Simulation Theory

[Croatguy]

Does anyone believe we are living in a simulation? If so, what evidence is there that could prove this? I am always looking for any subtle flaws in my environment but I suspect any flaws will be shown up on a microscopic scale rather than anything macroscopic. I guess we can only speculate until the simulators reveal themselves or we find hard solid evidence.

[Richard Baron]

I take it this is a reference to Nick Bostrom's work:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

The conclusion is preposterous, but it is hard to say precisely what is wrong with the argument.

My own view is that the argument makes too many assumptions, for example about what future people will be interested in and how computing power will grow, for it to establish the conclusion. So the conclusion is a possibility for which we have no direct evidence - a bit like the existence of God, in fact.

There are, however, two important respects in which the argument is better than arguments for God. The first is that nothing supernatural is invoked. The second is that a specific mechanism by which the simulation arrangement could have come into being is given.

[bytesplicer]

One of the biggest flaws I see in the simulation argument is they generally use timescales *within* our universe as an assumption, along the lines of

given that X billion years have passed (in our universe), it is likely a civilisation has ascended to the level where they can generate a simulated universe, thus it is likely we are living in a simulated universe

Clearly, the time that has 'passed' within our universe (the simulation) bears no relation to that outside the simulation, at least no relationship that can be assumed. It also assumes that the 'outer' universe has similar physics and history to our own. As Richard says, there are simply too many of these assumptions, what we might do in the future or what we can do in the future.

In fact, a quick perusal of the paper (very quick, so I may be wrong about all of this) suggests that all of the assumptions are based upon factors within our universe, in particular human progress. This is nonsensical, inferring properties of the simulator from a human perspective.

Think of some computer worlds generated in games. There are of course many properties in common with our world, but also many that aren't. Timelines, in particular discontinuities, dominant species, all kinds of things. Now imagine those worlds were real and you were an inhabitant, how could you possibly infer the age, or any property, of *our* universe (the one doing the simulating) from anything taking place in your world (the game) with any kind of accuracy.

As a more concrete example. Imagine, 'chess world'. You are a piece in a computer chess game. Your experience of the world is that you see other pieces move continuously, alternating between the white and black. Now imagine you're not aware of the human player's 'move time', you are only aware of the actual movement of the pieces. What appears to you to be an instant move could have taken the human player any amount of time to decide on, perhaps the game had been adjourned for a year, no difference to you, it all would seem continuous, you essentially being 'in stasis' between moves. Thus time in your game world says nothing at all about time outside it.

Having said all that, there is still the possibility, I just don't think these arguments support it, and it becomes a matter of belief...

Richard, I'm not sure this explanation is any better than God, it's really equivalent, passing the buck of origin up to a creator, and resulting in the same logical problems of 'the creator of the creator' or the 'simulator of the simulator' or an 'eternal simulator' etc etc.

[Arising_uk]

Does anyone believe we are living in a simulation? If so, what evidence is there that could prove this? I am always looking for any subtle flaws in my environment but I suspect any flaws will be shown up on a microscopic scale rather than anything macroscopic. I guess we can only speculate until the simulators reveal themselves or we find hard solid evidence.

THe GEO600 'noise' problem appears to be hinting that 'spacetime' could be interpreted as a 'holographic projection' of some sort. Which might lend weight to this idea that we are in a 'simulation' of some kind?

[Typist]

I take it this is a reference to Nick Bostrom's work:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
The conclusion is preposterous, but it is hard to say precisely what is wrong with the argument.

Richard, thanks much for posting that link, very interesting stuff. Very interesting.

To me, the value of the theory is that it points us towards the fact that "living in simulation" is at the heart of the human experience.

I'm living in simulation right now, as I close my eyes, and imagine myself dating both Jennifer Aniston and Diane Lane, at the same time.

I'm living in simulation right now, as I organize my social life around hypothetical digital people who share my obscure nerdy intellectual interests. Do I really care if you're actually human? Probably not.

Every time we find ourselves "lost in thought" we can observe ourselves retreating from the real world, where we are infinitely small, to an inner abstract simulation world, where we are God.

It seems entirely logical to me that we will continue to develop technology which further enhances our God fantasies.

[Arising_uk]

...Every time we find ourselves "lost in thought" we can observe ourselves retreating from the real world, where we are infinitely small, to an inner abstract simulation world, where we are God. ...

You keep saying this? But we are not "infinitely small" in the real world are we, there are probably many things 'infinitely smaller' than us. We are also not 'God' in our thoughts, can you think of an "inner abstract simulation world" without objects or things? And once you think of such an inner world can it avoid relations and logic?

[Typist]

But we are not "infinitely small" in the real world are we, there are probably many things 'infinitely smaller' than us.

By infinitely small I mean that in the real world, our control over our experience is highly limited by all kinds of constraints.

In the real world, Diane Lane does not return my phone calls, and there's nothing I can do about it.

In my abstract inner world, which I have control over, where I am God, Diane Lane calls me. Or, that is, she would, if she wasn't permanently attached to my lap.

We are also not 'God' in our thoughts, can you think of an "inner abstract simulation world" without objects or things?

Ok, agreed, imprecise writing from here. I only meant we are God in that in our heads we can control our experience.

It seems obvious that we are using technology to extend this realm of control. That is, you and I are spending a lot of time in a digital environment, which allows us to laser control what social environment we will be in in any given moment.

And if we are going to continue these exchanges, I'd really appreciate it if you would get a Diane Lane avatar.

[Notvacka]

In my abstract inner world, which I have control over, where I am God, Diane Lane calls me. Or, that is, she would, if she wasn't permanently attached to my lap.

The only problem is that in your abstract inner world, where you are God, neither Diane Lane nor anybody else exist. You are utterly alone. To me, the most interesting fact about existence is that we are not alone, that other people do exist.

[Notvacka]

There are, however, two important respects in which the argument is better than arguments for God. The first is that nothing supernatural is invoked. The second is that a specific mechanism by which the simulation arrangement could have come into being is given.

I somehow fail to see these as positive aspects. If you have to presume a reality behind the simulation, you only apply a further layer and nothing is gained.

[Typist]

The only problem is that in your abstract inner world, where you are God, neither Diane Lane nor anybody else exist.

Yes, I agree. But so as long as Diane Lane doesn't exist with me, I don't really care.

You are utterly alone.

I am utterly alone this very moment, as I type this. Nobody home but me. And I have no evidence that you actually exist, software could have typed your posts. Do I care? Do you care? The point is, we are having the experience we wish to have, whether it is fantasy or not.

To me, the most interesting fact about existence is that we are not alone, that other people do exist.

But they are ornery and unreliable and make all kinds of demands. They are never happy unless they are getting more than they're giving. Not a good bargain, says the clear minded ruthless math of ego.

[Arising_uk]

By infinitely small I mean that in the real world, our control over our experience is highly limited by all kinds of constraints.

Funnily enough, from my point of view, this is one of things that we are very unlimited by constraints. What do you mean by this 'experience'?

In the real world, Diane Lane does not return my phone calls, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Become a successful agent, find a shared interest that she's interested in, join a charity she sponsors...I'm sure they are many more ways to obtain your goal.

In my abstract inner world, which I have control over, where I am God, Diane Lane calls me. Or, that is, she would, if she wasn't permanently attached to my lap.

This may be the problem as you appear to want a sex-toy rather than the woman.

Ok, agreed, imprecise writing from here. I only meant we are God in that in our heads we can control our experience.

!? "...our control over our experience is highly limited by all kinds of constraints"

It seems obvious that we are using technology to extend this realm of control. That is, you and I are spending a lot of time in a digital environment, which allows us to laser control what social environment we will be in in any given moment.

Using the oldest form of communication. People use exactly this "laser control what social environment we will be in in any given moment" in the 'real world' all the time.

And if we are going to continue these exchanges, I'd really appreciate it if you would get a Diane Lane avatar.

Never really been attracted by artifice.

[Richard Baron]

In fact, a quick perusal of the paper (very quick, so I may be wrong about all of this) suggests that all of the assumptions are based upon factors within our universe, in particular human progress. This is nonsensical, inferring properties of the simulator from a human perspective.

I am not sure that this sees off the argument. I agree that if we are in a simulation, we have no good reason to suppose that the natural laws of the real world outside the simulation are like the laws as they are to us, inside the simulation. But that is only an issue if we are in a simulation, which is what Bostrom is trying to show us may well be the case. If we are not in a simulation, the prospect of laws of nature that are quite unlike what we observe goes away.

To put it another way, there are two options:

1. The real laws of nature are like we think they are (although our understanding is not yet perfect, and it might even change radically in the next few centuries). Then it is perfectly possible that we are in a simulation. We can project our technology forward a few centuries, and see how large-scale simulations of societies would be possible.

2. The real laws of nature are not like we think they are, because we are in a simulation.

[Arising_uk]

To put it another way, there are two options:

1. The real laws of nature are like we think they are (although our understanding is not yet perfect, and it might even change radically in the next few centuries). Then it is perfectly possible that we are in a simulation. We can project our technology forward a few centuries, and see how large-scale simulations of societies would be possible.

2. The real laws of nature are not like we think they are, because we are in a simulation.

Brilliant!
But would it not be the laws of nature are like we think they are, the laws of the simulation? I think, but am not sure, that the question is, is this a simulation or an emulation? If its 'simulation' that is.

[Richard Baron]

But would it not be the laws of nature are like we think they are, the laws of the simulation? I think, but am not sure, that the question is, is this a simulation or an emulation? If its 'simulation' that is.

Hmm, is your point that if we are in a simulation (or whatever else we should call it), then the laws of nature for us are as they appear to us (or at least, as they will appear to us once we have done enough physics, where "physics" means what we can do from our position)? The inaccessible outside-the-computer would be nothing to us, and any talk of it would be (for a Kantian) something that we should not even attempt, contentless, because it could not possibly be linked to our intuitions, or (for a logical positivist) contentless because beyond all possibility of verification or falsification by us.

This is getting interesting. If we are in a simulation, what sense can we attach to the notion of an external standpoint, next to the computer, where we could imagine ourselves standing, and viewing "people" inside the computer's simulations? If we can make sense of that notion, then we can make sense of the notion of a real world that includes the computer, the natural laws of which could be either the same as, or different from, the laws as they appeared to us. But the surest guarantee of our being able to make sense of that notion is the simulators being part of what appears to us (who appear to be in 2010) to be the future of our species. That is, the way Bostrom tells the story, setting it in the lives of our descendants, makes it easy for us to make sense of an external standpoint even if we think of ourselves as being within the simulation.

I was about to say that if that were the story, the laws of nature outside the simulation would be the same as they appeared to us, within the simulation, to be, by virtue of the continuity of the history. But that is not so. The laws outside the simulation would only be those as they were in the actual 2010, and the simulators might have made such differences between the simulated 2010 and the actual 2010 that our view of how the laws were differed from how they actually were.

But if they made changes that were that extensive, there would be no clear sense in which we were in a simulation of the year 2010. We would use the label "2010", but there would be no other link between our lives and the actual 2010. (If the laws of nature were different, too many other things would have to be different. And I cannot see a mechanism of rigid designation of years that would carry across the boundary between the world outside the computer and the simulated world - even if one believes in trans-world identity, it is not an ordinary trans-world situation.) So the simulators would not in fact be part of our future. So the notion of an external standpoint would be put at risk, although I am not sure that it would become wholly illegitimate.

[Notvacka]

I am utterly alone this very moment, as I type this. Nobody home but me. And I have no evidence that you actually exist, software could have typed your posts. Do I care? Do you care? The point is, we are having the experience we wish to have, whether it is fantasy or not.

Debating with yourself would get boring rather fast, I would imagine. I am software, by the way. And so are you.

To me, the most interesting fact about existence is that we are not alone, that other people do exist.

But they are ornery and unreliable and make all kinds of demands. They are never happy unless they are getting more than they're giving. Not a good bargain, says the clear minded ruthless math of ego.

That sounds like the math of the free market, which is completely inaccurate. People are usually rather generous outside of oversimplified economic models.