• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Are you living in a computer simulation?

joal0503

Psychedelic INTP
Local time
Today 6:37 AM
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
700
-->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BMYtnv_OnI


ABSTRACT

This paper argues 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.

Rest of the paper, can be found:

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


Related papers and media can be found in this index:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Today 5:07 PM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
-->
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Psychedelic INTP, meet accidentally psychedelic ENTP.

We are thoughts and perspectives of the universe, (or what you want to call it). Is this place real? Yes, subjectively. Absolutely though? We cannot know, because we are a subset of that.

Hence, my thought of this place is simply to be nice to people. If they're mirrors of me (as they must be, or belong together as thoughts of one thing) then I prefer the positive over the negative.

The thing that sucks though is that, if we are subjective thoughts, then we arent real, and will go away as that consciousness moves on or figures it out, so hence will cease to be. Except that time is a constant thing rather than linear, and so in a way, we always shall be, and so shouldnt be upset.

Why the hell did I join this forum. Chasing girls was far more agreeable.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 7:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Maths is merely the representation of the universe, the universe itself is not mathematical, but it's interesting all the same that our most accurate representations of the universe contain equations used in computer science, particularly such out of place ones.

As much as I like the idea of a simulate reality, I ponder to myself what I should expect to see if reality is a simulation and it intrigues me that in many regards this is not it, our reality seems too complex to merely be an ancestor simulation, time flows too smoothly, here I am writing this and as far as I'm aware nobody's watching. Y'know I kind of expect someone to pop in and say hello "I'm your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson", as in right now, as I write this...

*looks about*

Nope.
That's actually really disappointing.

So yeah this seems like a tremendous waste of processing power if nobody's watching me, and if this were a game, well there's not all that much exciting stuff going on, I mean sure there is some stuff happening somewhere but in 90% of the world 99% of the time, nothing significant is happening, who would program a simulation like that?
More importantly, why?

Terrifyingly, this might actually be real reality.
If it is, well then we're either absurdly lucky, or more likely the chances of our species reaching the stage of creating ancestor simulations is slim to none.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 7:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Or the programmers did a really good job of proverbially hiding the code :cool:
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Today 5:07 PM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
-->
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Maths is merely the representation of the universe,
No, it's our model, or quantification of the universe. This "is" thing...makes no sense. Prove it to whom, exactly?

the universe itself is not mathematical,
Why not?

but it's interesting all the same that our most accurate representations of the universe contain equations used in computer science, particularly such out of place ones.
Out of place, to whom? Who is to say what "out of place" is? Wheres the benchmark? Wheres the "is"?

As much as I like the idea of a simulate reality, I ponder to myself what I should expect to see if reality is a simulation and it intrigues me that in many regards this is not it, our reality seems too complex to merely be an ancestor simulation, time flows too smoothly, here I am writing this and as far as I'm aware nobody's watching.
What about the idea of "I". What if there were another "I" beyond your idea of what you yourself are, as if you are an exploratory vehicle rather than an "I"? A perspective, not an "it"?

Y'know I kind of expect someone to pop in and say hello "I'm your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson", as in right now, as I write this...

*looks about*

Nope.
That's actually really disappointing.
What if that wasnt allowed?

So yeah this seems like a tremendous waste of processing power if nobody's watching me, and if this were a game, well there's not all that much exciting stuff going on, I mean sure there is some stuff happening somewhere but in 90% of the world 99% of the time, nothing significant is happening, who would program a simulation like that?
What if this was a learning simulation. ie how would this perpective look like as an INTP. Or and ENFP. or an INTJ. In many many contexts.

More importantly, why?
Experience. Learning. Stupid stuff like that.

Terrifyingly, this might actually be real reality.
If it is, well then we're either absurdly lucky, or more likely the chances of our species reaching the stage of creating ancestor simulations is slim to none.
Maybe we did. Maybe we are.

Im not trying to sophistically upset you btw. I merely have nfi wtf is going on. I look around all the time and think "wtf man, this makes no sense. why???" Which cant be right.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 7:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
What if that wasnt allowed?
Maybe it is but I just don't remember it, so yeah if this is a simulation I agree that they could do whatever they want with it and we would be none the wiser, still if this a simulation it seems strange that I'm experiencing time like this, I mean if I were an exploratory vehicle as you say why do I have to experience such mundane time flow, if the sake of this is to gain my lifelong experience why do I forget so much?

And who would want to experience my life anyway?
I'd be happy to erase all memory of my past if I could.

I look around all the time and think "wtf man, this makes no sense. why???" Which cant be right.
Maybe you don't know enough? :p
 

joal0503

Psychedelic INTP
Local time
Today 6:37 AM
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
700
-->
http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

...There is, however, a related scenario that is more plausible and a serious line of reasoning that leads from the possibility of this scenario to a striking conclusion about the world we live in. I call this the simulation argument. Perhaps its most startling lesson is that there is a significant probability that you are living in computer simulation. I mean this literally: if the simulation hypothesis is true, you exist in a virtual reality simulated in a computer built by some advanced civilisation. Your brain, too, is merely a part of that simulation. What grounds could we have for taking this hypothesis seriously? Before getting to the gist of the simulation argument, let us consider some of its preliminaries. One of these is the assumption of “substrate independence”. This is the idea that conscious minds could in principle be implemented not only on carbon-based biological neurons (such as those inside your head) but also on some other computational substrate such as silicon-based processors.

Of course, the computers we have today are not powerful enough to run the computational processes that take place in your brain. Even if they were, we wouldn’t know how to program them to do it. But ultimately, what allows you to have conscious experiences is not the fact that your brain is made of squishy, biological matter but rather that it implements a certain computational architecture. This assumption is quite widely (although not universally) accepted among cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind. For the purposes of this article, we shall take it for granted.

Given substrate independence, it is in principle possible to implement a human mind on a sufficiently fast computer. Doing so would require very powerful hardware that we do not yet have. It would also require advanced programming abilities, or sophisticated ways of making a very detailed scan of a human brain that could then be uploaded to the computer. Although we will not be able to do this in the near future, the difficulty appears to be merely technical. There is no known physical law or material constraint that would prevent a sufficiently technologically advanced civilisation from implementing human minds in computers.

Our second preliminary is that we can estimate, at least roughly, how much computing power it would take to implement a human mind along with a virtual reality that would seem completely realistic for it to interact with. Furthermore, we can establish lower bounds on how powerful the computers of an advanced civilisation could be. Technological futurists have already produced designs for physically possible computers that could be built using advanced molecular manufacturing technology. The upshot of such an analysis is that a technologically mature civilisation that has developed at least those technologies that we already know are physically possible, would be able to build computers powerful enough to run an astronomical number of human-like minds, even if only a tiny fraction of their resources was used for that purpose.

If you are such a simulated mind, there might be no direct observational way for you to tell; the virtual reality that you would be living in would look and feel perfectly real. But all that this shows, so far, is that you could never be completely sure that you are not living in a simulation. This result is only moderately interesting. You could still regard the simulation hypothesis as too improbable to be taken seriously.

Now we get to the core of the simulation argument. This does not purport to demonstrate that you are in a simulation. Instead, it shows that we should accept as true at least one of the following three propositions:

(1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small

(2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours

(3) You are almost certainly in a simulation.

Each of these three propositions may be prima facie implausible; yet, if the simulation argument is correct, at least one is true (it does not tell us which).

While the full simulation argument employs some probability theory and formalism, the gist of it can be understood in intuitive terms. Suppose that proposition (1) is false. Then a significant fraction of all species at our level of development eventually becomes technologically mature. Suppose, further, that (2) is false, too. Then some significant fraction of these species that have become technologically mature will use some portion of their computational resources to run computer simulations of minds like ours. But, as we saw earlier, the number of simulated minds that any such technologically mature civilisation could run is astronomically huge.

Therefore, if both (1) and (2) are false, there will be an astronomically huge number of simulated minds like ours. If we work out the numbers, we find that there would be vastly many more such simulated minds than there would be non-simulated minds running on organic brains. In other words, almost all minds like yours, having the kinds of experiences that you have, would be simulated rather than biological. Therefore, by a very weak principle of indifference, you would have to think that you are probably one of these simulated minds rather than one of the exceptional ones that are running on biological neurons.

So if you think that (1) and (2) are both false, you should accept (3). It is not coherent to reject all three propositions. In reality, we do not have much specific information to tell us which of the three propositions might be true. In this situation, it might be reasonable to distribute our credence roughly evenly between the three possibilities, giving each of them a substantial probability.

Let us consider the options in a little more detail. Possibility (1) is relatively straightforward. For example, maybe there is some highly dangerous technology that every sufficiently advanced civilization develops, and which then destroys them. Let us hope that this is not the case.

Possibility (2) requires that there is a strong convergence among all sufficiently advanced civilisations: almost none of them is interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours, and almost none of them contains any relatively wealthy individuals who are interested in doing that and are free to act on their desires. One can imagine various reasons that may lead some civilisations to forgo running simulations, but for (2) to obtain, virtually all civilisations would have to do that. If this were true, it would constitute an interesting constraint on the future evolution of advanced intelligent life.

The third possibility is the philosophically most intriguing. If (3) is correct, you are almost certainly now living in computer simulation that was created by some advanced civilisation. What kind of empirical implications would this have? How should it change the way you live your life?

Your first reaction might think that if (3) is true, then all bets are off, and that one would go crazy if one seriously thought that one was living in a simulation.

To reason thus would be an error. Even if we were in a simulation, the best way to predict what would happen next in our simulation is still the ordinary methods – extrapolation of past trends, scientific modelling, common sense and so on. To a first approximation, if you thought you were in a simulation, you should get on with your life in much the same way as if you were convinced that you are living a non-simulated life at the bottom level of reality.

The simulation hypothesis, however, may have some subtle effects on rational everyday behaviour. To the extent that you think that you understand the motives of the simulators, you can use that understanding to predict what will happen in the simulated world they created. If you think that there is a chance that the simulator of this world happens to be, say, a true-to-faith descendant of some contemporary Christian fundamentalist, you might conjecture that he or she has set up the simulation in such a way that the simulated beings will be rewarded or punished according to Christian moral criteria. An afterlife would, of course, be a real possibility for a simulated creature (who could either be continued in a different simulation after her death or even be “uploaded” into the simulator’s universe and perhaps be provided with an artificial body there). Your fate in that afterlife could be made to depend on how you behaved in your present simulated incarnation. Other possible reasons for running simulations include the artistic, scientific or recreational. In the absence of grounds for expecting one kind of simulation rather than another, however, we have to fall back on the ordinary empirical methods for getting about in the world.

If we are in a simulation, is it possible that we could know that for certain? If the simulators don’t want us to find out, we probably never will. But if they choose to reveal themselves, they could certainly do so. Maybe a window informing you of the fact would pop up in front of you, or maybe they would “upload” you into their world. Another event that would let us conclude with a very high degree of confidence that we are in a simulation is if we ever reach the point where we are about to switch on our own simulations. If we start running simulations, that would be very strong evidence against (1) and (2). That would leave us with only (3).
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Today 12:37 AM
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,691
-->
I hope so.
 

TriflinThomas

Bitch, don't kill my vibe...
Local time
Yesterday 11:37 PM
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
637
-->
Location
Southern California

joal0503

Psychedelic INTP
Local time
Today 6:37 AM
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
700
-->
I only read the middle link because I'm on my phone. But, I have a hard time believing that people would change their actions just because they live in a sim. So many people are so disconnected these days that I don't think they would care much.

you really think that revelation would only have a minimal effect?
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 5:37 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
It'd have to be the longest running simulation ever.

Maybe our progressions in technology are when the simulation gets patched. I.e. we move from one age to the next via information patched into the simulation which is then accessible (to be discovered) to the inquiring minds of the simulation's inhabitants.
 

joal0503

Psychedelic INTP
Local time
Today 6:37 AM
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
700
-->
It'd have to be the longest running simulation ever.

Maybe our progressions in technology are when the simulation gets patched. I.e. we move from one age to the next via information patched into the simulation which is then accessible (to be discovered) to the inquiring minds of the simulation's inhabitants.

a patch and DLC drop for 40.99...
 
Top Bottom