Ask HN: Why do half of Internet users think we are living in a simulation?

[alister]

My question is inspired by an Internet poll[1]. When it appeared on HN two years ago[2], 45% voted that, yes, we are living in a simulation (of 14,463 votes at the time). When I checked back just now, about half (51%) still voted yes, but now at 4,111,498 votes.

Whether we are living in a computer simulation is indeed a fascinating question, and I'm not dismissing it, but there's no proof or experimental evidence for it as far as I know.

I know about the simulation argument[3], but that's not a mathematical/physical proof or an experimental result. Lots of brainteasers and paradoxes have arguments structured like the simulation argument; one example is Olbers' paradox: Why is the night sky dark if there is an infinity of stars, covering every part of the celestial sphere? The argument about the stars seems to make sense but it doesn't count as proof or experimental result, and we know it's not true.

So I'm wondering how and why so many people are now convinced that we are living in a simulation?

[1] https://neal.fun/lets-settle-this/

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29866981

[3] https://simulation-argument.com/simulation

[addaon]

If it is possible that to make a simulation which matches our experience, then it is likely possible to make an unbounded number of such simulations. Thus, if such simulations are possible, it is vanishingly unlikely that we are executing directly on the underlying substrate.

If it is not possible, then, well, it's not.

So to a good approximation, the question "do you believe it is more likely than not that we are living in a simulation?" is equivalent to the question "do you believe that a simulation of the phenomenon you have observed is possible?"

And... well, sure, there's not a strong reason to think it's /impossible/, based on the evidence available to us. So, yeah, more likely than not.

Another way of phrasing this: Do you think it's more likely than not that there's some physical law, as yet discovered, that makes high fidelity simulation impossible? Such a law is certainly imaginable (limits on information density, magical-ness of souls, whatever); but if you don't have a reason to believe such a law is likely, then you probably believe we are more likely than not in a simulation.

[space_fountain]

There’s a counter argument from my physics undergrad brother that I found convincing.

We already do have a law of physics that is relevant here. We know that the information capacity of space is finite and fixed. A centimeter of space can only store so much information before it becomes a black hole. That means that to build a simulation in our universe you can only ever subdivide a fixed pie of information. That means the more relevant thing to ask is if a quantity of information is more likely to exist in the base reality or the simulated one. Because we have to assume that the base reality is not carpeted over with simulation super computers it seems safe to assume a random bit of information is more likely to be part of the base reality rather than a simulation all else being equal.

I think the idea of the universe being a simulation is just more fun

[maegul]

> If it is possible that to make a simulation which matches our experience, then it is likely possible to make an unbounded number of such simulations.

Why? This seems to me to be the weakness in the argument.

Of all the universes in which it is possible for a technological species to evolve and create a simulation of our universe, what’s the probably of said simulations having a given incentive or conducive cost/benefit ratio for said species?

Theoretically this could range from “can only do one once before our budget runs out and we move on” to your “unbounded” claim. But with what distribution?

This question seems fundamental and so reduces the initial question to a more complex one than what you pose: is it possible and if so how plausible?

Unless I’m missing something, leaping over this factor, as seems to be the mainstream approach, indicates to me that some techno-utopic-transcendentalism bias is at play.

[delecti]

I think your summary of the question conflates a couple very different things. One of those things is the possibility of a simulation like the matrix, where you could attach computer IO to a human brain with the brain unable to tell the difference. But "we are living in a simulation" requires that technology be possible, and it also requires that at some point everyone did that, and they never left, and that something in the real world causes all their offspring to get wired in young enough that we don't notice it happening at any point in the process of pregnancy, birth, and infancy.

I don't see any reason to assume it's entirely impossible to make a computer system that provides brain IO indistinguishable from the real world. It'd obviously be very far beyond us, but it seems possible that a sufficiently advanced computer could manage it. But accepting that doesn't mean I have to accept that enough people did it to establish a population, they did so permanently, they forced it on their offspring (conceived both in the real world and simulation), and they never told anyone or left clear signs in the simulated world.

Alternatively it could assume that we are ourselves simulated, just programs unaware that we're programs. But that leaves many of the same questions (who did it, why keep it going forever, etc). We currently could dedicate all of humanity's exaflops of computing power to Monte Carlo simulations of Snakes and Ladders, but why? I don't think there's any reason to step from "theoretically it's possible" to assuming any amount of likelihood.

[stillwithit]

I always took the simulation to mean “society”, nation state norms, gossip about one another, elites… truisms of society being “facts” like GDP, not facts like speed of light.

Like in the “clearly people doing the work is why potatoes are on store shelves, not due to the shareholders of Ore-Ida, which is hallucination.”

[cookiengineer]

There is always the option that humanity eradicates itself into oblivion before the technology for building a simulation has been developed.

Looking at how green/co2 certificates work, looking at politics and misinformation, looking at escalating wars out of stupidity, looking how many countries have been far-right-winged lately into Sharia law,...I think that's the far more likely option.

Humans are petty, humans are irrational, humans forget too quickly.

Always bet on humans acting like psychotic apes wanting more bananas even when their belly is so stuffed that it almost explodes.

Whether you want to admit that this is how the planet works or not doesn't matter. In the end, right wing populism always wins because they bet on stupidity and irrational beliefs, not on compromise and rationality.

[defrost]

It's unlikely to be half of all internet users.

* The 4 million internet users that self selected to answer a philosophical question on Matrix type simulations are unlikely to respond to general questions in the same manner as, say, 4 million K-Pop fans.

* Neither of the above groups are likely to be a good and true representation of the mean responses of the 5.3 billion internet users worldwide.

[ssss11]

Along your line of thinking, simple question: do set even know if they’re unique users? Maybe one person or small group is racking up those numbers.. are there controls?

[cammil]

I find the simulation argument is little different in nature to the argument that because something exists, someone (a god) must have made it.

And I think humans are highly susceptible to creating explanations without evidence.

[joegibbs]

Absolutely - the simulation hypothesis is basically identical to belief in God, you’ve got an omnipotent being that exists outside the universe (God or the creators of the simulation) and created it. Any of the supernatural elements are totally possible when something that exists outside the universe can change its rules arbitrarily. The only difference is whether the omnipotent being wants you to covet your neighbours ox.

Extend this to Roko’s Basilisk and it’s even more similar - instead of getting tortured in hell for eternity for coveting the ox you get tortured in cyberspace for eternity for not working on the AI.

[ordu]

Arguments about God had come to a stall, when all sides of a debate agreed that a hypothesis of God is not falsifiable. But it is still a question whether hypothesis of a simulation is falsifiable or not.

How simulated Universe would be different from a "real" one? Some give an answer like "we couldn't know" and finish at that. But this approach is a way to lose opportunity to think. Suppose we can guess some properties of a simulation, what they would be? I'd say simulated Universe would have an informational nature. We can create informational models of real phenomena. But our models tend to have limitations brought to simplify calculations.

For example, we limit precision of calculations. Probably these can be detected from inside of a model.

We tend to resort to stochastic models in some cases. And quantum mechanics sees a lot of stochastic.

Physicists tend to talk about information like it is a real thing. I do not understand what they mean by that, maybe they just talk about logarithms of probabilities? But it looks weird... simulation like.

All this leads me to two questions:

1. Can we make some falsifiable predictions from a simulation hypothesis? Information in physics could be one of such predictions, but it is not, because we retrospectively explain it with a simulation.

2. Probabilities and information look to me as artefacts of a human mind's way to function, it is very strange that they pop up in quantum mechanics. Is it possible that they are not really real but a projection of our mind to reality?

[dbsmith83]

And the explanations also don't even resolve anything. "OK, then where did God come from?" or "OK, then where did the simulation come from?". I just don't see the point.

[squigz]

People often believe in things without rational proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[Aeglaecia]

is this site just as edgy as reddit when it comes to religion? genuine question

[xeckr]

It's trendy. I'm sure that on some level, many people just think that it makes them look smart, and even a little edgy without appearing politically incorrect.

[jruohonen]

And besides, it is a fun and already pretty old philosophical mind game:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38428359

[luxuryballs]

You asked in the poll “are we living in a simulation?” but here in this post you say “computer simulation”, is that what you meant with the original poll? Because I might say yes to this being a simulation but no to it being run by a computer.

[vg2001]

This is a religious stance, like many worlds theory or any religion you know. You can’t prove it. You can spend your live chase evidence, but there is no experiment to prove it. So, go warship if that’s your thing.

[pcblues]

Having just completed a first year university philosophy subject on the matter I feel I am an expert and will share the answer.

The people who think they are living in a simulation because they can't argue their way out of it should tell the people who accuse them of it to prove it.

(I think I passed the subject. Waiting for the results.)

/ please appreciate the humour in that I know nothing more than I knew last year

[seba_dos1]

In a perfect simulation with no outside influence, there's no distinction between "real" and "simulated" - the simulated world is real, and the outside world is not observable (effectively doesn't exist).

So unless the "entity" doing the simulation interferes with it in some way, it simply doesn't matter.

[friend_and_foe]

Interestingly, if there is a way to detect that we are in a simulation, it means that there is some side channel by which information can pass between the simulation and it's bare metal, the world in which it is being run. This would mean that the simulation itself is a phenomenon inside this base reality and so is very real and also that we can learn things about it. If there is no way to do this, this would mean that thermodynamics and information behavior in this outside, real world are very different from ours, as we cannot as a rule build such a system ourselves, there are no standalone, completely isolated systems of any kind in our universe, and also interestingly, the simple fact of acknowledging this negates it's truth because you're detecting a fundamental difference between your simulation and the universe in which it is running, which makes it a paradox.

If a universe exists with laws that allow for a simulation which cannot be detected from inside, but that the simulation itself is observable from outside, that means information can only flow outward. A universe like this would basically be an infinite substrate with many different systems in it that cannot observe each other, and the inability to observe a separate system would be the stable state of such a universe. So it wouldn't make sense that an observer in such a universe would exist to observe the simulation as he would be a system without the capability of observing anything outside of himself, or in other words, information cannot flow outward either. So, it is very unlikely that we would not be able to detect and learn about the bare metal from inside, which means that it would be falsifiable. If it is falsifiable then people making the claim ought to be able to demonstrate it. If not, it's a "simulation" that is completely isolated to the point that nobody in the universe where it is running can even detect that it is running, or in other words, not a simulation at all.

[friend_and_foe]

It's a trendy narrative.

The argument goes like this, summarized: if ancestor simulations are possible then there are more ancestor simulations than real worlds. Therefore it is highly likely you're in an ancestor simulation.

First, we forget the importance of the word "ancestor". Dive into the details if you like, but suffice to say this word was not included in the initial argument for no reason. Second, it is unfalsifiable by definition. Third, it is inconsequential unless it is detectable. Finally, and this is a subjective claim, it would appear that something much more interesting is going on with regard to this whole existence thing than something as small minded as an ancestor simulation.

[colordrops]

We are obviously in a simulation, at least two layers. The fact that we are built up from a set of consistent rules and atoms, basically pixels, rather than an open and free canvas, is direct proof of one of these layers. The second is that every single experience a human has is inside the brain rather than "out there", as it's a model synthesized from raw sensory data. You can't directly experience "out there".

The question is not whether we are in a simulation, but rather is there an experiential reality outside of this simulation, or did the simulation pop into existence from nothing.

[vajdagabor]

Thought-provoking thoughts. How would an “open and free canvas” work? How would “being out there” work (experiencing something without being an observer)?

I mean, reality might be just what it is even if it feels and looks like a simulation.

How living outside of the simulation would feel? Could we tell it is not a simulation?

[loveparade]

This whole argument is meaningless because the term Simulation isn't well defined. In the narrowest sense, you could define simulation as "human-like creatures running computer-like machines that we're part of, just like the Matrix". In the broadest sense you can define simulation as "The universe follows a set of fixed physical laws, and we are part of that"

While the former is just ridiculous, the latter is pretty plausible. When people are answering this question they can imagine any definition of simulation they like.

[fungiblecog]

Why do the majority of the people in the world think the universe was created by an all powerful deity? It’s the same phenomenon. Wanting to believe in something because it strikes a chord despite an absence of evidence.

[throwaway318]

OP asks: why so many people are now convinced that we are living in a simulation?

Not whether we think we do or don't.

Which is a quite different question.

For my 2 pennies, whether or not it makes a difference (as mentioned in simulation argument) does itself not matter, all that matters if people think it matters (it is, after all, entirely in our head at this point). Does it create a disassociation effect where counter-intuitively a constructivist approach allows is to see the world more positively (positive, as in positivist). And if not, are poll answers blunder or is there no disassociation of self determination.

[satisfice]

This is all name magic. Anyone can call reality a simulation. Computation is substrate independent, so there is literally no difference, functionally, between a Turing machine made of sticks and one made of bits. My VMWare-based Windows doesn’t worry about whether it is running on “real” hardware.

It’s like when people ask “what was before the beginning?” The answer is something that can’t possibly matter; can’t be settled and wouldn’t matter if it were settled.

[p1esk]

Half of the internet probably believes in God. Does that surprise you?

[the_third_wave]

...which is most likely the other half. Combine the two and widen the definition of "God" to include "BOFH" and you get a near 100% of believers on the 'net.

[Kapura]

Some people feel that there's a hidden, unprovable reality beyond what we can perceive, which dictates the things we cannot explain in our own reality. Religions are features of basically every human culture; "simulation theory" folks are of this mindset, but it's couched in the language of technology, rather than theology.

I work on soft real-time simulations as a career, so I think this reality being a simulation is exceedingly unlikely.

[_kush]

One argument I've encountered says that if, in the future, we are capable of creating a simulation where the laws of physics are pretty much the same as of the 'real' world and the entities within it are conscious, then it's probable that we are already residing in such a simulation, operated by someone else.

[dormento]

This is interesting. A tangentially related argument I saw online deals with the complexity of the simulation in distant regions of the universe, as in, if you could somehow make it slowdown in a locally controlled experiment compared to the fullspeed simulation somewhere else, you could prove the universe is "instanced" (think MMO areas/servers), at least for specific parts of it.

Edit: what if blackholes == instance crashes? o_O

[vesche]

I'm personally agnostic on whether or not we're in a simulation. However, some say the "Double-slit experiment" is perhaps proof we are in some sort of simulation. Particularly the part where particles/waves behave differently only when they are directly being observed.