Are we living in a computer simulation?... a poll

SalixIncendium said:

I don't share your need to prove my experiences to others. My experiences are my own and for the purpose of my own realizations and revelations. They're not for everyone, therefore I have no need to use terms like 'we' to force them upon others.

Click to expand...

If we can mathematically show we're in the Matrix, and thus we can show we are all AI; then when you declare you're not like us, of course we ask why.

In my opinion.

Eddi said:

So... are we living in a simulation?

Click to expand...

My vote: Other.

I don't know. The Simulation Hypothesis is internally conclusive but it is unscientific.
1. It contradicts the first axiom of science: Reality is real.
2. It isn't a good model because it "explains too much". Like "godidit", "it's just the was it's programmed" isn't really an explanation.
3. It is (probably) not falsifiable. One physicist is trying to find evidence by finding the "resolution" of the simulation. I see that as a futile endeavour as our reality may be quantised and so a possible "resolution" may just be the "resolution" of reality. There may be hope if we are living in a non perfect simulation. If the programmers have bugs in their code or if they cut some corners by "optimizing" how some things are rendered, we might find the bugs.

Addressing Bostrom's trilemma:
1. We don't know if conscience can emerge from such a simulation. It is most likely but we don't have prove of a conscious machine yet.
2. We already have universe simulations but they have resolutions in the range of mega parsecs. To built a computer that can host a quantum level exact simulation of our universe we'd need all the resources of our universe and then some. Now we could simulate a smaller universe as well as that that universe that is hosting our simulation could be bigger. Anyhow, we come to the conclusion that there must be a biggest universe and a simulated universe must be much much smaller.
As we don't know of any constraints that the size of a universe can have, we can't make any predictions of the levels a universe in a universe can exist (it may be zero). Therefore we can't put a probability to existing in a simulation.

Having said that, I still love the Simulation Hypothesis. It is a genius thought experiment and a wonderful tool to counter creationists.

wizanda said:

If we can mathematically show we're in the Matrix, and thus we can show we are all AI...

Click to expand...

If you can demonstrate that "we are all AI," then we are artificial as compared to what? What is it that is genuine?

Eddi said:

In his 2004 paper “Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?” the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom discusses Simulation Theory, the notion that we are all sims living in a simulated reality. A major assumption he makes is that consciousness can arise out of non-biological phenomenon (e.g. a type of computer)

He uses the term “ancestor simulation”, as the worlds they simulate are at a less advanced state than those who made the simulation (although for all we know they could also be simulating more advanced civilisations…)

His paper can be found here: Are You Living in a Simulation?

He lists three possible scenarios, one of which he says must be true

However, I’ve thought of some more possibilities, which I have put in this poll

So... are we living in a simulation?

Click to expand...

I had to vote Other. Physics is of course a set of mathematical laws governing forces and particles (which in turn make complex phenomena). That's the same thing as what we call a 'simulation' -- a contained progression of fixed rules evolving over time.

No other thing is possible. So, all things are 'simulation' always in that manner.

(note that fixed rules don't have to preclude (seeming or absolutely) random fluctuation together with the stable rules; such randomness could be simply built in one of the rules, if desired, and it's easy to get stable systems with randomness built in, depending on design)

But are we just something like a contained puppet play for some being(s) outside of our Universe? I think the answer to that is 'no'.

In the future we may do it when the universe is growing cold, the stars burning out. We may choose to simulate life. It will require a lot of computing power, and it will require simulating a much, much smaller universe possibly just a planet. These computer won't be on Earth but instead will be in orbit around a black hole to experience time dilation. The simulation will multiply the slowed time effect if it runs at high speed. We'll both have a high simulation to live in and slowed time for the computer. In this way we might be able to simulate a long, long time.

Brickjectivity said:

In the future we may do it when the universe is growing cold, the stars burning out. We may choose to simulate life. It will require a lot of computing power, and it will require simulating a much, much smaller universe possibly just a planet. These computer won't be on Earth but instead will be in orbit around a black hole to experience time dilation. The simulation will multiply the slowed time effect if it runs at high speed. We'll both have a high simulation to live in and slowed time for the computer. In this way we might be able to simulate a long, long time.

Click to expand...

You are watching Isaac Arthur's SFIA channel on YouTube, aren't you?

SalixIncendium said:

If you can demonstrate that "we are all AI," then we are artificial as compared to what? What is it that is genuine?

Click to expand...

I've only ever seen inside a fabricated reality, where it all has advanced mathematical structuring from the Source; so I've got nothing to compare with.

Since many of the world's religions suggest the Source creates even our own consciousness; the only thing I know that is real about me, is my character, as that has remained the same in many lifetimes according to religious texts globally, and my own memories...

At least I think I'm this character, now maybe even that is AI the Source is making; therefore we do not know if anything is Genuine, other than the Source.

In my opinion.

Heyo said:

You are watching Isaac Arthur's SFIA channel on YouTube, aren't you?

Click to expand...

Thanks, I was trying to find the vid so I could repost it, but other stuff was coming up instead.

The simulation does not need to be particularly detailed...none of us, not even high-energy physicists, receive any sensory data that would allow us to directly experience and identify things like individual atoms or quantum interactions. The whole of the Earth does not need to be modeled in detail, indeed, little more than the proximal environment of an individual or community of individuals needs to be any more detailed than everyday experience, and the findings of science about the atomic and subatomic and cosmological scales only needs conform to mathematical formulae. Simulating a community of a few hundred individuals and their immediate environment should require a large computer, but not one larger than the universe, as the simulation does not actually have to compute every particle and every interaction, only a small set of them.

I was thinking about how some people say how all humans will be "one with the universe" but within the framework of a simulated reality. In the end, we'll all be looking like this guy:

Eddi said:

In his 2004 paper “Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?” the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom discusses Simulation Theory, the notion that we are all sims living in a simulated reality. A major assumption he makes is that consciousness can arise out of non-biological phenomenon (e.g. a type of computer)

He uses the term “ancestor simulation”, as the worlds they simulate are at a less advanced state than those who made the simulation (although for all we know they could also be simulating more advanced civilisations…)

His paper can be found here: Are You Living in a Simulation?

He lists three possible scenarios, one of which he says must be true

However, I’ve thought of some more possibilities, which I have put in this poll

So... are we living in a simulation?

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition, but the post-big-bang universe might be called a simulation when compared with pre-big-bang reality.
That being said -even simulations are real -and made of real things.

I was thinking recently about how that which is in any way complex is made of smaller components -but also necessarily of the absolutely smallest components possible.
If we consider the atoms which make up what we call physical reality, we see that each atom is made of exactly the same things in different amounts and different arrangements.
The smaller components within atoms are made of yet smaller things in different amounts/arrangements -so on, so forth -until the least complex/most simple component is identified.

Even if we cannot see the least complex component/s yet, we may have already identified it/them using logic. The most simple states we can imagine can be expressed in various ways... something and nothing -existing or non-existing -action and reaction -present or absent -affecting or non-affecting.... but it would seem logical that the most basic component/s of reality must be somehow binary in nature.

In other words.... "everything" must be made up of the "real" equivalent of 1s and 0s -and some force which drives more complex arrangement (unless they are somehow that force).

Interestingly.... that which allows for "our" version of ones and zeroes is extremely complex (all which preceded and allowed for our ability to create computers and so virtual reality -as they are represented by electrons flowing from one atom to another through electronic components, etc) -even if the basic idea begins with logical simplicity. Event though virtual reality is "made from" 1s and 0s, they ARE NOT the "real" or most basic possible 1s and 0s -yet they ARE ACTUALLY MADE FROM the most basic 1s and 0s on the most basic level.

Similarly, that which allows for US is much more complex than the true "base reality" -even though we are an extremely complex arrangement OF the base reality.

As for the development of consciousness.... as long as things can happen in a similar way, they can produce similar results -regardless of level. Regardless of whether 1s and 0s are "real" or represented/residing upon a more complex reality, they can be similarly encoded/arranged, etc. The same applies to anything generally similar. Apples and oranges may be different, but they stack fairly similarly -roll fairly similarly -and three of whichever is still three. On another level, atoms can be arranged similarly to apples and oranges.

Awareness, self-awareness, creativity must also be made of more basic things. Complex awareness is based on the most simple possible interaction/cause and effect -the basically-dynamic nature of things. That which acts and reacts IS AWARE -but on a basic level. If not for this most basic interaction, complex awareness and self-awareness/creativity would not be possible. Following most basic interaction, the rest is continually increased complexity/arrangement/feedback.

One of the most interesting aspects of all of this is that what is made of that which is LESS COMPLEX has POWER OVER that which is MORE COMPLEX.

beenherebeforeagain said:

The simulation does not need to be particularly detailed...

Click to expand...

The devil is in the detail. If you try to cut corners by only simulating parts of reality, you face two points of failure: 1. Cutting corners makes the program more complicated and thus less reliable. 2. It makes your simulation less reliable. Both points could be detected by the simulated intelligent entities. If we were living in a simulation, we'd detect the inconsistencies. We probably would have already.

Heyo said:

The devil is in the detail. If you try to cut corners by only simulating parts of reality, you face two points of failure: 1. Cutting corners makes the program more complicated and thus less reliable. 2. It makes your simulation less reliable. Both points could be detected by the simulated intelligent entities. If we were living in a simulation, we'd detect the inconsistencies. We probably would have already.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you know we'd be able to detect the inconsistencies in any conclusive way. Can you elaborate?

Heyo said:

The devil is in the detail. If you try to cut corners by only simulating parts of reality, you face two points of failure: 1. Cutting corners makes the program more complicated and thus less reliable. 2. It makes your simulation less reliable. Both points could be detected by the simulated intelligent entities. If we were living in a simulation, we'd detect the inconsistencies. We probably would have already.

Click to expand...

I think there's a middle way - economising what is simulated: as opposed to either madly cutting corners or simulating things in great detail that nobody will see (e.g. the Earth's core) which would be a waste of resources

Plus I think The Simulation would be adept at hoodwinking its inhabitants

Also, there's a famous experiment I've heard of (but can't remember what it was called) in which the mere fact that scientists were observing the phenomenon effected what happened (maybe a scientist among us will know the one I mean???) so maybe this is proof of a simulated universe???

Brickjectivity said:

Thanks, I was trying to find the vid so I could repost it, but other stuff was coming up instead.

Click to expand...

I think these are the relevant videos:

Civilisations at the End of Time: Black Hole Farming

and Megastructures 10: Matrioshka Brains

Eddi said:

In his 2004 paper “Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?” the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom discusses Simulation Theory, the notion that we are all sims living in a simulated reality. A major assumption he makes is that consciousness can arise out of non-biological phenomenon (e.g. a type of computer)

He uses the term “ancestor simulation”, as the worlds they simulate are at a less advanced state than those who made the simulation (although for all we know they could also be simulating more advanced civilisations…)

His paper can be found here: Are You Living in a Simulation?

He lists three possible scenarios, one of which he says must be true

However, I’ve thought of some more possibilities, which I have put in this poll

So... are we living in a simulation?

Click to expand...

I've always found this question to be rather moot. It's like asking what if you're just a disembodied brain that exists in a vat? Regardless of whether or not reality is 'real' or just a simulation, it's the only 'reality' that we've got. Asking: What if it's all just an illusion? is nothing more than a form of mental masturbation.

Eddi said:

I think there's a middle way - economising what is simulated: as opposed to either madly cutting corners or simulating things in great detail that nobody will see (e.g. the Earth's core) which would be a waste of resources

Plus I think The Simulation would be adept at hoodwinking its inhabitants

Also, there's a famous experiment I've heard of (but can't remember what it was called) in which the mere fact that scientists were observing the phenomenon effected what happened (maybe a scientist among us will know the one I mean???) so maybe this is proof of a simulated universe???

Click to expand...

You are likely referring to the Double Slit Experiment and its descendents the Alan Aspect Experiment, the Quantum Eraser Experiment and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.

As for cutting corners in the simulation:
If you want to "economize" things that are not seen by the conscious entities in the simulation you have to keep trak of each consciousness that emerges and each phenomenon it is watching and, most importantly, you'd have to come up with an explanation for each history of a phenomenon that might be watched in the future and its history deduced. Your surveillance program might be much more complex than the simulation itself - with a lot more points of failure.

Heyo said:

You are likely referring to the Double Slit Experiment and its descendents the Alan Aspect Experiment, the Quantum Eraser Experiment and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.

As for cutting corners in the simulation:
If you want to "economize" things that are not seen by the conscious entities in the simulation you have to keep trak of each consciousness that emerges and each phenomenon it is watching and, most importantly, you'd have to come up with an explanation for each history of a phenomenon that might be watched in the future and its history deduced. Your surveillance program might be much more complex than the simulation itself - with a lot more points of failure.

Click to expand...

"Matrix glitches" are a thing, there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence out there

Also, I believe The Simulation could practice mind control - say it messes up big time with a major, major glitch in front of thousands of people, I think it could just make everyone who saw it forget that episode - like the device that makes people forget in the Men In Black films

Or perhaps even by rewinding reality back to the point before the glitch?

beenherebeforeagain said:

I don't know how you know we'd be able to detect the inconsistencies in any conclusive way. Can you elaborate?

Click to expand...

Take DNA analysis as an example. A hundred years ago it would have been unnecessary to put DNA in to blood samples as it could not be detected. Today we are analysing blood and tissue samples of fossils 10th of thousands years old. And not only do we find DNA but DNA that is meaningful and corresponds to our theory of descend.

Eddi said:

"Matrix glitches" are a thing, there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence out there

Also, I believe The Simulation could practice mind control - say it messes up big time with a major, major glitch in front of thousands of people, I think it could just make everyone who saw it forget that episode - like the device that makes people forget in the Men In Black films

Or perhaps even by rewinding reality back to the point before the glitch?

Click to expand...

You are not a programmer, are you?