely more civilizations that are top level. It doesn't matter how many simulations are running inside other simulations because they are limited by the space they occupy.   
  The assumption made in the theory is that being human is special. A human in a abstract simulation that does not apply the same rules is not the same thing as the human in the simulation above or at the top level. Lets instead classify ourselves as self aware creatures with a certain level of awareness. That awareness is a representation of organized space/complexity. That means that a top level reality could reasonably have more self aware creatures with that certain level of awareness outside of simulations if the simulations running in that reality occupy less space/complexity. >
  
  
  Why do you dismiss the culling effect as just solipsism? It’s still a valid answer to your stated major flaw.
  
  Can I give a partial delta for this because that's actually a very good point against that specific argument, in the context of the theory there's no real logical reason why we can't be the center of the simulation.
  ​
  The one flaw in this argument is that there's no reason to stop there, to butcher Aquinas' thinking, I might be the only properly simulated human and everyone else is an NPC who is culled when I can't see them.
  ​
  I'll have to get back to you on the video, thanks for posting it >
  
  Just give him normal delta. CMV lets you hand them out for any change in view, even if they're minor. >
  
  Ok I will thanks >
  
  Games are simulations and they come with built in limitations. Why wouldn't this universe have built in limitations if it's a simulation? >
  
  Our universe has built in limitations whether it's a simulation or not. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, for example, a huge part of our understanding of physics relies on almost everything being relative except the speed of light. The maths don't work otherwise. >
  
  That is true for us. But perhaps these laws of nature exist because they are constraints of the machine or being this simulation runs in.
  Example: matter cannot be created or destroyed because the amount of matter and energy existing in this universe is the maximum "memory" so to speak of the computer that runs our existence. 
  Light perhaps is the fastest thing in the universe because the simulation's mechanics cannot handle anything going faster than 300,000,000 m/s and light is the only object by the universe's other rules that make light the fastest >
  
  While it would require a ridiculous amount of computations, it can operate on whatever timescale it pleases. We wouldn't know the difference since we're the math being done, not the people watching. Also, this theoretical computer could exist in any number of other physical spaces with n dimensions and x elements, as only it's simulation must contain the laws of physical we're personally familiar with, although far far less likely. Overall, it's like multiverse theory but less plausible; any number of explanations are strictly theoretically feasible, and there's no real way to test it. >
  
  Partial delta, Δ I never considered that time could be relative and a computer could be restrained by relativity and processing our reality much slower than we percieve it. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Poppa_Walnut (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  This largely depends on what we're suggesting the simulation consists of. For example, perhaps you are the only person, and everyone else is just a program in your simulation. That makes it very easy to render incredible detail, since it only needs to be done for one person's narrow POV.
  
  The scale is too huge unless there's some kind of universal culling effect where things aren't happening unless we can see them
  
  That isn't solipsism, it's the exact method we use to render virtual environments - we use low resolution textures and low-poly models. As those objects get closer to camera, higher and higher resolution textures and models are loaded to display increased detail.
  The amount of computer power to generate such a render, especially if it were only done for 1 person, is already achievable with modern tech (it would just take a lot of very detailed work to create it all). >
  
  Your computer argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, If our universe is simulated it means there is an infinite amount of time before we were created to develop technology, for all we know this universe could be a pixel of what the “original universe” is capable of. I am not saying we live in a simulated universe but I am saying that calling it implausible is not a fair view as there is an infinite amount of possibilities for every single universe ever created. For all we know we live in a statistical anomaly universe ourselves >
  
  
  If our universe is simulated it means there is an infinite amount of time before we were created to develop technology, for all we know this universe could be a pixel of what the “original universe” is capable of.
  
  It could be, but there's no reason to believe this because we have no evidence of it even being possible, and the exact same argument can be used for any outlandish theory. >
  
  I would argue is being the original universe is an outlandish theory in of itself, In the infinite timeline of existence you are telling me we are the only universe to exist? The odds are 1/infinity >
  
  I don't understand what you're trying to say here >
  
  Computers don’t render everything all at once. Aka if playing GTA your character in the area around them renders the rest is just a rough display. What I mean by this is the simulation would need to render the atoms for everything but only in the areas that they are being examined the rest can use default building blocks. Next your part of the simulation may also not render another country because while you have knowledge where it is have no real reason to be there and if you do travel there the original location can despawn. >
  
  I can assure you that Elon Musk has thought about what you’re saying in this Reddit post. 
  Anyway, I don’t think you can argue that it’s implausible. 
  If you went back to 1923 and you showed the new Harry Potter game to a 65 year old person, you would probably have given them a heart attack and killed them. There are so many more points to go along with the idea of technology rapidly increasing too. >
  
  The leap between punch cards and 2023 video games is indescribably insignificant compared to the difference between 2023 video games and simulating billions of years of an entire universe. 
  ​
  "It could happen" just isn't a particularly convincing argument when you look at the sheer scale of what we're talking about. Sure it's possible, but is it likely? >
  
  This is a good and informative comment but I don't see how it makes the simulation theory more plausible than our universe being Universe Prime >
  
  Agrees with u/ralph-j that it can't be proven or disproven. So it doesn't matter much.
  That said, you run a believeabe simulation of reality every time you dream. >
  
  It is a problem of infinite regression that has never been answered and is no different than other creation myths. If we are in a simulation or created universe then who or what created it and what created them and so forth ad infinitum.
  I take the opposite view: the universe exists in its measured, observed configuration as the only way it could exist as an objective reality is if it was structured so as to give rise to consciousness which can then deconvolve its quantum superposition through observation. >
  
  We can’t really prove or disprove these theories about the universe unless we manage to get outside the universe. It may seem implausible for us to do it in our universe, but given any higher universe isn’t inherently restricted to our laws of reality we can’t really say. >
  
  Couple of things. 
  1) It is conceivable that whoever is simulating us has such a superior technology is that them simulating our universe is akin to us simulating a single water molecule.  I don't think we can comprehend how much more advanced and intelligent some of these higher beings might be. 
  2) It is also conceivable that there is a lot of coarse graining going on in our universe.  Basically, it is our abstraction that think that the universe is made up of atoms/electrons.  From their point of view, the fundamental unit in the simulation might be quite different and does not require as much computing power as we conceive it to be. >
  
  Most games (that are basically simulations) only load a portion of the world. 
  Our knowledge of physics tells us how the world works. On the macro level the newtonian system works pretty well, which would render the simulation of micro processes (like interaction of atoms in distant suns, black holes etc.) unnecessary. 
  On the other hand when a scientist uses an electron microscope it would render those small details.
  As for quantum mechanics it would render those things (as in quantum level events) only when the particle accelerators are used.
  In summation the computational requirements can be drastically scaled back to a level that might be possible for an advanced civilization. >
  
  Basically all your saying isn’t that it’s not possible or plausible. Your just saying WE humans couldn’t have built the simulation we’re in due to limitations of our abilities. 
  Hmmm???… Yeah, sure. It would be challenging for the simulated to create their own simulation. But I guess when you put it that way it’s not a power or ability thing. But rather a chicken an egg problem. >
  
  lets imagine a small world simulated on a giant computer build in minecraft with redstone, because it is made in minecraft it takes 10 years of real world time for one frame to happen in the simulation, beings in the universe would feel as though they are running in real time however despite everything happening in super slow motion, additionally they have no concept how powerful the universe one layer above(the video game) and beings living in minecraft in tern have no concept of how powerful(real life) is.
  how can you say for certain that A. the simulation isnt running very very slow but it just feels like real time for us, and how can you say that B that universe isnt significantly more complicated than the one we are currently living in(different laws of physics,different particles, etc), and thus a computer there is able to run much faster, have more memory, be more advanced, etc. >
  
  Idk tho...  The A.I programs we create consistently end up irreparablely nonsensical and racist... Maybe they're having the same issues a level up... ¯_(ツ)_/¯ >
  
  
  the whole thing relies on simulating every single atom, electron, and photon in a universe to even be possible in the first place
  
  Does it? Think about game rendering engines today. They render reality in detail only where the users are looking at it.
  When we simulate physics events inside LHC experiments, we aren't simulating all the particles of reality, we are taking efficient approximations to make predictions computable.
  
  It would take an unimaginable amount of computer power, many billions of times more powerful than our computers are currently. 
  
  Why would you assume computers in a simulation would be of comparable capability to the computers running a simulation? And if they were of comparable capacity, why assume that the timescales available to those simulating-running computers would be the same as the timescales available within the simulation?
  (I'm not an advocate of "simulated universe theory" btw as I think almost all of the concepts within it are basically undefined.) >
  
  You're right but your reasoning is wrong. The universe is big. If we were in a simulation, discoveries could be like updates. It's not impossible to have a super powerful computer.
  But it is impossible to have an infinitely powerful computer. Things like pi and e are infinitely long and so would need infinite energy, computer power, storage, ect. >
  
  
  But it is impossible to have an infinitely powerful computer. Things like pi and e are infinitely long and so would need infinite energy, computer power, storage, ect.
  
  This is a really great argument against the theory which I never considered, I'd award a delta but I think that's against the rules >
  
  
  The idea that we are more likely to exist in a simulation is implausible because it has one major flaw: the whole thing relies on simulating every single atom, electron, and photon in a universe to even be possible in the first place.
  
  Why every particle in the universe? It would just need to simulate the results found from such particles. The only reasons we know atoms exist are some very extreme cases of imaging that a simulation would just simulate, and some experiments that detect atoms indirectly. The simulation would just simulate the results that lead us to believe they are atoms, not the atoms themselves. >
  
  Technically, the simulation doesn't have to simulate every atom, it only has to convince us it is stimulating every atom. The difference between the two is vast. >
  
  I remember seeing Neil degrasse tyson talk about it and his main point was instead of a billion to 1 chance it's more of a 50/50 chance as we haven't done this yet meaning we are either the first in the cycle or the last we can't be in the middle >
  
  /u/Mister_T0nic (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  You would only have to simulate the observable parts.  Anything else would be triggered and processed on an as needed basis. Add in that our perceptions are filtered by our brain (not remembering blinking, not remembering periods of eyes focusing etc etc) and you could easily explain away all the understood limitations of our style tech simulations.
  There are a ton of interesting tricks game engines use to simulate things and minimize processing power that would realistically be utilized.
  Edit: to me the biggest reason to not believe it's a simulation is because we could build a better one. >
  
  The problem with your view is that you in your edits recognize the very problem with it.  If it's possible for this to happen, then it almost surely has.   If possible, then it's probability approaches 100% given time.  The two ideas you put out of possibility and improbable aren't compatible with each other. >
  
  you dont need to simulate whole universe. "Just" 8 billion human brains, which is a lot, but not that hard to imagine. Todays supercomputers have computing power in the same order of magnitude to human brain, so in theory we would be able to simulate a person even today, but we still lack the "software" to do so. Also our brains are really unoptimised in certain aspects. We need A LOT of time to calculate simple mathematical operations in our heads, while a simple phone charger has the processing power enough to outspeed us million times. With a lot of optimization we probably could simulate a human on a normal PC, 
  If the simulation is simplified, it could have bugs that simulated humans could see and learn they are being simulated. There is easy workaround that. Basically we would add a few lines of code:
  if human see bugs/proof hes in simulation:  don't >
  
  It's unbelievable that Intelligent Design was relentlessly mocked and ridiculed. But as long as some Moloch worshipper says it's a computer simulation, weak minds will accept it no questions asked. >
  
  When you create a simulation you don’t need to simulate every atom because that’s not the level at which the simulation is perceived. In a video-game there are pixels, everything is rendered to a degree of perception that’s applicable to the viewer at a level of detail that’s sufficient to the observer. There is no need to render every single atom, that would be a waste of processing power and in fact that’s something you see in the double split experiment. Particles are only seen as separate when viewed by a conscious observer. So you could say that things are only rendered when an observer is present at the appropriate level of detail and the level of detail is only rendered depending on the view of the observer whether they’re looking at something directly, from a distance or through a microscope. I don’t think it solipsism, it’s more idealism. Also you’re basing processing power on a subset of the system we’re in. That’s like saying a Gameboy doesn’t have the power to run a PC. My personal view, which is speculation is that we’re in consciousness generating factory that’s engineered towards growth and the lowering of entropy through consciousness. >
  
  The thought process by Nick Bostrom laid it out like this: 1) All human-like civilizations in the universe go extinct before they develop the technological capacity to create simulated realities; 2) if any civilizations do reach this phase of technological maturity, none of them will bother to run simulations; or 3) advanced civilizations would have the ability to create many, many simulations, and that means there are far more simulated worlds than non-simulated ones.
  All you are saying really is that 1) will never come to pass as it’s not even possible to reach that level of technological maturity therefore 2) and 3) don’t matter. 
  But they said - your assuming that to create the simulation you need to simulate every atom in the universe which probably isn’t true - you just need to simulate everything from the perspective of the subject. >
  
  
  The scale is too huge
  
  You can't say that. You have no idea what real universe would look like and whats possible there or not. Possibilities are endless and our world rules may mean nothing there. >
  
  
  the whole thing relies on simulating every single atom, electron, and photon in a universe to even be possible in the first place.
  
  Does it actually? Or could the simulation be more solipsistic and just make your simulated self think the universe is complete? >
  
  This view rests on a fundamentally weak assumption: that the creator of this universe occupies a universe with the same constraints.
  If I were a grunt in the Doom universe, it would be intuitive to assume that my programmers must be omniscient and omnipotent. >
  
  We would perceive time at the rate the simulation allows us to. The computer could take a million years to calculate one second of our time and we wouldn't notice. So it doesn't need to be a computer powerful enough to process an entire universe in real time >
  
  There’s evidence that certain parts of our universe (look at experiments with light) act very differently if observed or not. 
  Now a simulation would estimate for the things not directly interacted with and then do the actual calculations for things it needed to.  Perhaps much like like collapsing from a wave to a particle when observed perhaps??
  Just a thought. >
  
  
  The scale is too huge unless there's some kind of universal culling effect where things aren't happening unless we can see them
  
  See here's the thing: what you've described here is exactly how we observe Quantum Mechanics, the basic underpinnings of all our best physical models, to behave. 
  If I were simulating a universe, I would definitely take short cuts like having a fairly low universal speed limit for causality (the speed of light), to assist in avoiding trying to calculate every single interaction that could possibly exist between every particle the universe in a plausible way. 
  Then I'd model the top few closest most obvious interactions, and just randomly determine the outcome of any measurement, only once it is actually performed, based on the resulting probability distribution.
  My opinion about the best way to simulate a universe, while educated based on many years of software experience, doesn't prove anything. 
  But it certainly makes it look plausible, at least to me. >
  
  Were you stoned when you thought of this? >
  
  You seem to be under the impression that whatever universe we'd hypothetically exist as a simulation in has the same laws of physics as well as the same scale as our universe... which is quite honestly nonsense for all the reasons you pointed out but that doesn't mean we aren't a simulation it just means the universe we are a simulation in is even more vast. >
  
  Quantum computing is used to calculate things that we can never do on our own, or would take us aeons to accomplish. We're just scratching the surface. So to think that if there was a being on a level of intellect that us mere mortals could never think of, why can't they develop a simulation much more advanced than our quantum computing? >
  
  So I've seen a lot of comments which attack the question from the angle that in the "real" reality, there could be levels of computing power unimaginable to us. On the flip side, I'd argue that the amount of computational power required to simulate our universe might be less than you would think. 
  For the simulated universe theory to work, you wouldn't need to actually simulate every atom, electron, and photon in the universe. You would only need to simulate everything which is currently being observed by the simulated beings. If you want to get really solipsistic, you actually only need to simulate everything which is currently being observed by you.
  For example, let's take the star Vega. Vega is just a little blip in the sky people occasionally look up at. A computer would just need to simulate a bright dot in the sky. Sometimes we use telescopes to look at it a little bit more closely, but then the computer can just simulate a higher resolution image of Vega. The computer doesn't need to simulate every atom that makes up Vega, it only needs to simulate the level of detail we are capable of observing, and only for the time we are actively observing it. 
  Sure, as we get more and better tools (telescopes, microscopes, etc.) the computer would need to simulate a little bit more, but eventually we'll just hit a memory limit and we'll all be blue screened. That's if the all-mighty overlord sys admin doesn't spill some coffee on the computer first. >
  
  Something as simple as Minecraft creates a huge number of worlds with a set of relatively simple rules and algorithms.
  You don't need to program every atom. >
  
  Your imagination is not a limiter of any kind on reality. >
  
  The computation power is not an issue because we don't know how "advanced" our universe is. Maybe it's actually very simple for the higher level civilization. For us Conway's game of life is very simple and we can simulate millions of iterations in basically no time. >
  
  Brain cells and bits aren't that different... >
  
  Here's the problem with your logic. The only part of the universe that needs to be replicated is parts of it which can be percieved by mankind.  Meaning if we can't see it, feel it, taste it, or hear it then it doesn't need to exist. Thus reducing the amount of memory needed to produce a simulation. >
  
  
  the whole thing relies on simulating every single atom, electron, and photon in a universe to even be possible in the first place. 
  
  “Well, yeah, there’s a reason the simulated universe only has those three, rather than the seven that our real universe has.
  The computers here aren’t able to simulate a real universe with full fidelity, but they could get close enough for our needs by increasing the pass of protons in the simulations and reducing the fundamental building blocks of atoms down to four units. That let us massively reduce the different types of quarks we needed to track. This does require us to tweak the gravity implementation a bit so that it works according to slightly different rules than the other four forces, and we did have to fudge the numbers a little bit with some matter that doesn’t render on camera or have a collider, but we’re confident we’ve gotten a simulation close enough to real that it’ll give valid results on the macroscopic scale.”
  —Some hyper dimensional programmer, somewhere, probably. 
  
  The scale is too huge unless there's some kind of universal culling effect where things aren't happening unless we can see them, which is just solipsism. 
  
  Okay, so what’s your evidence that isn’t happening? Or perhaps some sort of variable fidelity rendering where they don’t bother to render each particle if they aren’t being closely observed.
  You’re claiming this is implausible, but you’re providing a perfectly plausible reason why that objection doesn’t hold. 
  
  unless the laws of physics in the "original universe" are completely different to ours.
  
  Okay. You keep answering your own issues with plausible albeit unprovable solutions. Perhaps the original universe simply computes orders of magnitude faster than ours. Wouldn’t be surprising if simulations within simulations within simulations run slower.
  
  And even if someone (or something) could simulate an entire universe, what would be the purpose of expending that much energy?
  
  For the same reasons we run simulations with limiting assumptions. There’s some thing they want to observe which would be too complicated or dangerous to setup in “real life”.
  Or perhaps they’re bored.
  Or maybe it ends up being a sort of trivial problem from their perspective. Maybe our simulation is as simplistic to them as the “game of life” is to us.
  
  And that's not even getting into the problem of the possible infinite recursion that would occur once the simulation learned to make a simulation
  
  Is that even a problem? Can you provide evidence regarding higher dimensional computers and their capabilities?
  For all we know the sim speed of all simulated universes is slowing down as the original universe approaches its limits.
  Incidentally, I’m not convinced either way. I think the problem is undecidable because the potential proofs are too difficult to try to observe. >
  
  You're defining a system as impossible/too improbable because of the limit of the physics within that system? Do you think an NPC in world of Warcraft would think our world is possible based on what they know? >
  
  I don’t know why you rule out the universe culling effect. There is no practical difference, to me, subjectively, between a universe that is fully simulated down to the last atom and one where only the parts which I or other sentient beings interact with are real time rendered (so to speak). 
  That would be a form of simulation and would be far easier than simulating everything and is in fact far closer to the way we simulate things today. >
  
  Because there's no limit to the culling, who's to say you're not the only fully simulated human and the rest of us are just NPC's? All these people you're talking to on the internet might just be pure text and we never existed beyond the text.