Aliens could be literally in front of our nose in the form of nano-sized drones that broadcast in HD to their controllers and we'd never know.

I don't think we will be able to leave our planet and jump-hop to other planets considering our lifespan is so limited. Our bodies are adapted for earth.

It is possible that no living creature can make it beyond the point to explore other planets. The paradox that it already would have happened. Could be many reasons.

We simply don't have enough information to even hold a strong opinion. There may be kinds of technology or forms of life that we don't even recogonize as such. It is one of the most fascinating questions though.

It does open that anything is possible. God, aliens, we are in a dream, hologram, etc.

Yup. Neil deGrasse Tyson Says it's a 50/50 chance we're living in an alien computer simulation, Elon Musk says it's overwhelmingly probable.

We dont have to planet hop, we can live in space. Our bodies dont have to adapt (although they will) as we can create the environment that suits us. Eventually future generations will reach other planets although I have a suspicion that planets are way overrated as places to live.

The idea this is impossible or remotely close to difficult enough to resolve Fremi's paradox is simply not a flyer.

My personal favorite resolution to Frermi's paradox is that any species capable of exploring the universe sufficiently will also have perfect virtual reality tech and therefore has no interest in the infinitely more limited 'real' world

I like this a lot. It's plausible and shows there may be reasons and motivations that we can only begin to grasp.

It also form the basis of my 'proof' that time travel is possible.

We could create a virtual world in which time travel ins some form is possible.
There's no way to tell we aren't in a virtual world (or stronger 'there's no difference between a real world and a virtual world')

I doubt that means anything.

Obviously not to you, but it's one of the hottest topics among the brightest minds on the planet. A cursory reading on the subject shows why it's so plausible, and no math is required.

what odds does he put on us being in a simulation of our own creation?

That seems more likely than aliens although it could be included within 'alien'

Well I'm stupid, so I'll give you any odds you like, either way. How much do you want to bet?

That is because they are not bright or ethical enough to do real science or to even do support what they claim as simulation hypothesis with real math and not hand waving bs arguments to keep publishing crap and remain visible!

The idea that we are simulated with 99.99% of the time before us (H Sapiens) used for what exactly other than us is so funny!!!

Why not just create the damn universe if you are able to simulate it so well to begin with? Create it and see what happens 14 bil years later.

What exactly is simulated ? My brain at birth gradually going from baby to a more aware person with more information and understanding as i age?

Solipsism what a joke really. Solipsism defense is identical to the belief in God never possibly being able to remove as possibility, always having some way to justify it as possibility simply because you do not have the answers to everything so what you dont know is where all the miracle explanations are hidden lol making never sure all the rest you know. When can we know something for real? Can we ever in that sense? Well we can certainly see inconsistencies in something so we can know it is not that at least. So there are things we can know.

Is the entire planet simulated or just my own brain? What is the starting point of the simulation? My birth, your birth, Newton's birth, 100k years ago,100 mil ago,10 bil?

Is all a movie made for my benefit with trillions and trillions of actors preparing for my birth and growing up for decades?


What is the difference between a very faithful simulation and the real thing by the way? Define what the real thing is lol! How do you differentiate a simulation from the real thing? Can we even have a real discussion here?

Have you ever started to think what a true faithful simulation requires in terms of actual effort? It is simply up there close to the real thing to begin with and be so perfectly sensible. A faithful simulation of the human brain is already a brain itself in terms of complexity to sustain it! For a simulation to develop consciousness on its own and endless verification of natural law in anything you can imagine it would take monumental computational efforts rivaling the real thing in complexity.

I'm not sure what your point is, Masque.

My point is that although it might make sense to speak of us living inside a simulation (I'm not saying it does make sense), it makes no sense to speak of the probability that we are.

So, one person on our planet says something "is, or it isn't".

Based on what data?

No one is suggesting it's a simulation of our creation, unless it's been made by our far more advanced descendants, which is also a possibility.

We could speak about it but not just yet lol in some kind of scientific confidence that doesnt instantly make NDGT's 50% a joke of a statement lol as many of his pompous ideas are by the way which i find highly insulting and simplistic in scientific terms (another one is his glass of sea water argument for not having found aliens yet suggesting there are no fish in that glass yet either. I say sorry buddy but if i were next to you in that audience i would ask you is it or not true that if you carefully examine that sea water in your glass you may be able to tell that there are likely all kinds of fish/mammals in the sea and even whales why not due to the organic remnants in it and all kinds of cells basically that exist at any given time in a glass of water from the ocean) .

To talk about simulation probabilities first we need a theory of everything that includes estimating the probability to create a faithful simulation at the current stage of the universe by any intelligent civilization given how the world looks today. If we can have that then at any moment in time you have a probability that the real thing has already developed the simulation capability and then you need a theory that shows how many such simulations they can create and so you are simply the 1 / that many simulations plus the real thing per universe.

My point is that number is going from 100% not in a simulation to 99.99...% in a simulation pretty quickly (in the history of the universe at some point like say a 10000 years out of 14 bil type fraction) if a very faithful simulation is possible by high tech intelligence.

It is stupid to call it 50%.

Look how stupid it looks though to suddenly find ourselves just before the technological capability to have such simulations and have that discussion. So we are having that discussion just before the possibility is realized. It is all so coincidental lol.

I mean if we ever created a very faithful simulation of the real thing, that would be the time that it is finally possible to argue this way that after that point in time any such consciousness that develops is justified to wonder where it is (real or simulation). So how convenient to be having that discussion near that point likely that a deep yet still very limited simulation is becoming possible.

We frankly have no evidence that we have reached that point anywhere in the other universe and certainly not in this civilization yet. I argue the real thing is complex enough that its probably similar to arguing if this is one of many similar worlds.

Does the fact we exist offer any clue about other such worlds existing? How? How without yet a credible theory of everything?

I am suggesting it as a possibility and one that is more likely than aliens. It wouldn't be our descedents, it would be more like people alive today playing a game or taking a test.

It's not an original idea sadly.

We're not anywhere near capable of simulating our apparent universe, but physicists have worked out some interesting ways that may be able to prove the hypothesis that somebody else is. They assume that if we're in a simulation, there will probably be constraints to our physics analogous but far more sophisticated than the constraints in worlds we can simulate today. Our technology is not quite advanced enough to test these possible constraints but we're very close.

In this scenario we're only concious of being on the inside of the simulation and indeed within that simulation we're not advanced enough to create it. That doesn't mean we aren't also the creators of the simulation in a reality where we are far more advanced and can create it.

It was a genuine pleasure reading this cogent comment.

What do you define as real world in a way that you would be able to know the difference between a simulation? How do you know what is what without having a proper theory of what is real or what can ever exist (theory of everything).

The point is one can always claim the simulation of the entire world is very advanced that it has little difference from the real thing (at which point i say why bother and not have the real thing itself created instead - ie see how hard it is to create a simulation of the human brain vs the real thing) that at any point in time is still far from being detected as long as you do not have access to the entire system and a theory of everything.

Only developing a theory of everything (that can ever self consistently exist) can end the discussion.

If you cannot supply a criterion that defines what is real vs simulated then what is the point of having the discussion?

What is simulated? The entire history of everything or each one of our brains in which all you guys are players now in my movie that includes me having some fuzzy past as 3-4 years old with first memories and no basic knowledge of anything? Is the universe itself the simulation from the very beginning of it (like how you simulate a galaxy with particles etc). Are we being simulated from every waking up point forward every day?

Try to see how hard it is to create a very credible simulation (of even simple systems but super faithfully) and you will see that its idiotic to not just talk about the real thing that appears to be much simpler to have instead.

I mean creating a planet (out of matter you collect) is not entirely harder than faithfully simulating all of its phenomena. You can partially simulate it of course to learn things. But it will never be faithful enough.

I can simulate the human brain and get a better brain even eventually but imagine how much effort this requires to be able to deliver a very faithful brain.

The faithful simulation is still part of some reality that performs it. So i say even a simulation is part of a greater reality.

The game never ends , denying that greater reality is impossible. And i am after the greater reality always.

All good questions that are being entertained in very interesting ways by myriad scientists today. It's worth looking into if you're interested. I don't have time or inclination to defend the idea, it's no more fantastic than the many worlds theory which seems even more preposterous to me but has a sound, logical basis too.

Co-simulating just enough to notice.