3 ms·
>Simulationism is predicated on the hypothesis that we could construct a completely accurate simulation of our universe in our universe, as if recursively-simul
by dmorgan 14y ago
>Simulationism is predicated on the hypothesis that we could construct a completely accurate simulation of our universe in our universe, as if recursively-simulated universes are possible it becomes vanishingly unlikely that we do not live in one, so demonstrating that that's possible would be pretty important.
Actually it wouldn't have to be "a completely accurate simulation of our universe in our universe". A "somewhat accurate simulation of our universe in our universe" would also do for the statistical purposes of that premise. If you have recursively-simulated universes, even if they are not 100% like each other, it shouldn't change the probabilities, right?
That said, I don't fully agree with the main premise:
>if recursively-simulated universes are possible it becomes vanishingly unlikely that we do not live in one
Sounds to me somewhat akin to the faulty "ontological proof of the existence of God" ("Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.").
- Cushman 14y agoIt bears some similarities to the ontological argument, but it's not fundamentally grounded in ontology. It's based on the hypothesis that simulation is possible, which is testable in some sense. Say we cook up a little Earth simulator, and it spontaneously generates a perfect being with both agency and omniscience. That would be a fair bit of evidence for the ontological argument, yes? That's also why I say "completely accurate". A really rigorous argument relies on recursive simulation, since creating a simulation that couldn't be the universe isn't very strong evidence. (I'm typing on one right now, in fact.) If we make a completely accurate simulation, we can skip the step of proving that we can make a simulation of it, because we already did.
- sp332 14y agoAnselm's ontological argument isn't faulty, it's just not very useful. It just claims that things that "really" exist are greater than things which exist only in our minds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm As you can see the implications are pretty weak. Maybe we should go find the greatest thing that really exists and declare it to be God.