4 ms·

> If we're in a simulation, you have no basis for drawing conclusions about any of our observations, whether those observations have taken place, whether anythi

> If we're in a simulation, you have no basis for drawing conclusions about any of our observations, whether those observations have taken place, whether anything outside of this moment exists, or anything outside your mind, or both. But then simulation is unfalsifiable. Whatever you observe, the simulation could have paused an arbitrary number of times, or modified you or the environment to an arbitrary degree, hence it's compatible with simulation. Which makes simulation "a difference that makes no difference".

macguillicuddy 5y ago
Without wanting to speak on their behalf, I think that's exactly vidarh's point. That simulation is indeed unfalsifiable and therefore mjburgess' conjecture that it's false doesn't hold.
WJW 5y ago
Simulation being unfalsifiable is indeed the main problem with the theory.
- klyrs 5y ago
  A theory known to be unfalsifiable cannot be conclusively ruled "false." It can only be deemed outside of the realm of science. To make such a strong claim puts one back in the realm of faith in pseudoscience. I like the word "bullshit." Bullshit isn't necessarily true, isn't necessarily false, it's simply not worth my time to wade into it.
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    The simulation theory rests on a hypothesis that there are certain conditions outside of simulation, but if external conditions are certain, then the simulation has limited flexibility and is thus falsifiable. For it to be unfalsifiable external conditions must be at least unfathomable, which takes away the premise of the simulation theory that it correctly guessed external conditions.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      Is sounds like you're discussing a specific simulation hypothesis. I'm assuming you're referring to Bostrom's Simulation Argument, but that is only one possible variant of simulation. Bostrom's Simulation Argument posits that one of three propositions are likely to be true, of which only one posits that we're likely in a simulation. The "simulation proposition" of the argument could be falsified by e.g. humanity going extinct (proving the first proposition of the argument true, but the 3rd - the simulation one - to be false). But falsifying that proposition would not falsify the notion of simulation.
vidarh 5y ago
As macguillicuddy pointed out, the point was that the general concept of simulation is indeed unfalsifiable, and we can only ever hope to falsify very limited subsets. E.g. we can certainly say certain things about what features a simulation must have. It does however not necessarily make a simulation a difference that makes no difference, because if we're in a simulation it is possible that we are in one where it is possible to falsify the theory that we're not in a simulation. E.g. we could potentially find bugs that reveal telltale signs we're in a simulation, or outright vulnerabilities. It's even possible we could finds ways of "escaping" the simulation. The problem of course being that you could well devote a lifetime to it and find nothing and it would tell you nothing about whether we're in a simulation or not, so unless you run into some anomaly that hints at it, it'd seem a rather wasteful pursuit. In reality, of course, chances are none of us will ever see anything to give us reason to pursue that idea, but it's fun to think about. I write short stories about this subject, and I have a long document with headache-inducing scenarios to write up.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  If simulation is unfalsifiable, then it's also unjustifiable.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Falsifiability does not work that way. To avoid hypotheses that are unfalsifiable is good practice absent evidence because you can construct an infinite number of such hypotheses. That does not mean that a given unfalsifiable hypothesis can not be true, however, just that pursuing it is generally likely to be a waste of effort. Asserting that simulation is definitely true absent evidence would be unjustified, but very few people would make that claim, so it's not very relevant. However the inverse - the hypothesis that we're not in a simulation - is falsifiable by proving that we are in a simulation. And any number of variations over the idea that we might be in a simulation can also be testable and falsifiable in various ways. The original point of contention was that QM and non-determinism proves we're not in a simulation, however, and that is not a viable way to falsify the hypothesis that we're not in a simulation. The hypothesis that non-determinism proves we're not in a simulation is falsifiable by coming up with a way wherein non-determinism can be accommodated. If the world the simulator runs in has access to non-determinism this is trivially done by simply forwarding non-determinism into the simulation (many other approaches to attack that hypothesis are possible, e.g. using a additional simulations as oracles to determine if supposedly non-deterministic events would be revealed as such, and use that to pick values that ensures a failure to simulate non-determinism never gets detected, so access to a source of non-determinism is not necessary to falsify that hypothesis either, though it would complicate matters). As such the hypothesis that non-determinism alone proves we're not in a simulation is false.

macguillicuddy 5y ago

Without wanting to speak on their behalf, I think that's exactly vidarh's point. That simulation is indeed unfalsifiable and therefore mjburgess' conjecture that it's false doesn't hold.

WJW 5y ago

Simulation being unfalsifiable is indeed the main problem with the theory.

klyrs 5y ago
A theory known to be unfalsifiable cannot be conclusively ruled "false." It can only be deemed outside of the realm of science. To make such a strong claim puts one back in the realm of faith in pseudoscience. I like the word "bullshit." Bullshit isn't necessarily true, isn't necessarily false, it's simply not worth my time to wade into it.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  The simulation theory rests on a hypothesis that there are certain conditions outside of simulation, but if external conditions are certain, then the simulation has limited flexibility and is thus falsifiable. For it to be unfalsifiable external conditions must be at least unfathomable, which takes away the premise of the simulation theory that it correctly guessed external conditions.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Is sounds like you're discussing a specific simulation hypothesis. I'm assuming you're referring to Bostrom's Simulation Argument, but that is only one possible variant of simulation. Bostrom's Simulation Argument posits that one of three propositions are likely to be true, of which only one posits that we're likely in a simulation. The "simulation proposition" of the argument could be falsified by e.g. humanity going extinct (proving the first proposition of the argument true, but the 3rd - the simulation one - to be false). But falsifying that proposition would not falsify the notion of simulation.

vidarh 5y ago

As macguillicuddy pointed out, the point was that the general concept of simulation is indeed unfalsifiable, and we can only ever hope to falsify very limited subsets. E.g. we can certainly say certain things about what features a simulation must have. It does however not necessarily make a simulation a difference that makes no difference, because if we're in a simulation it is possible that we are in one where it is possible to falsify the theory that we're not in a simulation. E.g. we could potentially find bugs that reveal telltale signs we're in a simulation, or outright vulnerabilities. It's even possible we could finds ways of "escaping" the simulation. The problem of course being that you could well devote a lifetime to it and find nothing and it would tell you nothing about whether we're in a simulation or not, so unless you run into some anomaly that hints at it, it'd seem a rather wasteful pursuit. In reality, of course, chances are none of us will ever see anything to give us reason to pursue that idea, but it's fun to think about. I write short stories about this subject, and I have a long document with headache-inducing scenarios to write up.

GoblinSlayer 5y ago
If simulation is unfalsifiable, then it's also unjustifiable.
- vidarh 5y ago
  Falsifiability does not work that way. To avoid hypotheses that are unfalsifiable is good practice absent evidence because you can construct an infinite number of such hypotheses. That does not mean that a given unfalsifiable hypothesis can not be true, however, just that pursuing it is generally likely to be a waste of effort. Asserting that simulation is definitely true absent evidence would be unjustified, but very few people would make that claim, so it's not very relevant. However the inverse - the hypothesis that we're not in a simulation - is falsifiable by proving that we are in a simulation. And any number of variations over the idea that we might be in a simulation can also be testable and falsifiable in various ways. The original point of contention was that QM and non-determinism proves we're not in a simulation, however, and that is not a viable way to falsify the hypothesis that we're not in a simulation. The hypothesis that non-determinism proves we're not in a simulation is falsifiable by coming up with a way wherein non-determinism can be accommodated. If the world the simulator runs in has access to non-determinism this is trivially done by simply forwarding non-determinism into the simulation (many other approaches to attack that hypothesis are possible, e.g. using a additional simulations as oracles to determine if supposedly non-deterministic events would be revealed as such, and use that to pick values that ensures a failure to simulate non-determinism never gets detected, so access to a source of non-determinism is not necessary to falsify that hypothesis either, though it would complicate matters). As such the hypothesis that non-determinism alone proves we're not in a simulation is false.