Are We Living In a Computer Simulation?

[Gary Childress]

NEW YORK—If you, me and every person and thing in the cosmos were actually characters in some giant computer game, we would not necessarily know it. The idea that the universe is a simulation sounds more like the plot of “The Matrix,” but it is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Researchers pondered the controversial notion Tuesday at the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate here at the American Museum of Natural History.

Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said. He noted the gap between human and chimpanzee intelligence, despite the fact that we share more than 98 percent of our DNA. Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-computer-simulation/?WT.mc_id=SA_BS_20160408

Sort of a weird article from Scientific American I think. Apparently a bunch of "high end" thinkers got together and are seriously pondering whether we are actually living in a computer simulation.

The "proof" they offer seems rather dubious to me at best. It seems to me almost like the contemporary version of Greek mythology, only instead of the sun being pulled across the sky by a great chariot, it's all part of a computer program now. It seems like we humans become so fascinated by our own inventions that we begin to place them everywhere in our understanding of things.

I would have to wonder, if we are living in a computer simulation, then what are the ones running the simulation living in? At some point there needs to be a "real" world for computers to exist in order to run simulated worlds. and how sophisticated would a computer or computer program need to be in order to simulate EVERYTHING in a logically consistent manner?

Anyway, this whole hypothesis really sounds like a lot of bunk to me. It also seems to violate Occam's razor I would think.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Juan In A Million was a pretty well shot movie, too bad everything else about it was bad.

 

[Synobun]

I don't think the answer to this question -- or the pursuit of it -- is really relevant to today's society. I would have said the same had I been alive a couple thousand years ago if Aristotle asked his disciples what they should do about internet copyright law. It'll be important one day but that day is not today.

 

[Ryika]

Anyway, this whole hypothesis really sounds like a lot of bunk to me. It also seems to violate Occam's razor I would think.

How would Occam's razor even work in that scenario? The simulated universe hypothesis does not try to explain or give a reason for anything, there can't be an "easier explanation" for something that doesn't try to explain anything in the first place.

What the simulated universe hypothesis deals with is the idea that, if we manage to simulate a whole universe with what could be considered sentient beings, then the likelihood that we ourselves are a simulated universe becomes extremely high because each simulated universe could run an incredible amount of simulated universes and the amount of "real" universes compared to simulated universes could become very tiny.

However, I don't really see what great debate potential currently lies in that idea. First of all, while we assume that it's probably possible, we are nowhere near being able to run a fully simulated universe, so we really have no hard data about the possibilities to build upon. The very foundation are assumptions about what should be possible, and everything build on that just becomes more and more vague.

And secondly there's still a big problem that I hardly ever see addressed: If a simulated universe within a simulated universe within a simulated universe within a simulated universe is running a simulation of a universe then that universe and all universes in-between would still run on and be limited by the hardware of the "real" universe. So even if we manage to simulate a universe it seems to me like we can't make a prediction on how likely we are to live in a simulation until we actually manage to put up the hardware requirements to run a simulated universe in that universe and then run a simulated universe in that simulated universe etc.

Because at the point where we can say that simulating a universe is possible we ourselves are not just a possible "simulated universe" anymore, we are a "simulated universe that simulates a universe" - which we can't simulate yet. And that paradox goes on forever, we can never prove that we could be simulated because we are always an instance ahead of what we can simulate.

And of course even if we could do that we currently still have no way of knowing whether life in such a simulated universe would truly be sentient (we still don't even know what sentience even is exactly), so it may very well be that with all the potential of simulating universes being given the only way of existing in a self-aware state is really in a non-simulated universe.

A lot of questions that in my opinion make any serious debate bound to have little to no actual answers in the end. In the end... I'm just a random person, so what do I know, but... there's a reason why that debate is led by philosophers.

 

[Gary Childress]

Occam's Razor would apply in the sense that we would be explaining the world we live in by adding additional complication to it. I see a piece of paper in front of me and it seems "real" to me. It's there because I remember placing it on my desk a few days ago. If I speculate further that it's actually all in a computer program then I am adding additional complication in explaining things.

Assuming that it is even possible to create consciousness in a computer simulation is purely speculative as well.

 

[schlaufuchs]

It's all an elaborate ruse so some supergenius can get us to power the battery in his car, presumably with stationary bikes and stairclimbers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If we were it would be much better done. For instance, I can name a bunch of people who would have been subjected to the delete key.

 

[Zkribbler]

This is just a rehash of that old Realism vs. Idealism debate that's been around since the Renaissance, or arguably, since Aristotle.

 

[Commodore]

If we were it would be much better done. For instance, I can name a bunch of people who would have been subjected to the delete key.

Unless the creators of the simulation want things to be as they are for some reason. Or maybe they just created the simulation and then just observe how it develops with minimal intervention.

EDIT: I saw something of an offshoot to this theory that states not only is this a simulation, but also an MMO and we are all characters controlled by some entity.

 

[gay_Aleks]

And if it is...?

 

[Nexlev]

I have a message for our alien overlords: take your computer simulation and SHOVE IT UP YOUR *SS!

Seriously though, if they are sooooo GD superior, then they don't need primitive technology like a hard drive. We very well could be a figment of their sphincter, their imaginations being devoted to more important matters

 

[CavLancer]

Yes, we are living in a simulation. The question is, why? Is this God's creation? Did we get put here or choose this? Are we in deep sleep traveling between galaxies and the simulation keeps our minds sharp life after life 'on Earth'? I don't think that's it but my point is, who knows? Are we the progeny of a super advanced civilization and they are trying to winnow out those with undesirable traits? Did we do something wrong, get our super intellects erased and put here as civilized form of punishment? Is this a desirable vacation destination we paid loads of credits for or a training course in humility and patience for beings who have everything?

Its something, that's for certain. Keep the faith or go nuts wondering. Maybe it will all become clear when we die. I believe how we lived will make some sort of difference. Was Jesus the programmer?

I expect to be in a really boring job soon if I'm lucky, and this train of thought might get some attention.

 

[Leoreth]

From the article:

Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said. He noted the gap between human and chimpanzee intelligence, despite the fact that we share more than 98 percent of our DNA. Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.”

I didn't check if he was misquoted or quote mined here but for someone who is a vocal opponent to intelligent design this is a really embarrassing way to phrase the discussion. Well most scientists tackling philosophical questions end up being embarrassing, but still.

The whole thing really sounds like an age old debate reframed in imagery and vocabulary that feel contemporary, like Zkribbler notes. I just wonder if the people having these debates are aware of this.

What the simulated universe hypothesis deals with is the idea that, if we manage to simulate a whole universe with what could be considered sentient beings, then the likelihood that we ourselves are a simulated universe becomes extremely high because each simulated universe could run an incredible amount of simulated universes and the amount of "real" universes compared to simulated universes could become very tiny.

In my view this is the only argument that has any strength. It relies on the Copernican principle (humanity's position in the cosmos is average, not privileged) and applies that to statistical analysis.

The problem with that is that you can use it to predict a couple of things, for instance that it is very likely that humanity will become extinct very soon. Leaves very little time to propagate that turtles all the way down simulated reality pyramid, doesn't it?

Obviously the doomsday argument is controversial even among statistical mathematicians, but by extension the same should apply to this simulated reality argument.

My main problem is that the Copernican principle is just an assumption. It's nothing but our admission of ignorance of what humanity's position in the cosmos actually is. Simply assuming it is true and calculate from there puts a significant prior on your result, making any prediction not much more than conjecture.

 

[CavLancer]

Unless the creators of the simulation want things to be as they are for some reason. Or maybe they just created the simulation and then just observe how it develops with minimal intervention.

EDIT: I saw something of an offshoot to this theory that states not only is this a simulation, but also an MMO and we are all characters controlled by some entity.

Yes, the whole 'free will' argument. Are our decisions made and we just realize them? Fun stuff. Evidence suggests we are puppets in strings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqCCcmNPJTg

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If we were it would be much better done.

I thought the same way about Civ V at first.

 

[Borachio]

Well, I dunno, do I?

How would I go about finding out whether or not I'm living in a computer simulation? And what would I do if I were? Or weren't?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The very concept of a "computer simulation" comes out of our understanding of the world we live in. In order to assume we might be in one we have to presume that the "real world" is built around all the same physical laws and processes that our simulation is built upon, which we can't possibly know or assume. This is particularly true because I'm pretty sure that as soon as we have the capability to run fully detailed simulations of the universe, the first thing we'll try is running loads of different variations of physical constants to see what sort of universes are produced, so by that reasoning the balance of probability would be that we are living in a reality that does NOT match the outside reality. So we can't make any kind of statistical claim as to how likely we are to be in a simulation since that reasoning would only be based on the laws of the simulation itself, not the laws of actual reality of which we know, and can know, nothing.

So the minute you assume you might be living in a simulation, you no longer have any reasonable grounds for making the assumption in the first place.

 

[Leoreth]

Exactly. I'm not sure if this goes all the way around to circular reasoning but most arguments for simulated reality I have come across have the following pattern:

1) We observe property A in our universe.
2) If we ran a simulation of a universe, we would make sure to give it property A.
3) Since our universe has property A, it is likely a simulation.

Your example shows that (2) isn't even necessarily true but even then it's sort of begging the question.

Another problem is that we make a priori statements how entities in an external universe would behave to support the conclusion that we are in their simulation, but those statements depend on observations about our own universe that we transfer to the creators of the simulation only by virtue of the fact that our universe is their creation.

Arguments that mostly depend on the configuration of our universe alone ("we found our universe is based on rules and math and shows algorithmic patterns, just like the models and simulations we build!") are even weaker because we deliberately use rules, math and algorithms to model and simulate reality. The universe resembles a simulation because the goal of every simulation is to simulate (a part of) reality. Duh.

 

[Ryika]

This is particularly true because I'm pretty sure that as soon as we have the capability to run fully detailed simulations of the universe, the first thing we'll try is running loads of different variations of physical constants to see what sort of universes are produced, so by that reasoning the balance of probability would be that we are living in a reality that does NOT match the outside reality.

This is incorrect though. It really doesn't matter how many universes we create that are different from ours, the fact that we can create universes that are exactly like ours already means that we will be creating universes that are like ours. We will at least create 1 (otherwise we would not know that we can do it), so from the observable universes that would be available to us the amount of possibly real universes would already be 50%. Even if we then proceed to create 10000 universes that are different from ours without creating a second one that is similar to ours the amount of possibly real universes that are like ours would still be 50%, because we are possibly real, the other universe that we created ages ago is not.

All those other universes don't change anything about that, if anything they would feed into the possibility of us not being real if we manage to spawn universes that are different from ours but still produce what we think is sentient life. After all there is no "rule" that a universe has to be like ours, it just has to be a universe that works and produces sentience that is similar to ours. And "failed universes" don't reduce the real-to-simulated-ratio.

 

[innonimatu]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-computer-simulation/?WT.mc_id=SA_BS_20160408

Sort of a weird article from Scientific American I think. Apparently a bunch of "high end" thinkers got together and are seriously pondering whether we are actually living in a computer simulation.

Abstract: bunch of geeks gather to reinvent religion to their spec.