This world is simulation, and so what.

I believe that if our reality is in fact a simulation, we have been hacking it for many thousands of years. The constant progress of our technological development represents our ability to understand the foundation of that simulation, and ways to manipulate it to our advantage.

Also, as we begin to understand the quantum nature of our reality I believe we are discovering the extents of that simulation. In other words we are beginning to discover the foundation upon which this simulation is based. While the fact that our understanding of quantum physics is mathematically consistent and can be experimentally tested, it is quite non-intuitive and difficult to comprehend given the rules of our reality.

To use a well known science fiction plot device, imagine a holodeck simulation of a group of Neanderthals who suddenly discover the holo-emitters responsible for creating their environment.

-dex

a reply to: ignorant_ape

1b - like i say - the universe acts real to me - but yet i still do stuff every nonth that other people think is insane - yes - i and my mates know we could die / be left crippled - but we to it anyway - with the best risk management and survival strategies `we can muster therese nothing to beat the exhilaration of looking back at what you just did - with the euhphoria of " we are still alive " we are not foolish - or reckless - and know we could die - but people die every day - simply crossing the road

I'm going to guess BASE Jumping. Am I right?

what if we had " god mode " - i believe that the novelty of " god mode " or " cheat codes " would wear off very VERY quickly . i do things - because there is a risk - take the edge away - and life is simply dull

That exact situation has been examined in science fiction literature. Immortal, all-knowing, all-powerful beings eventually get terminally bored. Once you've been everywhere and done everything, what purpose does life hold?

-dex

Similar to religious persons who try to justify their irrational ideology, people who espouse pseudo-science often advance a rather spurious argument. They try to argue that, although they may not be able to prove the validity of their claims, neither can science disprove their claims. This argument conveniently disregards a basic axiom of logic: The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

It is logically impossible and logically contradictory to require another person to prove that something does not exist. We can only prove that something exists; nobody can prove that something does not exist.

An analytically inclined mind will stipulate that unless something manifests itself objectively, it does not exist. It may still exist in somebody’s mind as a hallucination, or in another dimension, or in the deep sea. However, as far as human beings are concerned, if an object or event does not manifest itself in any form, manner or shape to human beings, it simply does not exist. If it does not manifest itself to human beings, it obviously has no effect on our life and we can safely disregard it.

a reply to: Plotus

Those so-called particles are no where to be found unless we observe them through sensors. This is not an anomaly. It is something way bigger.