Are we living in a simulation?

[Brewdog]

Someone who leans atheist believing we are in a simulation from a creator. Think bigger.

Maybe our creator is ourselves. We just don't know it yet.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument assumes "that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed."

In other words what Nick Bostrom is talking about in his Simulation Argument is the ethics of human enhancement technologies. If you take the technologically enhanced "posthuman" part out of his argument, Bostrom then has no argument. It then becomes obvious that the Simulation Argument is actually something that Nick Bostrom came up with to defend Transhumanism. Bostrom talks in more detail in his defense of posthuman dignity.

"From the transhumanist standpoint, there is no need to behave as if there were a deep moral difference between technological and other means of enhancing human lives. By defending posthuman dignity we promote a more inclusive and humane ethics, one that will embrace future technologically modified people as well as humans of the contemporary kind. We also remove a distortive double standard from the field of our moral vision, allowing us to perceive more clearly the opportunities that exist for further human progress" Nick Bostrom


In order to discuss the Simulation Argument you have to first realize that it is a argument for something other than just the trippy idea that we (could) live in a computer simulation. In other words your superficial "you cannot know we are not in a simulation" argument is ignorant and has little to do with the Simulation Argument that you all think that you are debating.

 

[Econ4every1]

I've been intrigued by the increasing number of scientists that proclaim it's very likely that we're living in a computer simulation, "The Matrix" if you will.

Do you believe it's possible that one day, say in a thousand years, quantum computers will be so powerful as to create a world where the beings believe they're actually real? Say, if you could take The Sims 4 and make those beings think their world existed. And if these computers could do that, couldn't these computers run billions of simulations at once?

So, is it more likely that we're the actual civilization that invents this technology one day, or is it more likely that we're just one of billions of simulations that our ancestors are running?

If the humans that created the "Matrix" were living in have the capacity for empathy that we do, it's unlikely that this is the world they would have created for us. There would be little reason to create a world with this much sufferieng if this were simply a simulation.

It's not going to take 1000 years to create the simulations you speak of. Given that computing power is almost at the level of the brain, it's likely that the larger challenge will be the interface between a computer and the brain, but 100-200 years isn't out of the question. I sell servers today about the size of a decent sized couch cushion with 88 processor cores and terrabyes of ram.

 

[CrabCake]

If the humans that created the "Matrix" were living in have the capacity for empathy that we do, it's unlikely that this is the world they would have created for us. There would be little reason to create a world with this much sufferieng if this were simply a simulation.

I think the assumption is that if we some day figure out how to create such simulations we will attempt to model our own world. The fact it mirrors our world is what would allow us to perform experiments with the simulation that could then be applied to our world. I don't think anyone is imagining that someone set out to create a perfect universe; more likely is that they set out to create a model of their world.

It's not going to take 1000 years to create the simulations you speak of. Given that computing power is almost at the level of the brain, it's likely that the larger challenge will be the interface between a computer and the brain, but 100-200 years isn't out of the question. I sell servers today about the size of a decent sized couch cushion with 88 processor cores and terrabyes of ram.

If you did finally create a computer as capable as the human brain with the software to actually think like a human, you would still have less than 1/7,000,000,000 the amount of computing power you need. To create such a simulation, we don't need just one simulated brain, we need 7 billion of them to recreate the number of brains on our planet (plus we need extra computing power to model all of the animal brains, physics, geology, etc.)

This is the biggest weakness of this idea. It is highly unlikely that computing power truly has no ceiling to begin with, so if we manage to continue existing indefinitely, we would likely still run into this limit. Even if there were no such limit, can we get there before extinction?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

If the humans that created the "Matrix" were living in have the capacity for empathy that we do, it's unlikely that this is the world they would have created for us. There would be little reason to create a world with this much sufferieng if this were simply a simulation.

It's not going to take 1000 years to create the simulations you speak of. Given that computing power is almost at the level of the brain, it's likely that the larger challenge will be the interface between a computer and the brain, but 100-200 years isn't out of the question. I sell servers today about the size of a decent sized couch cushion with 88 processor cores and terrabyes of ram.

The Simulation Argument is based on posthumans ie enhanced humans. In fact the argument is in support of posthuman ethics. The discussion of the matrix and all is superficial.

 

[Econ4every1]

I think the assumption is that if we some day figure out how to create such simulations we will attempt to model our own world. The fact it mirrors our world is what would allow us to perform experiments with the simulation that could then be applied to our world. I don't think anyone is imagining that someone set out to create a perfect universe; more likely is that they set out to create a model of their world.

Fair enough.

If you did finally create a computer as capable as the human brain with the software to actually think like a human, you would still have less than 1/7,000,000,000 the amount of computing power you need. To create such a simulation, we don't need just one simulated brain, we need 7 billion of them to recreate the number of brains on our planet (plus we need extra computing power to model all of the animal brains, physics, geology, etc.)

This is the biggest weakness of this idea. It is highly unlikely that computing power truly has no ceiling, to begin with, so if we manage to continue existing indefinitely, we would likely still run into this limit. Even if there were no such limit, can we get there before extinction?

Does the computer have to be as capable as the human brain in order to create a virtual environment for the brain to exist in? Seems to me the interface is the key and the much more difficult part of this equation. Sending a signal to the brain to interpret smell won't require all that much in terms of computing power. The trick is to be able to get into the brain and be able to accurately activate the right neurons to generate the correct feeling. I saw something not too long ago that measured human experience in terms of the smallest measurable time in which we can perceive our world at any level. This question is an interesting one as there is a difference between what we can perceive and how long it takes to become aware of a change in the world. In other words, a light flash might last 100ms, but I believe it takes 3-5 times longer for the brain to become aware of the flash. The problem is the "instruments of the body", like the eye will take 50ms to send anything it detects to the brain. Then there is the wiring etc....

In the time it takes the brain to become aware of an external change today's computers can perform billions if not trillions of operations.

Of course, this assumes that the simulation only has to simulate the environments, not other humans.

No matter what, it's an interesting question.

 

[Econ4every1]

The Simulation Argument is based on posthumans ie enhanced humans. In fact the argument is in support of posthuman ethics. The discussion of the matrix and all is superficial.

Yeah, but it's still fun to postulate.

 

[CrabCake]

Does the computer have to be as capable as the human brain in order to create a virtual environment for the brain to exist in? Seems to me the interface is the key and the much more difficult part of this equation. Sending a signal to the brain to interpret smell won't require all that much in terms of computing power. The trick is to be able to get into the brain and be able to accurately activate the right neurons to generate the correct feeling.

I think we are talking about apples and oranges here. No one is talking about a world like the Matrix where human bodies are attached to machines that generate a fictional reality for them. The proposal is that you ARE part of the simulation, not that you exist outside of it but have been plugged into it.

Of course, this assumes that the simulation only has to simulate the environments, not other humans.

Yeah, that's the problem. We ARE talking about a simulation that has to simulate every human mind in addition to all natural laws and that provides a sandbox for those minds to manipulate.

 

[Brewdog]

If you did finally create a computer as capable as the human brain with the software to actually think like a human, you would still have less than 1/7,000,000,000 the amount of computing power you need. To create such a simulation, we don't need just one simulated brain, we need 7 billion of them to recreate the number of brains on our planet (plus we need extra computing power to model all of the animal brains, physics, geology, etc.)

A Playstation 4 has more computing power that a multimilliondollar military supercomputer from 1997. Your smartphone has more computing power than the entirety of NASA's computing power during the Moon missions.

So, if a toy like the Playstation (which isn't even very powerful) has more computing power than a supercomputer from just 19 years ago, what will computers do in another 19 years? Once scientists unlock the ability to use quantum computers - and they're getting close - those computers will be thousands of times more powerful than what we have now. We will no longer be using transistors computing 1's and 0's.

So why can't computers be very powerful? I remember playing Pong when I was a little boy in 1979. Look how far they've come since.

 

[CrabCake]

A Playstation 4 has more computing power that a multimilliondollar military supercomputer from 1997. Your smartphone has more computing power than the entirety of NASA's computing power during the Moon missions.

So, if a toy like the Playstation (which isn't even very powerful) has more computing power than a supercomputer from just 19 years ago, what will computers do in another 19 years? Once scientists unlock the ability to use quantum computers - and they're getting close - those computers will be thousands of times more powerful than what we have now. We will no longer be using transistors computing 1's and 0's.

So why can't computers be very powerful? I remember playing Pong when I was a little boy in 1979. Look how far they've come since.

That they can be very powerful is not in question. The question is can they ever be powerful enough and will we exist long enough to make them that powerful? We can't just assume that we can continue to make them more powerful indefinitely, nor can we assume that humanity will exist long enough to make computers powerful enough to do this.

We have been making faster and faster vehicles for hundreds of years. Yet we know that the maximum speed we can ever reach is near the speed of light because reaching the speed of light would require infinite energy. There is a theoretical limit on how fast we can ever make something go. Likewise there are likely to be limits to how powerful computers can be. That we haven't reached all of those limits yet (we have actually reached some) doesn't mean they don't exist. Even if there were no such limits, we don't have a basis for claiming that we will exist long enough to make such a powerful computer. Asteroids, meteors, comets, diseases, and human-caused events constantly threaten humanity and the sun will eventually die; we don't have a strong case for saying we will even exist long enough to create such computers even if they are theoretically possible.

 

[Brewdog]

That they can be very powerful is not in question. The question is can they ever be powerful enough and will we exist long enough to make them that powerful?

But if we're the ones inside the Matrix, then our computers don't ever HAVE to be that powerful. The people or aliens before us are the ones that reached that technology and then they just booted up their PC and started a sim with our universe (and other universes) within it.

Maybe they're not even PEOPLE that are running the sim. They just run a program and drop a few DNA onto billions of planets within the universe and see what happens next. There may be so many habitable places in their sim that they don't even watch us at all. They may not even care about WW2. They never even watched it because we're just one of billions of life forms in their simulated universe.

If you want to know why "God" doesn't care about suffering on Earth? It's because God is some kid with a computer toy running a sim on fast forward and doesn't even know what we're doing on Earth.

 

[CrabCake]

But if we're the ones inside the Matrix, then our computers don't ever HAVE to be that powerful. The people or aliens before us are the ones that reached that technology and then they just booted up their PC and started a sim with our universe (and other universes) within it.

Sure, but if we can't show that this is possible, then our reason for considering this view plausible is gone. At that point we don't have any more warrant to hold this belief than we do for believing that our reality is the dreams of an inter-dimensional monkey-god.

 

[Brewdog]

Sure, but if we can't show that this is possible, then our reason for considering this view plausible is gone. At that point we don't have any more warrant to hold this belief than we do for believing that our reality is the dreams of an inter-dimensional monkey-god.

Please don't bring sex into this. Now I have to go look up Monkey-God sex on porntube.

 

[CrabCake]

Please don't bring sex into this. Now I have to go look up Monkey-God sex on porntube.

I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny but, I don't get it.

 

[Brewdog]

I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny but, I don't get it.

Please don't interrupt my Monkey-God sex.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

 

[zyzygy]

And also a fictional TV show.

 

[Northern Light]

Meh... Buddhism addressed this a long time ago. Everything is just mind.

Quantum theory is a bit like theoretical cosmology... you have to take the premise on faith before the rest of it begins to make sense.

 

[zyzygy]

Meh... Buddhism addressed this a long time ago. Everything is just mind.

Quantum theory is a bit like theoretical cosmology... you have to take the premise on faith before the rest of it begins to make sense.

No. You believe quantum theory to be true because experiments agree with the predictions. As for mind, how did the universe exist before minds entered the scene?

 

[Schism]

Meh... Buddhism addressed this a long time ago. Everything is just mind.

Quantum theory is a bit like theoretical cosmology... you have to take the premise on faith before the rest of it begins to make sense.

I like the way archeologists find a tooth or clay pot shard and poetically describe entirely new civilizations in detail.

 

[RAMOSS]

Meh... Buddhism addressed this a long time ago. Everything is just mind.

Quantum theory is a bit like theoretical cosmology... you have to take the premise on faith before the rest of it begins to make sense.

Except for one rather big big difference. One thing about quantum theory is that it can make testable and repeatable predictions about things. Testable and repeatable are important items

 

[Northern Light]

Except for one rather big big difference. One thing about quantum theory is that it can make testable and repeatable predictions about things. Testable and repeatable are important items

Human minds are just as predictable.

 

[zyzygy]

I like the way archeologists find a tooth or clay pot shard and poetically describe entirely new civilizations in detail.

Hardly that. Name such a case please.

 

[zyzygy]

Human minds are just as predictable.

Not in my experience.

 

[Schism]

Hardly that. Name such a case please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man