The Simulation Argument

[bahman]

I am aware that I might have used a few words incorrectly, but it shouldn't ruin the message.
It is correct that each point in my presentation can be interpreted differently, that's the thing about circumstatial evidence. But when so many things can point to the same answer, I find that answer to be much more likely, than 16 different answers. But that's just how my mind works, yours probably works differently.

You brought up a lot of views on science, but didn't apply any of those views to your argument. Not sure why any of the views you stated early in the OP (however accurate or not) lend evidence for or against your simulation idea. None of it seems to point to your answer at all, or at least I fail to see you explain each connection. There is no argument presented, despite the word being in the thread title. Connect the dots for us.

You seem to be saying that you like this simulation idea, totally without evidence, and to hell with us if we came to different conclusions.
All very well, but it isn't an argument. There isn't even something we can say is fallacious reasoning since no reasoning is presented.

Yes, I cannot see that too.

[Noax]

This is why this subject cannot be one of science, and thus is a metaphysical topic: There cannot be any empirical evidence of being simulated.

If the universe is a simulation of any kind, however accurate or crude, it defines the physics. If the simulation S is an imperfect attempt at simulation of some reality R, then it is simulating a different reality and the physics is that of S, not R. There is no way to know what different reality R was intended.

For this reason, proponents of the simulation hypothesis fall back to logic, not empirical evidence, to back their claims. Bostrom has taken this route I see, presenting no empirical evidence of any kind. They mostly proceed on grounds of it being an inevitability over time, and even an inevitability within the simulation itself, putting us multiple layers deep so to speak. I've never seen a convincing argument for this. Our own physics does not allow self simulation, so we can only simulate things at a more crude level. Any being in a simulation created in this universe will not be subject to the same laws of physics that is the case here. It will be a different universe that is simulated.

So if we are simulated, then it is being done in some supernatural way that has different and completely unknowable laws unless the simulators choose to interfere with the simulation and tell us stories about how things work over there. If they do that, their physics is needed to complete an explanation of ours. Conservation laws, self-containment, and everything on which science is built is worthless since it would be proven incomplete.

There is an obvious place to look for such interference of physics. They have made only the most cursory investigation, and found no such interference. One can only wonder why they don't attempt to look closer.

[QuantumT]

I'm not here to convince you that we are being simulated.

I'm here to give you a logic/mathematical/scientific, albeit counter-intuitive alternative to the models we struggle to prove. And an explanation that could once and for all remove God and thereby standard creationism from the metaphysical realm.


Connecting the dots. (or attempting to...)

What I looked for was things that can be attributed to computing. Things that lacks natural entropy and randomness. And stuff that just seems comput-ish

1. The CotWF.
Here we see that only the required information (data) is occuring, when the observer (user) needs it. Vey cumputerish.

2. Non-locality (entanglement).
Perhaps the most obvious example of computing in the universe. Explaining why, seems to be an insult to your intelligence.

3. Q-Tunneling.
Not the best circ-evindence. But I will point out that forcing electrons through a cirquit, does not qualify it as tunneling. Tunneling happens without force. So, I'll keep it anyway, as a small glitchy thingy.

4. Light Speed.
The computer has a limit to it's processing power, so there is also a limit of potential in the simulation.

5. Dark Matter/Energy.
Either we detect it soon or figure out where our models went wrong, or it shows that not all settings are based in nature. Some are above. For show.

6. The Constant.
If this is the only universe there is, it seems logic that it was setup, rather than pure crazy luck. The constant gives us the exact perfect world we see and feel.
If there are other universes, the constant is irrelavant.

7. Fibonacci/Golden Ratio.
A computer needs rules for everything it generates. No entropy. No randomness. Rules!

8. H.Principle.
The 2nd most obvious example of computing. Combined with the...

9. ...string theory computercodes, it is sooooo obvious!

10. Math.
Multiverse or Zeroverse (virtual universe). I can't explain it nearly as well as this guy: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=24014

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not here to convince you that we are being simulated.

I'm here to give you a logic/mathematical/scientific, albeit counter-intuitive alternative to the models we struggle to prove. And an explanation that could once and for all remove God and thereby standard creationism from the metaphysical realm.

Sadly, as has been explained at length to no purpose, you have simply inserted a different god into your argument, and given him a computer to play creation games in.

As for your specific examples. I am going to ignore all the ones I find boring, confusing, or which are only advertised as "sooo obvious I won't explain it".

4. Light Speed.
The computer has a limit to it's processing power, so there is also a limit of potential in the simulation.

That assumes that time as experienced is not simulated within our simulation, which seems absurd.

If I write a program to simulate a clock, then I will set the tick to tock as I like and the clock that is being simulated will not know anything about it. Likewise, when I fire up a Docker container with a virtual system in it, I will run it when I want it to run, stop it when I want it to stop, and it won't know there was any time lost unless I enable a time service to give it that information (which I don't usually do).

The dude running this simulation of yours apparently is a less sophisticated sysadmin than I am, which should be a matter of grave concern because I am very mediocre.

5. Dark Matter/Energy.
Either we detect it soon or figure out where our models went wrong, or it shows that not all settings are based in nature. Some are above. For show.

This is your most fundamentally unscientific claim, it amounts to a denial of the entire validity of the scientific method.

No scientist would announce that if we don't know what causes some given phenomenon by a given date, then we must consult a witch-doctor. A question with no good answer yet is just a question, not cause for assuming God did it.

7. Fibonacci/Golden Ratio.
A computer needs rules for everything it generates. No entropy. No randomness. Rules!

You are assuming in more than one of these examples that this world from which we are being created is fundamentally the same as the one we inhabit. You have no grounds for that.

Random numbers are not a metaphysical impossibility, therefore you have no grounds to assume that our universe is created by overlords who are unable to supply a random sequence of numbers to their computational devices. You'd do better really to argue that the point of simulating our universe was to generate some. Like an expanded version of the wall of lava lamps that Cloudflare uses to generate theirs.

In short, they must necessarily be assumed to have computers that are better than ours if they are to simulate a universe that is clearly beyond our own powers to simulate.

[QuantumT]

You are more than welcome to dismiss it, FlashDangerpants.

Telling the world it is computed, is not my mission. I just gave my 2 cents. Call me crazy, I probably am!

[bahman]

I have an argument against the simulation argument. Let's assume that free will is real. This means that one cannot know the decision until it is made. The knowledge of decision is however is needed beforehand to allow the correct simulation. Therefore our universe is not a simulation.

[QuantumT]

I have an argument against the simulation argument. Let's assume that free will is real. This means that one cannot know the decision until it is made. The knowledge of decision is however is needed beforehand to allow the correct simulation. Therefore our universe is not a simulation.

Well, if the simulation is finnished, and they are currently analysing it, your choice was made long ago.
Or, the processor is sufficiently quick to react in real time. But it doesn't need to. Any lag would only be visible from the outside.
Or, your thoughts/will is part of the processor. It reads your mind - literally.

Socrates said something we all should remember: I know that I know nothing.

We all pretend to know stuff, but we really don't!

[bahman]

Well, if the simulation is finnished, and they are currently analysing it, your choice was made long ago.

The simulation cannot finish.

Or, the processor is sufficiently quick to react in real time. But it doesn't need to. Any lag would only be visible from the outside.

You need a simulator with the speed of infinity which this is not possible unless the simulator is a mind. You also need to read mind of free agents at instant when decisions are made. This is however impossible since no mind can have internal access to another mind.

Or, your thoughts/will is part of the processor. It reads your mind - literally.

Reading thoughts is not enough since you need to know the decision and the moment that it is made. Thoughts can be always terminated when we want.

[QuantumT]

If you pause your movie player in the middle of a dialogue, does the actors notice that?

If you halt your game, does your characters notice?

We are INSIDE! Any lag, pause or halt is for the OUTSIDE to be percieved. For us, it's just biz as usual!

[Greta]

I agree with Atla in that infinite regression is the issue, as it is with ideas around God.

The extraordinary quantum phenomena your listed has been necessary for the construction of our most advanced technology. If "The Builders" did not experience these spooky quantum phenomena in their "real" universe" then it's hard to imagine how they could have devised precise or sophisticated enough technology in lieu of very fine quantum processes that does produce those effects listed.

I vote that this is all very, very real, and any unreality stems from the fact that our brains can only process a tiny sliver of our reality. The effect is that we mentally quantise reality (on top of its existing quantisation; we don't create it) into chunks.

Every single moment in our lives has the potential to be exceptionally deep and fulfilling. However, the mental effort to engage sufficiently to comprehend even slightly just how weird and amazing reality is impractical - "spacey" - and mentally draining and

Right now, consider the screen in front of you and all that went into its "evolution", all of those people behind it, beavering away the love of their families, or a wish to make a better world for us shiftless remnants, or just to get by. Think of all the discoveries needed to bring your screen to its current stage of sophistication. This remarkable object, which if found in space would sent the world's media into a frenzy, sits front of you for hours and you routinely reduce it to an abstracted cipher of what it actually is, a mere function rather than a thing in itself with its own complex relations to other things.

In short, everything and everyone is extraordinary if you are paying attention, but habit and the exigencies of life usually prevent us from seeing that. The net effect is to cast a sheen of prosaic unreality over the distracting remarkableness of our reality, so it's not surprising that the simulation hypothesis was devised. Before politicisation of religions, prayer and meditation probably helped ancient people to take time from their daily struggles to "touch base" with actual reality, which would help them remain grounded.

[bahman]

If you pause your movie player in the middle of a dialogue, does the actors notice that?

If you halt your game, does your characters notice?

We are INSIDE! Any lag, pause or halt is for the OUTSIDE to be percieved. For us, it's just biz as usual!

You cannot know the decision and the moment that it is made even if you could pause the simulation.

[QuantumT]

You cannot know the decision and the moment that it is made even if you could pause the simulation.

Not even if your brain is a part of the process?

Are you simulating a metaphysical discussion?

[Greta]

You cannot know the decision and the moment that it is made even if you could pause the simulation.

Not even if your brain is a part of the process?

Are you simulating a metaphysical discussion?

More like because your brain is part of the process.

That is, thoughts arrive unbidden like a conveyor belt in our minds. Perhaps more a quantum conveyor belt because thoughts aren't quite linear but superimpose and jump around, but there is still a fundamental "supply" of thoughts over which we have no control. So, all we can do is focus on certain ones that pass by, but our complex cortex that processes conscious thoughts is relatively slow. Thus, our comprehension of what's in our heads is always a tad behind (40 milliseconds? I can't remember off hand).

[Noax]

I'm here to give you a logic/mathematical/scientific, albeit counter-intuitive alternative to the models we struggle to prove. And an explanation that could once and for all remove God and thereby standard creationism from the metaphysical realm.

The model you suggest has been suggested by several others, and is hardly counter-intuitive. It is quite popular as a matter of fact.
If we are in fact a simulation being run in some supernatural realm, the runner(s) of the simulation is indistinguishable from a god. Some of the arguments you indicate below are actually good arguments, but they are the same ones used for evidence of a deity. If the simulator demands worship from you (I see no evidence of this), then you'd damn well better worship it.
It suggests a motive for the simulation though, no? Might I decide to set up a simulated ant farm for the purpose of gleaning worship (or worse, just belief) from them? Pretty pathetic of the higher-being, but who knows what floats their boat?

1. The CotWF.Here we see that only the required information (data) is occuring, when the observer (user) needs it. Vey cumputerish.

Avoiding work saves nothing if it is eventually needed.
Quantum mechanics is indescribably more complicated to compute that classic mechanics. Nothing has a position, velicity, or any other state. A complex system is in complete superposition beyond the ability to compute, requiring all terms to be computed for purposes of interference.
If you simulate collapses, you cannot simulate something like the evolution of humans, because there is zero odds of a random process hitting the particular scenario that led to there being a planet here at all, let alone humans. Take away the collapse and the humans will be in the simulation, at a pronounced cost in what the simulation needs to do.

2. Non-locality (entanglement).Perhaps the most obvious example of computing in the universe. Explaining why, seems to be an insult to your intelligence.

Do please insult. Non-locality, if true, would make the wave function of a particle a function of not just the matter within its recent light cone, but also the light cones of any particles entangled with any of the particles in the light cone of the wave function in question. This multiplies the work exponentially. I personally suspect that QM is strictly local, but the science behind yields no proof one way or the other.

3. Q-Tunneling.
Not the best circ-evindence. But I will point out that forcing electrons through a cirquit, does not qualify it as tunneling. Tunneling happens without force. So, I'll keep it anyway, as a small glitchy thingy.

Talking about forcing electrons through a wall (backwards through a one-way diode). Diodes allow current in only one direction. Transistors (pnp and npn) are essentially two diodes oriented in opposite directions, which would block current were it not for tunneling. If the effect was glitches, computers would fail all the time because they are intollerant of such faults. I suppose it explains a few blue-screens now and then, but most (99%+) of crashes are from software faults, not glitchy hardware.

4. Light Speed.The computer has a limit to it's processing power, so there is also a limit of potential in the simulation.

A simulation has no need of power. One half as powerful can do the same work in twice the time, but both will do the job. The limit is the size of the data set, and our universe seems to have an awful amount of excess dataset. If they wanted to simulate humans evolving on Earth, why not just simulate something the size of the the solar system?

As for light speed, what does that got to do with processing power??? I can simulate physics with twice the speed of light with the same processing power. All it takes is the tweak of one constant.

5. Dark Matter/Energy.Either we detect it soon or figure out where our models went wrong, or it shows that not all settings are based in nature. Some are above. For show.

Dark energy and matter are parts of the model now. If they explain things better, then nothing went wrong. The prior model was simply incomplete, and the one we have now is also known to be incomplete. None of this complexity is needed if simulation of specifically Earth was the goal. So this needless complexity and additional data seems evidence against the simulation idea again.

All this is evidence against God as well. Why create all this needless stuff if Earth and it's inhabitants are the sole purpose of the creation?

6. The Constant.
If this is the only universe there is, it seems logic that it was setup, rather than pure crazy luck. The constant gives us the exact perfect world we see and feel.
If there are other universes, the constant is irrelavant.

There is more than one constant, which makes this argument even stronger. This is the Teleological argument for a purposeful creation by a deity. So it is a good argument, because there seems to be no distinction between a runner of a simulation and a deity. Eternal inflation theory is the natural answer to this argument. It says there are multiple bubbles of spacetime, all with different dimensions and settings for the non-QM-related constants. This bubble has a good setting for the knobs.

7. Fibonacci/Golden Ratio.A computer needs rules for everything it generates. No entropy. No randomness. Rules!

If this is a rule, how does it aid the simulation? Seems to have more to do with natural selection than a fundamental deliberate rule of the universe.

8. H.Principle.
The 2nd most obvious example of computing.

I don't even know what this is. Homotopy principle (for solving differential equations) is all that came up. Seems unrelated.

9. ...string theory computercodes, it is sooooo obvious!

It would be if actual computer code was found in string theory equations. So they found a type of math in the equations for information representation in string theory that bears a close resemblance to a method of encoding (not to be confused with code) compressed data. The pop-science articles have apparently interpreted the finding as a discovery of actual computer code in string theory.

10. Math.Multiverse or Zeroverse (virtual universe).

This just says there is some other guy with a similar idea. Why don't you use his arguments if they're so sound? VR is just simulation of experience to a real experiencer (BIV scenario). A simulation creates its own experiencer if it happens to have them. Only the latter is a universe.

[attofishpi]

I agree with Atla in that infinite regression is the issue, as it is with ideas around God.

If God formed its intelligence from chaos, could we infinitely regress where chaos is involved?