6 ms·

Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely than not

12 points by danielmorozoff 10y ago

type0 10y ago
It is simulation, the reality as we perceive is the simulation of our own brain, it is completely that when we dream and it is partially simulation when we're awake.
- dragonbonheur 10y ago
  Why would you say the brain simulates reality rather than interprets it? A sundial doesn't need to simulate the sun's nuclear, gravitational and magnetic processes to cast a shadow...
  - type0 10y ago
    The brain doesn't work like sun dial. Because it doesn't strictly interprets, even when we only try to observe the reality we unconsciously fill in the gaps. Ever wondered why humans are so susceptible to false memories? We create our own reality in our brain thus it's simulated. Of course we take in stimuli but the brain doesn't just interpret them. When we see, we already simulate the projection in our retina, there is a lot of processing that happens before impulses get send to the hemispheres by the optic nerve (eyes are part of the brain anatomically speaking). That processing in the retina isn't just interpretation, nerve cells actively suppress or amplify the signals depending on what is happening to the surrounding ones, as well as what happened shortly before that. I would argue that even on this basic level it's already a simulation of the reality. Interpretation is the higher order reasoning that your frontal lobe and lymbic system might do to decide what and how to act when you see a lion jumping at you.
smoyer 10y ago
If you are trying to simulate a large universe full of self-aware intelligent being who at some point also try run these simulations. And if these simulations eventually become N layers deep. At some point one of these generations is going to run into the limits of the simulation engine's computing power. Since each supervising intelligence is watching the layers below them (and indeed started the simulation) they obviously know that those sub-layers are simulations but they don't know whether they themselves are simulations. Unfortunately, even the simulation that hits the limits can't tell whether they are computational limits or simply facets of their universe. My short opinion ... It's turtles all the way down. At least until it stops but the question here is whether there are any turtles up.
- anindha 10y ago
  As we exponentially create more worlds the base computing power can also increase exponentially if Moore's Law holds. Just keeping adding servers haha.
Mikeb85 10y ago
Don't want to make any judgements on the nature of reality, but I find it amusing that we went from thinking a pantheon of gods made the world, to a single god, to no god, and back to the idea that reality may be simulated by something/someone. It's Intro to Philosophy all over again...
- HillRat 10y ago
  In fact, I'd argue that simulationism is actually ontological simulationism, similar in some fundamental ways to Anselm's proof of the existence of God. As far as provability goes, simulationism comes up empty; you have to assume certain a priori concepts (tractable hard AI, the ability to cheaply simulate a near-infinite number of lives, time and energy availability, etc) in order to hand-wave the denominator into existence. At that point, if you want to advance this past an amusing and somewhat illuminating philosophical toy, you might as well substitute God, or gods, in for their higher-dimensional alien programmers.
- napsterbr 10y ago
  I'm completely new to philosophy but I'd like to read a little bit about it. Any chance you or some HNer could recommend a starting point?
  - Fezzik 10y ago
    I highly recommend the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps Podcast: http://historyofphilosophy.net http://historyofphilosophy.net. It gives a great cursory overview of (many of) the seminal events and is a great diving board to see what you may like to explore - the corpus of what you can study is gigantic. As a degree holder in Philosophy I would have killed for a podcast like this; I have no affiliation with the podcast or its producers.
- sopooneo 10y ago
  I had the same thought. And I wonder, if we assume we are in a simulation, are we "in his/her/their image"?
internaut 10y ago
A repost. Some speculations on the distant future. > If we aren’t actually living through a simulation, Mr Musk said, then all human life is probably about to come to an end and so we should hope that we are living in one. “Otherwise, if civilisation stops advancing, then that may be due to some calamitous event that stops civilisation,” he said at the Recode conference. I don't know why we should hope for that because any civilization in a layer in the stack of sims could be destroyed, which would destroy all nested sims beneath. In fact you should hope you're further up the stack as much as possible because then the probability of destruction is lower. However since this is about simulations it is more than likely that the physical parameters are not identical to those of the higher level simulation. Time could be experienced differently in different sims just like how animals have different lifespan ranges. > computing technology has advanced so quickly that at some point in the future it will become indistinguishable from real life That is probably the case but we still cannot say so definitively. Since a simulation is not identical to the one higher than it we should also make a line between distinguishablity to observers and actuality. This is probably where the look, don't look 'testing' comes into play. > “The full-on-crazy version of the merge is we get our brains uploaded into the cloud. I’d love that. We need to level up humans, because our descendants will either conquer the galaxy or extinguish consciousness in the universe forever. What a time to be alive!” I must admit I don't believe it happens like that. I do believe 'leveling up' is real, since we've done it before several times in our evolutionary past. I think we're missing a piece here and that piece is the past which is biology. We have not begun to explore the possibilities of genetic modification of humans. I don't see the point of being an immortal brain or a EM without the ability to manipulate, use actuators in the physical reality. Very seriously what is a 'neo-sapiens'? I think we have a good idea of what it would be in terms of intellectual prowess, being able to coordinate and understand vast quantities of information basically. What is much less clear to me is A: what does such a creature look like? Perhaps, borrowing from my favorite science fiction book, we stop consuming food completely and simply obtain nourishment via water absorption and photosynthesize like plants only on a different level. That would massively improve our ecology surrounding us to improve our odds of survival. We'd still have qualia, sensation, to help us learn, just mediated by our technologies instead of being prompted indirectly by physical processes like injections or bars of chocolate. I suspect traits like socialization, conflict, emotion and instinct have every reason to continue to exist long into our evolutionary future. It is just that we shall develop new ones. Goodbye old problem, hello new problems. I also predict the QWERTY keyboard continues to exist for many thousands of years, like some kind of vestigial limb from millions of years ago as we were flapping about in the ocean. If you can't use CTRL-ALT-DEL to reboot your latest simulation creation then you've got to wonder if you have the same values as future-you.
snowwrestler 10y ago
The simulation argument, going back to Bostrom, relies on two flaws. 1) It leverages our optimism to corrupt our understanding of statistics and logic. It essentially says that if you think humanity doesn't destroy itself, then our descendants will probably try to simulate us. But of course if you just take a statistical view of the potential future ordered states of the universe, there are FAR more potential future states in which we don't exist, than states in which we do. The chances we are living in a simulation now are equally as small. 2) Bostrom hypothesizes that our descendants will try to simulate us. But it is impossible to completely simulate a system from inside that system--that's basic thermodynamics. So simulation proponents argue that our simulated reality is running in a more complex universe than we experience. But if that is the case, then the beings running the simulation are not our descendants! They're the descendants of whatever more complex beings came before them. Once again the central logic of the argument fails.
cjhanks 10y ago
Have any of Terrile's friends and family taken him to a therapist? For him to be so certain of such an improvable (and largely irrelevant) fact seems like a sign of mental illness to me.

type0 10y ago

It is simulation, the reality as we perceive is the simulation of our own brain, it is completely that when we dream and it is partially simulation when we're awake.

dragonbonheur 10y ago
Why would you say the brain simulates reality rather than interprets it? A sundial doesn't need to simulate the sun's nuclear, gravitational and magnetic processes to cast a shadow...
- type0 10y ago
  The brain doesn't work like sun dial. Because it doesn't strictly interprets, even when we only try to observe the reality we unconsciously fill in the gaps. Ever wondered why humans are so susceptible to false memories? We create our own reality in our brain thus it's simulated. Of course we take in stimuli but the brain doesn't just interpret them. When we see, we already simulate the projection in our retina, there is a lot of processing that happens before impulses get send to the hemispheres by the optic nerve (eyes are part of the brain anatomically speaking). That processing in the retina isn't just interpretation, nerve cells actively suppress or amplify the signals depending on what is happening to the surrounding ones, as well as what happened shortly before that. I would argue that even on this basic level it's already a simulation of the reality. Interpretation is the higher order reasoning that your frontal lobe and lymbic system might do to decide what and how to act when you see a lion jumping at you.

smoyer 10y ago

If you are trying to simulate a large universe full of self-aware intelligent being who at some point also try run these simulations. And if these simulations eventually become N layers deep. At some point one of these generations is going to run into the limits of the simulation engine's computing power. Since each supervising intelligence is watching the layers below them (and indeed started the simulation) they obviously know that those sub-layers are simulations but they don't know whether they themselves are simulations. Unfortunately, even the simulation that hits the limits can't tell whether they are computational limits or simply facets of their universe. My short opinion ... It's turtles all the way down. At least until it stops but the question here is whether there are any turtles up.

anindha 10y ago
As we exponentially create more worlds the base computing power can also increase exponentially if Moore's Law holds. Just keeping adding servers haha.

Mikeb85 10y ago

Don't want to make any judgements on the nature of reality, but I find it amusing that we went from thinking a pantheon of gods made the world, to a single god, to no god, and back to the idea that reality may be simulated by something/someone. It's Intro to Philosophy all over again...

HillRat 10y ago
In fact, I'd argue that simulationism is actually ontological simulationism, similar in some fundamental ways to Anselm's proof of the existence of God. As far as provability goes, simulationism comes up empty; you have to assume certain a priori concepts (tractable hard AI, the ability to cheaply simulate a near-infinite number of lives, time and energy availability, etc) in order to hand-wave the denominator into existence. At that point, if you want to advance this past an amusing and somewhat illuminating philosophical toy, you might as well substitute God, or gods, in for their higher-dimensional alien programmers.
napsterbr 10y ago
I'm completely new to philosophy but I'd like to read a little bit about it. Any chance you or some HNer could recommend a starting point?
- Fezzik 10y ago
  I highly recommend the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps Podcast: http://historyofphilosophy.net http://historyofphilosophy.net. It gives a great cursory overview of (many of) the seminal events and is a great diving board to see what you may like to explore - the corpus of what you can study is gigantic. As a degree holder in Philosophy I would have killed for a podcast like this; I have no affiliation with the podcast or its producers.
sopooneo 10y ago
I had the same thought. And I wonder, if we assume we are in a simulation, are we "in his/her/their image"?

internaut 10y ago

A repost. Some speculations on the distant future. > If we aren’t actually living through a simulation, Mr Musk said, then all human life is probably about to come to an end and so we should hope that we are living in one. “Otherwise, if civilisation stops advancing, then that may be due to some calamitous event that stops civilisation,” he said at the Recode conference. I don't know why we should hope for that because any civilization in a layer in the stack of sims could be destroyed, which would destroy all nested sims beneath. In fact you should hope you're further up the stack as much as possible because then the probability of destruction is lower. However since this is about simulations it is more than likely that the physical parameters are not identical to those of the higher level simulation. Time could be experienced differently in different sims just like how animals have different lifespan ranges. > computing technology has advanced so quickly that at some point in the future it will become indistinguishable from real life That is probably the case but we still cannot say so definitively. Since a simulation is not identical to the one higher than it we should also make a line between distinguishablity to observers and actuality. This is probably where the look, don't look 'testing' comes into play. > “The full-on-crazy version of the merge is we get our brains uploaded into the cloud. I’d love that. We need to level up humans, because our descendants will either conquer the galaxy or extinguish consciousness in the universe forever. What a time to be alive!” I must admit I don't believe it happens like that. I do believe 'leveling up' is real, since we've done it before several times in our evolutionary past. I think we're missing a piece here and that piece is the past which is biology. We have not begun to explore the possibilities of genetic modification of humans. I don't see the point of being an immortal brain or a EM without the ability to manipulate, use actuators in the physical reality. Very seriously what is a 'neo-sapiens'? I think we have a good idea of what it would be in terms of intellectual prowess, being able to coordinate and understand vast quantities of information basically. What is much less clear to me is A: what does such a creature look like? Perhaps, borrowing from my favorite science fiction book, we stop consuming food completely and simply obtain nourishment via water absorption and photosynthesize like plants only on a different level. That would massively improve our ecology surrounding us to improve our odds of survival. We'd still have qualia, sensation, to help us learn, just mediated by our technologies instead of being prompted indirectly by physical processes like injections or bars of chocolate. I suspect traits like socialization, conflict, emotion and instinct have every reason to continue to exist long into our evolutionary future. It is just that we shall develop new ones. Goodbye old problem, hello new problems. I also predict the QWERTY keyboard continues to exist for many thousands of years, like some kind of vestigial limb from millions of years ago as we were flapping about in the ocean. If you can't use CTRL-ALT-DEL to reboot your latest simulation creation then you've got to wonder if you have the same values as future-you.

snowwrestler 10y ago

The simulation argument, going back to Bostrom, relies on two flaws. 1) It leverages our optimism to corrupt our understanding of statistics and logic. It essentially says that if you think humanity doesn't destroy itself, then our descendants will probably try to simulate us. But of course if you just take a statistical view of the potential future ordered states of the universe, there are FAR more potential future states in which we don't exist, than states in which we do. The chances we are living in a simulation now are equally as small. 2) Bostrom hypothesizes that our descendants will try to simulate us. But it is impossible to completely simulate a system from inside that system--that's basic thermodynamics. So simulation proponents argue that our simulated reality is running in a more complex universe than we experience. But if that is the case, then the beings running the simulation are not our descendants! They're the descendants of whatever more complex beings came before them. Once again the central logic of the argument fails.

cjhanks 10y ago

Have any of Terrile's friends and family taken him to a therapist? For him to be so certain of such an improvable (and largely irrelevant) fact seems like a sign of mental illness to me.