Physicists may prove we exist in a computer simulation

5/10

Science has, and continues to, debunk the claims of religion. Thereby proving all religions are false. I don't know if there is a god, I reserve judgment until there is legitimate evidence, but I do know all religions are superstitious nonsense devoted to gods which debunk their own existence with the incorrect claims they make.

You naughty troll, you!

I'd hate to be that SysAdmin...

you continue to say this yet you lack any evidence or examples.

First of all it's generally absurd to think the human race is as an intelligent species alone in the universe.

Secondly the problem with the concept of a simulation or an intelligent creator is simple - How are we supposed to explain the "host universe"? With another intelligent creator?
It actually makes much more sense to assume that everything emerged out of nothingness, sort of like a very complicated fractal, originating from the simplest formula and then spiralling into more and more complexity and diversification.

I drink therefore I am.

it makes no sense from something to come from nothing, as that breaks the laws of (at least, what we believe) of physics. but if intelligent design was correct (and im not stating any more about my views on that) then it would make sense for a being that always existed (in line with the bible) to have the power to do things beyond human comprehension. Hypothetically, we could fool ourselves into saying we could comprehend it, but we would not be able to. im not saying you are incorrect, im simply offering another argument that it would be interesting to get a response.

So the idea is that this universe is a simulation? And they think they can prove it?

It sure puts an interesting spin on the idea of Reincarnation and the 'Repeating Universe' theories and hypotheses. Something gets mucked up and they simply issue the reset command (whomever "they" are)?

I agree with the above that I hope this is a reality in beta testing.

Very interesting indeed.

I think the law that'd be broken would rather be a law of logic, rather than physics. I admit my point wasn't entirely accurate the way I formulated it, if we were to follow the analogy of the fractal, there certainly had to be some sort of trivial entity which the universe originated from.

Anyways, the biggest problem I see with the idea of an intelligent creator is the fact how extremely biased it seems on the human being, if you try to look at it rather objectively. I mean, the idea implies the existence of a person-like entity with arbitrary properties such as "will" and "intelligence" (Religions even go as far as attributing emotions like love or anger, almost completely "humanizing" this creator).
Now, I don't think terms like these can be assigned to anything else other than some sort of biological being, I dare you to present me a concept or example that suggests otherwise. I don't know what your take on this would be, but to me it seems kind of logical, that something that occurs inside a universe cannot happen outside of it, let alone lead some kind of a timeless existence. Things like us are formed by the universe and our existence relies on all of it's rules, mechanics and time. In conclusion that leads me to think that if an "intelligent creator" was in fact responsible, it must be resident in a(nother) universe.

I don't think all of this necessarily involves things beyond human comprehension... What concerns their existence however I'm pretty interested if there's a way to either be able to prove it or realize that doing so would be a paradox.

I can see what we lead to this conclusion, however, there is no evidence suggesting that a creator does not have humanlike traits. I can also say that the bible states that god created man "in his image"..
When it comes right down to it, there really isnt a way to completely prove either science or intelligent design. which is why religion is synonymous to "faith"-believing something we cannot prove is true. Two atoms coming to existence from nothing isnt any more possible to prove than a God, because that would be implying that everything we know about science is 100% accurate, which is highly, highly unlikely.

We dont have the answer because this universe is just a part of the real one. only this make sense.

I always thought nature worked in a similar manner to computers in that they both share two main states of either on or off. At the core of computers you have transistors which work as either on or off. Nature has a similar structure of something or nothing (aka life or death, or yin and yang, etc..) and everything happens thanks to the two states.

Well it's more worrying to think we might be a simulation of superior beings who are testing to see if they are a simulation of an even superior being who are also testing to see if they are a simulation

@ ikesmasher

Ok judging by your other posts on this topic and your arguments along the line of "we don't know so therefore god" aka the argument from ignorance and your reliance on the faulty "first cause argument" both of which are soundly dealt with here:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God I don't want to get into this (because I'm concerned that you are psychologically and emotionally unprepared for dealing with the reality that the world is not 6-10 thousand years old, the bible contains many falsehoods and we were not created in our present form etc ad nauseum) so instead go here http://www.talkorigins.org/ and here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ and put your beliefs to the test.

Oh goody, the creation versus evolution debate isn't anywhere near resolved, (like it ever will be), and now we have to contend with, "and then there's what's behind door number three".

Myself, I believe the originator of the article / hypothesis is a chronic narcissist who spends way too much time playing video games. This has caused him a huge break with reality. I suggest he should undertake watching professional wrestling at a marathon pace. When he realizes that's the only thing that's indeed real in this world, it will divert him from the collision course he's on with a full blown psychotic break. You'll get my bill.

"Sounds like people will be reading about this is a textbook 200 years from now laughing, just like when we laughed at people for thinking the earth was flat or was the center of the universe"

Except there is a big difference between people believing the world is flat... and some guys who know a lot better going "hmm, I wonder if..."

I don't think any laws of physics are necessarily violated by "something coming from nothing", this is a well known corner of quantum physics, explaining vacuum fluctuations (to give an experimentally tested example) among many other things.
The problem PH mentions above is harder, I.e. if you accept "the simulation" it only shifts the question to what created the "host" universe (also, is it on local storage or in the cloud....)

Yeah well, to suddenly stand up and contend that the premise behind the "Matrix" has a distinct possibility of being a reality is derivative at best. Oh well what the hell, I've secretly always known that plagiarism was one of the most overlooked branches of the natural sciences.

I know many people would think this article is laughable, but such curiosity is needed, as this may lead to another breakthrough/further understanding of our universe.. I mean, just like people in old time curious how bird can fly and thinking if we put wings to our back so we can fly like a bird, such curiosity lead us to invent what we called airplane nowadays..

@Doctor John

"What's a Technological Singularity?"
Matrix stuff is based from 'technological singularity'