5 ms·

It's kind of interesting how people who would never consider a creationist explanation seem quite willing to embrace the idea that we're in a simulation.

naasking 5y ago
One is an assertion with no logic to justify it, the other is an assertion with a somewhat persuasive argument justifying it [1]. They are simply incomparable. [1] https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
- feoren 5y ago
  Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I respect people who believe in a bearded White omnipotent homophobic God who lives in a sky palace more than I respect people who believe in this insane drivel about the probability of living in a simulation. At least the former were indoctrinated as their brain was forming.
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    The simulation hypothesis seems as theistic as the creationist hypothesis. Maybe the main difference being that with the simulation there would likely have been many creators (programmers) whereas the creationists would say there is one (although there are polytheistic creation narratives, so maybe not so different). Other than that, they both seem to fall into the theistic category since a higher intelligence is posited who created (the simulation | the real world).
  - serverholic 5y ago
    Isn't it possible that our universe is really just an approximation meant to look as detailed as possible? You don't need a universe of processing power to simulate a universe. You just need to make it look believable enough that it fools whoever is in your simulation.
    - cepie 5y ago
      I agree with you, and even if it's not an approximation, it doesn't matter; we can't make assumptions about the size of a parent reality (and its limits on processing power) relative to our own.
  - naasking 5y ago
    > Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I think you've expressed a number of confusions. First, I think you contradicted yourself. The line you quote says that posthuman civilizations are unlikely to create simulations, but you say this is false because a universe simulation requires more power than available in the universe. So you're agreeing with the outcome while saying you're disagreeing. Second, I suggest reading the the paper fully, because Bostrom explains that we don't need full universe simulations, we need only consciousness simulations (kind of like the Matrix). The very premise of a post-human civilization is that they have knowledge sufficiently advanced that they have algorithms to simulate human minds. Much like how video games only render the part of the world that is visible to the players, so a consciousness simulation only needs to simulate minds and their perceptions of a macroscopic, classical world, they do not have to simulate a full quantum universe. Our brains are great at filling in information that we expect to be there, so even the parts that we directly perceivedon't need to be simulated with complete fidelity. Frankly, I don't think you've given the argument sufficient thought, but by a happy accident you picked exactly the outcome that I think is most likely, and I elaborate on why here: https://higherlogics.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-are-likely-not-living-in.html https://higherlogics.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-are-likely-...
    - feoren 5y ago
      Fine, you got me: the assertion that is obviously true, but goes further in that it invalidates the need for any of this discussion. If your goal was to engage me in a thought-measuring contest, sure, you win: you've spent more time thinking about this utterly ridiculous nonsense than I have. Congrats?
      - naasking 5y ago
        If you're not interested in philosophical discussions, then why engage at all, particularly only to denigrate people who like exploring thought experiments?
  - tmccrary55 5y ago
    Who says humans and/or earth are an interesting or even desirable phenomenon in a simulated universe scenario?
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  But how is the simulation hypothesis not positing a "god" of some sort (some kind of super-intelligence that they claim is behind it all)? It seems like the simulation hypothesis is a theistic hypothesis. Or do they assume the simulation just evolved? Also, why the assumption that post-humans are running the simulations (as in the paper)? Couldn't it be any ultra-advanced civilization that's playing with an evolutionary simulation?
  - lazide 5y ago
    If a simulation exists, and there is evidence of it, then sure we could surmise that someone created the simulator - and would have some evidence of such? I think the parent poster was noting that it is a pretty fundamentally different argument than say, positing the existence of a creator, because we exist at all - and that said creator has certain specific requirements of us regarding what we do on Sundays, for instance, or with whom and when we have kids.
    - UncleOxidant 5y ago
      > and that said creator has certain specific requirements Is that a requirement of every flavor of creationism? Actually, maybe I shouldn't use 'creationism' in this context because that's a loaded term with a lot of baggage at this point. What else to call a hypothesis that asserts there's some kind of intelligence behind the universe that we see? Simulationists would seem to fall into that broader category as would old-school creationists.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Well, there are Simulationists which start going on wild flights of fancy about what said simulation creator intended/created it for, which yeah would start going into that territory pretty quickly. Seems like first you'd need to have some kind of falsifiable evidence that we were in a simulation first before jumping there? Plenty of folks trying to do that though, without falling into the first case. Personally it seems to have little to no real impact on anything I care about one way or another, so filed in the 'cute but who cares' bin.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  I actually think the singularity is an interesting concept deserving of exploration. But "singularians" like Nick Bostrom (author of parent link) have some strange ideas. A. The idea that intelligence beyond human beings would grant it's possessor power that are in ways absolute in very specific, rigid fashion. Human being can accomplish a lot of things. It's notable those things human beings do better than computers seem very tenuous. Humans seem to drive rather haphazardly yet humans drive much better than computers and driving overall seems a "bucket chemistry" sort of activity. Humans calculate much worse than computers and calculation is an exact, defined activity (arguable, the exact, defined activity). But for the singularians, transhuman devices will do the uncertain, tenuous activities that humans do but with "no mistakes". And for a lot human activities, "no mistakes" actually might not even mean anything. Despite humans driving better than computers, humans probably wouldn't even agree on what absolute good driving even means. B. Simulation as exact map. Any human created simulation of some system is going to be an approximation of that system for the purpose of extracting particular phenomena. Some things are discarded, other focused on and simplified. A model of the solar has to consider conservation of energy or tiny deviations will produce instability over time since errors overall on unavoidable in current hardware. Even a simulation of a computer chip isn't useful unless one knows the chip's purpose is logical operations. But for Bostrom and partisans of C. Incoherent ontology. If we could produce an exact model of a thing, which is the real subject and which is simulation? What if we could produce twenty "exact simulations", which is real? In a realm of unlimited hypotheticals and unlimited exact simulations, wouldn't a least a countable infinite simulations of "everything" exist. Which is real is quite a conundrum but this problem itself only exists in a world of multiplied objects which we actually have no reason to suppose exists.
- TheRealNGenius 5y ago
  Just realized you linked to an article by Nick Bostrom, apparently the same guy who posits the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant. Seems in general to hold opinions in contradiction with mine.
  - naasking 5y ago
    The simulation argument is definitely true, in the sense that one of the outcomes Bostrom describes must be true. I don't think he takes a position on which outcome is true, so I'm not sure what there is to disagree with there. As for aging and life extension, I honestly don't understand how anyone could reasonably think we shouldn't stop or reverse aging.
    - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
      Those are some bold claims that not even Bostrom makes. Irregardless, I would take one but for a fool for assertions without the backing of evidence: of which a hypothetical thought-experiment is not. I can certainly comprehend why one would wish to become an immortal being incapable of death. But I just want to be human. Sure you can live forever, but at what cost? A fear for sunlight, garlic, and crosses? For me, "Death is very likely the single best invention of Life."
dntrkv 5y ago
Well, in my case, I don't believe our universe is a simulation, but I'm open to discussing the idea for fun and it does seem like a possibility. Whereas, most people that believe in creationism, believe it 100% to be the case and if you don't believe the same you are going to hell. I grew up in an evangelical Christian community and you can't really compare the two groups. Evangelicals are ready to die for this belief.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  This is mostly the YECs (Young Earth Creationist - "the earth is 6000 years old" camp). There are other flavors like ID (Intelligent Design) that tend to hold things a good bit looser - and there are many different flavors of ID as well. But yeah, the YEC folks are completely "it's our way or the hellway!" and the Evangelicals have pretty much doubled down on YEC - that wasn't always the case, there used to be a lot of Evangelicals that were theistic evolutionists and had no problem with a 4.5B year old earth. EDIT: maybe we need another word in this context besides 'creationist' since it has a lot of baggage in the culture at this point. What else to call someone who hypothesizes that there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe? The simulationists seem to fit into that category as do the various flavors of 'creationist', 'intelligent design', 'theistic evolutionist' and probably even Hindus, etc.
  - ericb 5y ago
    The term "deist" fits some of those items, although. Interestingly, I think some of the distinction as to why this idea is more palatable is that it doesn't require "supernatural" or "magic" deities. The "creator" could be just like us. We already have evidence that creating virtual worlds is possible--we do it ourselves with games, so I think it takes a lot less faith, as we have a limited proof of principle already. Also, most magical creationism is totally untestable. You can make some predictions about a simulation, though. If simulations are subject to constraints, which is likely, you should be able to ascertain, in the design of the universe, that items with the biggest O might be subject to performance optimizations. If you find lazy loading, caching, or other performance optimizations at the smallest scale (biggest O), which is what this might predict, you at least have some hints.

naasking 5y ago

One is an assertion with no logic to justify it, the other is an assertion with a somewhat persuasive argument justifying it [1]. They are simply incomparable. [1] https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

feoren 5y ago
Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I respect people who believe in a bearded White omnipotent homophobic God who lives in a sky palace more than I respect people who believe in this insane drivel about the probability of living in a simulation. At least the former were indoctrinated as their brain was forming.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  The simulation hypothesis seems as theistic as the creationist hypothesis. Maybe the main difference being that with the simulation there would likely have been many creators (programmers) whereas the creationists would say there is one (although there are polytheistic creation narratives, so maybe not so different). Other than that, they both seem to fall into the theistic category since a higher intelligence is posited who created (the simulation | the real world).
- serverholic 5y ago
  Isn't it possible that our universe is really just an approximation meant to look as detailed as possible? You don't need a universe of processing power to simulate a universe. You just need to make it look believable enough that it fools whoever is in your simulation.
  - cepie 5y ago
    I agree with you, and even if it's not an approximation, it doesn't matter; we can't make assumptions about the size of a parent reality (and its limits on processing power) relative to our own.
- naasking 5y ago
  > Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I think you've expressed a number of confusions. First, I think you contradicted yourself. The line you quote says that posthuman civilizations are unlikely to create simulations, but you say this is false because a universe simulation requires more power than available in the universe. So you're agreeing with the outcome while saying you're disagreeing. Second, I suggest reading the the paper fully, because Bostrom explains that we don't need full universe simulations, we need only consciousness simulations (kind of like the Matrix). The very premise of a post-human civilization is that they have knowledge sufficiently advanced that they have algorithms to simulate human minds. Much like how video games only render the part of the world that is visible to the players, so a consciousness simulation only needs to simulate minds and their perceptions of a macroscopic, classical world, they do not have to simulate a full quantum universe. Our brains are great at filling in information that we expect to be there, so even the parts that we directly perceivedon't need to be simulated with complete fidelity. Frankly, I don't think you've given the argument sufficient thought, but by a happy accident you picked exactly the outcome that I think is most likely, and I elaborate on why here: https://higherlogics.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-are-likely-not-living-in.html https://higherlogics.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-we-are-likely-...
  - feoren 5y ago
    Fine, you got me: the assertion that is obviously true, but goes further in that it invalidates the need for any of this discussion. If your goal was to engage me in a thought-measuring contest, sure, you win: you've spent more time thinking about this utterly ridiculous nonsense than I have. Congrats?
    - naasking 5y ago
      If you're not interested in philosophical discussions, then why engage at all, particularly only to denigrate people who like exploring thought experiments?
- tmccrary55 5y ago
  Who says humans and/or earth are an interesting or even desirable phenomenon in a simulated universe scenario?
UncleOxidant 5y ago
But how is the simulation hypothesis not positing a "god" of some sort (some kind of super-intelligence that they claim is behind it all)? It seems like the simulation hypothesis is a theistic hypothesis. Or do they assume the simulation just evolved? Also, why the assumption that post-humans are running the simulations (as in the paper)? Couldn't it be any ultra-advanced civilization that's playing with an evolutionary simulation?
- lazide 5y ago
  If a simulation exists, and there is evidence of it, then sure we could surmise that someone created the simulator - and would have some evidence of such? I think the parent poster was noting that it is a pretty fundamentally different argument than say, positing the existence of a creator, because we exist at all - and that said creator has certain specific requirements of us regarding what we do on Sundays, for instance, or with whom and when we have kids.
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    > and that said creator has certain specific requirements Is that a requirement of every flavor of creationism? Actually, maybe I shouldn't use 'creationism' in this context because that's a loaded term with a lot of baggage at this point. What else to call a hypothesis that asserts there's some kind of intelligence behind the universe that we see? Simulationists would seem to fall into that broader category as would old-school creationists.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Well, there are Simulationists which start going on wild flights of fancy about what said simulation creator intended/created it for, which yeah would start going into that territory pretty quickly. Seems like first you'd need to have some kind of falsifiable evidence that we were in a simulation first before jumping there? Plenty of folks trying to do that though, without falling into the first case. Personally it seems to have little to no real impact on anything I care about one way or another, so filed in the 'cute but who cares' bin.
joe_the_user 5y ago
I actually think the singularity is an interesting concept deserving of exploration. But "singularians" like Nick Bostrom (author of parent link) have some strange ideas. A. The idea that intelligence beyond human beings would grant it's possessor power that are in ways absolute in very specific, rigid fashion. Human being can accomplish a lot of things. It's notable those things human beings do better than computers seem very tenuous. Humans seem to drive rather haphazardly yet humans drive much better than computers and driving overall seems a "bucket chemistry" sort of activity. Humans calculate much worse than computers and calculation is an exact, defined activity (arguable, the exact, defined activity). But for the singularians, transhuman devices will do the uncertain, tenuous activities that humans do but with "no mistakes". And for a lot human activities, "no mistakes" actually might not even mean anything. Despite humans driving better than computers, humans probably wouldn't even agree on what absolute good driving even means. B. Simulation as exact map. Any human created simulation of some system is going to be an approximation of that system for the purpose of extracting particular phenomena. Some things are discarded, other focused on and simplified. A model of the solar has to consider conservation of energy or tiny deviations will produce instability over time since errors overall on unavoidable in current hardware. Even a simulation of a computer chip isn't useful unless one knows the chip's purpose is logical operations. But for Bostrom and partisans of C. Incoherent ontology. If we could produce an exact model of a thing, which is the real subject and which is simulation? What if we could produce twenty "exact simulations", which is real? In a realm of unlimited hypotheticals and unlimited exact simulations, wouldn't a least a countable infinite simulations of "everything" exist. Which is real is quite a conundrum but this problem itself only exists in a world of multiplied objects which we actually have no reason to suppose exists.
TheRealNGenius 5y ago
Just realized you linked to an article by Nick Bostrom, apparently the same guy who posits the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant. Seems in general to hold opinions in contradiction with mine.
- naasking 5y ago
  The simulation argument is definitely true, in the sense that one of the outcomes Bostrom describes must be true. I don't think he takes a position on which outcome is true, so I'm not sure what there is to disagree with there. As for aging and life extension, I honestly don't understand how anyone could reasonably think we shouldn't stop or reverse aging.
  - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
    Those are some bold claims that not even Bostrom makes. Irregardless, I would take one but for a fool for assertions without the backing of evidence: of which a hypothetical thought-experiment is not. I can certainly comprehend why one would wish to become an immortal being incapable of death. But I just want to be human. Sure you can live forever, but at what cost? A fear for sunlight, garlic, and crosses? For me, "Death is very likely the single best invention of Life."

dntrkv 5y ago

Well, in my case, I don't believe our universe is a simulation, but I'm open to discussing the idea for fun and it does seem like a possibility. Whereas, most people that believe in creationism, believe it 100% to be the case and if you don't believe the same you are going to hell. I grew up in an evangelical Christian community and you can't really compare the two groups. Evangelicals are ready to die for this belief.

UncleOxidant 5y ago
This is mostly the YECs (Young Earth Creationist - "the earth is 6000 years old" camp). There are other flavors like ID (Intelligent Design) that tend to hold things a good bit looser - and there are many different flavors of ID as well. But yeah, the YEC folks are completely "it's our way or the hellway!" and the Evangelicals have pretty much doubled down on YEC - that wasn't always the case, there used to be a lot of Evangelicals that were theistic evolutionists and had no problem with a 4.5B year old earth. EDIT: maybe we need another word in this context besides 'creationist' since it has a lot of baggage in the culture at this point. What else to call someone who hypothesizes that there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe? The simulationists seem to fit into that category as do the various flavors of 'creationist', 'intelligent design', 'theistic evolutionist' and probably even Hindus, etc.
- ericb 5y ago
  The term "deist" fits some of those items, although. Interestingly, I think some of the distinction as to why this idea is more palatable is that it doesn't require "supernatural" or "magic" deities. The "creator" could be just like us. We already have evidence that creating virtual worlds is possible--we do it ourselves with games, so I think it takes a lot less faith, as we have a limited proof of principle already. Also, most magical creationism is totally untestable. You can make some predictions about a simulation, though. If simulations are subject to constraints, which is likely, you should be able to ascertain, in the design of the universe, that items with the biggest O might be subject to performance optimizations. If you find lazy loading, caching, or other performance optimizations at the smallest scale (biggest O), which is what this might predict, you at least have some hints.