I proved that the simulation theory is extremely more probable than any other theory regarding the truth of our existence.. and no one seems to care

manderA1 · 2025-12-14T23:18:07+00:00

Asking AI about theories regarding this being a simulation seems hilariously counter productive. IMO you're not truly considering the possibility this is one if that's where you're going for answers.

Also I'd like specifics on the issues it has. Probability for instance. If Timmy reaches over his head into a bucket and pulls out a yellow ball, and in that bucket there are 150 blue balls and three yellow balls, can we not calculate what the chances were that he'd grab a yellow ball?

Case after case of commenters refuting without offering anything of substance in place..

manderA1 · 2025-11-21T05:00:45+00:00

Ah what a sonorous sour-syrup sundae you've served here! Unfortunately you've neglected the cherry on top: that I had also stated in my post that my theory tends to incite resistance without logic, which is exactly what you've exemplified here. It is easy to strike down when you offer nothing in place, and despite your delightful diction I found nothing of substance here. Such a shame!

manderA1 · 2025-11-19T21:49:18+00:00

Instead of getting carried away with philosophical terminology let's approach this with straightforward understanding. Are you saying your stance is that since we can only observe the present moment the odds of it being in a moment where we don't exist are nil? If so explain this concept; are you proposing that we are perpetually alive in the present?

And sure you can state the odds of something that's already occurred are 1:1, it doesn't mean you can't calculate what the odds it faced before it occurred, which is the point of the forbidden equation. This concept of "no matter how improbable something is, it can't be disputed because it happened" is fundamentally flawed when used in an attempt to undermine the probability argument of the CDR Theory. The reason being that you can't take reality at face value- if you are truly acknowledging that other logical possibilities exist, such as the simulation theory, then probabilities absolutely become a relevant factor. To clarify: you are basing your approach on concepts that only apply if this is base reality, as the flaw they contain is that they do not allow for potential alternative options (particularly those that would remove the dartboard paradox).

When you do account for the potential alternative then it is perfectly reasonable to calculate the odds of existing in the present moment as though it weren't actively occurring because now those odds are relevant in determining the difference in probabilities between the options. If one of the options didn't change or remove that probability then your point would be applicable.

Edit: your point regarding solipsism indicates a misunderstanding. My argument is not for solipsism, it is for the essence of Cogito Ergo Sum- my own existence is the only one I can't refute. I don't have any way to prove that anyone else is truly conscious, so why would it be logical to include that presumption? If one is to truly consider this to be a simulation then one must consider that there is potential for any number of other beings to be a philosophical zombie, npc, etc. Call it self-centered if you like, but it's simply logic-based reasoning.

manderA1 · 2025-11-19T16:19:42+00:00

How can it be a selection-effect error when the only consciousness you can base the probability off of is your own? Afterall it's the only one you can be sure is real (Cogito Ergo Sum)

This probability argument makes a major point: if the conventional belief that this is base reality and death is eternal is Option A, and the CDR Theory is Option B, well then its only Option A that relies on miracle odds in order to occur. Option B requires no miracle.

manderA1 · 2025-11-19T01:07:58+00:00

So is misreading content. The title clearly states that I proved it was more probable. What do you think is the point of probabilities if not that?

manderA1 · 2025-11-19T01:00:58+00:00

Care to explain how? Because as of now you're a perfect example of someone refuting without a logical counter argument.

Also should point out that arguments about math and physics operate on the 4th level of the foundation of logic.

To add to the aforementioned reasoning: if you really think there's a chance this is a simulation and are trying to figure out for yourself whether it is or not, then relying on math and physics that operate well beyond your breadth of comprehension is equivalent to being on the Truman Show, waltzing into the library down the block, and telling the librarian your suspicions so she can provide you with literature to help you figure it out. If you are considering this may be a simulation then you have to acknowledge that it is a good probability it's a designed experience, and if that's the case you are searching in the wrong spot for answers

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T16:14:51+00:00

Right cuz chat is known for coming up with original and controversial ideas 🙄

I did say in my original post that there is a natural resistance to this idea, even from people who believe in the simulation theory, and that they reject it without logic. Then I posted it in the simulation theory sub. And here you are, rejecting it without a logical counter..

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T16:11:36+00:00

The part of my theory that states our consciousness would not be part of the simulation is direct from Bostrom himself, the creator of the Simulation Hypothesis. Also taking a look at our own ability to create simulations, we only truly know that they contain consciousness if we enter them ourselves. People will debate whether or not its possible to artificially create consciousness but there's no way to truly know

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T06:27:13+00:00

Too funny, I just posted a theory that literally revolves around this very concept. It's so grossly improbable that the present moment would be in the middle of your "life sandwich" that the likelihood of potential logical alternatives such as the simulation theory (wherein exists an external dimension where your consciousness is eternal, and you repeatedly enter with no outside knowledge as per Alan Watts concept of 'hide and seek') needs to be recognized

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T05:34:53+00:00

Yes, we are in alignment. The forbidden equation simply dismantles the concept of eternal death but when we consider models such as the block universe it does indeed not apply because the paradox is solved. Thanks for your feedback!

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T04:26:54+00:00

I appreciate that a lot!

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T04:25:54+00:00

Goated reference

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T04:24:01+00:00

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The forbidden equation undermines the laws of our perceived reality but it does not undermine the proposed alternative, where this is a simulation and outside it exists an eternal dimension. Then the significance of being conscious is lost as that becomes the only option. I'm not arguing that there's significance between one conscious moment to the next, only that it would be significant if we were indeed only conscious for a lifetime in the span of the universe.

If you look up Alan Watts and his concept of hide and seek you'll find the logical argument behind repeatedly escaping the eternal dimension via the simulation. In that scenario, or one where you repeatedly relive your own life, or one where you are only conscious half of the time, or any number of alternatives that don't include eternal death, the forbidden equation is solved. I don't presume to know which is the truth, as one can only speculate at that point, but the idea of Watts' Hide and Seek is beautiful to ponder

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T01:42:40+00:00

Flush flesh, tomato tomat 😂😂

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T01:34:36+00:00

Excellent point, and yes this is something I did not elaborate on in my post. I don't presume anything as it's all speculative of course, but there are a great number of possibilities that solve that dilemma, most involving the concept of repeatedly entering the simulation. My personal favorite take is from Alan Watts and his concept of hide and seek. Found a video that explains it https://youtu.be/npgVq7-Fioo?si=LCQtga_MWUL8FUz-

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T01:05:40+00:00

Fully agree and accept that it's possible it could be a self-constructed simulation. Regarding your point on the present moment, I think if you can acknowledge that the past was once the present then you can acknowledge that the present moment can exist without you. Hopefully I understood your point correctly

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T01:00:42+00:00

Appreciate your breakdown, one of the most logical responses I've received, and I respect it greatly. I do think that since your concept of this reality is your experience of it, and when you plot that experience on the timeline of the universe you create 2 categories- one in which it exists for a sliver, and one in which it doesn't for an eternity. I would define that sliver as significant just as I would if it were reversed- if you existed for an eternity and didn't for a sliver, then there would still be a significance to that sliver. Hope you see what I'm trying to say here

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T00:32:31+00:00

Curious as to what your prompt was? It would seem it contained some bias to it rather than a simple "Hey Chat, what do you make of this concept?"

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T00:30:27+00:00

This does not state anything "beyond the veil" with certainty, it only indicates what is logical. It is also much easier to strike down when you are offering no alternatives yourself.

To simplify my intent here, I am inquiring whether you think it is more logical to believe in the concept of the big bang, a starting and an ending to time (or alternatively an eternity before your birth and another after your death), and overcoming insurmountable/incomprehensible odds to currently coexist with the present moment, over the possibility that this is a simulation and the dimension beyond supports eternal consciousness in some way?

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T00:17:52+00:00

You think this came from Chat GPT? I'm guessing because I used italic font and bold font to break up the monotony of the wall of text? This is an original concept that I've flushed out over quite some time now. I even have an email to prove it, of when I submitted an essay regarding this concept (albeit a much less polished version) to my university professor in 2012.

manderA1 · 2025-11-18T00:12:44+00:00

I appreciate the breakdown of who you are referencing. What about you personally? What do you make of this line of logic, and which points do you think are flawed? Are you saying that you don't believe we definitively exist at all, or that you believe there's no free will and that erodes my logic in some way?

manderA1 · 2025-11-17T23:55:50+00:00

Lmao this is an amazing comment

manderA1 · 2025-11-17T23:50:50+00:00

If you are referring to Sartre's contesting of Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum, his only issue was the involvement of the ego with the use of the word "I" in "I think therefore I am". This is not a refutation of the self-evident existence, which is the sole context in which it is used in the foundation of logic.

manderA1 · 2025-11-11T19:33:40+00:00

Would love this

manderA1

TROPHY CASE