The Matrix is real
www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

The general gist: at the current rate of technological advancement, it is reasonable to assume that at some point in the future computing power will enable us to create computer simulations far beyond anything we can achieve today, simulations within which ‘people’ would actually be conscious and unaware that they are in a simulation. If we do achieve this, it is also reasonable to assume that we would be extremely unlikely to run just one of these simulations (think how many copies of The Sims are currently in existence!) For arguments sake though, let’s assume that 99 of these such simulations are created. That would mean the odds of us not currently being in a simulation would be just 1%.
(TheManWithThePlan cussed your mum on, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 13:20, 8 replies)

For arguments sake
let's assume current technology is capable of processing approximately 0.0004% of what it would need to process to similate reality in any way.

We'd also need to overcome the physical requirments, the cognative aspects of it all, for which there is no technolgy even remotely capable.

The future is a long long way off.
(username failed moderation, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 13:44, closed)

If you went back in time 50 years
And tried explaining the concept of the internet to people, I bet most would think such a thing would no way be possible for a long, long time, certainly not within theirs on their children’s lifetimes!
(TheManWithThePlan cussed your mum on, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 13:52, closed)

More than 50 years.
Even so, we are talking about something which is conceptually quite clear.

It's not a lack of imagination, it's a yawning chasm that separates the idea from our capabilities.

Just because you can think if it, doesn't mean you can ever do it.

Star Trek? The chances of humans ever actually getting out of our own solar system are pretty much zero. You can trot out the 'we don't know what we don't know' argument, but the truth is, what we DO know tells us it's never going to happen.

Virtual reality even approaching the point that we are unaware of it is never going to happen. The only way to do that is to trick our own minds into acceptance of a lesser reality.
(username failed moderation, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 17:02, closed)

"The machine Stops" was written by E M Forster in 1909 and is surprisingly familiar to a modern internet user, well worth a read.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_Stops
(Zedsquared, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 20:24, closed)

(coff)
Let's assume that the original poster's point was the one he was making rather than the one you're responding to.
Which is that we are currently living in a simulated reality rather than we are capable of creating one that humans would find convincing.

In which case, the reality in which we find ourselves has a higher chance of being a simulation rather than "real" reality.
There are ways to test this if the simulation is less than utterly perfect. Especially if it's buggy in one way or another.

There is some argument towards the reality as simulation theory in the granular nature of space and the way that energy cannot be exchanged in a perfectly smooth manner but must be packaged in discrete quanta.
There is also some work being done on the idea that time itself is quantised, introducing the thought that the universe itself may have some manner of frame rate.
( DukeEuphoria Comes highly reccomended, Tue 6 Dec 2011, 12:21, closed)

This is the premise of Tenants of the Latticework
by the 80s electro-prog duo Mainframe. If you follow the plot of the album, it is more than coincidentally similar to the plot of The Matrix
(gordonjcp, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 14:06, closed)

It's a really pointless theory, though...
...and proves nothing whatsoever. If the simulation is that convincing, then it can't be tested or proved one way or the other, so what's the point of speculating? You might as well promote the theory that we're all figments of God's imagination. Or I could promote the theory that only I am real and everything else is in my imagination. Great for stoner "Wow, that's, like, sooooo profound!" conversations, but of no interest whatsoever otherwise.
(Harry Webshiter Spiggley biggley bog., Mon 5 Dec 2011, 17:04, closed)

Yup. Any philosophical position
where the best and most intelligent possible response is essentially "Yeah, and...?" isn't doing its job properly.
(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Mon 5 Dec 2011, 22:53, closed)