Simulation

Anyway, please.

Despite the nonsense in this, I would recommend that the rabbi write a post about it. Once and for all, the various skeptics need to be put in their ridiculous place.

There is a limit. If I write a post about every undefined New Age nonsense, I won't get very far.

Please, Your Honor, maybe after all… I tried to convince my brother that we don't live in a simulation… but I couldn't find the right answer… and recently it started to bother me too…

Thanks in advance

So ask yourself where this simulation lives (in the real world?) And maybe this ”real” world itself lives in a larger computer simulation? There is no end to the story and you will not be able to convince your brother. The concept of ”persuasion” has no meaning at all in such a worldview.

I mean, let's say I convince you somehow. But how can I convince you that I myself am not part of the simulation designed to convince you that it doesn't exist?

Dear Emmanuel, even if it is possible that I, the “convincing”, am part of an imaginary simulation;
On the other hand, if you convince me that you are not in a simulation – then I am not part of it because it does not exist according to your method (assuming you are convinced).
And all the fear that I am part of the imaginary simulation is solely on the assumption that I was unable to convince you logically. And in fact, the problem remains in place.
In the end, everything depends on persuasion.

The question is, what is the problem with the collective simulation of all humanity?
There is no difference between it and the real world (the division is purely philosophical – Am I an idealist or an empiricist/dualist – but there is no practical difference between the approaches, at least in this matter).

The entire problematic claim that one must try to negate is an individual simulation of the subjective person. This claim would pretend that all the characters in my life do not exist.
It seems to me that the very intuitive belief in my friend – that he feels that he has subjective recognition, just like me – is itself supposed to convince me that I am not in an “individual” simulation.
Again, we have not escaped the duty of skepticism, but there is no need for it either (this is not a deduction, of course, a skeptic should not be convinced of anything).
Shabbat Shalom

For the questioner, I outlined the content of the video to the rabbi in the hope that the rabbi would respond to him,
As I understand it, until the middle of the video, the speaker raises purely skeptical questions. What the rabbi calls negative skepticism.
B. For example, because it is possible to think of a simulation that could create a world like ours, then what is the chance that we are not living in a simulation.
A. He brings important people such as Elon Musk who support that we live in a simulation, or those who do not know how to prove that we do not.
C. He claims that the skeptical approach has been accepted since the time of Plato and before.

From the middle (around minute 3:00) he begins to establish the theory in a positive way, *ostensibly* what the rabbi calls positive skepticism.
And this is his evidence-
A. Minute 3:37 – (The rabbi as a mathematician should look at it because I didn't understand exactly)
To the surprise of those who develop the mathematical theory behind string theory “super symmetry”, after developing and developing, they discovered that their formulas for string theory are simply the code that is used as a computer protocol for error detection that is widely used in Internet communication (the actual code itself, not just something similar to it).
And this really reminds me of a simulation…

B. Minute 4:39 –
The world is essentially discrete (quantum) it really simulates a pixel on a computer screen. (Simulation).

C. Just as there are rules in a computer or in computer games, so there are rules in the world. (Simulation)

D. According to the “Fermi Paradox” Who claims that statistically the entire universe should be teeming with life but we don't see any life around us,
Therefore this proves that there must be a simulation that only works on Earth. While in space the simulation produces something else.

Towards the end he claims that there is no great outcome in the investigation. (But it is quite clear that it changes our entire understanding of reality and more.)