What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?

[jmotivator]

What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?

The posthuman future has never been easier to imagine—especially for those who work at the forefront of technology.

www.newyorker.com

While I find this article thought provoking, and an interesting dive into Simulation Theory, I find the author's conclusions rather myopic. He fails to grasp the full implications of what can and can't be deduced from a reality where our whole world is a simulation.

A few of my own observations from years of turning this problem over in my head...

1) If we are living in a simulation, then there is no need to theorize about whether or not the simulation is "perfect" because we can not derive any meaningful inference on what reality is in the world that built our simulation.

2) The reality that is above our simulation does not necessarily operate on the laws of physics that govern our simulation.

3) If we assume that we live in an imperfect simulation then the chances that we live in it now would be higher than if we presume that the reality above ours is an exact replica of the world we live in.

4) If there is a higher reality that doesn't conform to the physical laws of our reality then our only real meaningful concept of self would transcend our perceived physical reality.

5) The only reality that we can therefore be certain of is our conscious mind which is the only thing that we can conclude persists between reality and simulation.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

AND here I thought we were all a figment of each other's imaginations.

 

[jmotivator]

AND here I thought we were all a figment of each other's imaginations.

Well, it very well could still be that there is only one person in the simulation, and that person is you. It's an interesting diverging discussion that has been going on for thousands of years on how you could go about concluding that you are not the only person, and that all other people are not imaginary.

 

[jmotivator]

An interesting deduction I find in simulation theory is derived from point 5 above.

Let's assume that we exist in a simulation, and the only thing real is our mental self (there are many words for this throughout philosophy), and that simulation was created in order to test our mental rigor in an imperfect simulation to prepare us for our lives after the simulation is over.

In such a theoretical world, the tests of mental rigor would be indistinguishable form articles of faith, and in such a reality most religions would make perfect sense because the ultimate goal of religion is to get your mind right apart from the world.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Minor errors always go hand-in-hand with computer simulations. Many such errors tend to expand exponentially over time.

It would be interesting to discover how the simulation-programmer/simulation-software either totally avoids or mitigates this problem.

 

[swing_voter]

What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?

The posthuman future has never been easier to imagine—especially for those who work at the forefront of technology.

www.newyorker.com

While I find this article thought provoking, and an interesting dive into Simulation Theory, I find the author's conclusions rather myopic. He fails to grasp the full implications of what can and can't be deduced from a reality where our whole world is a simulation.

A few of my own observations from years of turning this problem over in my head...

1) If we are living in a simulation, then there is no need to theorize about whether or not the simulation is "perfect" because we can not derive any meaningful inference on what reality is in the world that built our simulation.

2) The reality that is above our simulation does not necessarily operate on the laws of physics that govern our simulation.

3) If we assume that we live in an imperfect simulation then the chances that we live in it now would be higher than if we presume that the reality above ours is an exact replica of the world we live in.

4) If there is a higher reality that doesn't conform to the physical laws of our reality then our only real meaningful concept of self would transcend our perceived physical reality.

5) The only reality that we can therefore be certain of is our conscious mind which is the only thing that we can conclude persists between reality and simulation.

It doesn't matter if we are living in a sim or not.

I would like to get to know the owner(s) though.

.

 

[jmotivator]

It doesn't matter if we are living in a sim or not.

I would like to get to know the owner(s) though.

.

Well, we can't conclude that it doesn't matter. It only doesn't matter if the simulation was created without a purpose.

 

[americanwoman]

What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?

The posthuman future has never been easier to imagine—especially for those who work at the forefront of technology.

www.newyorker.com

While I find this article thought provoking, and an interesting dive into Simulation Theory, I find the author's conclusions rather myopic. He fails to grasp the full implications of what can and can't be deduced from a reality where our whole world is a simulation.

A few of my own observations from years of turning this problem over in my head...

1) If we are living in a simulation, then there is no need to theorize about whether or not the simulation is "perfect" because we can not derive any meaningful inference on what reality is in the world that built our simulation.

2) The reality that is above our simulation does not necessarily operate on the laws of physics that govern our simulation.

3) If we assume that we live in an imperfect simulation then the chances that we live in it now would be higher than if we presume that the reality above ours is an exact replica of the world we live in.

4) If there is a higher reality that doesn't conform to the physical laws of our reality then our only real meaningful concept of self would transcend our perceived physical reality.

5) The only reality that we can therefore be certain of is our conscious mind which is the only thing that we can conclude persists between reality and simulation.

I don't know but really anything is possible. There have been a few incidents I wonder if they are just my mind messing up or perhaps some kind of "glitch" like seeing someone doing one thing but then a couple seconds later seeing them in another place doing something different.

 

[swing_voter]

Well, we can't conclude that it doesn't matter. It only doesn't matter if the simulation was created without a purpose.

It's a hobby for an 8 year old. Like an ant farm.

Is that enough purpose?


.

 

[americanwoman]

Well, we can't conclude that it doesn't matter. It only doesn't matter if the simulation was created without a purpose.

Like a child playing a game and we are just one of many versions? Could that be different dimensions, other game players doing different actions?

 

[Jetboogieman]

I like the idea, it's fun but nah, I don't think so.

One of my favorite ideas from this idea though, is that in theory as each simulation civilization progresses, civilization upon civilization will create simulations upon simulations until the original simulations computing power collapses under its own weight.

Always liked that idea.

 

[HIP56948]

I welcome our Data-Overlords but plead with them not to do as Microsoft does: Too many unnecessary Updates. Bless you, Gamers.

 

[jmotivator]

It's a hobby for an 8 year old. Like an ant farm.

Is that enough purpose?


.

What is "enough purpose"? Is that the only purpose you can imagine?

 

[swing_voter]

What is "enough purpose"? Is that the only purpose you can imagine?

No.


It could be an experiment for an alternate history like what would've happened if Jeff Bezos wasn't a homeless drug addict and instead became a rich billionaire who created and ran a multinational company?

I got lots.

.

 

[jmotivator]

Minor errors always go hand-in-hand with computer simulations. Many such errors tend to expand exponentially over time.

It would be interesting to discover how the simulation-programmer/simulation-software either totally avoids or mitigates this problem.

Can we presume what an error would look like? Assuming the simulation is as vast as we experience it, and that the reality in which this simulation exists is even more vast, and doesn't really follow the rules as we understand them, we can't assume that we'd know what error in the simulation would look like. I mean, if you get a dollar store key chain calculator, how many times would you need to run 2+2 to get an answer other than 4? The calculator isn't perfect, but we can probably assume that the answers will be predictable. But then consider that we could possibly see error every day and not recognize it. Imagine a scenario where the entire field of chaos theory is just us attempting to understand errors in the simulation.

Also consider that maybe, and most religions would argue, we are the error.

 

[jmotivator]

No.


It could be an experiment for an alternate history like what would've happened if Jeff Bezos wasn't a homeless drug addict and instead became a rich billionaire who created and ran a multinational company?

I got lots.

.

Right, so you can't conclude with any certainty that it doesn't matter. It could matter very much, depending on the purpose for which the simulation was created.

 

[swing_voter]

Right, so you can't conclude with any certainty that it doesn't matter. It could matter very much, depending on the purpose for which the simulation was created.

Why is it so important to you that it matters?


It matters to us. We don't want the owner(s) rebooting the server.

.

 

[jmotivator]

I like the idea, it's fun but nah, I don't think so.

One of my favorite ideas from this idea though, is that in theory as each simulation civilization progresses, civilization upon civilization will create simulations upon simulations until the original simulations computing power collapses under its own weight.

Always liked that idea.

I'm being an advocate for the theory, which isn't to say I am settled on anything. It is an interesting theory that seems to answer more questions than it creates.. though it creates plenty.

I don't think that progressive sub-simulations theory would really work, logically, unless we were to assume the theory of a perfect simulation, in which the sim and reality are replicas. In such a reality the simulation could only create one copy, at most, and that would require a reduction of itself. in the process.. but even that seems a logical improbability. If we assume that the created simulation can only be a lessor complex universe than the one that created it then there would be no theoretical crash, the successive realities would just be more simple than the one that was before it, and never challenge capacity.

Heck, maybe we are starting that now with our work in Artificial Intelligence.

 

[jmotivator]

Why is it so important to you that it matters?

It matters to us. We don't want the owner(s) rebooting the server.

You answered your own question.

 

[joko104]

The explanation for reality itself is in the Bible (ie creation) is that the entire universe is merely the thoughts of God.

If reality is a computer simulation, then indeed there is a god or gods - whoever made, loaded and controls (if it is alterable) it is a god or gods to us.

In this, in one sense, the OP is another way of asking was the universe created by God or Gods - just picking different words and context for the same question. Is reality a computer simulation is also a question of the existence of god or gods.

 

[jmotivator]

Like a child playing a game and we are just one of many versions? Could that be different dimensions, other game players doing different actions?

It certainly would be a possibility, with many iterations of the same simulation creating what we would perceive as alternate realities or divergent timelines.

It could be our creator sending us through various realities and challenges to test or mettle. That is certainly the essential conclusion of most religions.

 

[jmotivator]

The explanation for reality itself is in the Bible (ie creation) is that the entire universe is merely the thoughts of God.

If reality is a computer simulation, then indeed there is a god or gods - whoever made, loaded and controls (if it is alterable) it is a god or gods to us.

In this, in one sense, the OP is another way of asking was the universe created by God or Gods - just picking different words and context for the same question. Is reality a computer simulation is also a question of the existence of god or gods.

That is part of the conclusion I was getting at. In such a reality religion makes a lot of sense logically since most religions focus on getting the mind/soul right apart from the body and the world... which makes sense in a Simulated world in which the only thing you'd carry out of that world is your mind/soul.

 

[joko104]

That is part of the conclusion I was getting at. In such a reality religion makes a lot of sense logically since most religions focus on getting the mind/soul right apart from the body and the world... which makes sense in a Simulated world in which the only thing you'd carry out of that world is your mind/soul.

In the context of the Bile, the universe and reality at least as it applies to humans is one person/being/entity/god who is playing a very complex game with himself. The software is the game and we are the players - ie "reality."

Everything else that exists in any way or form is metaphysics, or other than this reality. For the game this god (in relation to us) has two metaphysical sides - consisting of "angels." 2/3rd are on God's side (good angels) and 1/3rd are on the other side (evil angels, ie "demons). The obvious is already pre-announce - God's good side wins.

There are piles of questions in that. For example, are we each in our own simulation, that you are the only "person" in your reality. Everyone else is just software - and this is all about testing you - or possibly about developing different, more or better "human" software on an individual level, or are we all in the software together?

Also in the context of the Bible? The Bible position is that we are all immortal OR only "good" humans are immortal. Accordingly, our lives in this simulation are extremely short in relation to reality and really are just a test to determine our status in eternal ACTUAL reality, which is the metaphysical reality.

So, in that, who each of US is individually is a player in the simulation, which is a test. Since the value is NOT economic, power or other success, but rather around goodness and serving goodness, no matter how lowly a person is in this "test simulation game," they can "score" extremely high even if in a sense very failed in this life. The concept is sacrifice for "goodness" in this short simulated life is how a person/being who is one of the us simulation players is then advanced, assigned, employed or whatever in TRUE reality, which the metaphysical reality.

Or God is the simulation creator and 2/3rds think it best - but 1/3th think another wannabe God claims they have better software for "evil" - and 1/3rd of players agree with that. So there is US - being in the simulation - and us each a player in this simulation - not knowing it is a simulation - like an employment, college admission or other testing between competitor or otherwise to determine status and possible.

In Christianity, you get ONE try. In other religious, you will continuously be returned to the game as a new being - person or animal up or down the ladder, ie reincarnation. In that, you are constantly being tested in this simulation (or others), always with opportunity for promotion or demotion in the real reality, not this simulation. As such, everyone's status is that other ACTUAL REAL reality we are all determining our life situation upon our own merits, regardless of status in this life.

 

[Helix]

The interesting question that i have is that if we're in a simulated universe, that could mean that civilizations can advance enough to make a simulated universe. Given that, how many levels down are we?

*spins top on the table

 

[joko104]

While some call it the Matrix theory, another version is the Tron theory - that we are both the simulated person in this simulation and the user operating our simulated life within the running program the person is within. Sine the end in this simulation is you always completely lose (death), the purpose in this life really isn't about this life at all, so the most terrible failure in this life in true reality could equate to extreme success in enteral REAL reality since success is not measured in lifespan, strength, power or wealth, but in submission and compliance with some other measure such as ethics, morality, submission to the rules of the game (ie "God's rules) etc.

Truly religious people who REALLY believe their religion are very different in perspective than other people, because life really isn't about this reality, but the true, eternal reality. In that, how important is success in this life lasting no more than 100 years or so, verses eternity, which is a very, very long time in which this lifetime doesn't even equate to 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000 of a millisecond. If a person REALLY believes that and lives their life to that belief, that person is motivated by and acting on core premises that are in some ways the antithesis of conventional wisdom, goals and values.

I know one person like that. Very interesting and curiously exorbitantly successful in life, living under the concept of the Parable of the Talents (to always improve yourself at whatever you have a particular skill at - and that all of conscious life is a performance for "god" - that which is created the simulation. Why God can control or alter the simulation but rarely ever will. Remember, the measure is not health, strength, wealth or power. In this, for that person is that being "interesting" to "God" is extremely important because "God" - the creator and controller of the software and simulation doesn't care about particular players, which every life form is - unless interesting somehow.

In this, God may open options for really interesting people - which may then allow rising in wisdom, power, wealth and effect. Thus Hitler may be extremely advanced in this life because Hitler is interesting and how Hitler affected the the simulated lives of hundreds of millions or more of others. That does not mean the user of the Hitler simulation that user took in that direction made a wise decision, but rather may be one of the 1/3rd of users trying to fully take over the simulation from the "good" God/simulation creator to replace it with their own.