5 ms·
From Nick Bostrom: "A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argumen
by leot 15y ago
From Nick Bostrom:
"A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:
1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.
If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."
- finnw 15y agoMy money is on #2. Once they have switched on an ancestor-simulation, it's probably illegal to turn it off. So it would mean committing the hardware and electricity to the simulation forever. Whatever they gain from running the simulation, they would be reluctant to incur infinite cost in doing it.
- leot 15y agoThe cost might not be that much, especially if we use analytic "closed-form" models of the universe's behavior. ... but then we'd get strange effects (you know, perhaps things like wave-particle duality, quantum measurement, ...)
- im_dario 15y agoThere is no need for a realtime simulation. What it feels like centuries can be a fraction of second for such hardware. With this kind of simulations you can obtain, in theory, "what if" universes where alternatives solutions and technologies can be created. If you can observe them and the simulation rate is faster than your own time, it can be a rewarding experiment. About universe observing, this story is cool: http://qntm.org/responsibility http://qntm.org/responsibility
- finnw 15y agoI don't think you can simulate your own future, even if you accept #3. Either #3 is false (and there are no simulations) or #3 is true (and the vast majority of sentient beings live in simulations, which means those running the simulation are probably simulations themselves.) Yes a computer can run a simulation of an alternate version of itself, but then the speed must necessarily decrease as you go down the hierarchy (as you will see if you try to run one vmware vm inside another.) Or the simulated universe must lag behind the one containing the more powerful (thanks to Moore's law) host computer. Edit: unless you have an infinitely-powerful computer like in that story. But then you could argue that every theoretically-possible simulation must be being run by someone somewhere. Good for us even if our society never discovers the infinitely-powerful quantum computer (at least we don't need to worry about being switched off, even if our creators die or their universe collapses.)
- japaget 15y agoMy money is on #4: 4) The fraction of post-human civilizations that can build a simulation of a human-level civilization is very close to zero. Simulating a human brain is many orders of magnitude beyond the capability of present-day computers, and Moore's Law isn't likely to continue forever. It is my belief that all of humanity, or even a single human, is much too complicated to be simulated by any current or future computer.
- loup-vaillant 15y agoLiiink! http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html (From Nick Bostrom's home page: http://www.nickbostrom.com/ http://www.nickbostrom.com/ )