This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Simulation hypothesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Epistemology / Mind Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Epistemology Philosophy of mind Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Simulated reality on 18 April 2023. The result of the discussion was Merge.

The section on parsimony and brains it vats is essentially a summary of one preprint by Lorenzo Pieri. It is the only publication by him on the subject, and he cannot be considered an expert in this field. It is unclear why the opinions stated by Pieri in his preprint are relevant to the article. Furthermore, the current section does not give what I consider to be a full picture of the arguments in the preprint. I have tried removing the section, in disconcordance with @Randy Kryn: (see [1]). I have therefore now edited that section [2] to remove original research. Feedback is welcome here on the talk page. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of your removals are for the better (there is a lot of crap in this article). I do think that the brain in a vat should be mentioned somewhere, though, since it seems like an obviously analogous thought experiment (about which the arguments for and against would seem to be quite similar as well). jp×g 21:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor JPxG: I agree with you and I have added a sentence added two sentences. (I would've liked to add a bit more but I find it personally quite difficult to write on this type of subject without starting to generate Geschwurbel.) --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there could be a distinction between dreams and reality. when we dream, we do not remember reality. when we are awake, however, we remember the dream. 49.37.195.208 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No error correction is perfect, and at some point of complexity, error correction algorithms cause more mistakes because they have problem to manage needlessly huge chunks of data.

I'd fix that, if I knew what it was supposed to mean. Anyone? – AndyFielding (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me Coltcatus (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s imagine that reality as we know it is a simulation. Then, we questioned our reality and existence. Like for example: “Is all of this we know, all just fake?” But, one question that is not talked about: If we did escape the simulation, then are we still human or is human doesn’t exist and that means we are a complete different species altogether? Maybe in a scenario that we did indeed escape the simulation but found ourselves that humans don’t exist, and that we are just sentient objects, not humans. X0JovianPedia0x (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]