The strangest thing to ever happen to me took place in Tomsk, a Russian Siberian city. A week into my stay there, I bought a neon orange toothbrush to replace an old toothbrush. Some two weeks later I went to the bathroom to brush my teeth but the toothbrush was gone. It completely disappeared.

Looking for this neon orange toothbrush was the only time in my life that I felt insane. I scoured the bathroom on my hands and knees before extending the search to the entire apartment, even looking in trash cans, drawers, and cabinets. I figured that its disappearance was due to one of the following two reasons:

1. I sleptwalk and threw the toothbrush out the window. This is unlikely since I have no history of sleepwalking and sleep extremely light (so light that the sound of my own snoring wakes me up).

2. The landlord came during the early morning to dispose of the toothbrush, just to fuck with me. The problem with that scenario is that the front door was loud with a dungeon master lock. If I didn’t awaken to its opening, I would have when it was closed and locked again.

I stayed in the apartment for a week and the neon orange toothbrush never appeared again. At that time I didn’t consider a third explanation of its disappearance: there was a glitch—a bug—in the computer simulation we’re living in.

A paper by Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom makes a case for the computer simulation argument. His paper, which I recommend reading, states that one of the following three scenarios must be true:

1. We will go extinct or somehow destroy ourselves before developing the technology or computational power to create simulations with conscious subjects (i.e. become “posthuman”).

2. A posthuman civilization that can create a simulation with consciousness will elect not to, perhaps for ethical reasons.

3. We are currently living in a computer simulation, one that has sufficient detail without major bugs that convince us our reality is not an artificial construct.

The first time I heard of simulation theory, I reviewed it just for curiosity’s sake, to see how convincing the argument was for us to be living in a sort of Matrix but without the physical pod component. While I’m not fully convinced, the logic presented is sound and I’m open to the small possibility that we’re part of a SimUniverse where the big bang was a start button pushed by an advanced species who wanted to learn more about their own creation, or perhaps who just wanted to be entertained. The fact that scientists today are eagerly hoping to simulate consciousness on computers suggest that the idea must be irresistible to advanced species.

My initial objection to believing a simulation is possible is the detail our reality provides. There’s no way I can be “fooled” of existence, but nearly every single night I’m fooled by a simulation called dreams, which not only lack rich detail, but are still believed by my mind in spite of having colossal bugs well known to lucid dreamers:

  • You can’t see your hands
  • Light switches don’t work
  • Clock faces never display

Is it possible that dreams are a simulation of a simulation, and that everything around us is digital data stored on quantum computers so powerful that it would take an entire planet to house them based on current technology?

If the environment is included in the simulation, this will require additional computing power – how much depends on the scope and granularity of the simulation. Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed – only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities.

There have been other theories that clash with the neatness of our current model of the world. One states that there are multiple universes operating concurrently, and another, my favorite, states that there has been a great many iterations of the universe, each with its own physical properties that determine its makeup and construction. Maybe we’re living in universe number 1,350,372—an advanced “species” of universe that evolved from previous ones like we evolved from previous animals—and when it inevitably collapses upon itself, another big bang will create a new universe with different conditions of physics, chemistry, and life.

How can we ever prove that we’re living in a simulation? The biggest indicator, based on probability formulas provided by Bostrom, is if we successfully create such a simulation ourselves. In that case, a posthuman scenario has most certainly occurred in the universe before, allowing there to be a far greater number of simulated organisms than real ones. If we create a posthuman simulation, Las Vegas odds would then heavily favor the fact that we are indeed living in one.

…we would have to suspect that the posthumans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.

Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the hierarchy to bottom out at some stage – the metaphysical status of this claim is somewhat obscure – there may be room for a large number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over time. (One consideration that counts against the multi-level hypothesis is that the computational cost for the basement-level simulators would be very great. Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.)

One big part of our reality that can’t be explained is the double slit experiment, whereby the physics of our universe behaves differently just because we happen to be observing it. Watch the following clip if you are unfamiliar with this famous experiment, whose result has not changed after many replications:

This experiment is conclusive in proving that perception of objective reality can be dependent on the observer, meaning it changes simply because a set of eyes (mechanical sensors) are watching, without any other alteration to the environment. Can’t this mystery extend to life as a whole with people instead of electrons? Can things in our own reality change depending on if we’re looking or not? Are simulation programmers filling in information ad-hoc depending on how closely we are watching?

In my own life I noticed something consistently peculiar and frustrating—the attractiveness of women decline based on how carefully I’m looking for an attractive woman. If I decide on a day of dutiful work, I always see more attractive women than if I go out with the intent to meet women. Having a different mental goal changes what my eyes see and therefore what I get aroused by. While we can conclude that this difference in perception is due to my brain viewing reality differently based on the goal or intent it contains at the time, the double slit experiment offers up a potentially different explanation.

…a posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the simulation in the appropriate domain on an as-needed basis. Should any error occur, the director could easily edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the simulation. Alternatively, the director could skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the problem.

And so we may be coming full circle, from believing in a single creator, God, then killing him off in place of evolution and natural selection, a process that prefers ever increasing levels of complexity and intelligence even though robust gene replication can occur on a basic cellular level like in bacteria, and now back (for some) to believing in a creator, not of one God but a species whose intelligence we would be unable to grasp with our feeble minds.

While the simulation argument has no bearing on my day-to-day life and what I’m feeling in the present moment, it has made me wonder more about what we’re doing here. If there is no reason, as I suspect, then we’ll just have to find a reason ourselves by living in a purposeful way, but until then I would really like to know what happened to my neon orange toothbrush.

Read Next: We Are All Sisyphus

152 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sam
Sam
5 years ago

Yes, it’s a simulation. Created by God. The Bible is singularity.

Carpenter E
Carpenter E
5 years ago
Reply to  Sam

Yes, it’s a simulation. By Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Odin, Thor and Frey.

What? You say belief in one unproven supernatural creature is right but these other ones don’t exist? Prove it.

Martin Woo
Martin Woo
5 years ago
Reply to  Carpenter E

All those are physical beings living temporily with limited power.
We know they are myths because they do not meet the logical characteristics of God necessary to bring all tiime, space and matter into existence
Contrast their stories with Jesus’ description of the Most High……..all that is seen and unseen, greater than the human mind can even comprehend. , more powerful than the universe itself.

Your argument is childlike , often repeated by ret-ards and easily disposed of.

Skoll
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

“My god is real and your god is fake…”
“I don’t have to prove anything because my prophet has already spoken the truth”

Excellent arguments. Completely irrefutable.

Martin Woo
Martin Woo
5 years ago
Reply to  Skoll

Those are your arguments.
Kalam is mine.

Believing that all time , space and matter created itself out of nothing with no First Cause is pure atheist magic..
It’s really the biggest magic trick of them all.
Beyond that , atheism is nothing more than a form of high functioning autism.

thomas
thomas
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

On Man, you should Really see a doctor. And a good one, I mean It.

Martin Woo
Martin Woo
5 years ago
Reply to  thomas

Is that suppose to be an argument?

chris
chris
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

Here’s a simpler and more concise argument – your religion is bullshit. Take your Bible and shove it up your fucking ass you hypocritical sack of shit.

lolknee .
lolknee .
5 years ago
Reply to  chris

Nice.

If and when people ask I tell them I am an apatheist. I am totally apathetic to the question of whether God exists or not. It quite simply has no fucking bearing on my life. Or, put another way, the question of whether there is a god or not in no way effects the price of shit I want to buy.

seth datta
seth datta
5 years ago
Reply to  thomas

Can’t everybody express a view without a resort to calling them mentally ill? 99.9% of us are mentally ill judging by the rapid deterioration in society that I am seeing and the inability/unwillingness of anyone to do anything about it.

gutted
gutted
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

+1-1=0…if our universe is the +1 or matter,then the existence as proven in experiment of anti-matter gives us also -1.The simultaneous existence of both can come from/equal nothing..no need for causitive action by deities.

'Reality' Doug
'Reality' Doug
5 years ago
Reply to  gutted

It is false to think that disproving other arguments proves our own unless the possibilities are finite and all but ours is disproven.

Any fabric of existence that supports the creation of +1 and -1 from 0 or nothing is in fact something. A void of creation is a fabric of reality, and where did that come from? Space is not empty: dark matter, dark energy.

We can define that something beyond as God, but we certainly don’t have anything by which that ‘God’ can be characterized. We have no divine will expecting worship based on the weighy void of space that is not nothing.

Titan000
Titan000
5 years ago
Reply to  'Reality' Doug

”Space is not empty: dark matter, dark energy.”

How do we know that before the big bang that space is not empty. Perhaps it is the result of the beginning that true void is not longer void.

”We have no divine will expecting worship based on the weighty void of space that is not nothing.”

That’s true. Kalam only proves a creator nothing more nothing less.

Martin Woo
Martin Woo
5 years ago
Reply to  gutted

Wrong, Nothing is not “cancel each other out’ Nothing measn nothing , no charcteristics , not description, no properties.

Nothing is not something, as you Dawkins-tards keep saying it is.

Bladewalker56
Bladewalker56
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

If everything requires a creator and nothing can come from nothing, then who created your chosen deity? If you’re honest, man seems to be the only logical/sensible/intelligent reply.

Sam
Sam
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

Wow, thanks for that search! Never heard of this!

Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

Yes it is possible for something to come from nothing. Quantum physics has shown that it’s possible. Ultimately “nothing” itself is unstable so a kind of existence will naturally occur by itself.

Believe whatever u want though. I don’t really care anymore whether you believe that Yaweh created the universe just for you. I’m pretty much done with organized religion already. Just don’t force it towards me.

Truth Teller
Truth Teller
5 years ago
Reply to  Swashbuckler

The “nothing” you describe is a quantum vacuum. A quantum vacuum is not nothing, in terms of the absence of anything. The quantum vacuum is something. The laws of quantum mechanics are not nothing either.

A quantum creation of the universe doesn’t disprove God. It does disprove a God of the Gaps.

seth datta
seth datta
5 years ago
Reply to  Skoll

I know God exists. But religion is mostly a trap, having been subverted. All religions have commonalities, so there is a line of truth and a line of lies in the same stories that are retold.

We do live in an end times for humanity, where the human race gets mostly destroyed and judged; the Bible is merely the most accurate text to describe these times, though it also has been altered.

'Reality' Doug
'Reality' Doug
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

Childlike Arguments 101

Exhibit A: A mating pair of every land-bound species was put on an ancient ark of wood made manually with ancient technology, and they did not eat or kill each other, die from disease, or represent a genetic pool too small for reproductive survival of those species.

Exhibit B: Thou shalt not kill, unless I say so.

Exhibit C: If you are attracted to a married woman, you have committed adultery. Married women cease to be attractive to all but the husband based on marriage interference that turns her wave attraction (broadcast) into partical attraction (husband channel).

Exhibit D: Jesus was born to biological parents who lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born (Luke 2:1) and who did not until after Jesus was born (Matthew 2:1). There are plenty more contradictions discovered by critical scholarship of the Bible.

Exhibit E: The New Testament glorifies poverty: giving the Temple your last two cents, always taking a collection for the poor, the difficulty of a rich man going to heaven, ‘good’ Samaritan risking his own welfare, etc. No wonder the poor will always be with us. Now give your betters on earth all your money, incidentally of course.

Exhibit F: Faith is all you need to be part of the Elect and get heaven rather than hell. Also, many are called but few are chosen and the rest get nashing of teeth (torture), but faith is all you need, and there is an Elect, but unto the fourth generation the sins of the father will keep you out: i.e. believe what we tell you to believe and really believe it.

Exhibit G: God is omnipotent and Satan deserves to burn for eternity, but Satan is only following God’s plan and taking one for the team. We know, we know, Satan has free will according to God’s plan, and so do I. I’d rather have been made pure than free. We get no temptation we can’t handle, yet we are all sinners and need God’s grace.

Exhibit H: Love thine enemy and turn the cheek. Is not a helper of evil evil? We have not done those things which we ought to have done. Actions in this life only matter when God is keeping score, check the fine print, amirite?

Titan000
Titan000
5 years ago
Reply to  'Reality' Doug

”Exhibit B: Thou shalt not kill, unless I say so.”

It was not a proper translation. The Hebrew always indicates murder.

”Exhibit H: Love thine enemy and turn the cheek. Is not a
helper of evil evil? We have not done those things which we ought to
have done. Actions in this life only matter when God is keeping score,
check the fine print, amirite?”

Not what you think it is:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php

”Exhibit G: God is omnipotent and Satan deserves to burn for
eternity, but Satan is only following God’s plan and taking one for the
team. We know, we know, Satan has free will according to God’s plan, and
so do I. I’d rather have been made pure than free. We get no temptation
we can’t handle, yet we are all sinners and need God’s grace.”

What is Goodness without 1stly the possibility of evil. Is purity and obedience worthy if there is no possibility of the other?

SEL
SEL
5 years ago
Reply to  Titan000

That is some high-level paranoid thinking, Roosh. I hope you find your toothbrush.

Titan000
Titan000
5 years ago
Reply to  SEL

Uh. I am not Roosh.

Titan000
Titan000
5 years ago
Reply to  'Reality' Doug

Exhibit A: A mating pair of every land-bound species was put
on an ancient ark of wood made manually with ancient technology, and
they did not eat or kill each other, die from disease, or represent a
genetic pool too small for reproductive survival of those species.

Exhibit C: If you are attracted to a married woman, you have
committed adultery. Married women cease to be attractive to all but the
husband based on marriage interference that turns her wave attraction
(broadcast) into partical attraction (husband channel).
Sin begins in the mind. When you are undressing her in your mind you have begun to commit adultery. Involuntary attraction is not a sin.

”Exhibit F: Faith is all you need to be part of the Elect and
get heaven rather than hell. Also, many are called but few are chosen
and the rest get nashing of teeth (torture), but faith is all you need,
and there is an Elect,”

Here’s the thing. No matter how much Good a person does it does not in any way cancel the sin. And to cancel the sin and be just there must be a substitute.

”but unto the fourth generation the sins of the
father will keep you out: i.e. believe what we tell you to believe and
really believe it.”

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.php

Titan000
Titan000
5 years ago
Reply to  'Reality' Doug

”Exhibit A: A mating pair of every land-bound species was put
on an ancient ark of wood made manually with ancient technology, and
they did not eat or kill each other, die from disease, or represent a
genetic pool too small for reproductive survival of those species.”

I will await the evidence on that one. You may think it childish however the fact the Nineveh and Babylon did exist despite the fact that they were previously regarded as childish myths because its in the bible doesn’t make it untrue. If the bible is accurate in history at those times perhaps it may be correct at earlier times.

Martin Woo
Martin Woo
5 years ago
Reply to  'Reality' Doug

Exhibit A it does not say “species” Its say “kind” .

Two of each kind , of land animals

Exhibit B it does not say “thou shall not kill” It says “thou shall not murder”

Exhibit C It does not say “attracted” It’s say “Lust in your heart ” And it certainly doesn’t say “love in your heart”

Exhibit D
|Luke 2:1King
2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.”

Matthew 2:1King James Version (KJV)

2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,”

Nothing you are claiming is true
Exhibit E This is just your commentary , not a contradiction in the Bible.
The Rich man asks what more he can do, even tho he kept the Commandments and the Sabbath.
Exhibit F “Faith is all you need to be part of the Elect and get heaven rather than hell.”
Sorry but no , You must REPENT , and put your faith in Christ , You don’t have to do anything else.
All your examples are wrong and now Im bored

Tom Dane
Tom Dane
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin Woo

No one can whup Thor dont be stupid !

Tommy Hass
Tommy Hass
5 years ago
Reply to  Carpenter E

Fedoras are really fucking stupid.

He doesn’t need to prove jackshit, you retard, I don’t think his statement was a strong assertion.

You must be an autist.

Titan000
Titan000
5 years ago
Reply to  Carpenter E

”What? You say belief in one unproven supernatural creature is right but these other ones don’t exist? Prove it.”

Which has the best record of interacting with humans in history?

Perhaps this is not definite proof. But the ones that reveal themselves to man are more plausibly the ones that exist. Perhaps there are others but we don’t know.

ElHombre
ElHombre
4 years ago
Reply to  Carpenter E

The origins of ‘God’ in the bible is derived from Hebrew ‘Elohim’, i.e “Those who came down from the sky” – Our creators. The bible is in fact real documentation of history, if you acknowledge God as meaning our ‘creators’. If may sound silly, but it all makes sense on a site called spaceagogo.com by using archaeology, ancient civilisation documentations, etc.

Всевелод
Всевелод
5 years ago
Reply to  Sam

Ha, the Christian God doesn’t exist. Thor is the true god. I am a neo pagan.

nikku
nikku
5 years ago
Reply to  Sam

cool! the christian god just wanted to see what would happen!

HiggsBoson
HiggsBoson
5 years ago

You sure are a good writer, always interesting.

ATC
ATC
5 years ago
Reply to  HiggsBoson

I just want to know why the simulation assigned me to inhabit the body and mind of a risk-averse beta who constantly gets abdominal cramps.

Talk about a bug!

Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius
5 years ago
Reply to  ATC

It’s not a bug, it’s a “feature”. 😛

Jones
Jones
5 years ago

Welcome to CryptoPanopticon Stay4Sure Digital Penitentiary 0xD3ADB33F, where anything is possible, even your permanent erasure!

Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius
5 years ago
Reply to  Jones

They told me when I got here that rubbing your own penis was the equivalent of the F1 Help key, but no matter how many times I do it doesn’t seem to be producing any instruction manuals…

Chris Adams
Chris Adams
5 years ago

Lift the veil.

Jones
Jones
5 years ago
Reply to  Chris Adams

You are looking into the face of a Grue.

Your best option is to run North.

Makaveli
Makaveli
5 years ago

Roosh, Maybe you never bought a neon toothbrush. Maybe it’s something you imagined you did..
Maybe you have a false memory.. Our brains are already just computers, simulating reality.. Maybe it was a glitch in the brain.. Some people’s dream curcuits in the brain are even active at the same time as their reality observing curcuits – and they don’t notice the difference.. People hallucinating or hearing voices – that’s two modules at work at the same time and people cannot say which one is the depiction of reality.

Or maybe, you are becoming a splitted person like tyler durden in fight club.. And you have no memories of throwing away your toothbrush..

Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking
5 years ago
Reply to  Makaveli

Maybe the toothbrush collapsed into a singularity, then erupted into its own new universe, propagating the system.

anonymous
anonymous
5 years ago

It was the Jews and their New World Order media who took the toothbrush

seth datta
seth datta
5 years ago
Reply to  Makaveli

Fight club – google MK Ultra. That entire film, as well as many others, is about brainwashing people. In fact, all of Hollywood is about brainwashing and lately we get a lot of apocalyptic movies as they are hinting the obvious to us.

ZioFascist
ZioFascist
5 years ago
Reply to  seth datta

Yup…most Americans dont realize they’re under Talmudic Rule.

#SchlomoOwnsyou #StupidGoyim #ShekelsOverEverything

We live in an algorithmic prison. From the stock market to advertising..its all done via Algos.

Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius
5 years ago

“The fact that scientists today are
eagerly hoping to simulate consciousness on computers suggest that the
idea must be irresistible to advanced species.”

This is where I think you have to tread cautiously. Suggesting the simulation of consciousness “must be” irresistible to advanced species presumes advanced species think the way we do, evolved the way we do, or have any of the priorities we do. Remember Spock in Star Trek IV? “There are other forms of intelligence on Earth, doctor. Only human arrogance would assume the message ‘must be meant for Man.'”

I think at this point in our development as a species there is simply zero data from which to make this sort of presumption. We have yet to encounter an advanced species or indeed find any complex life anywhere in the cosmos that even shows a hint of self-awareness, or sapience if you will. I’ll concede SETI’s continuing silence (which is provisional of course) might in a contrarian sort of way support the simulation theory — but against that are the carbon-based molecules and proof that bacteria can exist off Earth, that indeed a comet may have triggered life on this planet to begin with, and that even in our brief time period of looking at the stars we’ve seen a number of planets that fall inside the Goldilocks range, capable of supporting complex life.

Thing is, if you presume an advanced species has created in effect a worldwide Matrix, it can pretty much only lead in circles because any speculation about the intent, resources, and mindset of the advanced species is a dead end. Even trying to suggest that the simulation must consume a massive, improbable amount of energy is a dead end: if our rules of physics are themselves simply rules of a simulation, how can we even imagine that an advanced species is constrained by them or is not indeed utilising an entirely different set of physics, our physics themselves being as arbitrary as endless lives in a computer game?

Like I said, this has parallels with what I hope is an emerging understanding in the species: that God, if it exists and if we can even define it, is mostly if not utterly transcendental. We cannot know or be clear about anything regarding its existence or nature, so Aquinas/Averroes’ attempts to reason our way up to God are fruitless; if God isn’t bound by logic or the laws of physics then even analogues must fail.

'Reality' Doug
'Reality' Doug
5 years ago

Astute observation. In short, we don’t know enough to frame the question, so the question should be frameless: Who or what is the ultimate cause of our existence? I define existence only so far as ‘I think; therefore, I am’ and not knowing the nature of that existence which is causally bound by the answer we don’t fucking know. We don’t even know if we can rely on causality. It is like trying to solve the Bridges of Konigsberg with the wrong assumptions, and some starting point is necessary. I figure that we are trapped in spacetime and that the ultimate cause is not bound by time, maybe not space either, and so resources may be limitless because the highest supernatural existence somehow just IS, and somehow that just isn’t right either.

A true human knows he does not know such things. Sheeple always prefer certain oppression over uncertain choice, and I hate them.

BTW, a fucking great post! I think I hope the experiment is a fraud.

Jones
Jones
5 years ago

There might not be a way of looking outside the box, but there may be a way to detect if there is a box:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/

“‘The most striking feature…is that the angular distribution of the highest energy components would exhibit cubic symmetry in the rest frame of the lattice, deviating significantly from isotropy,’ they say.”

By which it should be possible to detect that the box is indeed a box …

Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius
5 years ago
Reply to  Jones

Yyyyyeah, but to my mind this still assumes that our shared box has any rules that match those of the world outside the box. That’s sort of my point: asking about the box is something of a Category Error, because if there is a box we have no real way of comparing that box to any reality outside the box – ergo we cannot know, fundamentally, whether it’s a box or not. The article still assumes that the same rules apply outside the box as in. It’s sort of like Commander Shepard reasoning that we, his creators, have infinite lives because he always comes back from the dead inside his simulation, or that we must be using some mega-powerful biotic field to contain his universe because biotics exist and work inside his entirely fictional universe.

Rupert
Rupert
5 years ago

fall inside the Goldilocks range, capable of supporting complex life

Correction: capable of supporting complex life that, like most life on Earth, requires liquid water to survive. This does not account for the existence of complex alien life that survives entirely on, say, gasses that are lethal to most forms of Earth life.

Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius
5 years ago
Reply to  Rupert

Good point. From memory there’s been some suggestions that life within the simulation, cough, I mean, within our universe need not necessarily be carbon-based — that silicon based lifeforms are at least a theoretical possibility too.

Luisaceo
5 years ago

Where did the toothbrush go? Short answer: Some crazy bitch you brought home stole it for fetish pleasures.

lol In all seriousness, this was a great article, it seems that no matter how much our knowledge increases, there will always be questions that science is unable to answer.

Carpenter E
Carpenter E
5 years ago
Reply to  Luisaceo

I once lost a teacup and couldn’t for the life of me figure out where it had gone. The only conclusion was that the landlord must have entered my apartment for some reason, accidentally broken the teacup and then swept it up to cover his tracks. Later in the week I found it in the microwave oven with the cold tea I had wanted to heat up.

ninjabastard
ninjabastard
5 years ago

Once you start questioning existence, you realize you really can’t prove anything except that you have consciousness. This is a classic problem going back to De Cartes and early Renaissance. He kind of jury rigged in God to confirm reality is real but other philosophiers like Locke and Hume argue you can’t confirm anything.

I asked a philosopher grad student about this and his reply was “it’s true you can’t confirm anything but in your day to day existence you should act like reality is real. If this universe is in fact reality and you did something assuming it wasn’t, you would be in deep shit. So even if reality could be fake, hedge your bets that it’s real.”

As for your toothbrush, Occam’s razor would argue you probably lost it somewhere or its in some place you didn’t check since you assumed it wouldn’t be there.

Carpenter E
Carpenter E
5 years ago
Reply to  ninjabastard

“If this universe is in fact reality and you did something assuming it wasn’t, you would be in deep shit”

Exactly. That’s what I say whenever people don’t like an argument where I can show the probability favors my theory. “But no one can ever be sure of anything!” they say so they won’t have to think of consequences. No, but every single decision you make, you assume what is most likely and act on it. Pressing the keys on your computer might not produce letters, but the probability is in favor of that phenomenon, so you press the keys when you want to type something. It’s all about dealing with what is the most probable. Goes all the way up to how you should view politics, psychology, the character of people you see in the street based on if they dress like dregs or not (an example of how these discussions usually get started).

Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius
5 years ago
Reply to  Carpenter E

Weeeeeeelll, not to be a smug snot about it, but if every single decision you make is based on what is most likely, logically every casino or Lottery organisation should have gone bankrupt in the first six months of their operation.

Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius
5 years ago
Reply to  ninjabastard

‘I asked a philosopher grad student about this and his reply was “it’s true you can’t confirm anything but in your day to day existence you should act like reality is real. If this universe is in fact reality and you did something assuming it wasn’t, you would be in deep shit. So even if reality could be fake, hedge your bets that it’s real.”‘

For some reason I’m reminded of Pascal’s Wager in this.

ConstrainedVision
ConstrainedVision
5 years ago

I don’t think the double split experiment is evidence of a simulation, and physicists would mostly agree. It’s an experiment about quantum mechanics that really doesn’t say much about whether or not the universe is a simulation. The best evidence that we have for the simulation hypothesis is Fermi’s Paradox, which poses the question why haven’t we come in contact with alien life if alien life is so probable to exist given the scale of the universe

However there are theories about the simulation hypothesis that are testable

There are is an ongoing experiment to test the simulation hypothesis called the Holometer

http://bgr.com/2014/08/27/is-the-universe-a-simulation/

Also, this recent paper proposes another method to test by looking at the cosmic ray spectrum

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Simulation/Universe/

Conrad Stonebanks
Conrad Stonebanks
5 years ago

“The best evidence that we have for the simulation hypothesis is Fermi’s Paradox, which poses the question why haven’t we come in contact with alien life if alien life is so probable to exist given the scale of the universe”

Fermi’s Paradox is really interesting. If I was an alien, sent to Earth in human form to probe humanity, I can’t help but admit my report would be devastating.

ConstrainedVision
ConstrainedVision
5 years ago

Or maybe they are here already, sabotaging us from within

Conrad Stonebanks
Conrad Stonebanks
5 years ago

And plucking airliners out of the sky…

Schultz
Schultz
5 years ago

Regarding that experiment, I’m no expert but electrons seem easily affected, including by devices to watch them which are also made of electrons and would it not be possible that is the factor? I’d be curious to know how close the watching device was to the electrons moving through the slits.

Would the results be the same if they could place the watching device 1 mile away from the moving electrons, with device still be able to zoom in and monitor the activity from such a distance?

Non_Jewis
Non_Jewis
5 years ago

Earth is a concentration camp and Jews are gate keepers who torture and enslave humanity with their filthy existence

Shlomo Shekelberg
Shlomo Shekelberg
5 years ago
Reply to  Non_Jewis

Flagged for blatant anti-Semitism … I would prefer that Roosh be a good goy and just focus on things like this silly computer simulation theory rather than trying to figure out the true nature of mankind’s enslavement …

seth datta
seth datta
5 years ago

Are you not canaanites though, who were supposed to serve japheth and shem? So therefore not semites? And whilst I give some respect to your being the Adversary, it is true that there is more to this reality than it seems, that the ‘false’ jews have their part to play, that some ‘jews’ are of God, and that the brain is a mere neuroelectrochemical interface that if fed false signals can be deceived. This last point, I fear, would not be understood by most of the human race, which is why we continue to be so deceived today and destroyed by the lies we are fed and by the works of our own hands, thereby condemning ourselves through our lack of belief and ignorance. I truly desire that all repent, including you and yours Shlomo, for that day comes upon us.

ZioFascist
ZioFascist
5 years ago
Reply to  seth datta

Most jews are the devil, whether or not they want to admit it is something else.

I know im a Khazar and i do everything I can to honor my forefathers 🙂

Bob
Bob
5 years ago

Roosh, check out Black Mirror White Christmas it’s a mindfuck of a show. Explores this topic of computer/simulation. After watching it, it left me a little disturbed.

sams
sams
5 years ago

My friend told a similar tale, where he got some popcorn, walked into bathroom and it was gone. He is in his 60’s and still to this day is perplexed. He is overweight and was probably high, since it happened in 60’s. I think he inhaled both the popcorn and the bag

We are not living in a computer program. There are million year old dinosaur bones and human histories to prove that we were indeed cavemen. Back then, we simply clubbed a bitch over the head and then dragged them home. That club has been replaced by witty banter and clown game. Keep SciFi were it belongs.

MansoorIkram
MansoorIkram
5 years ago
Reply to  sams

Not necessarily true. The simulation theory in my mind could have simply have been created by an advanced species and could have been modelled on their reality. THEY could most definitely have evolved from caveman.

With the ever increasing complexity of our ability to create figments of reality with art such as video games (particularly Assassins Creed which holds this exact topic as its premise) and the exponential rate of growth it is experiencing, such a theory is not far fetched.

Philip K. Dick, a prophet of science-fiction once proclaimed this before his death; an interesting and troubled man: Videos can be found on Youtube.

Martin Woo
Martin Woo
5 years ago
Reply to  sams

Apostle John lived in a cave, When did people stop living in caves?

Sd
Sd
5 years ago

Kant and Descartes talked a great deal about whether or not we are living in a simulation.

Martin Woo
Martin Woo
5 years ago

A ferret (they love shiny things) came in your window during the night and took it.
This might seem far fetched to someone who has never had a ferret as a pet and obvious for those that have

manmax
manmax
5 years ago

Dude what you have described here is like those matrix movies

ActionJackson23
ActionJackson23
5 years ago

Did you ask the landlord if anyone else mentioned something similar? Perhaps a mischievous ghost?

Quintus Curtius
5 years ago

Deep waters, and great article, Roosh.

Skoll
5 years ago

I knew one man whose car keys just mysteriously disappeared. He had it on him the whole time before it just vanished, so it couldn’t have been that someone stole it or misplaced it. He searched for more than an hour and finally found it in the garbage can. It turned out that he accidentally threw it away along with his finished cup of coffee because he was holding them both in the same hand.

Caveman
Caveman
5 years ago

Roosh if you’re going to waste time questioning your existence, read about Godel’s theory of incompleteness. Basically it proves mathematically that no system of knowledge is capable of analyzing itself. Now if you consider the whole universe as a system, and us humans just a part of it, then we’re bound to run into questions for which we’ll have no answers and it’s impossible to ever find out the answers, because whatever answer we try to provide to these questions, the answer must be contradictory to something else we consider truth. So there you have one possible explanation for the double slit experiment, it’s possible that we’ll never have a non-contradictory explanation as to what is actually happening there.

Caveman
Caveman
5 years ago
Reply to  Caveman

As for your missing toothbrush, there’s a much simpler answer which has been almost always proven correct. It’s called ‘absent mindedness’.

Whitney
Whitney
5 years ago
Reply to  Caveman

No. Things disappear. I am still bothered by my favorite pair of shorts disappearing when I was 15. I’m 47 now.

About 15 years ago, I went home for a visit, let myself into my mothers house and that was it. Never saw my keys again. When she moved about 5 years ago I reminded her to look for the keys. Not found.

There have been other instances.

Conrad Stonebanks
Conrad Stonebanks
5 years ago

I never faced disappearing objects. However, and this may sound strange, from time to time, I seem to be aware of events *before* they happen. In such a case, I get a déjà vu-like feeling hours to minutes before the event actually occurs. The feeling is always vague and never clear-cut.

Now, it’s possible I somehow subconsciously detect specific patterns (since a lot -or perhaps *all*- phenomena and events are cyclic in nature) which my brain uses to calculate probabilities which it then uses to do a prediction. It’s like my brain is running some kind of Fourier analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform ) on all incoming, but subconscious, sensory information.

Skoll
5 years ago

I read that that has something to do with glitches in our short-term and long-term memory. The glitches cause distortions in your perception of time and being.

Rollo Tomassi
5 years ago

I prefer the term “artificial person”, if you don’t mind.

Zelcorpion
Zelcorpion
5 years ago

I consider the entire universe as a matrix simulation created for the education of us Souls. That is why so many people connected with the movie The Matrix, because they knew the creators were up to something.

As far as your toothbrush is concerned – possible explanations: the cleaning lady, a girl you had over, a girl you had over who got a creampie and saved the toothbrush to do a DNA test in 9 months to verify if you had indeed become daddy, landlord in your absence, you throwing it away while slightly drunk or deep in thought. I don’t think that our Matrix has glitches like in the movie.

seth datta
seth datta
5 years ago
Reply to  Zelcorpion

When they use the word ‘matrix’ they mean the ‘mark of the beast in the head’ that feeds us false reality and leads us to err, hence why so much is going awry in the west and the world today. Of course, most people won’t believe this explanation…

Joe
Joe
5 years ago

Consider that an argument that omits ethics and morality as a core of existence is just a way we comfortably lie to ourselves to justify our errors and omissions. If sleeping with a bunch of beautiful women truly fulfilled you then you would not offer this existential exposition on your inner emptiness. The solution for all of us evil creatres is to turn away from sin and give your life to Gods son Jesus Christ. God bless you.

'Reality' Doug
'Reality' Doug
5 years ago

The animated explanation is voodoo. Programmers call bugs they can’t get rid of ‘features’. The particle-wave duality of matter does not require, as far as I can tell, that one behavior be more computationally cheap than the other. I just looked at the wiki entry, and if the observer takes a measure, then the observer interferes with the electron. Our stupid forebears saw gawd in the weather, in the trees, etc. Of course, we are much smarter than they ever were. Faith is a personal wishing well that reflects what you already see.

Titan000
Titan000
5 years ago
Reply to  'Reality' Doug

”Faith is a personal wishing well that reflects what you already see.”

Or it can be based on empirical evidence. Consider the chair you are sitting on. You have faith that the chair does not suddenly collapse otherwise you will not be sitting on it.

Rupert
Rupert
5 years ago
Reply to  'Reality' Doug

Our stupid forebears saw gawd in the weather, in the trees, etc. Of course, we are much smarter than they ever were.

I guarantee that our “stupid forebears” were much smarter than you are.

In fact, looking at humanity in general now, we seem to have gotten even stupider and less wiser than ever before. How else to explain the madness of Western Civilization?

Vegard Johansen
Vegard Johansen
5 years ago

The main problem with the simulation argument is basically the same as with all major religions. You explain the complexities of reality by pointing to something even more complex.(aliens)
I believe the “Holographic universe model” is more likely to be accurate, as it factors in the weird quantum observations, yet is true to the idea of an evolution from the very simple “towards” the more complex.

Descartes
Descartes
5 years ago

Cogito ergo sum.