Flaws in The Simulation Hypothesis.....do you spot any?

[Iloko]

State any flaws, major or not, that you can manage to spot or find in 'the-simulation-hypothesis' theory/model...

Latest vid from YouTube channel 'Wisecrack/8-bit Philosophy':

[Hamlet]

There are none, assuming simulated worlds with conscious minds are possible. If that premise is true, a big if, then we are almost certainly in a simulated universe.

[Linebacker]

I don't even consider believing in it to look trough the flaws.

Probably one of the most ridiculous existence theories ever created.By its logic all the characters in video games are also alive in the virtual world.

[Dominicanese]

not in a computing way

but i believe we'er in some sort of simulation

not a simulation, maybe a test, a test of limitations, we'er like rats in a lab, we have no other choice but take part in it

thats why they call it rat race

look at me, im a former large-scale farmer from the DR (and many of my familymembers too) and we've lost it all in the search for nothing here in the USA, now if i go back, there's nothing there, not even a single hen or rooster. That was my only escape but now its becoming too urbanized

[Bobby Martnen]

I think it (like solipsism, or the brain-in-a-vat) are just a lot less likely than our reality being real.

[Mingle]

Yes, and all fictional characters on TV and video games are real beings with conscious minds that also think they are living in reality but are really just in a simulated world

[Aldaris]

There are some issues with it. One of them is the ‘excessivity’ of our universe. Assuming it is a simulation meant for studying physical phenomena, a considerably scaled down version would work just as well, since we know, that physics works ‘locally’, for the most part. There’s barely any interaction on the level of galaxies. For this reason, including billions of them, separated by incomprehensibly vast void, is nothing but an outright ridiculous waste of computing power. Even if power is no issue, it is still completely useless. It would be like a For cycle in a program for addition of two numbers performed billions of useless iterations by adding zeros. If, on the other hand, the assumed simulation is for studying/interacting with conscious beings, such a vast universe makes even less sense. And if we’re supossed to believe, that we’re a product of natural forces in a natural universe, I’m pretty sure we would not suspect anything, if the universe was scaled down and/or less complex.

[Aldaris]

There are some issues with it. One of them is the ‘excessivity’ of our universe. Assuming it is a simulation meant for studying physical phenomena, a considerably scaled down version would work just as well, since we know, that physics works ‘locally’, for the most part. There’s barely any interaction on the level of galaxies. For this reason, including billions of them, separated by incomprehensibly vast void, is nothing but an outright ridiculous waste of computing power. Even if power is no issue, it is still completely useless. It would be like a For cycle in a program for addition of two numbers performed billions of useless iterations by adding zeros. If, on the other hand, the assumed simulation is for studying/interacting with conscious beings, such a vast universe makes even less sense. And if we’re supossed to believe, that we’re a product of natural forces in a natural universe, I’m pretty sure we would not suspect anything, if the universe was scaled down and/or less complex.

Another problem is the time scale. The universe is qualitatively the same as it was billions of years ago and it will stay that way for a very, very long time. All the interesting physical phenomena already happened billions of times. If our universe was a simulation, we can reasonably assume, it has already fulfilled it’s purpose, and if so, there’s no reason to keep the simulation running. Yet it is still there.