7 ms·

What is the "simulation argument"? I read the article but don't remember that.

• nitrogen 12y ago
  It's a fallacious extrapolation of Moore's law into the idea that our universe must be a computer simulation (of course there's more to it than my flippant summary suggests, but I still find the arguments unconvincing even if the idea itself is interesting).
  • kamaal 12y ago
    The rate at which computers have gotten powerful is simply mind boggling. Even as early as 20 years ago, something like an iPhone would sound like wishful thinking to someone who would think rationally. Heck WWW, internet, mobile phones and this whole thing looks right out of a science fiction book for some one in early part of 1900's Its hard to imagine how much more computers can go. But I believe people in the future will look at our way of thinking about computing limits(Moore's law) in the same we look at vaccum tubes. Or the way we look at people who thought heavier than air flying objects are impossible by laws of physics. We just don't know how many 'transistor events' or 'wright brother' events there are going to be in the future which will work around the laws of science orthogonally.
    • nitrogen 12y ago
      There is a limit to the amount of computation that can be done by a given amount of matter that only new physics could change. Given that limit, at best you would need every particle in our universe just to simulate an identical one. It's more likely that the best possible simulation would have significantly reduced fidelity and/or size with respect to its host universe, thus the inevitability component of the simulation argument falls apart. What would convince me we are a simulation is evidence (e.g. proof that quantum randomness is caused by floating point rounding errors, or that entanglement is caused by lazy expression evaluation), hard empirical measurements. Not arguments from pure logic and extrapolation. That said, I agree that we have done some amazing things with computers; I just doubt (in the extreme) the simulation argument is valid.
      • philwelch 12y ago
        As far as I can tell, you don't even disagree with the simulation argument. The simulation argument is that one of three propositions is true: 1. It is impossible to create a simulated world that people can live in. 2. People consistently do not choose to create such simulations. 3. We are almost certainly living in such a simulation right now. You haven't said anything to undermine the basic logic of the argument at all; instead, you're arguing that statement 1 is true. But the simulation argument is that one out of statements 1-3 is true. Hence you agree with the simulation argument. You just don't think you do because you identify the whole argument with statement 3.
        • Sandman 12y ago
          Based on what you just said, the simulation "argument" is no argument at all. The three propositions cover all possible cases. How can you argue against that? What would be the counter-argument?
          • philwelch 12y ago
            The counterargument would be simple: a counterexample where all three propositions are false at the same time. The Simulation Argument is really a tool, and a challenge. It sets things up such that, if we manage to disprove 1 and 2 empirically, we get stuck with a shocking realization about the basic facts of our existence. It gives us an unusual way of indirectly testing whether or not we are living in a simulation. That's a lot out of something that "isn't an argument at all".
            • keenerd 12y ago
              > The Simulation Argument is really a tool, and a challenge. No it isn't. It is Pascal's Wager updated for the 21st century. The only way it can be "proved" is if we are living in a really bad, poorly maintained, fundamentally broken, cheaply outsourced simulation.
        • mc808 12y ago
          The argument seems to be missing a proposition: 4. It is possible to create and live in a simulated world, but not with the level of fidelity/flexibility necessary for the infinite regress that would make #3 convincing.
    • tspiteri 12y ago
      Or the way we look at people who thought heavier than air flying objects are impossible by laws of physics. Did any people actually think this? That would be weird, considering how we are surrounded by heavier-than-air flying animals.
      • JanezStupar 12y ago
        Everybody rational knew that it cannot be done.
        • seanflyon 12y ago
          "cannot be done" means "too difficult to be feasible" more often than it means "impossible by laws of physics"
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
• anigbrowl 12y ago
  A philosophical bauble: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html The idea is that if computers continue to become more and more powerful, then we'll run more and more simulations on them, including simulations of ourselves; and if we can simulate consciousness, as some suggest, the the statistical likelihood is that we are living in a simulation, because it the least computationally expensive assumption. Conversely, if we're not living in a simulation then either we will never be able to simulate consciousness or there will be some other factor that makes it an unpopular activity.