universe a simulation

[General Zod]

They are shitty philosophers then. I learned in my philosophy class that good philosophers use logic--it's a major part of good philosophy. There are many good Philosophers. I don't think all philosophy is bs, just because there are some idiots who don't use what you're supposed to use in Philosophy. Where I come from, in order to be a Phil major, you need to take several classes in Logic.

i have a tendency to trust scientific theories being proposed by an actual scientific authority as opposed to someone with an arts degree.

[Symmetry]

We can never simulate a complete universe, at least not one that is also capable of simulating a universe.

They only have to simulate the percieved universe. Much easier.

[Kuroneko]

I read an article about a theory that the universe is a simulation and the argument was that once technology gets advanced enough to make good enough simulations of the world then the simulated worlds will get more common then the real one and then probability says that it would be more probable that our world is one of those simulations.

I have seen that also. As I recall it, I could not fault the validity of the inference itself, but the soundness of an argument depends on the premises as well as the inference. There, justification was very weak. The published version had some careful qualifiers; in fact, the original abstract has a list of alternatives as the conclusion, openly acknowledgeding the possibility of there being no world-simulations in the future (that being one of the alternatives). As always, one should not take the conclusion of an argument any more seriously than its premises, and how seriously one should take the possibility of common world-simulations in the future is the real issue.

a philosopher? in that case it's fairly safe to say it's bullshit.

Pointless ad hominem.

because far too often philosophers completely ignore things like the scientific method and logic for whatever happens to sound appealing.

This ignores the fact that the scientific method is itself a philosophy, shaped in no small part by philosophers of science. Conception of science has evolved quite a bit through the ages--for example, even during Newton's time and as late as early electrodynamics (Ampere, etc.), scientific laws were throught to be deductively proven from observation, and were recognized as inductive generalizations only later (even this stance was later amended). One can learn in any modern Logic 101 class that such a stance is not logical, and from modern eyes, rather simple-minded. Note that this is no way negates the fact that the achievements of past scientists are important, and even laudable, but merely says that there has been progress in all parts of science, methodology and ideology included.

i have a tendency to trust scientific theories being proposed by an actual scientific authority as opposed to someone with an arts degree.

If you wish to be dismissive, simply do so; you have no obligation to do anything at all with that article. However, throwing over-reaching insults over a general group of people with absolutely nothing to justify them is the epitome of assholism. Personally, I'm not particularly impressed with the author of the aformentioned article either, but even for that singular case, you could at least go into why it is wrong first.

[mauldooku]

It's not up to us to refute it. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence/proof.

Evidence for there being more simulated worlds after the point where technology gets advanced enough?

It feels like I'm missing something.

Alright. Let's compare the two different conclusions, then.

1. The universe is all which can be observed.

2. The universe is all which can be observed and it is also a gigantic computer simulation, outside of our perceptions or measuring techniques.

The second conclusion has a rather difficult extra bit to prove, no? It's his burden to fulfill it, and quite frankly there's no evidence to support his proposition. Without evidence, the second conclusion has an extra assumption, and at this point, it's a textbook Occam's Razor utilization. The universe as a computer simulation has no evidence backing it, does not further understanding, nor add predictive power. It has roughly as much point as adding the 'God' term to a scientific theory: none.

[Kuroneko]

Alright. Let's compare the two different conclusions, then.
...
The second conclusion has a rather difficult extra bit to prove, no? It's his burden to fulfill it, and quite frankly there's no evidence to support his proposition. Without evidence, the second conclusion has an extra assumption, and at this point, it's a textbook Occam's Razor utilization.

Incorrect. What's really the issue is the claim that world-simulations (not universe-simulations) will become common in the future. Concluding from that that it is more probable that we are now living in such a simulation is rather unproblematic, so what you should be examining is the premise, not the conclusion. Luckily, that premise is questionable enough all by itself.

The universe as a computer simulation has no evidence backing it, does not further understanding, nor add predictive power. It has roughly as much point as adding the 'God' term to a scientific theory: none.

Again, you ignore the actual premise of the article. It quite plainly does have some predictive power, and is falsifiable, since it depends critically on the plausability of its premise, which is a very strong claim about technology.

[Grog]

You are correct it should have been world not an entire universe. Sorry for being unclear.

Thank you Kuroneko for the answer, I wasn't as stupid as I thought (I think)

[Durandal]

Well let's say the theory is correct for a second. This universe is a simulation. This brings up several questions.

1. Why is it being simulated? The most plausible use for such accurate simulations in the future is recreation. This universe is certainly not a paradise theme park, so again, why? This question is basically a restatement of "Why does God allow suffering?" What's the answer? "The simulators have a divine plan"? Unacceptable.
2. What implications does this have? None. If this universe is a simulation that is the result of huge advances in simulation technology, then it's safe to assume that this universe, for all intents and purposes, is the real thing. So we can go about the scientific study of it completely unimpeded by this new knowledge.
3. Why is it not like other simulations, where it is possible to exit the simulation at any time? Is the Earth a barren wasteland, with humans stuck in a simulation to give them something to do while the ecosystem recovers from a disaster or something?

[Kuroneko]

1. Why is it being simulated? The most plausible use for such accurate simulations in the future is recreation. This universe is certainly not a paradise theme park, so again, why? This question is basically a restatement of "Why does God allow suffering?" What's the answer? "The simulators have a divine plan"? Unacceptable.

Indeed. The original article handwaves over this issue considerably, but the premise there is that future humanity will have an interest in doing simulations of the past (say, to explore historical alternatives), and that such simulations would be common, so that I should have added that it is a motivational and ethical claims about humanity as well as a strong technological one. Not that this makes it any more plausible, mind, simply that's what the premise was.

2. What implications does this have? None. If this universe is a simulation that is the result of huge advances in simulation technology, then it's safe to assume that this universe, for all intents and purposes, is the real thing. So we can go about the scientific study of it completely unimpeded by this new knowledge.

Quite right. As far as practical implications, in science or pretty much anything else, virtually none. The nature of the 'ultimate reality', whether brought about by a Cartesian evil genius, a brain-in-a-vat, or historically-minded future-people, is of not relevant to science or even daily life, since the reality that is actually experienced is of the foremost (indeed, scientifically only) concern.

3. Why is it not like other simulations, where it is possible to exit the simulation at any time? Is the Earth a barren wasteland, with humans stuck in a simulation to give them something to do while the ecosystem recovers from a disaster or something?

Well, that one actually has a straightforward answe, presupposing this whole scenario in the first place. We're the products of the simulation, not something that is imposed on us from without (ala Matrix). Unless one insists on the concept of soul, this is completely unproblematic.

[mauldooku]

Alright. Let's compare the two different conclusions, then.
...
The second conclusion has a rather difficult extra bit to prove, no? It's his burden to fulfill it, and quite frankly there's no evidence to support his proposition. Without evidence, the second conclusion has an extra assumption, and at this point, it's a textbook Occam's Razor utilization.

Incorrect. What's really the issue is the claim that world-simulations (not universe-simulations) will become common in the future. Concluding from that that it is more probable that we are now living in such a simulation is rather unproblematic, so what you should be examining is the premise, not the conclusion. Luckily, that premise is questionable enough all by itself.

The universe as a computer simulation has no evidence backing it, does not further understanding, nor add predictive power. It has roughly as much point as adding the 'God' term to a scientific theory: none.

Again, you ignore the actual premise of the article. It quite plainly does have some predictive power, and is falsifiable, since it depends critically on the plausability of its premise, which is a very strong claim about technology.

My fault for not reading over the OP more carefully. It appeared to me as a generic 'The universe is a simulation/illusion/Matrix!' claim without anything else, not an article based on the advent of advanced technology leading to a claim concerning probability. Conceded.

[Durandal]

Well, that one actually has a straightforward answe, presupposing this whole scenario in the first place. We're the products of the simulation, not something that is imposed on us from without (ala Matrix). Unless one insists on the concept of soul, this is completely unproblematic.

I'm not sure I buy that, if only from a self-centered point of view. I'm not a product of a simulation because I'm sentient. Unless you're arguing that our universe is a very advanced form of The Sims, in which each character has achieved sentience.

But if that's the case, then it's not really a simulation. To those who created it, it may be, but to us, it's our real world, because we were generated within the rules and settings of this world.

[Kuroneko]

I'm not sure I buy that, if only from a self-centered point of view. I'm not a product of a simulation because I'm sentient. Unless you're arguing that our universe is a very advanced form of The Sims, in which each character has achieved sentience.

The über-Sims comparison is precisely what that positions claims. There is no reason why sentience can be achieved by no means other than the biological brain. However, the immense scale of such a simulation and its commonality [in the future] make such a scenario rather hard to swallow.

But if that's the case, then it's not really a simulation. To those who created it, it may be, but to us, it's our real world, because we were generated within the rules and settings of this world.

I agree, but this is exactly what the second point covered in your above post, and is not really related to the third.

[General Zod]

i have a tendency to trust scientific theories being proposed by an actual scientific authority as opposed to someone with an arts degree.

If you wish to be dismissive, simply do so; you have no obligation to do anything at all with that article. However, throwing over-reaching insults over a general group of people with absolutely nothing to justify them is the epitome of assholism. Personally, I'm not particularly impressed with the author of the aformentioned article either, but even for that singular case, you could at least go into why it is wrong first.

point taken. guess i jumped the guns too quickly. though as it is i don't really see how this 'new' theory is different in any significant way from intelligent design or creationism, and those have already been debunked. if anything it's worse, because it adds in several additional untestable variables.

[Rye]

Well let's say the theory is correct for a second. This universe is a simulation. This brings up several questions.

1. Why is it being simulated? The most plausible use for such accurate simulations in the future is recreation. This universe is certainly not a paradise theme park, so again, why? This question is basically a restatement of "Why does God allow suffering?" What's the answer? "The simulators have a divine plan"? Unacceptable.

Perhaps it's a simulation to see what would happen with different cosmological constants, the "fine tuning" the creationists harp on about, only having different universes on different machines, say, to examine what the different constants do, or adding or subtracting constants just to see what happens. As for why stuff happens, well, if we simulated a 9/11 style model, evil would be happening there too, but it's just a product of the physics involved, sort of like the stance deism takes of the epicurus riddle.

2. What implications does this have? None. If this universe is a simulation that is the result of huge advances in simulation technology, then it's safe to assume that this universe, for all intents and purposes, is the real thing. So we can go about the scientific study of it completely unimpeded by this new knowledge.

Quite true, self aware parts of the whole, no matter what "plane of existence" they exist on, be they computer simulations or "the real chemical deal" would still have a realm of their own to explore and dissect. I mean, even when we know something is fake, like a computer game, we still explore the levels in that game in as thorough a way as can be done, so we can get gold or bonuses or whatever.

3. Why is it not like other simulations, where it is possible to exit the simulation at any time? Is the Earth a barren wasteland, with humans stuck in a simulation to give them something to do while the ecosystem recovers from a disaster or something?

That's an option, but I suspect the article considered humans as just parts of the overall simulation, or rather, products of its evolution. More like the agents than the humans, to go with a matrix example.

'm not a product of a simulation because I'm sentient. Unless you're arguing that our universe is a very advanced form of The Sims, in which each character has achieved sentience.

But if that's the case, then it's not really a simulation. To those who created it, it may be, but to us, it's our real world, because we were generated within the rules and settings of this world.

Yeah, it's like the agents, rather than the zionists, self aware programs, only they realise they're programs and the interactive physical/electronic worlds. With us, there'd be no means of interacting with the "real world" since we're limited to the simulation.

Sort of like genetic algorithms are very much "natural" products of their simulation worlds, and if a self aware one arose, it probably would consider itself "real" and for all intents and purposes inside that simulated world, it would be.

The biggest questions I think from this proposition is what the truth is, fully, are there planes of existence, or one, ultimate physical realm where things aren't as simplistic as simulated organisms in a really complex simulation?

[SWPIGWANG]

There is only "there is an bigger universe" and "there is an bigger universe than we think."

From the view point we share, whether it is an "simulation" or not is completely irrelevent. An ant in an glass boxed sandbox is really no different from an ant out in the open. Both exists, both have access to reality and neither have access to the whole reality.

Even if we live in the box, the stuff in the box exists, and it is bloody real enough. The only difference it makes is our knowledge of the larger universe , but we can worry about that after seeing the walls on the box. Right now we don't even know what is in the box.

[Dooey Jo]

I read an article about a theory that the universe is a simulation and the argument was that once technology gets advanced enough to make good enough simulations of the world then the simulated worlds will get more common then the real one and then probability says that it would be more probable that our world is one of those simulations.

You didn't happen to read this article in Illustrerad Vetenskap, did you? Because I picked one issue up from my huge collection this morning to read as I had breakfast, and it turned out to have an article exactly like what you describe. Although this article also that claim crop circles might be an indication of defective RAM or other glitches, which I found funny...

I think one of the biggest problems with this thinking is that the simulation we live in could also just be a simulation, which could in turn also be a simulation. Repeat ad infinitum.

Also, randomness cannot be simulated good enough to become true randomness, can it? If quantum mechanics is just a simulation, shouldn't the inherent randomness also just be a simulated randomness? This would mean that, given enough time, we would be able to detect a pattern in the randomness.

[Grog]

[
You didn't happen to read this article in Illustrerad Vetenskap, did you? Because I picked one issue up from my huge collection this morning to read as I had breakfast, and it turned out to have an article exactly like what you describe.

Nope. From what I have heard they have started to spread quite a lot of pseudoscience?

[AMX]

Also, randomness cannot be simulated good enough to become true randomness, can it? If quantum mechanics is just a simulation, shouldn't the inherent randomness also just be a simulated randomness? This would mean that, given enough time, we would be able to detect a pattern in the randomness.

Basically, yes.
But if the algorithm is complex enough, it could take more time than we have.

[Keevan_Colton]

This is why I hate Plato. Refused to look into the reality of the situation.

Gimme Epicurus and the Garden over Plato and the Academy any day.

As for the bullshit nonsense...two thoughts...
number one, the principle of parsimony...
number two, try renaming the giant computer simulating all this 'god' and see how you'd go about refuting it then

[Symmetry]

As for the bullshit nonsense...two thoughts...
number one, the principle of parsimony...

Unfortunatly, parsimony really doesn't have much to say about the assumptions implicit in the model, and if we accept those assumptions we can analyze the rest of the argument statistically, and hence parsimony is superceded by more rigorous rules.

[Keevan_Colton]

Unfortunatly, parsimony really doesn't have much to say about the assumptions implicit in the model, and if we accept those assumptions we can analyze the rest of the argument statistically, and hence parsimony is superceded by more rigorous rules.

i.e. If my idea is right, then my idea is right.

What a wonderfully retarded approach to things. The entire notion of the universe being a simulation within a universe etc, introduces the outside variable of another universe...parsimony has a lot to say about adding variables that arent needed. Hence my god comment, essentially what you're doing is adding a creator to the left hand side of the equasion...why? Things work without it therefore it's superflous and that great tool of parsimony, occams razor cuts the fucker to shreads.

[Symmetry]

i.e. If my idea is right, then my idea is right.

More like: If A is true, B follows

What a wonderfully retarded approach to things. The entire notion of the universe being a simulation within a universe etc, introduces the outside variable of another universe...parsimony has a lot to say about adding variables that arent needed.

You're not interpreting parsimony correctly here. If I were to say that someday someone will probably build an efficient fusion reactor you couldn't use parsimony to refute that claim by saying that the existence of a manmade fusion reactor is a new variable and that there's no evidence that they exist in spacetime. However, that argument would be false because - if my reasoning is correct regarding its engineering, financing, etc - the complexity inherent in the fusion reactor is already present in the current world, just not in an easily recognized form.

Likewise, if the laws of physics permit the creation of artificial worlds that are indistinguishable from the one we currently inhabit by any means currently available to us, then its pointless to try to object to the possibility of their eventual construction based on parsimony because a universe where they exisst at some point in the future is just as complex as a world where they exist now.

You wouldn't have happened to have taken a college statistical mechanics or information theory course have you? I don't think there's a way to deal with an argument about parsimony in a rigorous fashion without talking about entropy.

Hence my god comment, essentially what you're doing is adding a creator to the left hand side of the equasion...why? Things work without it therefore it's superflous and that great tool of parsimony, occams razor cuts the fucker to shreads.

I think you're badly misinterperting the argument here. The paper isn't argueing that there is a creator, but only that if there is one its probably that we're the creation, rather than a third party.

[Keevan_Colton]

No, the basic premise that our world may be a simulation is an old fashioned piece of bullshit. The existance of a fusion reactor is not precluded by parsimony, it's just using the existing variables to do something...adding in an OUTSIDE to our universe is adding in an untestable, unverifiable, unknowable variable.

It's stupid bullshit.

The idea we may one day be able to run simulations, we can do 'em already...sure....the idea we might be in a brilliant simulation...stupid, untestable and introduces a totally new variable the outside "real" universe we cannot interact with...essentially, it's the usual phillosophical pissing in the wind pointless crap that has been coming along a lot since science and philosophy parted company a couple of millenia ago...

[Kuroneko]

No, the basic premise that our world may be a simulation is an old fashioned piece of bullshit. The existance of a fusion reactor is not precluded by parsimony, it's just using the existing variables to do something...adding in an OUTSIDE to our universe is adding in an untestable, unverifiable, unknowable variable.

In order to attack an argument, one must show that there is something wrong with it. Doing something else and avoiding the issue entirely is not a logically valid strategy, and that is precisely what you are doing by calling its conclusion as the premise. The first premise of the argument is that the construction of such simulations is precluded by no laws of physics. If C is the fraction of human-level civilizations that evolve to the point of having the resources to do so, and N is the average number of simulations among those civilizations, then the fraction of simulated humanlike entities that have ever lived in civilizations before reaching that point is F = (CN)/(CN+1).

Unless CN is small, F will be close to 1. A small C means would mean that civilizations are very unlikely to ever achieve the resources necessary to do so (perhaps coming to extinction before that), while a small N simply means that those with the resources to do so are simply not interested in doing so (perhaps because they consider this an inefficient investment of resources), or are otherwise prevented from doing so by other considerations. A somewhat more interesting line of attack could be to deny that {C,N} are even definable, by, say, affirming the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics (although whether that position is really more better than F~1 is debatable), or perhaps through some other means.

The idea we may one day be able to run simulations, we can do 'em already...sure....the idea we might be in a brilliant simulation...stupid, untestable and introduces a totally new variable the outside "real" universe we cannot interact with...essentially, it's the usual phillosophical pissing in the wind pointless crap that has been coming along a lot since science and philosophy parted company a couple of millenia ago...

Interesting rant, but it does not have anything to do with the situation here. The argument quite plainly contains elements that are testable at least in principle (although how to test them in practice is another matter), not the least of which are whether humanlike civilizations can be reasonably expected to develop such technological abilities.

[Symmetry]

No, the basic premise that our world may be a simulation is an old fashioned piece of bullshit. The existance of a fusion reactor is not precluded by parsimony, it's just using the existing variables to do something...adding in an OUTSIDE to our universe is adding in an untestable, unverifiable, unknowable variable.

World simulations are affected the same way by parsimony the same way that fusion reactors are, and if world simulations exist, parsimony doesn't give us any clue whether we are inside or outside one.

Its also false to say that the argument attempts to establish a world outside our universe. The stuff on the outside and on the inside of the simulation are of course both the same universe, a universe that has the same complexity in terms of physical laws and roughly the same complexity in terms of information content as the world we commonly believe that we occupy.

At any rate there are many reasons why the hypothesis is not untestable. At the very least any possible simulator will only have a finite maximum complexity, giving a finite maximum complexity to the civilization being simulated, which if the hypothesis is true would become obvious in some way eventually.

[Dooey Jo]

You didn't happen to read this article in Illustrerad Vetenskap, did you? Because I picked one issue up from my huge collection this morning to read as I had breakfast, and it turned out to have an article exactly like what you describe.

Nope. From what I have heard they have started to spread quite a lot of pseudoscience?

Yes, unfortunately, that's true. Their problem is that they simplifies everything too much in order to make it understandable to the general population. But they do have great illustrations...