3 ms·

Obviously this is a theme that has been explored in SF a fair amount (recent examples include Ken Macleod's The Restoration Game and Iain Banks' Surface Detail)

Obviously this is a theme that has been explored in SF a fair amount (recent examples include Ken Macleod's The Restoration Game and Iain Banks' Surface Detail). One obvious problem is that it appears to be highly immoral to generate a simulation in which millions or billions of sentient beings suffer, which presumably would weigh heavier on a more advanced species (human or otherwise).

georgemcbay 12y ago
It is pretty easy to ignore the suffering of others if you can convince yourself that it is a different and simpler form of suffering than you feel -- just look at how a lot of humans (and I'm talking about ones that are accepted by society, not crazy psychopaths) treat animals (eg. circus elephants).
- infogulch 12y ago
  Exactly. For a being that is capable of simulating the entire universe at the quantum level we may be no more "sentient" in their minds than ants are in our minds.
JetSpiegel 12y ago
Humans have no problem in letting billions suffer in real life. Are beings in a simulation "sentient"? This seems illogical.
- blacksmith_tb 12y ago
  Perhaps we aren't highly advanced enough yet to care (some of us do, some of us don't - and relatively few extend that concern to say, lichens, admittedly). As to whether or not simulated beings could be sentient, well, if we're all living in a simulation now, I say the answer is 'yes' - I hope...
ars 12y ago
> One obvious problem is that it appears to be highly immoral to generate a simulation in which millions or billions of sentient beings suffer If you had a computer program that printed "I'm suffering" on the screen, would you consider that real suffering? Or just a robot that doesn't actually feel anything, it just simulates it? Or a game where your character is low on health points - is that game character really suffering? To that other being we may be the same way. I internally "feel" real, but that being may not consider it so, and even if I tell them they may just be excited at how good their simulation is.

georgemcbay 12y ago

It is pretty easy to ignore the suffering of others if you can convince yourself that it is a different and simpler form of suffering than you feel -- just look at how a lot of humans (and I'm talking about ones that are accepted by society, not crazy psychopaths) treat animals (eg. circus elephants).

infogulch 12y ago
Exactly. For a being that is capable of simulating the entire universe at the quantum level we may be no more "sentient" in their minds than ants are in our minds.

JetSpiegel 12y ago

Humans have no problem in letting billions suffer in real life. Are beings in a simulation "sentient"? This seems illogical.

blacksmith_tb 12y ago
Perhaps we aren't highly advanced enough yet to care (some of us do, some of us don't - and relatively few extend that concern to say, lichens, admittedly). As to whether or not simulated beings could be sentient, well, if we're all living in a simulation now, I say the answer is 'yes' - I hope...

ars 12y ago

> One obvious problem is that it appears to be highly immoral to generate a simulation in which millions or billions of sentient beings suffer If you had a computer program that printed "I'm suffering" on the screen, would you consider that real suffering? Or just a robot that doesn't actually feel anything, it just simulates it? Or a game where your character is low on health points - is that game character really suffering? To that other being we may be the same way. I internally "feel" real, but that being may not consider it so, and even if I tell them they may just be excited at how good their simulation is.