i have never heard of the simulation hypothesis so i cannot comment on it, itself, but i can certainly wonder why one needs a belief system. having a belief system seems iffy in and of itself, regardless of what that system is.

g

So, explain the entire history of the Solar System, since several bajillions of years ago....?
Such ego-centricity!

I file it under 'True or not, it changes nothing'

A mind all logic is like a knife all blade, it makes the hand bleed that uses it.

There is no evidence that we are in a simulation. So until then...

What makes u find the argument valid ? What makes u find it " logical " and believable ?

There seems to be an assumption in comments below that "being in a simulation" means that we humans are in fact real in some sense outside the simulation (a real brain in a real vat in a real universe?).

What if we're simulated too?

I find it fascinating that we find it so hard to put ourselves completely within any cosmological model. We always tend to see ourselves as separate from it in some way (and sometimes in every way). The same way some once thought the earth has to be at the center of the universe because man lives on the earth, and man is the top of the great chain of being, and that's how god would have made it if he made it. The same way evolution can't be true because humanity is special and not literally related to every other living thing. The same way climate change can't be real because god made the earth for us, and the science of polution can't trump the power of god!

We always start with the assumption that we are special.

Well a glitch in the Matrix might explain why my car keys and TV remotes are never where I thought I left them.

If I throw 100 random items in a drawer and leave it for 3 months, I'll come back and they'll be in exactly the same arrangement as when I left them there. I simply don't believe anyone creating a simulation would have gone to this level of detail. They'd have just programmed us not to notice the flaws. We're looking at a system that can remember the location of every particle in our universe, and processing power that can handle every interaction between each of those particles.

Though perhaps my consciousness is at the centre of this simulation, and it only needs to replicate and maintain my known universe. That's another possibility. It would be a lot easier to implement, since only my universe would need to be created and stored.

I'm afraid that I think that it is stupid. The science is much more believable.

I think it really is a simulation in a certain sense. We create our own reality through imagination. Behind the scenes lies ultimate reality which we can not understand in terms of our space/time/matter model.

To say that we are nothing but simulated characters is not the whole story. The physical world, including our bodies is a sort of simulation but we seem to have a higher existence, as evidenced by free will and conscious awareness. We are the programmer.

The simulation hypothesis as usually presented opens up more questions than it answers. I like Donald Hoffman’s ideas.

The idea that the universe and all it's content including our world, all the history accumulated in our rocks and our painful evolution scientifically is all a simulation, computer generated or otherwise, is as probable an explanation as Genesis is! I would rather worship a creator than a programmer and where did our great programmer in the heavens come from, and so on, atheism for me is the disbelief in theories as well as deities.

It kinda explains why there's so much crazy shit in the world. When the game gets boring, it's time to throw in a new earthquake or asteroid strike or maybe a crazy-ass president.

Je pense, donc je suis.
Descartes

I won't accept it unless some valid evidence for it is shown.

I see it in a similar light as I see the 'free will' question.

How do we tell if it's true or not? What is the differentiator? If 'A', then it's all a simulation. Else 'not A', it's all real (whatever that is).

If you can't figure out how to tell one way or the other, play it however you want to. Nobody else will be able to see the difference either.

If there is an alien civilization or entity powerful enough to simulate reality down to the quantum level, then how is that any different from theological concepts of divine pantheons or the Prime Mover creating heaven and earth? The evidence for either is the same.

I have no use for such theories.
I think they're nonsense, with nothing to support them.
I am most definitely adamantly dismissive of that nonsense.

I don't really think this is all a simulation. It could be. I'm just inclined to think it's not. But I like to play The Devil's Advocate.

I can't get my head around that. My husband used to say that this is an experiment in a sixth grade science class. Kinda like an ant farm.

Feelimgs and beliefs instead of reason and facts ,I'll pass.

It’s a fun idea, why not. Doesn’t seem to be any data to support the theory that I am aware of, however, I would love to be shown some evidence in that direction. I guess the closest philosophy we have is the Hindu/Buddhist concept of maya (loosely translated as illusion).

Fun to think about and discuss, but irrelevant. Just like "no free will," it makes no difference. If life is a game, we're here to play it. What else can you do besides die, and what would be the point of that?

There is a megastructure in science fiction known as a matriishka brain, where you surround a star with satelite that collect energy, use it for computing and then reject the waste heat which is used by a second layer of satelites, then repeated until the heat is rejected just above the energy in the cosmic microwave background.

Such an object would be able to simulate hundreds of thousands of universes simultaneously, each filled with octillions of people. It is plausible to think we are simulated.

True or not, I don't see how it's provable or even detectible. And another thing that bothers me is that the idea being conceptualized is dependent upon a certain level of technology. I mean, such a concept is not really possible pre simulation technologies. And that makes me wonder what new concepts are waiting upon new paradigms that haven't been developed yet.
But, if anything like self awareness is ever seen in any agents of a simulation then I think it becomes very likely. However, as a software engineer I can tell you we're nowhere near that. Of course, "self awareness" in a simulation would be an "awareness" of certain properties defined by the framework of the simulation . . .

We started somewhere somehow sometime. We keep getting closer to know the root cause of all but until then, all possibilities even as crazy as they may seem, are valid until fully disproven with data and/or observation.

It would explain a few things but I don't know that it can be proven without leaving the simulation.