Does reality pass the Turing test?

[partinobodycular]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for over fifty years I've often wondered about how to tell whether the world around me is physically real or a simulation. The laws of physics seem to support the possibility of a simulation, but can't definitively answer the question, so I've been left to look for another means of determining whether I'm living in a simulation.

To that end I often wondered whether a character in a video game such as 'Grand Theft Auto' would be able to tell, simply by the behavior of the characters around it, that the world in which it was living wasn't 'real'. Would the fact that the characters seemed to act irrationally be a tip off to the possibility that it was living in a simulation? Or would it simply accept the simulation as real no matter how irrationally the characters in it behaved, or what the background story was.

I ask this because more and more the world seems to be behaving more like a poorly written video game than a naturally evolving physical reality. For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

So the question is, does reality pass the Turing test? Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

 

[Modern Day Job]

This is a meaningful question, especially in a world that increasingly resembles a scripted environment. But rather than framing it as “simulation vs. reality,” the deeper issue may be how reality is structured and stabilized.

We may be in a system that behaves less like a machine or simulation and more like a feedback-sensitive modulation field. One that reflects the symbolic and emotional tone passing through it. In such a system, unresolved patterns don’t disappear; they echo, loop, and intensify, eventually stabilizing as distorted but recognizable forms.

When people behave like caricatures or archetypes, it may not be a glitch in simulated code. It may be a field under recursive pressure, mirroring incoherence because that’s what it’s been fed.

This doesn’t mean reality is fake. It means it’s reactive by design.

A better question than “Is this a simulation?” might be:

What kind of system reflects distortion when coherence fails?

Not a computer. Not pure matter.
A consciousness-linked modulation field where everything is shaped by mind.

One that responds immediately, often impersonally, to the structural integrity—or saturation—of the inputs it receives.

In that context, exaggerated behavior isn’t evidence of fiction.

It’s the predictable output of a recursive field mirroring unresolved internal collapse.

So no, Donald Trump wouldn't be a narcissistic villain due to software design, he is the end result of not just his own consciousness, but also the collective consciousness of everyone that surrounds him.

That includes your thoughts.
And mine.
And everyone else’s.

Love is the answer.

 

[Chesterton]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for over fifty years I've often wondered about how to tell whether the world around me is physically real or a simulation. The laws of physics seem to support the possibility of a simulation, but can't definitively answer the question, so I've been left to look for another means of determining whether I'm living in a simulation.

To that end I often wondered whether a character in a video game such as 'Grand Theft Auto' would be able to tell, simply by the behavior of the characters around it, that the world in which it was living wasn't 'real'. Would the fact that the characters seemed to act irrationally be a tip off to the possibility that it was living in a simulation? Or would it simply accept the simulation as real no matter how irrationally the characters in it behaved, or what the background story was.

I ask this because more and more the world seems to be behaving more like a poorly written video game than a naturally evolving physical reality. For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

So the question is, does reality pass the Turing test? Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

A simulation of what?

 

[Tuur]

Having been an epistemological solipsist for over fifty years I've often wondered about how to tell whether the world around me is physically real or a simulation. The laws of physics seem to support the possibility of a simulation, but can't definitively answer the question, so I've been left to look for another means of determining whether I'm living in a simulation.

To that end I often wondered whether a character in a video game such as 'Grand Theft Auto' would be able to tell, simply by the behavior of the characters around it, that the world in which it was living wasn't 'real'. Would the fact that the characters seemed to act irrationally be a tip off to the possibility that it was living in a simulation? Or would it simply accept the simulation as real no matter how irrationally the characters in it behaved, or what the background story was.

I ask this because more and more the world seems to be behaving more like a poorly written video game than a naturally evolving physical reality. For instance, Donald Trump seems to be such a stereotypical narcissistic villain that it's hard to believe that he wasn't purposefully created just for this role, and his popularity, in spite of his obvious character flaws seems to defy reason.

So the question is, does reality pass the Turing test? Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

Whether we live in a virtual universe is one of those interesting ideas that, unfortunately, like solipsism, is of little practical value. Whether or not it's "real" in an outside sense, it's certainly real to us. How things work would be part of the code, so unless you could compare it to what's outside, looking for clues there is meaningless. So is applying to what seems reasonable to us to look for "flaws." Reasoning is much like a Rashomon problem, with what seems reasonable to one may not seem reasonable to another. Reasoning is influenced by priorities, which vary not only culturally but individually, and by individual understanding of how things work in the universe in general and culture in particular. Ultimately, unless we can look in from the outside, there's no way of telling if what we experience is a virtual universe or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does it act like a freely evolving natural world, or does it act more like an purposely designed simulation?

Why do questions like these always deals with electronic simulations?

Do you believe hand puppets or marionettes act like a "freely evolving natural world"?

I think it's obvious we can conclude hand puppets and marionettes aren't real.

What's the problem with determining we humans are real?

 

[jacks]

Whether it is "real" or not it's all we got, so make the most of it.

You can't go wrong with the two greatest commandments:
"The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’