Discussion: The possibility that we live in a simulation is not just an existing fantasy in movies. It is dealt with by well-known scientists and philosophers. Is there a way to confirm or reject this strange possibility?

The premise is that all human activities have a mathematical expression, including physiological processes, movement, thinking, emotions, memories, and even the hidden parts of the subconscious. Otherwise, complete algorithms cannot be maintained. It is important to emphasize that proving or disproving this claim is impossible due to logical limitations known as Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Professor Nick Bostrom raised the possibility that we live in a simulation. However, we cannot prove whether we live in a simulation! The problem is insurmountable!

The idea that we live in a "computer simulation" seems ridiculous. After all, we feel pain; do we have free will? And we bleed when we are injured. Quite surprisingly, if we live in a (computerized) simulation, then issues in modern physics suddenly seem more straightforward to explain. A prominent example is Quantum Entanglement, which has no rational explanation other than the explanation of super-determinism, a simulation.


To prove or deny the computer simulation option, there are three options:

We must emphasize that we cannot reach an unequivocal result at any stage. The issue can be described as Alan Turing's halting problem, which originates from Kurt Gödel's theory of mathematical incompleteness.

1. To prove that we live in a simulation, we must crack the simulation formula. It means we can consistently and accurately predict the future, time after time, without any possibility of intelligent statistical guessing. We must show an evident mathematical impossibility to rule out the possibility that we live in a simulation. In both cases, science today cannot verify or negate the possibility of living in a simulation.

2 Another possibility is that extraterrestrials will come and reveal that we live in a simulation that governs nature.

3 The third option is to attempt to detect possible inconsistencies in the simulation. We start from the view that the simulation is dynamic but consistent; if we find an inconsistency, the probability that we do not live in the simulation increases. (The answer is not unequivocal.)

Link:
Deterministic human simulation—Pinnacle of scientific achievements.
https://www.sf-healing.com/page/245 (Copy & Paste)