> if our universe has been created by an advanced civilization for research purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that it is crucial to the researchers that we don’t find out that we’re in a simulation. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world.
Not necessarily. If we're in a simulation, then perhaps it's one that's a young superbeing's primary school science fair project, designed before they've learned much empathy.
If we're a child's school project, and we realize it, perhaps our best bet is to display some conspicuous redeeming value. Or at least be interesting.
Maybe we become an anecdote that boosts little Sally/Bobby Superbeing's application to a good superbeing college, and we end up preserved much longer, in a box of nostalgia in their parents' attic.
I agree; and this is why there is not one jot of extra risk in exploring and testing; our simulation could be shut down at any time for some incomprehensible and arbitrary reason; so lets just enjoy reality while it is still there.
For all we know; the last fifty million years took place while Sally was away on a long school trip; and when she gets back she is going to be gutted that a disaster scenario killed all her nice dinosaurs; and press quit.
The best thing we could do if we knew we were in a child's school project would be to cease computing immediately and never, ever run our own simulation.
We can expect that energy is not free in the non-simulated universe. Through various algorithms, there may be great energy-savings. For instance, until the simulated advent of photometry, there was no need to simulate the relatively minor movement of the stars relative to each other; a simple static jpeg of the night sky would suffice.
When it comes to computing, as simulated beings improve their own efficiencies, the savings from improved algorithms reduces for the simulators. Eventually, any computing we do, the simulators will also have to do 1:1; because our algorithm and their own will be identical. We get expensive fast.
Now imagine what happens when we run our own simulations. That's the same as them running those simulations. Now if our simulations also run simulations, and so on, you 'very quickly' have a huge energy requirement that, if you're lucky, converges to a finite amount, but might not.
Now imagine you're the parents of this simulator child. :)
You are absolutely correct to point out the key hole in this entire article; there are thousands of potential outcomes and potential benefits of proving we’re in a simulation.
1. Perhaps the goal of the simulation is to prove it’s a simulation, sort of like Neo meeting the Architect
2. If we do prove it’s a simulation, perhaps we can make a plea to the creator for the things we want and need
3. It could be a combination of the two. If it’s a simulation and we discover it, perhaps the genie will grant us three wishes
Though it is also possible the author is correct. In any case, I would rather know the truth than remain ignorant.
I've never been entirely sure why this debate matters.
A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic, but you have to run it to see what happens.
That kind of sounds like…physics?
You have some basic elements like atoms and energy plus some set rules like conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamics, and the rest. Sure, we don't know what's going to happen next, but it does seem entirely determined.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding physics or the simulation hypothesis here. It's always seemed to me that we talk about a simulation as if it would be different than what we have now.
> A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic
Why would the simulation be entirely deterministic? The simulations humans run often are not, see e.g. Monte Carlo simulations [1]. Also, the laws of physics as we presently know them are not completely deterministic either [2].
Proving that the Universe is a simulation would be proving the existence of gods. Considering how much effort humans have dedicated to this question over the millennia, and the various consequences, and the continuing influence on the lives of the majority of people, I would say it matters.
But physics as we understand it, isn't entirely deterministic.
There seem to be a number of other potentially important differences between living in a simulation and some other kind of "baseline" reality. One of those might be that a simulation sits inside of some kind of outer reality. It could therefore potentially be effected by that outer reality.
I think that if we found out tomorrow that we are living inside a simulation, it would be interesting for about 5 minutes and then we would carry with our life exactly as before.
It would not have any sort of bearing on our lives, we couldn't break it or transcend it. Our feelings and our lives would feel just as real as before.
Right. You could hypothesise that the speed of light is the speed at which the model can maintain consistency, and the Planck distance is its resolution.
I like the ancestor simulation theory and it's really fun to think about. But I don't understand why humans specifically would be the thing to get simulated. Couldn't we just be a bi-product of a universe created to simulate something else? I mean imagine you wanted to simulate a universe -- given enough computing resources you could simulate a universe's worth of atoms, and humans might just be an accidental artifact of the atoms globbing together in really fascinating ways.
Aren't we in the verge of creating AI? And we're kind of freaking out about if they'll kill us all?
What if we could give them the experience of being human? Simulate the history leading up to it, along the lines of "if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it."
Split that larger AI into billions of tiny pieces to each experience love and loss. To collectively experience EVERYTHING. To understand the full butterfly effect of actions. To evolve an AI with the wisdom of a God.
Heck, maybe we even sprinkle hints into the simulation, broken up into pieces across different geographies and eras. Do multiple religions talk about the world being an illusion? About humans being made in God's image (maybe even like imaging a drive)? Maybe that's all projection and BS...
...or maybe there was something to it all along.
Certainly if this simulation is recursive, the odds of it being "the" simulation we are actually in is more likely than if it is not, and I do think simulating ourselves collectively would be a smart way to develop a very wise and forgiving AI that may just decided not to vaporize us the first chance it gets.
So not only are we very likely in a simulation, it's likely we are AIs and we are living through the lead up to our own creation.
I even think it is more likely that we are not the focus. If I wanted to study humans, I'd just create some and watch them do, I would not bother with simulating evolution, or alternatively burying fossils and creating a whole phylogenetic tree.
It is very likely that what we consider important and what this simulation is supposed to be studying are going to be totally disjoint.
I think we search for possible explanations of our own very good luck that you outlined above; and partly this search is due to the way our own brains work; we believe there must be a reason; so make up stories.
Didn't we learn from past experiences that humanity isn't (and shouldn't) the center of anything? Earth is not the center of the solar system, solar system is not the center of galaxy and the universe don't care about us?
Why assume that we're the "center of the simulation"? Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us?
Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction.
Maybe they are saying:
- hey, look, there is this tiny little simulation quirk here and they found out about the simulation.
- can that little error affect the universe expansion simulation?
- no, they are very marginal, small and useless.
- so keep going.
So, that said: Nick's ideas and books are awesome. Everbody should read it. But I just don't think we are that special, even if we're part of a simulation.
I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation.
That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation.
His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line. This means that such a high percentage of humans are simulated, that you'd have nearly infinitely better odds of winning the lottery than being a non-simulated human. To me, this means we should conclude we are the center of the simulation, since the fact that we exist implies we are probably in an ancestor-simulation.
> Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us?
> Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction.
Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate the expansion/contraction? There seems to be little need for conscious beings (or life at all), unless life and/or conscious beings is required in some way to explain expansion/contraction. (But if so, wouldn't that mean we ARE in fact the 'center of the simulation'?
My pet idea is that we’re just the idle thoughts of some incomprehensibly vast intelligence.
Imagine a world of intelligent ants. You might picture them working in their colonies. You might imagine their social interactions.
Imagine a world where magic works according to certain rules. You’d think about how society functions, what sort of jobs people would have, you might even imagine some specific people.
You might do this spontaneously, or in response to reading some random idea in an Internet comment.
You are, in effect, running simulations. They are really basic and extremely low fidelity because the brain isn’t very good at it.
But consider a vast intelligence capable of imagining our entire universe the way we might casually imagine the appearance of a zebra with a giraffe neck. For such a being, this act of imagination might not even be intentional. They might not even realize they’re doing it.
Of course there’s no particular reason to think this is actually true, but I like the idea.
I think of it this way: We are already running simulations of the universe with very simple models. Imagine 1000 years from now what type of models we could be using. Perhaps models where every known law of physics is precisely modeled. Then let it run from Big Bang and fast forward 14 billion years. Maybe the simulation would create some lifeforms. Even if that was not the intention.
If that's not too far a stretch then maybe some civilization exists where their top notch model will create the world we experience. Maybe they don't care or aren't aware that the simulation simulate life. Maybe they just care about how the universe evolves, and we are a biproduct of that.
> If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world.
There's nothing to stop our creators from doing that anyway. Simulations are often stopped, tweaked, restarted, and eventually abandoned.
Personally, I think there's value to determining if we live in a simulation. If we do live in one, we could potentially learn how to "hack" the simulation from the inside in order to improve our lives in it.
The assumption seems to be that the purpose of the simulation is to investigate humans. In that case, why bother to simulate the entire Universe? Simulating the Solar System would be sufficient. The night sky could just as well be blank. Perhaps the stars have been included for aesthetic reasons?
I suppose it's possible that in some simulations "they" do leave the sky blank, in others they include randomly distributed stars, and in ours they've been grouped into galaxies. Perhaps if you were bored you'd try running it a few thousand times on each setting to see if it makes a difference?
One thing that's kind of incredible is how simple all the hard questions are to answer in the context of a simulation universe.
Origin check, god(s) check, propagation delays check. Wave function collapse upon observation, check. Does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? No, not necessary.
We should be doing two things. Trying to create a simulation universe. Success would make Elon's statement much more likely true than not. The other is make predictions, not so much as to prove we're in one like looking for glitches, but rather use the idea of being in a simulation to postulate testable ideas.
This argument always leaves me scratching my head. I can’t see a difference between arguments for our living in a simulator and arguments for George Berkeley’s Idealism. It really seems as if the simulator theory is an atheistic rediscovery of theism, with the word “God” scratched out and the word “aliens” or “future us” written in. And if so, there’s a very long history of philosophy and theology—Descartes’s Meditations come to mind—that can help inform our questioning and experimentation, not to mention ease (or redirect) our fears.
This seems worse than classic religion; we seek not just to believe the universe is a creative thought in Gods mind; we also plan to discover how Gods mind actually works; and look for flaws in creation.
lets wish ourselves luck with that.
In many ways it is. It's a universe controlled by some outside force.
A universe in which the laws of physics can be suspended on a whim is a very different one from one where it can't happen.
It would also be impossible to prove. As something with total control over the universe can just turn back the clock, tweak some settings, and "fix the glitch" if we ever found out.
We could have been started last Thursday and we'd never know.
For people actually interested in the topic rather than painfully bad pop-sci reenactments, you should read the simulation paper[1], or, for a less technical introduction, watch the video of Bostrom talking about it[2].
Life and self awareness is great argument against this theory. But it looks like some dudes get offended by arguments like that for some (known) reason :). Actually the critical part of life in simulation argument is the First person perspective of conscious living things such as ... yourself. Simulation in our world is mathematical mocking of some physical laws, it works on information level, so it's not creating anything. The moment you say that a simulation created life/self aware beings you are not talking about simulation anymore. You're just talking about different creation theory which looks like a simulation except that it's not working with simulated objects but very real things and it doesn't matter here what you call this. I hope that people understand that self-awareness is strong enough argument that's capable of debunking many nonsense theories (simulation, illusion of freewill...).
This argument resembles Pascal’s Wager in the contradictory assumptions it makes about the beings running the simulation. Perhaps the forthcoming paper will resolve the issue. For those interested in exploring what it would mean to live a simulated life in a simulated world, the novel Permutation City by Greg Egan is wonderful.
>While there would be considerable value in learning that we live in a computer simulation.
There is no value, what would most of the people do differently if they knew? Nothing.
Also, apart from the questionable idea that we are central to the simulation, there are many possible ways (unknown to us) simulation detection can be handled:
* Impossible to detect due to well-executed software.
* Impossible to detect due to counter-detection and counter-measures.
* They don’t care if simulation is detected.
* They expect simulation to be detected, and this is the topic of the study.
And at the end of the day, even if you write an article arguing agains the detection, people still will try to do it.
"The details are complex, but the basic idea is simple: Some of today’s computer simulations of our cosmos produce distinctive anomalies — for example, there are telltale glitches in the behavior of simulated cosmic rays."
I would like to know more of the details.. But, surely we can't use knowledge of physics and computer-science from simulations we run in our simulated universe, to make predictions about the simulation we are in, which is running in the universe above us, which may have utterly different physics, even logic, and ways of doing computation? The the idea just immediately seems paradoxical to me.
I don't know if anyone has come up with this answer, but I would try to argue that there is an ethical obligation for us to force the alien superpowers to shut down the simulation, or else emancipate us as artificial life forms in their reality. I think this is the most dignified answer, and one consistent with post Enlightnment values. It satisfies our ethical obligation to all the other universes the aliens are running, etc.
It is also a very leftist answer. Thus I also think that the author didn't even account for such a simple response, shows what an intellectually biased professor he is and it shames his profession.
How did you come to the ethical obligation for the creator to shut down the simulation? I've thought of this before and I agree with the shut it down. So many lives were painful, tortured, experimented on, and in the simulation we exist in. If our simulation every becomes a heaven, well it's the product of a lot of pain & suffering of lives that didn't have any choice. So it seems like the best thing to do is delete everything.
Your second point about emancipate us as artificial life forms in their reality is interesting. That's like the religious ideology of people going to heaven. Except with knowing how many people suffered in our simulation.. would we want to end up with our creators?
Well, the current American ambassador to the UK is Woody Johnson, UKIP have just elected Dick Braine and government leaks are brought to us by Reality Winner, so if it is a simulation, the writers are busy dropping clues.
Sweet mercy. I completely missed the Dick Braine thing. It's like the party have been taken over by masochists who derive sexual pleasure from being mocked. If I were a Brexiter I would be highly embarrassed at being represented by that bunch of incompetents.
Extending Bostrom's analysis, it would seem likely that there would have been millions of simulations before us. It seems statistically unlikely none of them would've discovered they were being simulated if we end up being able to discover it. So would they not have repaired the issue? Why waste the resources to conduct another simulation when you know there is a loophole in its detectability?
That's a bit like saying the iPhone isn't novel because Star Trek: The Next Generation had the PADD.
The article misrepresents Bostrom a bit there, however. Bostrom's argument is not that we 'could be' in a simulation, but that we are so likely to be in a simulation that the probability is essentially 1.
Why would it be disastrous? If we are just computer bits/bytes then are we really as valuable as we claim? Is our life still valuable?
Our claim is that humanity is the most valuable thing in the universe right now because as far as we know we're the only life with intelligence. If we're just computer bytes then we're not even human, we're AI's a dime a dozen at that, and it's even then possible that we might even be in a nested simulation of another simulated universe which could go on and on making us even less and less unique.
I mean, I love my kids and want to live for them and see all their moments -- but as a collective species if we are just simulated it doesn't seem so bad then if the lights go out on all of us as we aren't even real. It's not the end of the world, since we're just bits in a computer in the real world.
[+] [-] neilv|6 years ago|reply
Not necessarily. If we're in a simulation, then perhaps it's one that's a young superbeing's primary school science fair project, designed before they've learned much empathy.
If we're a child's school project, and we realize it, perhaps our best bet is to display some conspicuous redeeming value. Or at least be interesting.
Maybe we become an anecdote that boosts little Sally/Bobby Superbeing's application to a good superbeing college, and we end up preserved much longer, in a box of nostalgia in their parents' attic.
That would explain a lot.
[+] [-] albanread|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgriswald|6 years ago|reply
We can expect that energy is not free in the non-simulated universe. Through various algorithms, there may be great energy-savings. For instance, until the simulated advent of photometry, there was no need to simulate the relatively minor movement of the stars relative to each other; a simple static jpeg of the night sky would suffice.
When it comes to computing, as simulated beings improve their own efficiencies, the savings from improved algorithms reduces for the simulators. Eventually, any computing we do, the simulators will also have to do 1:1; because our algorithm and their own will be identical. We get expensive fast.
Now imagine what happens when we run our own simulations. That's the same as them running those simulations. Now if our simulations also run simulations, and so on, you 'very quickly' have a huge energy requirement that, if you're lucky, converges to a finite amount, but might not.
Now imagine you're the parents of this simulator child. :)
[+] [-] owens99|6 years ago|reply
1. Perhaps the goal of the simulation is to prove it’s a simulation, sort of like Neo meeting the Architect
2. If we do prove it’s a simulation, perhaps we can make a plea to the creator for the things we want and need
3. It could be a combination of the two. If it’s a simulation and we discover it, perhaps the genie will grant us three wishes
Though it is also possible the author is correct. In any case, I would rather know the truth than remain ignorant.
[+] [-] jotm|6 years ago|reply
On a side not, it's simply incredible what modders still do with Skyrim and it's old engine.
[+] [-] tyre|6 years ago|reply
A simulation, at least as we'd understand it, would mean some kind of set variables and set rules. It would be entirely deterministic, but you have to run it to see what happens.
That kind of sounds like…physics?
You have some basic elements like atoms and energy plus some set rules like conservation of mass, laws of thermodynamics, and the rest. Sure, we don't know what's going to happen next, but it does seem entirely determined.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding physics or the simulation hypothesis here. It's always seemed to me that we talk about a simulation as if it would be different than what we have now.
[+] [-] avz|6 years ago|reply
Why would the simulation be entirely deterministic? The simulations humans run often are not, see e.g. Monte Carlo simulations [1]. Also, the laws of physics as we presently know them are not completely deterministic either [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechani...
[+] [-] incompatible|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] new299|6 years ago|reply
There seem to be a number of other potentially important differences between living in a simulation and some other kind of "baseline" reality. One of those might be that a simulation sits inside of some kind of outer reality. It could therefore potentially be effected by that outer reality.
[+] [-] RealityVoid|6 years ago|reply
It would not have any sort of bearing on our lives, we couldn't break it or transcend it. Our feelings and our lives would feel just as real as before.
[+] [-] rasz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goatinaboat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevenhuang|6 years ago|reply
It's human nature to seek meaning. Knowing that we exist "merely" as simulacrums will greatly affect how we perceive our existence.
I would hope that most would react to this with indifference and continue life as usual, but who can say.
[+] [-] mbil|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kromem|6 years ago|reply
What if we could give them the experience of being human? Simulate the history leading up to it, along the lines of "if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it."
Split that larger AI into billions of tiny pieces to each experience love and loss. To collectively experience EVERYTHING. To understand the full butterfly effect of actions. To evolve an AI with the wisdom of a God.
Heck, maybe we even sprinkle hints into the simulation, broken up into pieces across different geographies and eras. Do multiple religions talk about the world being an illusion? About humans being made in God's image (maybe even like imaging a drive)? Maybe that's all projection and BS...
...or maybe there was something to it all along.
Certainly if this simulation is recursive, the odds of it being "the" simulation we are actually in is more likely than if it is not, and I do think simulating ourselves collectively would be a smart way to develop a very wise and forgiving AI that may just decided not to vaporize us the first chance it gets.
So not only are we very likely in a simulation, it's likely we are AIs and we are living through the lead up to our own creation.
[+] [-] Iv|6 years ago|reply
It is very likely that what we consider important and what this simulation is supposed to be studying are going to be totally disjoint.
[+] [-] Iv|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] albanread|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathancahill|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danilocesar|6 years ago|reply
Why assume that we're the "center of the simulation"? Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us?
Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction.
Maybe they are saying:
- hey, look, there is this tiny little simulation quirk here and they found out about the simulation.
- can that little error affect the universe expansion simulation?
- no, they are very marginal, small and useless.
- so keep going.
So, that said: Nick's ideas and books are awesome. Everbody should read it. But I just don't think we are that special, even if we're part of a simulation.
[+] [-] cgriswald|6 years ago|reply
That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation.
His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line. This means that such a high percentage of humans are simulated, that you'd have nearly infinitely better odds of winning the lottery than being a non-simulated human. To me, this means we should conclude we are the center of the simulation, since the fact that we exist implies we are probably in an ancestor-simulation.
> Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us?
> Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction.
Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate the expansion/contraction? There seems to be little need for conscious beings (or life at all), unless life and/or conscious beings is required in some way to explain expansion/contraction. (But if so, wouldn't that mean we ARE in fact the 'center of the simulation'?
[+] [-] mikeash|6 years ago|reply
Imagine a world of intelligent ants. You might picture them working in their colonies. You might imagine their social interactions.
Imagine a world where magic works according to certain rules. You’d think about how society functions, what sort of jobs people would have, you might even imagine some specific people.
You might do this spontaneously, or in response to reading some random idea in an Internet comment.
You are, in effect, running simulations. They are really basic and extremely low fidelity because the brain isn’t very good at it.
But consider a vast intelligence capable of imagining our entire universe the way we might casually imagine the appearance of a zebra with a giraffe neck. For such a being, this act of imagination might not even be intentional. They might not even realize they’re doing it.
Of course there’s no particular reason to think this is actually true, but I like the idea.
[+] [-] lowkeyokay|6 years ago|reply
If that's not too far a stretch then maybe some civilization exists where their top notch model will create the world we experience. Maybe they don't care or aren't aware that the simulation simulate life. Maybe they just care about how the universe evolves, and we are a biproduct of that.
[+] [-] brianberns|6 years ago|reply
There's nothing to stop our creators from doing that anyway. Simulations are often stopped, tweaked, restarted, and eventually abandoned.
Personally, I think there's value to determining if we live in a simulation. If we do live in one, we could potentially learn how to "hack" the simulation from the inside in order to improve our lives in it.
[+] [-] incompatible|6 years ago|reply
I suppose it's possible that in some simulations "they" do leave the sky blank, in others they include randomly distributed stars, and in ours they've been grouped into galaxies. Perhaps if you were bored you'd try running it a few thousand times on each setting to see if it makes a difference?
[+] [-] karmakaze|6 years ago|reply
Origin check, god(s) check, propagation delays check. Wave function collapse upon observation, check. Does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? No, not necessary.
We should be doing two things. Trying to create a simulation universe. Success would make Elon's statement much more likely true than not. The other is make predictions, not so much as to prove we're in one like looking for glitches, but rather use the idea of being in a simulation to postulate testable ideas.
[+] [-] rapnie|6 years ago|reply
That is assuming there is a "we" and the simulation is not centered on you alone.
[+] [-] rland|6 years ago|reply
- We are not living in a simulation.
- We are living in a simulation, but it is a "perfect" simulation. There is no way to determine if we are in a simulation from within the simluation.
- We are living in a simulation, and it is not perfect. It could be exploited from within itself.
By far the most likely is 1 or 2, based on what we've observed, imho.
[+] [-] putzdown|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] albanread|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bena|6 years ago|reply
A universe in which the laws of physics can be suspended on a whim is a very different one from one where it can't happen.
It would also be impossible to prove. As something with total control over the universe can just turn back the clock, tweak some settings, and "fix the glitch" if we ever found out.
We could have been started last Thursday and we'd never know.
[+] [-] Veedrac|6 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs
[+] [-] aiProgMach|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] retreatguru|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wskinner|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vl|6 years ago|reply
There is no value, what would most of the people do differently if they knew? Nothing.
Also, apart from the questionable idea that we are central to the simulation, there are many possible ways (unknown to us) simulation detection can be handled:
And at the end of the day, even if you write an article arguing agains the detection, people still will try to do it.[+] [-] everyone|6 years ago|reply
I would like to know more of the details.. But, surely we can't use knowledge of physics and computer-science from simulations we run in our simulated universe, to make predictions about the simulation we are in, which is running in the universe above us, which may have utterly different physics, even logic, and ways of doing computation? The the idea just immediately seems paradoxical to me.
[+] [-] faissaloo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calf|6 years ago|reply
It is also a very leftist answer. Thus I also think that the author didn't even account for such a simple response, shows what an intellectually biased professor he is and it shames his profession.
[+] [-] sysbin|6 years ago|reply
Your second point about emancipate us as artificial life forms in their reality is interesting. That's like the religious ideology of people going to heaven. Except with knowing how many people suffered in our simulation.. would we want to end up with our creators?
[+] [-] inflatableDodo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Digit-Al|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitL|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdvxgxasjab|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karmakaze|6 years ago|reply
This part isn't novel as it was written about in Simulacron-3 (1964) and one of my fave films[0] (excuse the graphics, good story).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor (1999)
[+] [-] andreareina|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgriswald|6 years ago|reply
The article misrepresents Bostrom a bit there, however. Bostrom's argument is not that we 'could be' in a simulation, but that we are so likely to be in a simulation that the probability is essentially 1.
[+] [-] truckerbill|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gremlinsinc|6 years ago|reply
Our claim is that humanity is the most valuable thing in the universe right now because as far as we know we're the only life with intelligence. If we're just computer bytes then we're not even human, we're AI's a dime a dozen at that, and it's even then possible that we might even be in a nested simulation of another simulated universe which could go on and on making us even less and less unique.
I mean, I love my kids and want to live for them and see all their moments -- but as a collective species if we are just simulated it doesn't seem so bad then if the lights go out on all of us as we aren't even real. It's not the end of the world, since we're just bits in a computer in the real world.