You Won’t Believe What AI Told Me about “Simulation Theory” and a “Flat Earth”
Before any readers accuse me of being anti-science or fanning the flames of conspiracy theories, I would like to point out that, within this conversation, ChatGPT did applaud my exploration of speculative concepts even if they may not align with established scientific understandings.
For whatever reason, it recently crossed my mind that even if the Earth is “flat”, it could also be true that the Earth and the existence we know exist within a simulation. So while in the simulated reality the Earth is flat, the real Earth could still be a globe outside of the simulation.
Bazinga!
It sure must be difficult being a “Flat-Earther” and/or a “Reality-Denier”. There are just so many wild thoughts and theories to keep track of. Anyway… I discussed these opposing concepts with ChatGPT. I’ll provide an abridged account of that conversation, plus the full transcript below.
SHAWN WICKENS: So there are people in the world who believe that the Earth is flat. There are also people who believe we are living in a simulated reality.
I’m just toying with possibility here. But because both of those beliefs do exist. There exists the possibility that:
The Earth is flat. But we also live in a simulation. So while the Earth is flat in the simulation. The real Earth outside of “the matrix” is actually spherical.
ChatGPT: It’s interesting that you’re exploring these possibilities, but it’s important to distinguish between beliefs and scientific evidence. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the Earth is indeed a spherical shape, supported by centuries of observations, measurements, and scientific experiments.
SW: Yes. I am thinking of this as a speculative concept. And it kind of reminds me of Schrödinger’s cat.
C: The connection you made between the speculative concept of living in a simulated reality and Schrödinger’s cat is interesting. Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics that illustrates the concept of superposition and the interpretation of quantum states.
Similarly, the idea of living in a simulated reality raises questions about the nature of reality and the nature of perception. Just as the cat’s state is uncertain until it is observed, the nature of our reality, including whether it is simulated or not, can be uncertain until we have concrete evidence or the ability to examine it objectively.
However, it’s important to note that Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment within the framework of quantum mechanics, whereas the idea of living in a simulated reality extends beyond the realm of current scientific understanding.
SW: The speculation that I presented… that The Earth is flat within a simulated reality, but it is in fact round outside of the simulated reality….
would you call that a concept? a theorum?
C: The speculation you presented can be considered more of a concept or a hypothesis rather than a theorem. Let me explain the differences between these terms:
Concept: A concept is a general idea or understanding of something. In this case, the concept you’re exploring is the possibility that within a simulated reality, the Earth could be flat, while outside of that simulation, it is round. It is an imaginative idea or a speculative concept that you’re considering.
Hypothesis: A hypothesis is a proposed explanation or prediction that can be tested or investigated further. It is typically based on some initial evidence or observations. In the scientific method, hypotheses are subjected to empirical testing and analysis to determine their validity. The speculation you presented could be considered a hypothesis if you were to propose a way to test or gather evidence for the existence of a simulated reality and its impact on the shape of the Earth.
Theorem: A theorem is a statement or proposition that has been proven or demonstrated through rigorous logical or mathematical reasoning. It is typically derived from axioms or previously established truths. The speculation you presented does not currently have a basis in proven principles or established knowledge, so it would not qualify as a theorem.
In summary, the speculation you presented is more accurately described as a concept or a hypothesis, as it involves imaginative thinking and does not have a basis in established scientific theorems or principles.
SW: Got it. Thank you. Can you suggest a few names for this concept or hypothesis?
C: Certainly! Here are a few suggestions for names for the concept or hypothesis you presented:
- Simulated Spherical Earth Theory
- Simulated Reality Earth Duality Hypothesis
- Flat Earth Simulation Paradox
- Matrix Earth Duality Concept
- Virtual Reality Earth Dichotomy Hypothesis
- Spherical Truth Behind the Simulated Flat Earth
- Simulation-Induced Earth Shape Dichotomy
- Hypothetical Earth: Simulated vs. Actual Shape
- The Flat Earth Illusion within the Simulated Realm
- Dual Earth Hypothesis: Simulated Flatness vs. Actual Sphericity
Feel free to choose or modify any of these suggestions as you see fit!
SW: These are all great. Thank you.
Now… if it were a hypothesis, can you think of ways that we could empirically test it? I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
C: While the hypothesis you presented falls into the realm of speculative and philosophical thinking rather than empirical science, we can explore some hypothetical ways one might attempt to test it. Remember, these are purely imaginative scenarios and should not be considered actual scientific experiments due to the lack of a concrete basis for the hypothesis. However, here are a few creative possibilities:
- Simulation Glitch: If we were somehow able to detect glitches or inconsistencies within the simulated reality, it might provide hints about the true nature of the Earth. For instance, anomalies in the behavior of physical laws or the appearance of artifacts that reveal the simulation’s underlying code could potentially offer clues.
- Escape the Simulation: If it were somehow possible to “break free” from the simulated reality, individuals could compare their experiences inside and outside the simulation. If those who have “escaped” consistently report a spherical Earth, it might support the hypothesis that the Earth is round outside of the simulation.
- Simulation Interactions: Suppose it becomes feasible to directly interact with the creators of the simulated reality. By communicating or negotiating with them, we might obtain information about the true nature of the Earth and whether it is flat within the simulation or round in actuality.
- Comparative Analysis: Conducting a comparative study between the simulated reality and the external reality, if accessible, could help identify disparities in the shape of the Earth. By examining the differences in physical laws, measurements, or observational data, researchers might find evidence that supports or refutes the hypothesis.
- Advanced Technological Exploration: Advancements in technology might enable us to probe the boundaries of the simulated reality or develop tools that can peer beyond it. If such technologies allow us to observe the Earth from an external perspective, it could potentially reveal the true shape of the Earth.
Again, it’s important to note that these ideas are purely speculative and not based on current scientific understanding or evidence. The nature of the hypothesis you presented makes it difficult to design empirical tests, as it falls outside the scope of our present scientific knowledge.
SW: I appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.
In the interest of transparency, this full discussion with ChatGPT is available here: https://chat.openai.com/share/79ed5972-0ce8-491c-bd50-e081adfe3008
About the Author:
Shawn Wickens is a New York City based comedian, futurist, casual stoner and a “Vibe Consultant”. He’s planning to write more about his thought-provoking conversations with A.I.
You can hear is voice on Spotify: Time Traveling Stoned
You can read some of his words over at Amazon: Time Machine Blueprints
P.S. You can also check this out: https://www.tiktok.com/@timemachineblueprints/video/7249571432412302634