Are We Living In a Computer Simulation?

[Leoreth]

All those other universes don't change anything about that

They do if you make a probabilistic argument.

It's like me saying the number you're thinking of is 4.13 because it's possible to think of the number 4.13.

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

There should be an "unselfawarely" in there somewhere.

 

[gay_Aleks]

the last thing I'd want geeks doing is making religion

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

Yes but you're talking about how we would simulate loads of other universes inside our universe, and would probably make at least one like ours. This doesn't help us deduce anything about outside reality at all. My point is that, when/if we get to simulating possible universes then the number of universes different to ours is likely to exceed those the same as ours, so from that point of view any simulated reality is more likely than not to not match actual reality. Hence if we're simulated, we're more likely than not to not match the outside universe. But if we don't, then the logic breaks down because the whole chain of reasoning is based on our physical reality behaving like the real thing, which doesn't seem likely. So the whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Ryika]

They do if you make a probabilistic argument.

No, why would they? If we're trying to assess whether we're "simulated" or "real" then the only scenarios that count are the ones that can support our existence in the first place.

It's like me saying the number you're thinking of is 4.13 because it's possible to think of the number 4.13.

No, it's like having a pool of numbers equal to the number of existing universes. We currently have 1 universe with sentient beings that we can know of. Add our first simulated universe and that's 2 universes that you can choose from.

If you can choose between 1 and 2 then me saying that you're thinking of the number 1 has a 50/50 Chance.

If you then add more simulated universes with sentient life (X) you end up with 1 + X amount of universes, so the more universes we simulate the more likely it becomes for us to guess whether a universe is simulated or not; we simply assume it's simulated and will be right more often than not.

All the simulated universes that cannot support sentient life don't matter at all because they don't have sentient life that could even question their universe. They are removed from the pool of possibilities simply due to the fact that it is impossible for us to live in such a universe.

(Of course that's not to say that I've changed my opinion on the whole thing, I still think that due to the limitations in my first post (and those mentioned by other people) it is not possible to come to any conclusion this way.)

 

[Perfection]

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.

I am familiar with the works of David Chalmers, Nick Bostrom, and Max Tegmark. They are definitely high end and I think they all have very interesting things to say.. They all engage in pretty speculative ideas but they don't do it dishonestly. They'll flat admit the speculative nature. Max Tegmark puts his ideas on his crazy page: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

One thing to remember with this is that simulation argument isn't their central work. The simulation argument is based on Anthropic Reasoning. Anthropic reasoning is (arguably) an important tool in deriving testable predictions from theories that involve our own existence or the existence of beings like us (applications are generally in cosmology, fundamental physics, evolutionary theory and futurology). But if we are to use anthropic reasoning then by its own methodology we must account for such possibilities as living in computer simulations.

The "proof" they offer seems rather dubious to me at best.

At this point, noone would contest the speculative nature of their work. What they do is make some compelling arguments that if you look at it a certain way support it. Analyzing these arguments is, in my opinion, a worthwhile pursuit.

Nick Bostrom's Webpage on the topic which includes his famous Are You Living a Computer Simulation? article.

I also reccomend his Closer to Truth video which has a good interview on some of his views.

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.

Seeing technology in the cosmos does have quite the tradition, the cosmic clockwork of Newton's day is an interesting one.

Though, I will say for computer programs things are little different. Because computer programs are fundamentally mathematical objects instantiated in the physical world. They seem different from physical objects like chairs.

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?

These are important questions as well! A complication of the simulation argument is what kind of simulation we are living in!

It is foreseeable that a sufficiently advanced society should be able make a computer big enough for an ancestor simulation. To think of it another way. Let's say we can make a computer that has the computing power to weight ratio equivalent to a human brain. Consider the mass of all human brains on the planet. At 1.5kg and 7 billion people that puts us at about 10Tg (a little bigger than the great pyramid of Giza). Then maybe make it 100x so that the computer is smart enough to trick us. That ballparks us at a petagram - which is around the combined annual food production of Europe and Africa. A very advanced civilization could arguably pull off many times this amount of computing power.

But that's only if we're talking about ancestor simulations. We could also be simulated by other being with other physical laws. Perhaps for them, computing us is very simple. In fact it isn't particularly hard to make a program that will simulate us given enough computing power (you just need a program that systematically makes programs - we probably can't do it because our physics appears to set strong limits on the size of computers - but in another universe with different laws that could not be the case).

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

You musn't misunderstand those who talk about simulation argument as really believing they live in a simulation. They mostly are concerned with analyzing the possibility. In my mind they at least give some compelling reasons not to rule it out.

I don't think the idea can be readily dismissed by Occam's razor. We already postulate the existence of universes and simulations. We aren't really postulating a new kind of magical thing but a remix of known existing things (albeit with some elaboration). The consequences of pursuing that idea are weird, but that's hardly grounds for dismissal.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that asking 'do we live in a computer simulation' is (a bit) like asking if number X is tied to something of note, without defining what 'of note is', and having X remain a number. By which i mean that much like the number sqr-root2 may be very crucial in a set math exercise in a test, it can have next to no particular significance in the next one. Despite having stable traits regardless of set exercise (it is irrational for example).
So, whether we are a computer simulation is not by itself as crucial imo, as whether anything can actually realise it/they are a computer simulation even if they were. I doubt we would. For starters, "nature loves to hide itself" (as Heraklitos noted), and so we only see our own mental chasms in anything not evident in what we observe. We are not identifying objects in any way external to our senses and mental world, so even if the objects are computer programs, we have zero ability to note that either way.

As for whether i deem it as more or less likely that we are such a thing...: Well, i don't know. Yet even if one could know positively that we were (hypothetical), that would not mean much for us, given we cannot sense that reality. At least if we take this as a parallel; i mean no computer routine can actually get outside of the computer and run ( ) in your room.

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.

 

[CavLancer]

If a rock that's thrown at my windshield is made of a solid substance or 1s and 0s its still going to break glass and draw down my checking account.

Just interesting to imagine the possibilities. Also if the proof can be filled out it makes a difference in the creation argument. Certainly the Civ game I'm playing starts in 4000 BC, there's no reason why a simulation has to really have a deep past.