Simulation Hypothesis & God

TheMadFool

Here's the wiki page on Simulation Hypothesis

In a nutshell the Simulation Hypothesis (SH) posits, if nothing else, the bare possibility that our universe could be a simulation run by an advanced civilization with immense computing power at their disposal.

Nick Bostrom a proponent of SH offers the following trilemma:

1. The fraction of civilizations that have advanced computing power is close to zero

Or

2. The fraction of advanced civilizations that want to create simulations is close to zero

Or

3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one

Assigning equal probability for each option we get a 1 in 3 chance (~33%) of our reality being a computer simulation.

However, option 2 seems reasonably easy to deal with. We need only observe our own behavior. With existing computing power we have created many simulations - just look at the PC game market. Therefore, it's not a long shot to say advanced civilizations will behave in a similar way and create simulations.

That trims down Bostrom's trilemma to a dilemma consisting only of options 1 and 3. But notice that now the probability of being in a simulation has jumped from 33% to 50% (1 in 2).

The truth of option 1 is anyone's guess. What do computer experts have to say about this? However, that doesn't matter as an increase in probability of the simulation hypothesis from 33% to 50% is significant - from unlikely to 50% chance.

The other pertinent point is all what we call as laws of nature are/will be encodable on computers. Everything in this universe can be reduced to rules and agents in a computer simulation. Therefore, even as we speak, there really is no need for an advanced civilization capable of running complex simulations. We can do it, a monumental task but not impossible
Therefore, the probability of option 1 is commensurately reduced to less than 50%.

Ultimately it seems the probability of option 3 (we're in a simulation) increases to more than 50% i.e. it is now likely that we live in a simulated world.

Given the above what should we call the coder in charge of our simulated universe?

God comes to mind, if only as a creator.

Marchesk

It seems the reasoning for assigning probability for being inside a simulation is based on the actual universe outside the simulation. But if we're inside a simulation, on what basis do we assign such a probability?

Afterall, maybe in our simulation we're alone in the universe.

Also, maybe the real world is very different from the simulated one. A simulation need not be an accurate one.

Finally, it seems to rest on the assumption that the laws of physics are computable.

Marchesk

Another thought occurred to me. What makes us think a computer simulation is the best that advanced civilizations could do? Maybe they would consider digital simulations to be crude when they can just rearrange matter at the pico scale to do anything they want.

TheMadFool

But if we're inside a simulation, on what basis do we assign such a probability? — Marchesk

There can be only 1 reality but there can be many simulations. So the probability of being in a simulation is greater.

Finally, it seems to rest on the assumption that the laws of physics are computable. — Marchesk

If the so-called laws can be mathematically expressed then it should be computable.

TheMadFool

do anything they want — Marchesk

One of which could be running simulations

Javants

↪TheMadFool

Why is there necessarily only one reality and multiple simulations? Couldn't there happen to exist multiple realities which themselves may have an infinite number of simulations? If such is true, then we can't really estimate the probability of being in a simulation is greater than being a reality, as we have now way of knowing how many realities there are to run simulations.

tom

However, option 2 seems reasonably easy to deal with. We need only observe our own behavior. With existing computing power we have created many simulations - just look at the PC game market. Therefore, it's not a long shot to say advanced civilizations will behave in a similar way and create simulations. — TheMadFool

An advanced civilization would not simulate this reality because it would be utterly immoral to do so.

TheMadFool

↪Javants

I considered that thought. The short answer is even if there were multiple realities, each would run more simulations than itself, ultimately, there would be more simulations than realities.

TheMadFool

An advanced civilization would not simulate this reality because it would be utterly immoral to do so. — tom

That's a dim view of our reality. Do you think morality would have progressed in proportion to technology. Looking at the way things are technology is far far ahead of morality and there's no reason why this shouldn't be the case for all civilizations.

tom

That's a dim view of our reality. Do you think morality would have progressed in proportion to technology. Looking at the way things are technology is far far ahead of morality and there's no reason why this shouldn't be the case for all civilizations. — TheMadFool

There can't be scientific progress in the absence of certain values. In order to survive and become advanced, a civilization would require an advanced morality, culture, and probably aesthetics.

Would such people be willing to bring the suffering of humanity back into existence once?

TheMadFool

There can't be scientific progress in the absence of certain values. In order to survive and become advanced, a civilization would require an advanced morality, culture, and probably aesthetics.

Would such people be willing to bring the suffering of humanity back into existence once? — tom

Well, to draw from our experience - animal experimentation - I don't think advanced civilizations will have any qualms about conducting tests that, perhaps, serve a greater good.

Also, look at the videogame market. It's mostly got to do with killing virtual people who have no legal standing whatsoever.

tom

Well, to draw from our experience - animal experimentation - I don't think advanced civilizations will have any qualms about conducting tests that, perhaps, serve a greater good.

Also, look at the videogame market. It's mostly got to do with killing virtual people who have no legal standing whatsoever. — TheMadFool

So you think a civilization advanced enough to perform a vast number of computer simulations containing us, our universe, and our qualia, will perform animal testing and play crappy C21 computer games?

TheMadFool

So you think a civilization advanced enough to perform a vast number of computer simulations containing us, our universe, and our qualia, will perform animal testing and play crappy C21 computer games? — tom

It's not an exaggeration to think that we may be to a sufficiently advanced civilization what animals are to us. We ignore the ability of animals to suffer and may be treated likewise by an advanced race of people.

tom

It's not an exaggeration to think that we may be to a sufficiently advanced civilization what animals are to us. We ignore the ability of animals to suffer and may be treated likewise by an advanced race of people. — TheMadFool

Animals don't have qualia, simulate them as much as you like.

Javants

↪tom

An advanced civilisation would not simulate this reality because it would be utterly immoral to do so. — tom

Morality is inherently subjective. On Earth alone there are a plethora of different cultures with different views as to what is evil and good according to their socio-cultural background. Take, for example, the Letin Clan of Indonesia, which practices Cannibalism regularly. In this tribe Cannibalism is perceived as something which is not evil, whereas in other Western societies, it is.
What is there to suggest that moral relativism could not apply to other advanced civilisations? You're arguing that it is immoral, but it is only immoral from our perspective. It could be viewed in a completely different light in that civilisation.

Javants

↪TheMadFool

I considered that thought. The short answer is even if there were multiple realities, each would run more simulations than itself, ultimately, there would be more simulations than realities. — TheMadFool

It is possible that there are an infinite number of realities with an infinite number of constraints on how many/what kind of simulations they run, and thus, you can't argue that it is more likely that there are more simulations than realities.

tom

What is there to suggest that moral relativism could not apply to other advanced civilisations? You're arguing that it is immoral, but it is only immoral from our perspective. It could be viewed in a completely different light in that civilisation. — Javants

Moral relativism cannot apply to an advanced civilization.

What are the scientific achievements of those cannibals by the way? Any top universities in their culture?

Javants

↪tom

Why can't moral relativism be applied to an advanced civilisation? What evidence do you have to suppose that it must be immoral to simulate our reality? We can have no possible understanding of the society which simulated our own, or how similar ours is to then, and thus, we can make no assumption of what can be considered 'moral' or 'immoral' by their standards, only our own.
You're connecting scientific development with developing a 'pure' morality. What basis do you make this on? Science does not necessarily progress only when certain moral principles are made in society.

Throughout history numerous medical and scientific developments have been made despite them being 'immoral', such as the dissecting of dead human bodies during the middle ages. An advanced civilisation could have an archaic morality and still be very advanced technologically, because there is simply no relevant correlation between the two.

TheMadFool

Animals don't have qualia, simulate them as much as you like — tom

This is the exact attitude an advanced civilization may have re us and our reality.

TheMadFool

It is possible that there are an infinite number of realities with an infinite number of constraints on how many/what kind of simulations they run, and thus, you can't argue that it is more likely that there are more simulations than realities. — Javants

The Bostrom trilemma pre-empts these constraints - notice option 1 (the fraction of civilization having the means to simulate our reality is close to zero).

tom

This is the exact attitude an advanced civilization may have re us and our reality. — TheMadFool

It's not an attitude, it is a feature of reality.

tom

Why can't moral relativism be applied to an advanced civilisation? — Javants

Because they will be objectively advanced as a civilization.

What evidence do you have to suppose that it must be immoral to simulate our reality? — Javants

Human suffering is objective and real.

We can have no possible understanding of the society which simulated our own, or how similar ours is to then, and thus, we can make no assumption of what can be considered 'moral' or 'immoral' by their standards, only our own. — Javants

They will be our descendants. Morality is objective.

You're connecting scientific development with developing a 'pure' morality. What basis do you make this on? Science does not necessarily progress only when certain moral principles are made in society. — Javants

Science is only possible in the presence of certain values: integrity, honesty, commitment to the truth, openness to criticism and change.

TheMadFool

It's not an attitude, it is a feature of reality. — tom

My answer limits itself to the context of morality you, rightly, brought up.

Simulation Hypothesis & God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions