
Are We Living In a Computer Simulation? - edu
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
======
eyudkowsky
The Simulation Argument is not that we are living in a computer simulation. It
is that you must reject _at least one_ of the 3 propositions:

(1) we are not living in a computer simulation

(2) the human species will give rise to descendants that have the power to run
lots of simulations

(3) at least a few of them will run ancestor simulations.

Which of these three do you think is untrue? Alternatively you could reject
the Simulation Argument that says the three propositions are mutually
incompatible - but if so, how?

~~~
hugh
Personally I really doubt (2). I work in theoretical condensed matter physics,
and it's awfully hard to accurately simulate anything with more than a very
small number of atoms. Sure, computers will continue to get faster for a
while, but these problems scale very badly with the size of the system, and
we're not all many orders of magnitude away from the fundamental limits of
computation. I suspect that even if you were to convert the whole mass of the
solar system into one big computer, you probably still couldn't run a decent
simulation of any system on the scale of 10^23 atoms.

It's possible you might be able to run a somewhat dodgy simulation which
doesn't work on the atomic scale unless it has to (e.g. when your simulated
person decides to do some atomic-scale experiments, it would suddenly launch a
proper simulation, and otherwise it could get away with a neuron-level
simulation). But I still don't think that we'll ever get the computing power
needed to make these kinds of simulations trivially easy.

~~~
danteembermage
One possible solution is to elongate the time-steps; if we take a million
years to simulate one second of simulation time you could get by with a lot
less computing power.

~~~
jodrellblank
If you do that, and load some information from a slow storage device (hard
disk), calculate on it for a hundred years, then write it back, load some
more, repeat, until you have computed "one planck time" accross your entire
simulated universe...

... at what point in the loading, crunching, saving, does the information
inside feel concious and self aware 'in realtime'?

~~~
byrneseyeview
Since this could apply to your life being run on a different substrate, with
no actual effect on your perception, I don't see how this is a useful
question.

------
noonespecial
After having just spend a bunch of time reading the "Why are geeks atheists"
thread, this article cast an entirely new image of the phrase "Jesus saves"
into my mind...

------
kaos
It's just another mind trick, enveloping the whole universe in something that
we now understand (discret computer simulations).

Anyway, reality is an opinion, so any model is a valid model.

~~~
immad
"reality is an opinion"

I like it. Can you explain further?

~~~
kaos
Off course immad, is based in the believe that using our brains as measurement
tools for experiencing the universe we can only make models of it, partial
maps (filtering a lot of information in the meanwhile). In this process we use
our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective
factors to create our unique map.

Every brain make his own reality tunnel (or reference frame) to experience the
universe, and we may share some of it with other brains around (also called
culture).

So if reality depends of the observer there must be more than one.

------
stcredzero
Before you start on this, what about the problem of consciousness? If the
simulations can't give rise to consciousness, then I know this isn't the case.

------
jacobbijani
What argument would have been made 100 years ago? Are we living in a steam
engine?

~~~
zach
That we are living in a book. Note that the popular plot device of being
trapped in one (or more) books survived intact as being trapped in the TV and
being trapped in a virtual reality game.

If you watch kid's cartoon series, you know that this plot device is as
inevitable as the Freaky Friday contrivance.

~~~
jacobbijani
Yeah, that's precisely the point I was trying to make (I think). It's the same
basic mental model, "we ARE the technology we use." As it evolves, so does the
theory.

~~~
kaos
Like McLuhan said, "We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us."

------
mrtron
Throughout my youth, I always considered a similar thought experiment.

Make the assumption you were some higher power with no concept of 'time' (or
lived forever in our concept of time). What would you do? Well, I believe you
would get very bored quickly, and the only logical solution is to run some
experiments. I would start small (lets for arguments sake say at the molecular
level, but almost certainly it would be at a smaller level in our perceived
world) and create every possibility. That would not take very long - so you
would have to create an infinite number of expanding test areas. Each one of
these you could equate to what we consider our universe. So basically you are
testing every possible 'path' that could exist.

I haven't put it very well to words here due to time constraints - but
basically it seems like a logical conclusion that we exist in one of these
'paths'.

~~~
m0nty
"Make the assumption ... it seems like a logical conclusion"

For me, that sums up the problem with this kind of thing. Assumptions don't
lead to logical conclusions, but "meta-assumptions" which have grown out of
your original one. You can't put assumptions in one end of your experiment and
get facts out the other, unless you can test your ideas.

Incidentally, I'm not hostile to your idea or the others discussed here. It's
fascinating, but (like anything for which we can't acquire proof) my own
belief is that it's not very useful.

------
a-priori
Not this again...

------
mynameishere
It depends if the universe is capable of computation.

------
danx0r
I think the fallacy here is the definition of "ancestor simulations". What
does that really mean? I think it's more likely that posthumans will run
simulations of whatever interests them at the time, which will probably not be
the past. What they will want to know is what lies ahead.

Therefore, my scifi mythology is that we are in a simulation created by some
other culture (ie not human).

------
nreece
Whoa. Déjà vu.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#We_are_living...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#We_are_living_in_a_simulation)

[http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/10/is-the-universe-a-
compu...](http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/01/10/is-the-universe-a-computer/)

------
avner
I find the theory full of holes... 1) Just think about the amount of power
needed by a system to maintain such a virtual world 2) Consider the magnitude
of the power needed to further maintain a nested system/S within itself???

[....besides.. i doubt amazon ec2 could scale this kind of thing anyway \\)

~~~
a-priori
That doesn't bother me. Presuppose a fancy, futuristic computer that can
handle it, and -- _bam_ \-- problem solved.

What bothers me is that it's tautological. It's meaningless and banal.

~~~
edu
Well, nowadays philosophy is often meaningless. But I think it's a good
exercise only to train our mind to think about non-conventional theories.
Probably it's a lite version of 'What you can't say'
<http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>.

Evidently, it's a question whose answer is unreachable and, in my opinion,
completely irrelevant (i really don't care if there is/isn't god, if we are a
computer simulation, or if I'm a potato).

------
andr
From the FAQ:

Do you really believe that we are in a computer simulation?

No. I believe that the simulation argument is sound.

~~~
gojomo
That he thinks the argument is sound but does not agree with "(3) we are
almost certainly living in a computer simulation" means Bostrom believes
either:

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a
"posthuman" stage; or

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant
number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).

~~~
hugh
No, he may be entirely agnostic on all three, neither believing nor
disbelieving any of them.

That seems like a pretty sensible attitude to have, actually.

~~~
gojomo
In the FAQ, Bostrom says he personally assigns about 20% probability to the
idea we are living in a simulation, and that he views (2), that the posthumans
are unlikely to run ancestor simulations, a bit more likely than the others.

Colloquially, it would be fair to say he 'believes' (2) -- as in the most
likely of exclusive options, if he had to make one choice, if he had to bet,
etc. And he definitely believes Union(2+3) more than (1).

------
manny
man you all really hate this idea. why? I hope its not just because its a
thought experiment you guys are afraid to think about.

I personally love this thought experiment and the consequences one can reach
from it.

~~~
gizmo
It's not that this is shockingly new, it's that it's exceptionally unoriginal.

Every 15 year old has done all these thought experiments already. Brain in
vat. What happens to personalities when you clone? What happens if you copy a
brain on the molecular level - do you get two different people or not? Are you
the same person you were 20 years ago? Even though every cell your body has
been replaced?

It's just psych 101. Not topics you can discuss over and over again.

The computer simulation model is uninteresting because you can't use the model
to make predictions that can be tested. And if you can't make useful (or
interesting) predictions the model stinks.

~~~
ericb
What psych 101 class did _you_ take?

~~~
gizmo
Philosophy. Not psychology. My bad.

------
aswanson
No.

------
metatronscube
do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to
realize the truth. There is no spoon.

------
rms
Yes.

