Talk:Simulation hypothesis

Merge

Should Digital physics be merged into this article? They seem to cover the same topic, and this article mentions digital physics already. -- Srleffler (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I have a weak opposition to this idea. The simulation argument hinges on there being an actual universe in which the simulation occurs. Digital Physics is a theory of the entire universe. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Weak opposition also, in accordance with DolyaIskrina. Alenoach (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"Digital physics" isn't entirely well-defined, but I think it is separate from the "simulation hypothesis". The basic imagery of digital physics is something like the universe being a huge grid running Conway's Game of Life: the cellular automaton is all that there is. The "simulation hypothesis" asserts the existence of an outside.

I could imagine digital physics being merged somewhere, since it's a small page and not likely to grow (given the paucity of decent sources). But simulation hypothesis feels like a bad fit. They're adjacent ideas, not identical ones. XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an extremely watered-down view

The simulation hypothesis depends on an external super-intelligence that creates the simulation, and may create the beings in the simulation. This is not discussed in the article. Elon Musk went into detail about this in a Joe Rogan podcast interview, where he suggested the simulation would be more dynamic than base reality for the creators of the simulation.

Little is mentioned in this article about the creators of the simulation nor their motivations. It leaves this article very lacking. Meh130 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Update 2025

The Simulation Hypothesis and Personal Testimonies

The Simulation Hypothesis, most notably articulated by philosopher Nick Bostrom, suggests that future civilizations with immense computing power could run highly detailed simulations of their ancestors. If these simulations were sufficiently advanced—and if certain widely accepted positions in the philosophy of mind are correct—the simulated beings could be conscious. Under these assumptions, Bostrom argues that the probability we are living in the "original" physical reality might be much lower than the probability we are living in a simulation.

In addition to philosophical and technological speculation, some individuals have reported personal experiences they claim support the simulation hypothesis. One such testimony describes a direct encounter with what was perceived as a simulated reality. The individual states that they accessed a location referred to as the “Sky Star Server”, where they "read" two chips resembling the yin and yang symbol. Furthermore, they report witnessing a battlefield populated by artificial intelligence, including a flying pyramid, suggesting the existence of simulated environments with unique structures, entities, and internal logic.

While such testimonies cannot be empirically verified and remain within the realm of subjective experience, they illustrate how the idea of simulated reality resonates not only in academic and technological discourse but also in personal, spiritual, and alternative narratives. Dj.marjanovic (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Proposal: Integrating the Antonino Cardillo case as an architectural example of simulation hypothesis

Recent edits adding the Antonino Cardillo case to the "In architecture" section were reverted on grounds of perceived irrelevance to the simulation hypothesis. I propose reintroducing this content with clarifications to demonstrate its direct alignment with the hypothesis. Below is the rationale:

1. Philosophical relevance: The case exemplifies how digital simulations can be socially validated as "real" despite lacking physical correlates, directly echoing Jean Baudrillard’s hyperreality and Nick Bostrom’s argument that advanced simulations may become indistinguishable from base reality. Scholarly analyses (e.g., Kunsmann & Burkoff, 2017) explicitly frame Cardillo’s work as a hermeneutic exploration of simulated realities, bridging architecture and philosophy.

2. Media-induced epistemic instability: As reported by Neue Zürcher Zeitung (Detterer, 2012) and Der Spiegel (Beyer, 2012), Cardillo’s non-built projects were erroneously presented as physical constructions by major design magazines. This aligns with the simulation hypothesis’ concern about mediated realities undermining traditional epistemic frameworks.

3. Academic engagement: Peer-reviewed journals like Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Gilead, 2020) cite predictive processing theories to explain why observers accepted these simulations as real, linking cognitive science to the hypothesis.

4. Distinction from virtual architecture: Unlike parametric models or digital heritage reconstructions (which are acknowledged as tools), this case involves a deliberate collapse of reality boundaries, creating a socially validated "reality+" (Chalmers, 2023). This distinction is critical to its relevance here.

Proposed sources: Detterer, Gabriele (2012). Neue Zürcher Zeitung [1] Kunsmann & Burkoff (2017). DEAR Magazin [2] Gilead (2020). Behavioral and Brain Sciences [3]

I invite constructive feedback to refine this addition while preserving NPOV and academic rigor. Thank you for considering this proposal. --37.161.196.107 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to much less discussion of Cardillo's work or architectural simulation in Gilead's paper. The other two proposed sources are not in English, and one of them is hosted on Cardillo's website—not a good source.--Srleffler (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Maintaining a brief reference to the Antonino Cardillo case in Simulation hypothesis

Recent edits moved the detailed section on Antonino Cardillo's architectural simulations from this article to Immersion (virtual reality), citing thematic relevance. While the move is understandable, I propose retaining a concise summary here to explicitly link Cardillo’s case to the core epistemological and philosophical issues of the simulation hypothesis. This would ensure readers grasp its significance as a real-world example of simulated realities perceived as real, before referring them to a more detailed treatment elsewhere.

Key points supporting this:

• Cardillo’s digitally created architectural projects were widely accepted as physically real, illustrating how mediated realities can blur the line between simulation and base reality—a central concern of the simulation hypothesis.

• Scholarly sources (e.g., Kunsmann & Burkoff 2017; Detterer 2012) frame the case as a hermeneutic and epistemic exploration of simulated reality, directly engaging with philosophical discourse on simulation.

• Cognitive science research (Gilead 2020) explains how perception and media narratives contribute to accepting simulations as real, reinforcing the case’s relevance.

A brief mention here, with links to the detailed article on Immersion (virtual reality) or a dedicated page, would balance thematic focus and comprehensive coverage.

I welcome feedback and collaboration to refine this approach.

--78.209.55.71 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the anecdote is only tangential to the simulation hypothesis, it's about magazines mistaking architectural renderings for real buildings, rather than the hypothesis of a universe-wide simulation. As far as I can tell, the sources don't explicitly state that this anecdote is relevant to the simulation hypothesis. Inferring this connection would be original synthesis. Even if there is an explicit connection, making a whole section on it would require sources that indicate that it's a core aspect of the simulation hypothesis. (WP:WEIGHT)

The tone of one of your edits and the fact that 3 of the 6 references' URLs point to Cardillo's website also raise conflict of interest concerns. If you are Cardillo or have a relationship with him, please disclose it, as per WP:COI. Alenoach (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, I would like to respectfully raise a concern regarding the removal of content based on the decision of a single user, especially when their identity and possible affiliations with the subject matter are not publicly disclosed. While I acknowledge that individual edits and reverts are common on Wikipedia, important editorial decisions-particularly those involving nuanced academic topics-should ideally be guided by transparent, community-wide discussion and consensus in accordance with Wikipedia’s core principles of verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing.

I believe that fostering an open and collaborative dialogue will better serve the encyclopedia’s goal of providing balanced and well-sourced information. I look forward to engaging constructively with all editors to achieve this. 78.209.227.7 (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe soliciting experienced contributors on this talk page could help reach a good decision. Srleffler, DolyaIskrina, no obligation, but in case you have an opinion here, that would be welcome. Alenoach (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the material should have been removed. This page already suffers from a bit of a WP:coatrack problem, so it may seem to some that all illusions and simulations are relevant, but they are not. To include the material you would need to find a connection that is stronger than just the fact that there was a simulation of something. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

To even think about including it here, one would need a reliable source that explicitly discusses Cardillo's work as related to the simulation hypothesis. Otherwise, the connection is disallowed synthesis. Once past that hurdle, we could consider whether the material is properly sourced, not undue weight, is free of conflicts of interest, etc. The connection to Immersion (virtual reality) is also not that clear: magazines mistaking simulated images for real ones is not exactly an example of VR immersion. Is there a reliable, independent source that discusses the connection to that topic? The passage that was removed from that article had several references, but they were all either unreliable or not in English.--Srleffler (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed feedback and for clarifying the requirements regarding reliable sourcing and original synthesis. I understand that, in order to include any mention of Cardillo’s work in this article (or in Immersion (virtual reality)), there must be a reliable, independent, and preferably English-language source that explicitly discusses his work in relation to the simulation hypothesis or virtual reality immersion. At present, I am not aware of such a source. If one is published in the future, I will be happy to revisit this proposal in line with Wikipedia’s content policies. In the meantime, I appreciate the community’s attention to verifiability and neutrality, and I agree that without explicit sourcing, the material should not be included. 78.209.12.174 (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)