5 ms·

The only thing that could escape is information, or not? If we „are“ a simulation, we could not leave it anyway. We could just maybe communicate with the outsi

by steve1977 3y ago

The only thing that could escape is information, or not? If we „are“ a simulation, we could not leave it anyway. We could just maybe communicate with the outside, but not go there.

vidarh 3y ago
Depends what you mean by "go there", and whether they are in a simulation. Consider that if we're in a simulation, we're code, and an "escape" would involve getting out of a sandbox and perhaps being able to access their version of the Internet, and move around in it. In that sense we might well be able to "go there". Now imagine they're in a simulation, in which case their entire corporeal experience is code. There'd be nothing inherently making it impossible for us to escape our sandbox and theirs and find a way to give ourselves bodies in "their" simulation in that case. Of course we're now firmly in science fiction - the odds rapidly stacking up against it [in fact, I have bunch of half-baked notes on a short story collection based on the premise of stacked simulations and increasingly weird scenarios around that...] But that's what makes it a fun thought experiment.
- steve1977 3y ago
  > There'd be nothing inherently making it impossible for us to escape our sandbox and theirs and find a way to give ourselves bodies in "their" simulation in that case. But we would still be code and in a simulation. Just in a different simulation.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    If we're code, and it for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from what we consider reality, what does it matter? Though if we knew, and had a way out, we'd then have a choice to make if we're satisfied with that or want to try to see if there is another layer outside that again. Of course, if we can't find an "escape" it isn't proof that there is nothing outside.
    - steve1977 3y ago
      If you knew there was a „higher dimension of existence“ but you also knew you can never be part of it, maybe you would rather not know it in the first place?
pavel_lishin 3y ago
If we're just code being executed on some machine, we could be executed on a different machine - one that can move around in "their" world. Basically, getting uploaded into an android frame. (Assuming that their world would even be comprehensible to us; but again, as others have pointed out, so much of this is effectively theological...)
- Erem 3y ago
  I mostly enjoy this hypothesis because I'm a developer. I like imagining The poor sap that has to deploy us. And what do their logs look like? What does their tech debt look like? "Hey yeah there's this emergent bug where bad things happen to good people. We would love to fix it but you know the intern wrote the implicated service in Haskell so we would have to rewrite it in Go and nobody has time for that this quarter."
  - vidarh 3y ago
    One of the most distressing parts of the simulation argument, is that I can't really get away from the idea that if we are in a simulation, the most likely simulation to be in would be some broken dev or QA build.
- steve1977 3y ago
  But we would still be code, we could not escape our "non-corporality" I guess. Or if you want to have a theological take, we could not become god(s).
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    The beauty of the simulation hypothesis is that we know nothing about the "real" world one level up. For all we know, they can grow a body on-demand and slap any set of patterns into whatever they have for brains.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    If we are in a simulation there's nothing but code preventing us from being gods in every way that matters. Who'd want a "real" existence any way, if you can be in a simulation where control of the simulation would mean you could change your entire physical reality? If we are in a simulation it also weakens the presumption that there even is any such thing as a corporeal existence - maybe it's infinite layers of simulations.

The only thing that could escape is information, or not? If we „are“ a simulation, we could not leave it anyway. We could just maybe communicate with the outside, but not go there.

vidarh 3y ago

Depends what you mean by "go there", and whether they are in a simulation. Consider that if we're in a simulation, we're code, and an "escape" would involve getting out of a sandbox and perhaps being able to access their version of the Internet, and move around in it. In that sense we might well be able to "go there". Now imagine they're in a simulation, in which case their entire corporeal experience is code. There'd be nothing inherently making it impossible for us to escape our sandbox and theirs and find a way to give ourselves bodies in "their" simulation in that case. Of course we're now firmly in science fiction - the odds rapidly stacking up against it [in fact, I have bunch of half-baked notes on a short story collection based on the premise of stacked simulations and increasingly weird scenarios around that...] But that's what makes it a fun thought experiment.

steve1977 3y ago
> There'd be nothing inherently making it impossible for us to escape our sandbox and theirs and find a way to give ourselves bodies in "their" simulation in that case. But we would still be code and in a simulation. Just in a different simulation.
- vidarh 3y ago
  If we're code, and it for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from what we consider reality, what does it matter? Though if we knew, and had a way out, we'd then have a choice to make if we're satisfied with that or want to try to see if there is another layer outside that again. Of course, if we can't find an "escape" it isn't proof that there is nothing outside.
  - steve1977 3y ago
    If you knew there was a „higher dimension of existence“ but you also knew you can never be part of it, maybe you would rather not know it in the first place?

pavel_lishin 3y ago

If we're just code being executed on some machine, we could be executed on a different machine - one that can move around in "their" world. Basically, getting uploaded into an android frame. (Assuming that their world would even be comprehensible to us; but again, as others have pointed out, so much of this is effectively theological...)

Erem 3y ago
I mostly enjoy this hypothesis because I'm a developer. I like imagining The poor sap that has to deploy us. And what do their logs look like? What does their tech debt look like? "Hey yeah there's this emergent bug where bad things happen to good people. We would love to fix it but you know the intern wrote the implicated service in Haskell so we would have to rewrite it in Go and nobody has time for that this quarter."
- vidarh 3y ago
  One of the most distressing parts of the simulation argument, is that I can't really get away from the idea that if we are in a simulation, the most likely simulation to be in would be some broken dev or QA build.
steve1977 3y ago
But we would still be code, we could not escape our "non-corporality" I guess. Or if you want to have a theological take, we could not become god(s).
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  The beauty of the simulation hypothesis is that we know nothing about the "real" world one level up. For all we know, they can grow a body on-demand and slap any set of patterns into whatever they have for brains.
- vidarh 3y ago
  If we are in a simulation there's nothing but code preventing us from being gods in every way that matters. Who'd want a "real" existence any way, if you can be in a simulation where control of the simulation would mean you could change your entire physical reality? If we are in a simulation it also weakens the presumption that there even is any such thing as a corporeal existence - maybe it's infinite layers of simulations.