Are we living in an advanced simulation?

[Almantas]

I think the guy that simulated me was in a rush.

 

[lowtek]

Cool! Glad you bit! I love being a nerd on this stuff.

So, for funsies....if you assume the fact that:

1. It is possible to simulate the entire universe
2. It is possible to simulate conscious minds

Then it's very very unlikely that we are in base reality.

We can't really disprove 1 or 2 at the moment, and you can prove that 1 and 2 do not currently exist (at least in this simulation, if we assume for a moment we are in a simulation.)

However, it is conceivable that both of these are possible, even within this simulation.

The rate of technological increase has the singularity somewhere within the next decade according to super-intelligence experts (who make very convincing first-principles arguments for this...something covered in this book really well). After the singularity, having millions and billions of synthetic conscious minds seems perfectly plausible.

And simulating the universe wouldn't be too difficult beyond that, especially if the conscious minds that could perceive it were only able to perceive a small, infinitesimally small portion of it (such as we humans can).

So while #1 and #2 are not currently true, there's reason to believe they are possible, both in this simulation and without it. And if it's possible, it's likely to have already been done. And it's likely that we aren't the ones who will do it first (thus we are likely not in base reality).

I'm quite familiar with the argument, I should have spared you the time and stated that up front.

Trying to argue that after the singularity simulating a universe of conscious minds would be trivial is circular reasoning. It assumes it's possible to simulate a mind with general intelligence at all. You can't assume what you're trying to prove.

The reasoning behind the existence of a so called technological singularity is even worse than the simulation hypothesis. At least the simulation hypothesis is sound. Whether or not it's true is different from it being a sound argument, mind you.

This whole singularity notion is extremely misguided. It conflates "Moore's law" with the emergence of intelligence. It's essentially saying "computing power doubles every 18 months" (not the original observation and also not true anymore, but whatever, it just stretches the timeline, fair enough) therefore we will have machines capable of general intelligence, and ultimately super intelligence, within the next 20 years. In no way shape or form does that conclusion follow from the premise.

There is a phenomenological difference between a faster calculator and the ability to reason about the world in a general sense.

Perhaps we should start a separate thread on these topics. We've strayed pretty far from the premise of the OP. I enjoy the debate, mainly because I'm in the contrarian camp. I think all of these arguments are pseudo-scientific nonsense best saved for the realm of science fiction.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Off topic, but I'll bite:

That is hinged on the assumption that it's possible to a) simulate our entire universe and b) simulate conscious minds to observe said universe.

Neither have been proven, so statements about "statistical probability" are misinformed.

The simulation hypothesis is interesting, but unfortunately doesn't really tell us anything about reality.

Do you really have to simulate the ENTIRE universe?

This is a game called Horizon, and what you're seeing is the world rendering only where the user looks.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...ogressive,q_80,w_800/ucoln8kedwfglsrlxvm5.gif

General relativity also tells us that the bigger the mass, the more time slows down. Think black holes (Watch Interstellar movie. It gets its science mostly right)

(Fun fact: the satellites that provide our GPS info "live" faster than us down here by a few, micro seconds I believe, or similar. Because they're moving faster, and are farther from the earth. If they weren't corrected for this, your GPS would be off by 10 kilometers in just a day)

This is how computers work. The more info they have to process, the slower they are. Black holes, being "infinitely dense" harbor the most mass in one space. Thus, this is where time is the slowest.

Where this would help us is in simulating our own universe. If we can map and explore our current laws into a program where we can move from one spot to another instantaneously, it will help us understand our world and make more accurate predictions about our future.

It may even answer some of our deepest questions, like why are we here, what is consciousness, and do we really have free will?

AND we may actually be able to test if we are actually in a simulation! If we can observe a "glitch" or a pocket of space that doesn't comply with our current understanding of the laws of physics.

The problem with that is:
1. Would we discount it as us not understanding the laws of the universe, and refining our models to see what we observe?
2. Would the programmer just rewind and fix it without us knowing?

There's also another problem with the simulation theory. Each nested simulation cannot be more complex than its parent simulation. Otherwise, you'd overload the computer and the whole thing would shut down.

The most compelling argument for this theory is rules. Why is the speed of light exactly, 299,792,458 m/s?

If you look at any video game, it has strict mathematical definitions. How high you can jump. How fast you can move. etc.

Why is the universe structured?

Maybe we should take this to a separate thread? @MJ DeMarco

 

[SteveO]

I believe that we are a simulation that is designed and run by ourselves. If we are connected well enough, we have the ability to control more and see some of what is going on. This has been the reality that I have lived by for years. We are connected in ways that we cannot fully understand while here.

 

[ChrisV]

Is this his eccentricity or do you think something else is going on?

Well have you heard his thoughts on reality? They’re.. interesting. Apparently he thinks reality is ‘almost definitely’ .... a simulation.

But that being said, there are some prominent physicists that say that notion might not be too far fetched.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

No one is asking "why". Why would higher beings run a simulation. What is the purpose of spending so much energy running simulations?

Why people play SimCity?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

The statistical probability of reality being a simulation is actually greater than us existing in base reality...

Off topic, but I'll bite:

That is hinged on the assumption that it's possible to a) simulate our entire universe and b) simulate conscious minds to observe said universe.

Neither have been proven, so statements about "statistical probability" are misinformed.

The simulation hypothesis is interesting, but unfortunately doesn't really tell us anything about reality.

 

[SteveO]

If our lives are a simulation then why bother?

Not exactly a simulation... More of an experience or adventure. I feel that most of us take life much more seriously than we need to. In fact, I believe that we would accomplish more if we could keep our emotions in check and follow our instincts/intuition.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

Well have you heard his thoughts on reality? They’re.. interesting. Apparently he thinks reality is ‘almost definitely’ .... a simulation.

But that being said, there are some prominent physicists that say that notion might not be too far fetched.

The statistical probability of reality being a simulation is actually greater than us existing in base reality...

 

[csalvato]

Off topic, but I'll bite:

That is hinged on the assumption that it's possible to a) simulate our entire universe and b) simulate conscious minds to observe said universe.

Neither have been proven, so statements about "statistical probability" are misinformed.

The simulation hypothesis is interesting, but unfortunately doesn't really tell us anything about reality.

Cool! Glad you bit! I love being a nerd on this stuff.

So, for funsies....if you assume the fact that:

1. It is possible to simulate the entire universe
2. It is possible to simulate conscious minds

Then it's very very unlikely that we are in base reality.

We can't really disprove 1 or 2 at the moment, and you can prove that 1 and 2 do not currently exist (at least in this simulation, if we assume for a moment we are in a simulation.)

However, it is conceivable that both of these are possible, even within this simulation.

The rate of technological increase has the singularity somewhere within the next decade according to super-intelligence experts (who make very convincing first-principles arguments for this...something covered in this book really well). After the singularity, having millions and billions of synthetic conscious minds seems perfectly plausible.

And simulating the universe wouldn't be too difficult beyond that, especially if the conscious minds that could perceive it were only able to perceive a small, infinitesimally small portion of it (such as we humans can).

So while #1 and #2 are not currently true, there's reason to believe they are possible, both in this simulation and without it. And if it's possible, it's likely to have already been done. And it's likely that we aren't the ones who will do it first (thus we are likely not in base reality).

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[rogue synthetic]

I think all of these arguments are pseudo-scientific nonsense best saved for the realm of science fiction.

You're right in the spirit, and I agree with you though I try to be more charitable about the argument itself. It isn't science or even a scientific argument, since it isn't a result of observation (how you'd observe this I have no idea) or a part of any scientific theory.

The simulation argument is what in better times we'd call a philosophical argument. It's a puzzle that isn't going to be settled by more obervations, more data, more experiments. And it isn't quite the sort of question you can just "logic" away with more inferences, or analysis of concepts, a better theory of probability, or what have you. In this sense it is absolutely pseudo-science -- it's riding on the prestige of science and borrowing an aura of authenticity while having very little to do with any scientific theory.

We can estimate the probability of a coin toss because it's a well-bounded problem and a coin only has two states. The probability of the universe's existence, or being a simulation of something else? That's an entirely different sack of potatoes. One reason is due to the kind of question being asked, another is due to the way we can proceed in answering them.

The simulation argument isn't much different than the metaphysics that scholastic philosophers were doing in the middle ages. It's trying to get at some basic issues, what kinds of things exist, what sorts of categories do we use to talk about them, how we know about them. It is hard to draw aline here between what is speculative, that is, what kinds of concepts or stories we cook up to make sense of observations, and what is part of method, what we should assume in order to proceed in (say) physics.

Any explanation supposes *some* background which won't be part of the theory, but there is a huge difference in saying "we supposed ABC as part of our model of (some interesting phenomenon)" and "the things we supposed for our model are real". Well-defined questions asked under reasonable constraints can provide reasonable probabilities. But we aren't anywhere near that territory in the SA.

Lots of people today think that there's no point to speculation beyond the best science, that it's all a waste of time, and let's burn any books that talk about it while we're at it.* I'm more in the camp that thinks there is nothing wrong with a little speculation so long as we take it for what it is: just a way of asking different questions and creating new ideas. It's a game that we play to help make sense of things.

As long as we keep that in mind, it's cool. Sadly a lot of people don't, and some of the worst offenders are the public intellectuals who should know better but strangely do not. (Domain dependence is a hell of a thing.) It all ends up blurring the lines between legitimate science and what isn't much more than New Age woo. The difference is, at least theologians in the middle ages knew they were talking about God. It's a different ballpark when New Age woo is dressed up as science.

* David Hume was the original book-burner.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Would you live your life any differently if it was?

Wonder if there are cheat codes.

up up down down left right left right b a select start

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[rogue synthetic]

Honestly I think that most of you reading this, if you're actually interested in the ideas, would do better to read the original philosophers and scientists on this topic instead of speculating about whatever cutting-edge stuff is getting play on Youtube this week.

There are whole lifetimes worth of great books written by great minds addressing all of these topics, and besides forcing you to grapple with the ideas directly it will also help sharpen your thinking, not to mention get you off the damn internet for an hour or two.

It's popular now to bash on philosophy, but then you read the big names in 20th century physics (I don't mean Hawking and Krauss and NDGT) all wrote philosophy or were very interested in it. I'm talking Einstein, Godel, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohm, and J.S. Bell caliber thinkers, and this may surprise, but half of them were religious and the ones that weren't all took most of their own speculations from ancient and early modern writers.

It turns out that even the people at the cutting edge still didn't have the first idea of what was beyond or behind the science, and still used very non-scientific concepts and methods to try and figure it out.

The good news is that you don't have to grapple with the technicalities of quantum theory or information science or complexity science to get to grips with the ideas. Pick up some of Plato's dialogues, a copy of the Parmenides and Heraclitus fragments, maybe throw in Epicurus, Lucretius, and Sextus Empiricus just for fun, and you'll have canvassed most of the major options.

If you want something a little more recent, have a look at Descartes's Meditations (dualism of mind and body and materialism), Berkeley's Dialogues (idealism), Hume's Enquiry into Human Understanding (empiricism) and you'll have most of the bases covered.

It might surprise you is how little is really new in the Simulation Argument once you dig into the history of ideas.

 

[csalvato]

I'm quite familiar with the argument, I should have spared you the time and stated that up front.

Trying to argue that after the singularity simulating a universe of conscious minds would be trivial is circular reasoning. It assumes it's possible to simulate a mind with general intelligence at all. You can't assume what you're trying to prove.

The reasoning behind the existence of a so called technological singularity is even worse than the simulation hypothesis. At least the simulation hypothesis is sound. Whether or not it's true is different from it being a sound argument, mind you.

This whole singularity notion is extremely misguided. It conflates "Moore's law" with the emergence of intelligence. It's essentially saying "computing power doubles every 18 months" (not the original observation and also not true anymore, but whatever, it just stretches the timeline, fair enough) therefore we will have machines capable of general intelligence, and ultimately super intelligence, within the next 20 years. In no way shape or form does that conclusion follow from the premise.

There is a phenomenological difference between a faster calculator and the ability to reason about the world in a general sense.

Perhaps we should start a separate thread on these topics. We've strayed pretty far from the premise of the OP. I enjoy the debate, mainly because I'm in the contrarian camp. I think all of these arguments are pseudo-scientific nonsense best saved for the realm of science fiction.

I think we actually agree on a lot! More computing power is definitely different to computers capable of reasoning.
If we assume that it's not possible, then you're absolutely right.

If we assume it is possible, then it's far more likely this is not base reality.

There's also the possibility that a simulation creator would have more knowledge and means than we currently do.

It doesn't currently exist, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Right now, though, we don't know. /shrug

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

If our lives are a simulation then why bother?

IMHO it's all about the frame you choose to adopt.

For example, if you believe that, statistically, we are in a simulation, it's easier to take life less seriously. If you believe life is a test for your immortal soul, you probably take it more seriously.

 

[SteveO]

The "truths" of this universe are lost in translation.

That is because the "truths" are not what we think. Truths are in energies. Not our beliefs.

 

[socaldude]

It's pretty amazing that even ancient philosophers like plato talked about this.

He called it the forms.

He was very poetic and difficult to understand.

He basically said that us and all physical things are mirrored and represented by "higher truths" or "representations" in another dimension.

So even when we die. Although obviously we don't exist anymore. Our higher essence still and always exists in a higher form.

Just saying what plato would say.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Raoul Duke]

I just hope we aren't powering a battery for some drunk a**hole, who burps all the time.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

Musk is rich and successful but it doesn't mean he isn't a wacko nerd who thinks we live in the matrix.

One of my points is that deducing that we may be in a simulation does not mean someone is a "wacko".

 

[TonyStark]

Would you live your life any differently if it was?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[csalvato]

We are not living a simulation. Debunked decades ago (in internet years.)

Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation | Cosmos

Did you read the article you posted? This is a direct quote from that article:

There is a caveat to this conclusion: if our universe is a simulation, there is no reason that the laws of physics should apply outside it. In the words of Zohar Ringel, the lead author of the paper, “Who knows what are the computing capabilities of whatever simulates us?”

This conclusion is stating that our simulator, should one exist, is confined to the same laws of physics to which we are confined. That's nonsensical.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

I don’t think I even agree with that. Have you seen some of these women?

social engineering is too advanced for you guys

indulge us

 

[MJ DeMarco]

These posts have been extracted from the ELON MUSK thread into their own thread, seeing they have taken on a life of their own.

Carry on...

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[AFMKelvin]

Well if the Indians are right, you'll reincarnate based on what you don in this life.

Why do they have format our hard drives tho.



I was literally just writing the same thing as you posted. Do you know of any other groups of people having a mechanical view of the world?

Also, by that argument, we can even say the main religions believe in a Programmer. We're just all calling it by a different name. Does it even have to be an actual person. We're just attributing human characteristics because that's all we know.

However, in reality as we understand it, both sides, for and against the simulation theory are weak.

A recent paper concludes that because quantum mechanics would be impossible to simulate due to its high complexity, we cannot possibly be in a computer.

Then you have people like S. James Gates who thinks he's found error correcting computer code in the equations that describe our universe. ....in string theory that is. Which hasn't made any significant progress for a long time.

The original argument by the man himself:

His second idea seems the least-plausible, given human nature.

Therefore, we're either going to die or prove with near certainty that we live in a simulation.

Yes there's another group that have this mechanical worldview, scientists.

I don't think we're attributing human characteristics to this programmer because we can see the laws he has layed down on this universe in nature. For example the Finobacci sequence, polarity, fractals, exponentials. It's more like humans are atributted the characteristics of the programmer.

At the end of the day both materialist and spiritualists are both trying to explain this reality. One explains with spiritual words the other one with scientific words. One is focused on the macro scale the other on the micro scale. One likes the whole the other the details. But they are just two sides of the same coin.

The "truths" of this universe are lost in translation.

 

[PedroG]

No one is asking "why". Why would higher beings run a simulation. What is the purpose of spending so much energy running simulations?

To test and observe things that would otherwise take a very, very long time. Imagine being able to test and observe the effects that a certain food preservative would have on a population after consuming it for 40 years, and being able to get the answer within minutes.

Or being able to run social experiments that last 200 years, but in the real world, would complete within hours.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

I think a question to ask is how is it possible that humans are even capable of understanding the universe in the first place?

If we are a product of evolution doesn't that mean that theres intelligence intrinsic to nature? So now that us understanding things is the same thing as nature understanding things. Almost like a mirror.

So it's almost like saying yes we created the simulation cause nature did as well.

Basically yes.

We are the way the universe understands itself.

If you compare the kind of atoms we are made of, to the rest of the universe, we match.

I cant find the exact numbers right now, but for example. The % of Carbon we observe in the universe, is the same % that comprises our bodies. (Discounting helium b/c that doesn't want to play nice)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

I don’t think we’re living in a simulation. Why? Because this game freaking sucks. Any halfway decent programmer could have made a better app than this.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

I don’t think we’re living in a simulation. Why? Because this game freaking sucks. Any halfway decent programmer could have made a better app than this.

At least the graphics are good.

 

[CROJosh]

Maybe, but does it matter? It doesn't change what we do or how we do it, nor how or what we'll do in the future.

Everything goes on forever in every direction, from the universe to quarks- what exists is only limited by the tools we have to observe it, not to mention we have no clue as to why or how things exist within the systems that they do.

Also when you consider that we only get about 80 years to wrap our minds around this shit you start to realize that there isn't one answer and we're probably not supposed to dissect or even comprehend it all.

As it relates to business: I think the fascination with simulations is due to people wanting a cheat code, an advantage or secret knowledge that they're privvy to that others aren't. No harm in seeking but they're barking up the wrong tree for that.

Real cheat code: Human nature hasn't changed. What we love, hate and fear is the same as it's always been and it's not going to change. Understand that we're ALL emotional bags of meat driven by survival who desperately want to be something more and you have the fundamental knowledge for all the money and power you could want.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[rogue synthetic]

Don't forget Spinoza. Probably the closest thing in philosophy you can get to the idea of simulated reality.

If sense-perception is not the way to true knowledge and freedom then what is? Does that mean our experiences have the metaphysical status of an illusion? That must mean our mind is connected to higher intelligence because we can't trust the sensory instruments of your body. True knowledge is mirroring ideas as they occur in "nature".

Berkeley is the better option for an IV-drip of pure unrefined Idealism. Spinoza is harder to nail down on this (he is arguably not affirming either idealism or materialism in the ordinary meaning) and he's not nearly as accessible to a lay reader.

I'm not sure what you mean by "way to true knowledge and freedom". If you mean that you want some belief that could never be proven false no matter what, well, good luck -- we've been looking for that for at least 2500 years (that we know of) and nobody has come close to a good candidate. Anything you say is beyond doubt is a giant bull's eye for the next guy, who is going to say "prove it".

To use a little jargon, you're either facing an infinite regress -- the questioning can go on forever -- or a circularity -- you define one term by another term, and that term by the first term.

But I wonder why you would want this kind of security in your beliefs. You have all kinds of contact with the world, through vision, smell, touch, even the feeling that your body is oriented upright, that there are some things near you, other things you'll have to move to grab or touch, and on.

None of that amounts to things you believe. Most of it is unconscious, until you read the words and directed your attention to the feelings. It's all a mode of experience that has to be there for you to even develop language and ask the question in the first place.

What would it mean for that to be an illusion?

More importantly, why would you begin to question it?

Going even deeper, how could you question it if you didn't already suppose a whole lot of things -- like the ability to form sentences and ask questions?

Think less in terms of the big metaphysical or epistemological questions and start closer to home: what would you have to think about yourself, about human beings, for these worries to become worries?

Read some of the speculation about the mind, especially in pop-culture treatements from cognitive and neuroscientific theorists, and you will be startled at how close it is to the theories of psychology you'll read in Descartes, or Hobbes, or Luther or Calvin for that matter.

Wouldn't it be strange if the best picture we can paint of the mind even with all the shiny tools we have now doesn't look conceptually different from the cutting edges in the 17th century?

Skepticism is a possibility because of what is assumed about how the mind must work and what knowledge could be.

What would it mean if you didn't have to imagine the mind as a disembodied blob that only knows the world through some special point of contact called "knowledge" or "sensation"?