We are living in a simulation

[George-ananda]

Nick Bostrom in a 2003 paper hypothesised:

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.​

The implication is that we certainly are living in a simulation created by post humans. The paper can be read here.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

Elon Musk and many others support the idea. Musk essentially says:

"There's a one in billions chance [we're in] base reality... I think it's one in billions. We should hope that's true because otherwise if civilization stops advancing, that could be due to some calamitous event that erases civilization, so maybe we should be hopeful this is a simulation. Otherwise, we will create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality or civilization will cease to exist. Those are the two options."​

...

But the fantastic idea that Elon Musk wants us to believe is based on an assumption that consciousness is computation.

There are, in my opinion, pragmatic people who think that the idea is trash. One such opinion is linked below:

Elon Musk Is Wrong. We Aren't Living in a Simulation

...

What do the RFers say about this? Especially the super scientists @LegionOnomaMoi, @Polymath257, @sayak83 , and others.

{sits with a big bag of fried chicken}

@atanu What do you think an Advaita Vedanta philosopher would think about all this?

 

[Willamena]

After reading Nick Bostrom’s paper once, I feel that we got to invite @Willamena, @Sunstone and @Skwim and other philosophers to this thread. I hope they oblige.

I've no interest in the topic, but thanks.

 

[atanu]

@atanu What do you think an Advaita Vedanta philosopher would think about all this?

Thank you. This is an apt question, imo.

Authors premise is “....technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power.... “. Assumption here is that computation can engender consciousness that can experience a simulated world.

Based on the above, he postulates ‘layered simulations’, going down to base posthuman level. This scenario, author claims, is able to explain ethics and religion.

In my view, OTOH, if awareness/consciousness is understood as the fundamental intrinsic property of existence, then the whole scenario is explained much more easily and with utmost parsimony.

Thank you again for raising this point.

 

[Milton Platt]

Nick Bostrom in a 2003 paper hypothesised:

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.​

The implication is that we certainly are living in a simulation created by post humans. The paper can be read here.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

Elon Musk and many others support the idea. Musk essentially says:

"There's a one in billions chance [we're in] base reality... I think it's one in billions. We should hope that's true because otherwise if civilization stops advancing, that could be due to some calamitous event that erases civilization, so maybe we should be hopeful this is a simulation. Otherwise, we will create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality or civilization will cease to exist. Those are the two options."​

...

But the fantastic idea that Elon Musk wants us to believe is based on an assumption that consciousness is computation.

There are, in my opinion, pragmatic people who think that the idea is trash. One such opinion is linked below:

Elon Musk Is Wrong. We Aren't Living in a Simulation

...

What do the RFers say about this? Especially the super scientists @LegionOnomaMoi, @Polymath257, @sayak83 , and others.

{sits with a big bag of fried chicken}

While this is an interesting discussion to a point, none of it is anything more than speculation and philosophizing. In the end, it does not matter what the nature of our reality actually is. It is the one we are stuck with and must deal with. I'll Leave others to the job of playing "what-if".

 

[Salvador]

Nick Bostrom in a 2003 paper hypothesised:

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.​

The implication is that we certainly are living in a simulation created by post humans. The paper can be read here.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

Elon Musk and many others support the idea. Musk essentially says:

"There's a one in billions chance [we're in] base reality... I think it's one in billions. We should hope that's true because otherwise if civilization stops advancing, that could be due to some calamitous event that erases civilization, so maybe we should be hopeful this is a simulation. Otherwise, we will create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality or civilization will cease to exist. Those are the two options."​

...

But the fantastic idea that Elon Musk wants us to believe is based on an assumption that consciousness is computation.

There are, in my opinion, pragmatic people who think that the idea is trash. One such opinion is linked below:

Elon Musk Is Wrong. We Aren't Living in a Simulation

...

What do the RFers say about this? Especially the super scientists @LegionOnomaMoi, @Polymath257, @sayak83 , and others.

{sits with a big bag of fried chicken}

Besides Nick Bostrom's compelling philosophical argument we are living in a simulated reality, there are some other reasons to believe we are living in a simulated reality.

A "machine" is any causal physical system, hence we are machines; thus, machines can be conscious. The question is: What type of machines could be conscious? Odds are robots passing the Turing Test ( Turing test - Wikipedia) would be indistinguishable from us in their behavioral capacities --and could be conscious (i.e. feel), but we can never be certain. There's no way for any "conscious" being to know whether or not he is actually experiencing a virtual reality produced by an interface between his brain and a computer .

However, there are some possible indications we are living in a computer simulation....

1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.

2. There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding is indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality.

3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. has revealved that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.

 

[George-ananda]

Thank you. This is an apt question, imo.

Authors premise is “....technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power.... “. Assumption here is that computation can engender consciousness that can experience a simulated world.

Based on the above, he postulates ‘layered simulations’, going down to base posthuman level. This scenario, author claims, is able to explain ethics and religion.

In my view, OTOH, if awareness/consciousness is understood as the fundamental intrinsic property of existence, then the whole scenario is explained much more easily and with utmost parsimony.

Thank you again for raising this point.

Very much thanks for that. As an Advaita follower I never understood who or what is the EXPERIENCER of all that computation in the simulation theory. The simulation theorists are thinking under the belief that consciousness comes from computational power as opposed to the Advaita view that the source of Consciousness is something fundamental and is not created by any type of physical processes.

 

[atanu]

It not that type of simulation. There is a danger to thinking it is a computer simulation. Universe isn't a computer but from what we see of how it works the closest analogy we have to describe how it works is the computer. The danger lie here in what theists will make of this. They are going to take an say if the universe is a computer simulation then there has to be an Ultimate Programmer i.e. God

In Nick Bostrom’s scheme, posthuman/s is/are godlike.

 

[atanu]

While this is an interesting discussion to a point, none of it is anything more than speculation and philosophizing. In the end, it does not matter what the nature of our reality actually is. It is the one we are stuck with and must deal with. I'll Leave others to the job of playing "what-if".

It is actually not what if.

 

[atanu]

Besides Nick Bostrom's compelling philosophical argument we are living in a simulated reality, there are some other reasons to believe we are living in a simulated reality.

A "machine" is any causal physical system, hence we are machines; thus, machines can be conscious. The question is: What type of machines could be conscious? Odds are robots passing the Turing Test ( Turing test - Wikipedia) would be indistinguishable from us in their behavioral capacities --and could be conscious (i.e. feel), but we can never be certain. There's no way for any "conscious" being to know whether or not he is actually experiencing a virtual reality produced by an interface between his brain and a computer .

However, there are some possible indications we are living in a computer simulation....

1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.

2. There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding is indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality.

3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. has revealved that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.

The problem with Nick’s formulation is that it is based on two assumptions that are not evidenced. No machine is known to have subjective experience. And computation does not generate first person experiences.

 

[atanu]

Well, as to whether or not "reality" is just some sort of simulation, I don't really know. Either we live in a simulation or we don't. If we don't live in a simulation, what are we living in?

The interesting thing about The Matrix is that the "reality" created was near-perfect, but not completely so. It was implied that it was due to human imperfections that no simulation could ever be perfect. But it was close enough and satisfactory for their purposes, even though there's an expected "anomaly" every 100 years. There were also those who had the power to hack into the system and perform actions which would be otherwise impossible in the "real" world.

The other side of it is that, outside of the Matrix, it was a pretty crappy existence.

If this is a simulation, then it appears that we're in a rather large universe, yet purposely confined to an infinitesimal part of it. If this were a video game, we'd be stuck on World 1-1.

Do you think that video game characters could experience orgasm? Our experiencing power is, imo, real.

 

[atanu]

There really isn't anything artificial to speak of. There isn't a fake reality and a real reality, they're both realities in their own right for which the experiences can be regarded as multifaceted.

So. Experience is the common reality?

 

[atanu]

I have to say I find this very unlikely due to several reasons, first of all it doesn't really explain anything.

The first problem you run into, which will eventually as far as I see it, bring everything down is who or how did the first simulation get started?

Next the issue is regarding computer power which seems to be based on a wrong assumption. Which have to do with there only being one reality, that is those who created the first simulation. Therefore computer power doesn't work as it is outlined in the paper, but is most likely an exponential factor of unimaginable proportions. The reason for this is that the computer power needed will have to be calculated solely based on the original creators capacity of running all simulations they created, including all the simulations that those simulations created until potential infinity.

So if the original creators created 50 simulations, which each also create 50 simulations each, would require the original creators to having to run 2500 simulations at the same time, as these are the only ones with actually energy and computer power that is not an illusion/simulation.

The paper assumes that we would be running ancestor simulations and therefore its also likely to assume that these simulations look like the Universe we live in or at least with the same complexity. So having to calculate the total amount of computer processing power needed for simply running 2500 simulation, where infinity is "maximum", would be considered fairly few simulations, but the power required astronomical even for that.

If each of these simulations are controlled individual by the "simulation" that created them and being unaware of where in the chain of simulation we are, it would also mean that the chance of our simulation being terminated would be extremely high, unless we are at the top of chain.

Furthermore you have to look at the complexity of the simulation it self, even though we can not observe everything in details at a given point in time, all the variables that controls our Universe would need to be updated or calculated down to every single detail or we would find errors in it. So the argument that it is not necessary to keep track of unobserved things or matters, would only reduce the amount of computer power needed slightly. But when so much is already needed it would be surprising why the simulation would not run this constantly.

So to me at least, it seems fairly unreasonable for this to be correct and also makes no attempt to explain how the first humans created their first simulation. Last what on Earth is "posthuman stage"?

Yeah. In Nick Bostrom’s formulation, the premise is that posthumans have tremendous computing power. But then does the computation equal experience? IMO, Nick’s idea is unsubstantiated on this point.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you think that video game characters could experience orgasm? Our experiencing power is, imo, real.

Perhaps, or it could just be a matter of programming.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So. Experience is the common reality?

Maybe. Yet , what is experience and reality for a rock?

The gist is that we cannot ever escape reality when you think about it. A bit like Hotel California. You can check out anytime you want , but you can never leave .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Cannot be proven...
Cannot be disproven...
Fun discussion over beer and pizza could be had...

From what Ive read, this one we actually can disprove because the energy required to run such a simulation is a very serious obstacle that not all the energy in the universe can clear. Which I guess still isnt technically disproving it, but the hypothesis must address this issue.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, as to whether or not "reality" is just some sort of simulation, I don't really know. Either we live in a simulation or we don't. If we don't live in a simulation, what are we living in?

The interesting thing about The Matrix is that the "reality" created was near-perfect, but not completely so. It was implied that it was due to human imperfections that no simulation could ever be perfect. But it was close enough and satisfactory for their purposes, even though there's an expected "anomaly" every 100 years. There were also those who had the power to hack into the system and perform actions which would be otherwise impossible in the "real" world.

The other side of it is that, outside of the Matrix, it was a pretty crappy existence.

If this is a simulation, then it appears that we're in a rather large universe, yet purposely confined to an infinitesimal part of it. If this were a video game, we'd be stuck on World 1-1.

well, maybe when we've successfully mastered World 1-1, we get to move on to the next...

 

[Firemorphic]

What do the RFers say about this?

{sits with a big bag of fried chicken}

I don't think the word "simulation" does it justice and it's certainly not a very interesting packaging of the concept to me (I couldn't give a damn about computer games and the concept of "simulation" itself is contentious). However the underlying principle is the heart of all genuine religions (both Abrahamic and Dharmic), so it's perhaps a useful transference into the realm of Scientific exploration in this topic. The concept is more than valid but the clothing isn't as much. However the phrase draws people's attention, so it's a useful tool.

p.s. can I have some fried chicken?

 

[sayak83]

I think, computations engendering consciousness/s that experience simulated nature.

But an AI is a machine and not a simulation. An AI machine is interacting with the world itself. If an AI becomes conscious, it would not be a simulation at all, but a silicon-based conscious entity in the world interacting with the same external world as we are doing.
So I have difficulty understanding what "living in a simulation" is supposed to mean.

 

[atanu]

I don't think the word "simulation" does it justice and it's certainly not a very interesting packaging of the concept to me (I couldn't give a damn about computer games and the concept of "simulation" itself is contentious). However the underlying principle is the heart of all genuine religions (both Abrahamic and Dharmic), so it's perhaps a useful transference into the realm of Scientific exploration in this topic. The concept is more than valid but the clothing isn't as much. However the phrase draws people's attention, so it's a useful tool.

p.s. can I have some fried chicken?

Fried chicken simulation ended.

 

[atanu]

But an AI is a machine and not a simulation. An AI machine is interacting with the world itself. If an AI becomes conscious, it would not be a simulation at all, but a silicon-based conscious entity in the world interacting with the same external world as we are doing.
So I have difficulty understanding what "living in a simulation" is supposed to mean.

The whole of existence, including the conscious actors are in a massive virtue reality.

The question arises, is this questioning that we are indulging in, including Nick's paper, too is virtual?