The simulation depends on ourselves! The imagination of humans is extraordinary :sparkle:

The simulation depends on ourselves! The imagination of humans is extraordinary — javi2541997

Syād, we could be simulating an older version of our world, one less-than-perfect.

we could be simulating an older version of our world — Agent Smith

Interesting. That's would mean there are different time versions of our real world. Then, the "real" world (who is simulating others) is the only one who is living in the correct time. If we think it deeply, probably you and me would be 150 years old in other reality

Interesting. That's would mean there are different time versions of our real world. Then, the "real" world (who is simulating others) is the only one who is living in the correct time. If we think it deeply, probably you and me would be 150 years old in other reality — javi2541997

Syād, this is a possibility we should look into, oui? Nostalgia is one reason why we would want to simulate an older version of The Matrix.

Nostalgia is one reason why we would want to simulate an older version of The Matrix. — Agent Smith

:up: :sparkle:

The Cambridge dictionary defines nostalgia as: a feeling of pleasure and also slight sadness when you think about things that happened in the past.

It is interesting because the cause of nostalgia is on the fact that we no longer can live those experiences. If we able to do so, we would not feel nostalgia then.

:ok:

↪Benj96 What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof

Philosophically, this seems the soundest approach. If reality in general is "of the nature of a simulation" then that doesn't add or subtract anything from the idea of reality as it affects or is affected by us.

On the other hand, this sense doesn't seem to cover what is meant by simulation, which is something that is done or made by someone. So the next logical step in a simulation hypothesis would seem to be the Cartesian demon. In that case, I suppose the possibility arises that we can in some way escape or transcend the simulation. Perhaps in the sense that one seeks to transcend Samsara.

Perhaps in the sense that one seeks to transcend Samsara. — Pantagruel

Zapffe & Camus call this "absurd". And Buddhists' say "ignorance" of anicca, etc aka "karma". Spinoza refers to it as an "inadequate idea". Etc.

It would have to be a pretty lousy simulation if the people in it were constantly pointing out they were in a simulation. Really, at that point it ceases to be a simulation and just is the context. So, any answer is that we simply live in our version of the real world. Which is where we were when we asked in the first place. Why's my cat acting funny? Probably the hurricane.

Personally I love the simulation although the sex could be better …and what the hell is up with viagra on all this…

Anyway…it’s definitely a cool thing this so called world I kinda like and as for death itself what the hell is it anyway ? Must be similar to sleep

It would have to be a pretty lousy simulation if the people in it were constantly pointing out they were in a simulation. Really, at that point it ceases to be a simulation and just is the context. So, any answer is that we simply live in our version of the real world — Cheshire

:up: :sparkle:

It would have to be a pretty lousy simulation if the people in it were constantly pointing out they were in a simulation. — Cheshire

:rofl: Syād, on point! Nevertheless, we're unable to distinguish real vs. unreal which is, to the coder/programmer behind the sim, a compliment, oui mon ami?

I never had to reference a Sanskrit dictionary before, so kudos. You run into a bit of a problem with a declaration of we can't distinguish real vs unreal because it's making a statement about a "real" state of affairs if you believe it. I think holding the world as tentatively real acknowledges the corroborating evidence we find.

The arguments I've heard are along the lines of probability that more lives could be simulated than could exist; but that argument still requires at least one real world. There's nothing that requires any simulations to exist. So, in any case (such as this one) the expected value for a real world is 1 and the number of simulations is between 0 and unknown. The reasonable bet is on a known outcome, until we know there exists simulations of real worlds where people exist and can't tell the difference.

Syat ...

What was taken for real (out there, distinct and separate from us) is being questioned; it could all be a hallucination (in our heads). As for considering the world tentatively/provisionally real, I'm all for it, but note, the damage is already done.

What was taken for real (out there, distinct and separate from us) is being questioned; it could all be a hallucination (in our heads). As for considering the world tentatively/provisionally real, I'm all for it, but note, the damage is already done. — Agent Smith

The simulation hypothesis is fun for computer nerds to contemplate, perhaps because they see no personal consequences of the notion of artificial Reality. In Existential Physics, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder admitted, "I quite like the idea that we live in a computer simulation. It gives me hope that things will be better on the next level." (heaven?) But that hope seems to be based on faith in the good intentions of the unknown programmers. She goes on to note that, "this simulation hypothesis . . . has been mostly ignored by physicists, but it enjoys a certain popularity among philosophers and people who like to think of themselves as intellectual. Evidently, it's more appealing the less you know about physics".

But, what does she know about computer simulations, except for the mathematical models that theoretical physicists create to emulate how the physical world actually works? She seems to think the alien simulations are actually patterned after traditional religious beliefs about super-intelligent super-powerful beings. "The belief in an omniscient being that can interfere with the laws of nature, but that for some reason remains hidden from us, is a common element of monotheistic religions". Unfortunately, my own explorations of philosophical origins questions are typically placed in the obsolete notion basket, without any knowledge of the actual proposal. It suggests a logical explanation why an immaterial programmer would remain forever beyond the reach of our materialist metaphors. And why the programmer allows the program to run without miraculous interference.

Reality Simulation games would be no fun for emotion-driven players, if they couldn't play god, by occasionally over-riding the program. But an abstract bodiless self-existent Programmer (pure Logic, pure Math, pure Information) would presumably have no hormonal urges to over-ride the original end-state-intent (teleology) of the program : the Final Cause output. That makes sense to me, but Hossenfelder might still reject it as philosophical speculation beyond the hard physical evidence. But, that's OK, I don't pretend to be a physicist. Just an explorer beyond the edges of the known world. :nerd:

PS__ Hossenfelder goes on to say that "physicists have looked for signs that natural laws really proceed step-by step, like a computer code". But what if the universe functions more like a non-digital integrated brain. . . . . Just philosophical fodder for unfettered thought.

UNCHARTED TERRITORY --- HERE BE DRAGONS

DOES THE UNIVERSE RESEMBLE THE HUMAN BRAIN?
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-human-brain-resemble-universe.html

Syād ... The Matrix hypothesis is when skepticism becomes fun.

↪Gnomon
Syād ... The Matrix hypothesis is when skepticism becomes fun. — Agent Smith

Ironically, Neo had to take a magic pill to open his mind to the possibility that his reality might not be what it seemed to his brainwashed senses. Where can we find such pill in our own Matrix? :wink:

everything you list could be made to SEEM to be in play, whilst still being a simulation.

Ironically, Neo had to take a magic pill to open his mind to the possibility that his reality might not be what it seemed to his brainwashed senses. Where can we find such pill in our own Matrix? :wink: — Gnomon

The red pill is a metaphor for the willingness/desire for knowledge no matter what the cost.

What are the consequences upon obtaining conclusive proof that we live in a simulation?

Also what is the first question you would ask the designer of such a simulation?

Another question if this world is simulated and corresponds in law to the real world that created it then does it really matter if it is a simulation?

The red pill is a metaphor for the willingness/desire for knowledge no matter what the cost. — Agent Smith

Where can I get a prescription that that? :smile:

To be clear, we live in the real world; we are not living in a simulation.

Nick Bostrom's simulation argument is the one I am familiar with. According to Nick, if a future civilization develops and chooses to run ancestor simulations, then the odds are that we are simulated persons, rather than people in the real world. This probability is because future civilizations would have the computational resources to create many many simulations with many many simulated people (way more simulated people than there are real people).

I would definitely have a problem with being a simulated person as I think it would mean I do not have a free will. There are no computer programs that "self-code." All computer programs are deterministic. Accordingly, a simulation would also be deterministic. And in that case, if I were in the simulation I too would be deterministically programmed.

But we do have free will. Therefore, we must not be living in a simulation.

A problem with the simulation argument is that it is unclear to me why an entire civilization would choose to dedicate its resources to ancestor simulations. Not only would doing so be highly unethical and a complete waste of resources, (not to mention it would take a lot of time and resources to build this simulation) it would also be entirely pointless, given that everything that will happen in the simulation is already known, given that the simulation world is deterministic.

Additionally, I do not think consciousness can be "simulated." Only living things can be conscious, not computer programs or anything contained in computer programs.

A problem with the simulation argument is that it is unclear to me why an entire civilization would choose to dedicate its resources to ancestor simulations. Not only would doing so be highly unethical and a complete waste of resources, (not to mention it would take a lot of time and resources to build this simulation) it would also be entirely pointless, given that everything that will happen in the simulation is already known, given that the simulation world is deterministic. — NotAristotle

The problem with your argument is simple.

When you were a child, say 6 years old, are whatever your earliest memory was. You thought it was the ultimate reality. Everything you knew was all there was to know. Everything you did was the wisest or at minimum most reasonable course of action at the time of doing it. But you got older. Some humans die at a young age and this was their ultimate reality. Surely even you must acknowledge some adults die in a similar stage, that is to say ignorant of a greater reality, way of life, or series of talents that could have brought upon a greater experience and as a result existence?

Surely you cannot be so naive as to think the ultimate reality that could ever be experienced was from the first opening of your eyes to your last breathe nor even that of the smartest most wisest and accomplished person to ever life? Surely not..

Additionally, I do not think consciousness can be "simulated." Only living things can be conscious, not computer programs or anything contained in computer programs. — NotAristotle

Then you would definitely reject hylozoism and pan-psychism.

As far as Bostrom's argument goes ...

↪Zaneemia

It seems to me that if Bostrum’s hypothesis applies to us, it must also apply to those running the simulation, and so on to infinity. It’s simulations all the way down. — NOS4A2

everything that will happen in the simulation is already known, given that the simulation world is deterministic. — NotAristotle

Er, not at all. One can have an entirely deterministic and very simple program to find the value of pi that can run forever producing new digits that were unknown until the program was run.
—————————————————————————————
More generally, there is a literal world of difference between a matrix world in which real humans are immersed in a digital world that they believe is real, and a simulated world with simulated humans - There can be no escape from the simulation for simulated persons, if such are possible, and since for them it is their only world, for them it is reality, and the programmer is God.

More generally, there is a literal world of difference between a matrix world in which real humans are immersed in a digital world that they believe is real, and a simulated world with simulated humans - — unenlightened

Then again, it's conceivable that simulated humans could be real AI's, immersed in a virtual digital world. Conceivably, they might be fooled.

(Though, more realistically, they would probably need to interact with a real environment in order to develop a proper semantics, and be fooled about anything, in what we ought recognise as a conscious, and hence relevant, way.)

I do agree that a literal world of difference remains, though, between that conceivable scenario, and simulation hypothesising (Bostrom et al), in which fictional worlds with fictional humans magically become real.

There can be no escape from the simulation for simulated persons, if such are possible, and since for them it is their only world, for them it is reality, and the programmer is God. — unenlightened

:100: :lol:

What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation?

@Benj96

The simulation theory might be true. In the sense that we live in a world that is not physical. Parmenides stated that space is a void, void is nothingness, and thus cannot exist. That would mean physical objects cannot exist, and so it would mean we live in a simulation.