That's very generous.'highly improbable.' — jasonm
I like that argument a lot. :smile:If a simulation exists, then there must exist at least one more thing (or set of things) which is constitutive for the simulation, e.g. a brain, a computer, their materials and properties and surrounding conditions of satisfaction. Therefore, everything cannot be a simulation. — jkop
"Three things" might prove to be contentious, depending on how you define "thing". But the conclusion seems to me to be sound.Furthermore, if the simulation (e.g an emergent property within a network of electrical circuits) is about something (e.g. our world at the level of humans and mid sized objects), then we have at least three things to consider: the simulation (emerging from electric circuits), what causes it (a brain and computers etc), and what it is about (a part of our world). So, not only is it impossible for everything to be a simulation, the simulation is just one thing among many other things in our world. — jkop
You are, rightly, thinking of me as a passive spectator in the simulation. You have left out a really important point. We are embodied and active in the world. So the frog is not just a "constellation of coloured shapes" (and sounds, smells, touches and even tastes), but also something that we interact with (as the frog interacts with us). For me, it's the interaction that distinguishes the real frog from the dream. True, I can imagine an illusory frog that I don't interact with, but only because I sometimes interact with the things that I perceive.A frog is not just a constellation of coloured shapes that hop around for no apparent reason. Simulations, pictures, or descriptions of frogs are syntactically disjoint and detachable in a way that real frogs are not. Real frogs are continuous, recalcitrant, and seamlessly connected to other creatures and environments, which in turn are connected to chemistry, physics, astrophysics, cosmology or everything. Our ability to identify frogs, as frogs, has a causal history that arguably amounts to everything, and a simulation cannot be everything. — jkop
I think the point goes deeper than that. We can experience a constellation of coloured shapes as a frog, but only as a picture of a frog. My past experience acting in the world no doubt contributes to that. But to seriously fool me as a real frog, it would have to respond to my attempts to catch it (by hopping out of reach). Can I be fooled into thinking I am attempting to catch it? I would have to have all the sensory inputs, including the proprioceptive inputs that tell me where my body is and what it is doing. But if that was all controlled by the simulation machinery, I would not feel that I was doing it - my "body" would not be my own. The inputs would have to respond to my outputs - the signals that would, in real life, control my body. That is, inputs from the machinery would never be enough. I would have to be in control of my "body". The machinery has to respond to me - it has to become my body.The causal history, however, is what makes it necessary to experience the frog as a frog and not as a hopping constellation of colored shapes. — jkop
"Universe" is a bit slippery here. If it means "everything that exists", we have to take into account that a simulation cannot be everything that exists, because it must be a simulation of something and that something must be real - an alternate reality. We are used to the idea that there can be alternate worlds in the same universe nowadays, but the idea of alternate universes presupposes that there can be no communication of any kind from one to another.Yet many people seem to believe that the whole universe, or at least our experienced part of the universe, is or could be a simulation. — jkop
The idea of "real" is also slippery here - or better, it's meaning is contextual. A simulation of a battle isn't a real battle, but it is a real simulation, and it is a simulation of real (or possibly real) events. I think you are proposing that a whole universe might be simulated by a process that would be controlled in order to serve some purpose. But if everything is included, not only is there no reality to be simulated, but also there is nowhere for the creators (or their hardware) to be. So I don't quite understand what you are getting at here.If the universe is simulated or in part simulated, it doesn't make it any less real, — Barkon
First, if the world is simulated, why don't its 'designers' simply 'pop out' at times and leave us with some trace of their existence? — jasonm
Similarly, why don't we sometimes notice violations of the laws of physics? If it's just a simulation, does it matter if the laws of physics are perfectly consistent? — jasonm
why don't its 'designers' simply 'pop out' at times and leave us with some trace of their existence? Guidance through such a virtual world might be helpful, and yet there is no trace of anyone 'programming' or 'guiding' us anywhere. — jasonm
Similarly, why don't we sometimes notice violations of the laws of physics? — jasonm
Third: what type of computing power would be required to 'house' this virtual universe? Are we talking about computers that are bigger than the universe itself? Is this possible even in principle? — jasonm
If this world is simulated, the "real" world must be very like this one - as in the "Matrix". — Ludwig V
Therefore, everything cannot be a simulation. — jkop
Another argument against the simulation hypothesis might be this:
A simulation is a representation, and a representation is selective and asymmetric relative to what it is a representation of. — jkop
But being that the simulation is a program, it should be deterministic, and therefore consistent; — Lionino
If a simulation is wholly deterministic, there is no added value to run it in the first place — Benj96
For all variables throughout the simulations play are already known by the creators. — Benj96
Not true. We would have zero empirical access to the level that is running the simulation, so we can know nothing about it. It might not be a 3 dimensional space world with physics as we know it. That's kind of likely actually since our physics cannot be self-simulated. At the classical level, maybe, but not beyond that.If this world is simulated, the "real" world must be very like this one - as in the "Matrix" — Ludwig V
Good argument, but nobody asserted that 'everything is a simulation'. The argument still is valid that if we're 'probably' simulated, and if the simulating world is similar to ours, then they're also 'probably simulated'. But that's a lot of 'if's.Therefore, everything cannot be a simulation. — jkop
Just FYI, there are countless ways to run simulations. Networks of electrical circuits is but one, and those might not even be a thing in the world simulating us.if the simulation (e.g an emergent property within a network of electrical circuits) — jkop
Agree with this, but not sure what conventional is here. Adding a more fundamental layer to the model, especially a more complicated one, just makes the problem harder, very similar to positing that God created it all. The god is harder to explain than the simpler universe.If the universe is simulated or in part simulated, it doesn't make it any less real, it just means the product of the universe came about through non-conventional means — Barkon
Definitions vary. In this topic, it is helpful to say 'world'. We are one world, and the level simulating us is another. Maybe they're simulating a bunch of them and we are running several simulations of our own. Those are all different worlds, all part of one 'everything that exists', which is a defintion I never liked anyway."Universe" is a bit slippery here. If it means "everything that exists", — Ludwig V
The battle is real to those in the simulation, but not real to those running the simulation.The idea of "real" is also slippery here - or better, it's meaning is contextual. A simulation of a battle isn't a real battle, but it is a real simulation — Ludwig V
Apparent violations would be bugs. Actual violations are seemingly necessary, to the point where I've never seen a hypothesis that didn't suggest fully consistent phsical laws. For instance, do we simulate the quantum interactions between a pair of protons in a star in some other galaxy? Or do we just simulate an occasional photon reaching Earth?If our world is a simulation, violations of the laws of physics would be bugs. — Lionino
So the alternative has been falsified? News to me.Minds/consciousness can't come from matter, therefore simulation theory is false. — RogueAI
Lionino correctly points out the error here. Deterministic doesn't mean predictable. Simulations are run today precisely for the purpose of learning something unknown despite being fully determined. Car crashes are a great example of this, a far more cost effective method of testing automobile designs than crashing actual cars.If a simulation is wholly deterministic, there is no added value to run it in the first place. For all variables throughout the simulations play are already known by the creators. — Benj96
Car crashes are a great example of this, a far more cost effective method of testing automobile designs than crashing actual cars. — noAxioms
Not quite. They can simulate them, but that just means they can create an illusion of them. They can't create them for real.Surely the programmers can create whatever physics, chemistry and phenomena they like. — Benj96
Yes. It's a curious game. I've never understood the rules.Ofc I'm on some fantasy rant here. But I enjoy dabbling in wild metaphysical speculation — Benj96
Do you mean that no-one living in our world could create a simulation of our world? !!!It might not be a 3 dimensional space world with physics as we know it. That's kind of likely actually since our physics cannot be self-simulated. — noAxioms
Yes, it is. An infinite number, to be exact.The argument still is valid that if we're 'probably' simulated, and if the simulating world is similar to ours, then they're also 'probably simulated'. But that's a lot of 'if's. — noAxioms
That's just a posh way of saying that the battle seems real to those in the simulation. Reality, by definition, is not "in" the simulation, but outside it.The battle is real to those in the simulation, but not real to those running the simulation. — noAxioms
Minds/consciousness can't come from matter, therefore simulation theory is false.
— RogueAI
How do you prove that? — Benj96
It seems at the very least, matter is the carrier medium of consciousness. A necessity. If not the source.
you're the one who made the claim. — Barkon
No, none of those cases are examples of simulations. Yes, they're are crashing real cars. I'm talking about a computer model of a car crashed into a virtual brick wall, another car/truck, whatever... Yes, those simulations have occupants in them. Much of the point of the simulation to to find a design that best protects those occupants. The auto industry has huge computers dedicated to doing this sort of thing continuously.I'm not sure I fully understand. Forgive me, but are these simulations not the ones where they put crash test dummies in a model of car and ram it into a brick wall? How is that not crashing actual cars?
Or do you mean studying thr aftermath of incidental crashes on the road? Not sure how often this actually happens as there would be a lot of legal red tape with ongoing investigations into real victims. — Benj96
That's what determinism means, yes. I don't think 'predetermined' is a distinct concept from 'determined'.Perhaps I am wrong about determinism tho. I always figured if variables were fully predetermined then the outcome would be invariably predetermined and fully predictable.
It is unpredictable because the initial conditions of the system fundamentally cannot be known, but given a deterministic model and perfect initial conditions, the (closed) system will do the same thing every single time.I figured that nothing is fully predetermined in real life experiment because there is almost certainly extraneous variables interacting to make the outcome for example 1+1 + X variable + Y variable + Nth variable = 2?
Of course not. There would for one be a need for more data than there is medium on which to store it. You you need to simulate a small system, with far less effort put into simulation of the interaction of that small system with the part outside the system.Do you mean that no-one living in our world could create a simulation of our world? — Ludwig V
OK, 'seems' is a better word. But to us, we typically presume reality to be whatever 'seems' real to us without explicitly defining it that way.That's just a posh way of saying that the battle seems real to those in the simulation.
By another definition (one very appropriate for this topic, yes), I agree. Reality might not be the world simulating us. We might be 27 levels down, but there's a base reality up there (as is typically presumed), and that one is 'the reality' by the definition implied by a topic like this.Reality, by definition, is not "in" the simulation, but outside it.
How does this prove we aren't a simulation though? — Benj96
So there are two ways that a simulation of our world would differ from the real world - sorry, the world as we know it.So you cut corners and don't simulate at that level unless something intentionally is paying attention to that level. — noAxioms
Surely, we have to presume there is a base reality, or face an infinite regress.We might be 27 levels down, but there's a base reality up there (as is typically presumed), and that one is 'the reality' by the definition implied by a topic like this. — noAxioms
I agree. I understand the argument as being a version of Cartesian scepticism. The possibility that God, or an evil demon is feeding us false information is also a fanciful scenario. The paradox of the situation is that believers in it have to put more faith in their fancies than in their experience.Your are being too kind to call this even “highly improbable”. Just because we can imagine such fanciful scenarios does not mean they are possible. — Richard B
First, if the world is simulated, why don't its 'designers' simply 'pop out' at times and leave us with some trace of their existence? — jasonm
Similarly, why don't we sometimes notice violations of the laws of physics? — jasonm
Third: what type of computing power would be required to 'house' this virtual universe? — jasonm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.