then the three options have the same probability a priori of be true, due to by definition a higher intelligence system can occult its existence. — Belter

Huh?

Sorry, I am editing the post.

is there a presumption that there is such a thing as a non simulation? I remember way back in the day when one of my professors routinely stated "in theory, every analog process can be digitally replicated." Then one day a stated asked, "if in theory, every analog process can be digitally replicated, then what is the basis for presuming there is any such thing as an analog process?"

However and restricting myself to the confines of your post as posted, if we accept your premises, then not only is the simulation more probable in the future, is it not inevitable? and if you throw an additional premise of infinity, then by definition if it is inevitable, it has already happened and we are on an infinitely recurring loop?

Based on my studies of NDEs, I would say that the probability that we're living in a kind of simulation is high. My metaphysics include living out lives in many different possible realities, created by a single or multiple minds. I contend that consciousness lies at the bottom of all reality, and anything that exists is a product of consciousness.

What do you think about? — Belter

I guess some propositions are wrong. Saying a simulation in the future is equally likely and unlikely does not take the specifics into account - we'd have to develop such a system. No idea what the odds are objectively, but saying that a-priori it is equally likely that we succeed or fail in doing so is just... unbelievable.
One has to make up mind on this. Either one decides that given enough time such a system can be built or not. With the unquestionable universal superiority of the human race in mind we can say for sure that we could easily do so. But - would we? Again this is not flipping a coin. Think about it

The "simulation" theory is nonsense.

Have any of you read anything by or about Frank Tippler? He's been a strong advocate of the simulation theory, but, at an earlier time, he was saying that our physical world could be a computer program that doesn't need a computer. That was when he was right.

And it's another way of saying what I've been saying here.

Writing a computer program on paper, entering it into a computer, running the program in the computer--means nothing. Do you really believe that transistor-switchings somewhere have some magical effect of creating a world? The fact that the program has been written on paper, and maybe entered into a computer, and maybe run on the computer...Those things didn't make that hypothetical possibility-story about a world. That was already "there" as a system of inter-referring abstract facts.

The writing-down of the program, the entering of it into a computer, and the running of the program on the computer had nothing to do with it.

A computer somewhere, in some world, could duplicate our world, or your life-experience. It could display it on a screen or hologram for some other-worldly audience. But it certainly couldn't make that story. The story, the hypothetical possibility-story, was already there, as a system of inter-referring abstract facts.

But it's curious how so many people can believe that transistor-switchings somewhere can create a world, but that a world couldn't consist of the system of abstract facts itself. ....because you believe that there must be some objective "physical" basis for it somewhere, in the form of a physical computer whose running makes the world. And you don't even have a problem with believing that the physical world in which that computer exists is, itself, created by still another computer somewhere else. ...as long as it all depends on an actual physical world somewhere, even if in infinite regress.

Michael Ossipoff

Yup. Simulation is of something...

Yup. Simulation is of something... — creativesoul

It goes without saying, as a truism, that any simulation is a simulation of something.

An argument against, or criticism of, what I said would need to be a lot more specific.

Michael Ossipoff

Sorry for my expression, I try to be the clearest as I can. My claim is that Singularity is by definition unknown, such as God in religions, the player in video games, etc. A super IA is by definition, able to occult its existence.

then not only is the simulation more probable in the future, is it not inevitable? — Arne

It is possible that in the future there is not a Singularity, so I can not see the inevitability. Option 1) prevents it.

he was saying that our physical world could be a computer program that doesn't need a computer — Michael Ossipoff

I can not understand this claim. Software without hardware is for me a nonsense like mind without brain or a "substantiation" of functions.

But it's curious how so many people can believe that transistor-switchings somewhere can create a world, but that a world couldn't consist of the system of abstract facts itself — Michael Ossipoff

I do not understand what do you mean by "system of abstract facts itself".

Option 1 leaves open a whole bunch of other possibilities, most unconceived of as-yet. Therefore you don't know whether "the three options have the same probability a priori of being true." For all you know, some of those unknown, or even unknowable possibilities have a higher probability than the simulation possibility.

Similar to the problem with Pascal's wager: there's an infinity of grisly options possible, you can't just make the calculation wrt the few possibilities you happen to have thought of, or that your culture accidentally threw up in the course of history.

But it certainly couldn't make that story. The story, the hypothetical possibility-story, was already there, as a system of inter-referring abstract facts. — Michael Ossipoff

But this assumes a similarity between the simulation and the world. In a matrix-like scenario humans might be some kind of giant octopus in the real world and what you call "sense" just some random noise in some curcuits which "you" - whatever that would mean then - are making sense of.
A simulation of nerve-impulses fed into your ganglion might be the whole thing. In this scenario the simulation is something outside the "simulation".

We have 3 ontological options:
1) We do not live now in a computational Simulation, and in the future it will not happen.
2) We do not live now in a computational Simulation, but in the future it will happen.
3) We live now in a computational Simulation, which happened in a time of the past. — Belter

My objections:

• It may not be possible to simulate our world as it is.
• If it is possible, we have no way of knowing how likely it is.
• There is no evidence we are currently living in a simulation.
• We don't know what a super-human AI would do. It seems unlikely to me we can extrapolate from human motivation and behavior.
• If we are living in a simulation and if there is no possible way for us to determine that we are, then saying we are in a simulation is meaningless.

My objections:

It may not be possible to simulate our world as it is.
If it is possible, we have no way of knowing how likely it is.
There is no evidence we are currently living in a simulation.
We don't know what a super-human AI would do. It seems unlikely to me we can extrapolate from human motivation and behavior.
If we are living in a simulation and if there is no possible way for us to determine that we are, then saying we are in a simulation is meaningless. — T Clark

It is possible to simulate our world according to physics.
If it is possible, it is certain to happen. (if you are a realist)
There is no evidence that we are not in a simulation.
Post-humans may be forced to simulate reality to solve pressing problems.
That we are in a simulation agrees with the Principle of Mediocrity.

I can not understand this claim. Software without hardware is for me a nonsense like mind without brain or a "substantiation" of functions.

.
We can mention a hypothetical computer-program. If that hypothetical program that we’re discussing hasn’t been written on paper, is it any less a computer-program? Need it be in a computer, or even on paper? …or even completely discussed?
.
It’s software without hardware. Is there a possible computer program that can accomplish a certain achievement? If so, then there is that program, though it hasn’t been written on paper, or even completely discussed.
.
No, I’m not necessarily saying that it’s “real” or “existent”, whatever that would mean. …only that “there is” it, in the sense that it’s a hypothetical computer-program that can be mentioned.
.
So yes, there can certainly be software without hardware.
.
I’d said:
.

But it's curious how so many people can believe that transistor-switchings somewhere can create a world, but that a world couldn't consist of the system of abstract facts itself .

.
You replied:
.

I do not understand what do you mean by "system of abstract facts itself".

.
You haven’t heard my pitch yet.
.
This will be the short-version. I say more about it in some of my posts to the “A few metaphysical replies” thread, at the Metaphysics and Epistemology” sub-forum at this website. (I don’t know if that thread is still on the first page of that sub-forum’s thread-list. If not, it’s on one of the subsequent pages).
.
I meant that the program’s world-simulation can be regarded as a system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about that world’s component things.
.
The physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844, pointed out that our experience and science’s observations are about relation. …logical and mathematical structural relation. He pointed out that there’s no particular reason to believe in the independent, objective existence of the “stuff” that those relations are about.
.
There’s no physics experiment that can establish anything other than that logical & mathematical structural relation.
.
Any fact about this physical world corresponds to, implies, and can be said as, an if-then fact. Any supposed “fact” about this physical world is a proposition that’s (at least part of) the antecedent of some implications (if-then facts), and is the consequent of other implications.
.
In other words, as Faraday pointed out, all that is established by observations of this physical world are if-then facts about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things. I don’t claim that any of the antecedents of those if-then facts are true.
.
I make no claims about “real” or “existent”.
.
A set of hypothetical physical-quantity values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical law”) together comprise the antecedent of an abstract implication (if-then fact). …except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A proved mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose antecedent includes (at least) a set of mathematical axioms.
.
As for how this relates to the simulation-theory:
.
The system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts that I refer to “is there” in the sense that we can speak of it. No one denies that “there is” it, in that sense. I don’t claim any other reality or existence for it.
.
“There is” it, in that sense, whether or not anyone anywhere is duplicating it in the running of a computer-program. Though a computer simulation could duplicate, display or illustrate such a system, for some audience, it can’t make that logical system, because you can’t make what there already is.
.
That’s why the simulation-theory is nonsense.
.
Michael Ossipoff

We can mention a hypothetical computer-program. If that hypothetical program that we’re discussing hasn’t been written on paper, is it any less a computer-program? Need it be in a computer, or even on paper? …or even completely discussed? — Michael Ossipoff

The computer program for reality may be quite simple. Initial conditions, certain fundamental laws, and off you go. This idea may explain the low entropy of the early universe.

The physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844, pointed out that our experience and science’s observations are about relation. …logical and mathematical structural relation. He pointed out that there’s no particular reason to believe in the independent, objective existence of the “stuff” that those relations are about. — Michael Ossipoff

Did Faraday really say that?

Anyway, there is very good reason to accept that the mathematical structure of our theories correspond to features of reality.

I'd said:

We can mention a hypothetical computer-program. If that hypothetical program that we’re discussing hasn’t been written on paper, is it any less a computer-program? Need it be in a computer, or even on paper? …or even completely discussed?"

Tom said:

The computer program for reality...

There's no computer program for reality unless you're asserting that this physical universe is all of reality. But there's a logical system/computer-program for this physical world.

A Materialist, by definition believes that this physical universe (including any multiverse that our Big-Bang Universe is part of) is all of reality. ...and tends to assert it as an established fact.

I'd said:

The physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844, pointed out that our experience and science’s observations are about relation. …logical and mathematical structural relation. He pointed out that there’s no particular reason to believe in the independent, objective existence of the “stuff” that those relations are about.

Tom asked:

Did Faraday really say that?

Yes.

I got the quote from a book by Tim Holt. I doubt very much that Holt made it up.

(Holt's book addressed the question of why there's something instead of nothing, and its title consists of a wording of that question. The book consists of interviews with advocates of various metaphysicsess, and sometimes meta-metaphysical suggestions and impressions, with Holt's comments.)

Anyway, there is very good reason to accept that the mathematical structure of our theories correspond to features of reality.

Did I say otherwise? Yes, the mathematical and logical relational structure is (at least) a "feature of [physical] reality", (...or all of it), and there's no reason to believe that our physical world consists of other than that logical and mathematical relational structure.

Oops! If Tom meant other than what I said above, then he forgot to share with us his "very good reason".

Michael Ossipoff

It is possible to simulate our world according to physics. — tom

Reference please

If it is possible, it is certain to happen. (if you are a realist) — tom

Only if we are in an infinite universe. Even if we are, that would only mean that someone is being simulated, not that we are.

There is no evidence that we are not in a simulation. — tom

That's not the way it works. If you make a claim, you have to provide the evidence. You're making a claim. I'm not. I don't say we aren't living in a simulation, only that there's no evidence we are.

Post-humans may be forced to simulate reality to solve pressing problems. — tom

And they may not.

That we are in a simulation agrees with the Principle of Mediocrity. — tom

Only if simulation is the most common mode of existence, for which we have no evidence.

Other thoughts:

• Saying we are living in a simulation run by super intelligent beings is logically the same as saying we live in a universe created by God.
• Someone lives, or at least once lived, in an unsimulated reality. Otherwise, who made the first simulation?
• It's very convenient that the idea of living in a computer generated reality is developed just after someone invents computers.

It is possible to simulate our world according to physics. — tom

And physics also puts an entropy constraint on the fidelity of the simulation surely.

So how many bits do you think the simulation requires? Would it not quickly exceed the black hole entropy bound of any imaginable hardware? Wouldn't the computer involved collapse into a black hole due to the gravity of its own information content? The hardware would be too concentrated a lump of matter to survive in a way that could do any actual processing.

To say "according to physics" is to accept the constraints of physics as we know them. Otherwise one might as well grant the simulation hypothesis as being true "according to magic". A conclusion that is less technically impressive.

It is like we can conclude there are no earth-sized planets made of solid gold anywhere in the universe. They could not avoid being black holes.

Computers are also physically restricted in ways important to any simulating they might be doing. They are not infinite resources but finitely bounded - "according to physics".

Saying we are living in a simulation run by super intelligent beings is logically the same as saying we live in a universe created by God — T Clark

I am agree. My view is that Goodness and Simulation arguments are very close, so by definition God would be able to occult us.

It has been difficult to parse your posts. English seems not to be your native language.
Some of the subsequent posts have made some things more clear. For instance, in english, an artificial intelligence is known as an AI, not an IA.

We have 3 ontological options:
1) We do not live now in a computational Simulation, and in the future it will not happen.
... — Belter

You need to make clear what you mean by 'live in' or by a simulation.
One case is a virtual reality (VR) where the experience is simulated to a real experiencer. This is already done today in any first-person video game. While playing the game, we 'live in' a computational simulation. A super AI is not required for this. My computer plays minecraft, a reasonable example of a first-person VR. While playing it, I remember that I am actually human. I have memory of being in a different world than the minecraft one.

The second case is a true simulation where a world is simulated down to the granularity required. If we are simulatable in that way, it would mean that all of physics (most in particular ourselves) can be mathematically described. It means no dualistic minds, else the simulated humans would lack them and not act at all like humans in the same way that a simulated radio (such simulations exist) will not be able to actually pick up real radio stations.

I've read all your posts, and it is not really clear which scenario.
In the VR case, why do I not have memory of being outside it? If always in it, how was I born?

In the pure-simulation case, our physics cannot be simulated by our physics, as pointed out by apokrisis. It would have to be run in a world with completely different physics which would permit a simulation of significantly higher cardinality of capacity, but the speed of it running would be irrelevant.
Michael Ossipoff's comments are about only the pure simulation case, and they are relevant. A simulation of world X allows X to be viewed by the runners of the simulation, but it doesn't really create X. It isn't ontology that is being done. So while I am capable of being simulated in some more capable universe, I am nevertheless not a simulation

[/quote]If the Simulation is made by a IA higher than human, and we define it as the ability of lying a normal human (following the idea of the Turing test), [/quote]First of all, a post-singularity AI might pass a Turing test, be we will very much know it is there. The singularity is by definition the point at which it can make self-improvements at a pace greater than improvements made by humanity. It has nothing to do with a Turing test, which is just a test to mimic a human in a text exchange, like this forum.

then the three options have the same probability a priori of be true, due to by definition a higher intelligence system can occult its existence.

That is not true by definition, and even if it was, it does not make even the odds of your three options. In fact, the physics we know are incapable of creation of such a self-simulation, so if we are in some sort of VR, it is being run in a universe of more computationally capable physics.

My claim is that Singularity is by definition unknown, such as God in religions, the player in video games, etc. A super IA is by definition, able to occult its existence. — Belter

The definition says nothing of the sort. The definition is that it no longer requires humans for improvement.

It turns out that an AI is not needed at all. The universe is purely mathematical in nature and can be simulated with a very simple machine with large enough capacity to hold the relevant state. The capacity is why it cannot be done with our own physics. But simple mathematics does not require an AI. The Babbage engine was one of the first to perform arithmetic faster than the rooms full of people with paper and slide rules, and it was hardly an AI.

In a pure simulation (not in the VR case), yes, the device doing the simulation would be occulted from the things being simulated, else it would be a simulation of a different thing.