
Are you living in a computer simulation? - henryl
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
======
haseman
A modern rehash of René Descartes's "I think therefore I am" problem. He
asked, essentially, am I living a fantasy dreamed up for me by a "great
deceiver". Replace "great deceiver" with "computer simulation" and the
argument plays out the same way (albeit, with more probability in the modern
case)

Ultimately, your existence is exactly what you perceive it to be. Speculating
on the nature of our existence, on this level, is indicative of those who
don't have to pay their own rent :-) You can chase your own tail on this one
literally forever. As we cannot access the simulation we are running in (just
as you can't really think about thinking) this idea becomes a debate on par
with the existence of God. It cannot be proven one way or another.

All this aside, I'll admit it was a fun read.

~~~
gojomo
While it can't be proven either way, something I find interesting about
Bostrum's formulation (and before it, Hans Moravec's 'Pigs in Cyberspace') is
that it does seem possible to infer some probabilities.

As we get closer to a world where our own ability to create world-simulations
approaches verisimilitude to our 'real world', it becomes more likely that we
are ourselves in such a simulation.

Some people find this idea existentially-threatening, but if it's any
consolation, those running the simulation can't be sure they're not in a
simulation either.

For example, let's say we're inside a simulation run by a race of hyper-
intelligent turtles, whose universe simulation, after a few tredecillion
ticks, has given rise to our current perceived reality.

Well, it's turtles all the way up.

~~~
haseman
What if the turtle's universe was a dream thought up by the great flying
spaghetti monster?

My probability math is rusty, but it's my understanding that probability is
only relevant in a finite system. The article (in a very sneaky way) assumes,
as it's premise, an infinite set of 'simulations'. But if this is the case,
wouldn't that negate the usefulness of their 'probability'? In other words, if
your conclusion is that we could be living in a simulation running inside a
simulation running insi.....(keep going until blue in the face) doesn't that
undercut your ability to say that one course of action is more likely than
another?

Or, even better, isn't this the same as the proof for god that goes: "Our
world is so complex and the probability of it coming about by by accident is
so small that there must be an intelligent being controlling it'

(I was a CS/Philosophy double major in college, so my theoretical probability
skills may be off, are there any math majors out there that can clear this
up?)

~~~
swolchok
The real numbers are infinite, and probabilities involving continuous
functions on the reals make sense; it's just that P(X=c) = 0 for all constants
c, and you have to integrate the probability density function to obtain
probabilities. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_probability_distribu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_probability_distribution)

------
michael_nielsen
I suspect that the best response to this question is not yes or no, but rather
"Who cares?"

It's in a similar class to "Can you prove that the Universe wasn't created by
an invisible pink unicorn?" Well, no, I can't. But when I go to my grave, this
inadequacy won't be at the top of my list of concerns.

~~~
presidentender
In the same discussion on Slashdot years ago, one user insisted that the
possibility of living in a simulation was the most horrific thing he could
imagine, because someone could just pull the plug. Nobody managed to convince
him that this was any less horrifying than, say, the possibility of the sun
going nova, or being killed in a plane crash.

But, if the simulation is "airtight," you're exactly right. This possibility
does not color our behavior one bit.

The only possible distinction I could see would be that interesting behavior
might get your state saved for a future run of the simulation; the problem is
that "interesting behavior" is impossible to determine.

~~~
logicalmind
I think it does color our behavior if we are able to produce such a
simulation. If at some point in the future we are able to produce a simulation
such as this don't you think our behavior would change in that we would
acknowledge the possibility of ourselves being in such a simulation?

~~~
presidentender
We already acknowledged the possibility. Our production of a simulation in no
way affects the possibility that we're in one now.

------
param
Quote from the introduction ( _emphasis_ mine) " Then it _could be the case_
that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race
but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original
race. _It is then possible to argue that_ , if this were the case, we would be
rational to think that _we are likely_ among the simulated minds rather than
among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are
currently living in a computer simulation, _we are not entitled to believe_
that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their
forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out
more carefully "

To distill the above: It is possible that some people are simulations.
Therefore it is likely we are simulations. Therefore if we don't think we are
simulations, we are not entitled to believe our descendants will run
simulations of people.

Not sure if I even need to critique the logic behind that.

------
PebblesRox
I love to watch my Sims playing the Sims on their little computers :)

------
blhack
Reading a few of the comment here...

I feel bad for some of you. This isn't serious (at least I hope not), this is
the sort of thing you get to toy around with in your head when you're driving
on a long road trip or coming home from a long day at work.

It's _fun_ to think about this sort of thing (for me and, aparently, a few
others at least...)...the way some of your are commenting on this makes me
feel like you would be the type of people to ask

"Why? Are we going somewhere?"

of an invitation to go for a walk.

------
run4yourlives
No, you're living in my simulation.

Prove me wrong.

Obligatory: [http://destructionoverdrive.blogspot.com/2005/06/last-
answer...](http://destructionoverdrive.blogspot.com/2005/06/last-answer-by-
isaac-asimov.html)

------
gtt
People's stupidity is infinite and therefore it can't be simuleted.

On a serious note, even if we are in simulation we are still part of the real
world just like many computer programms today.

------
DanielBMarkham
Yes

------
lurkinggrue
No.

~~~
rglullis
How would you argue that?

~~~
arohner
Why do you have to? A perfect simulation of the real world is not a
falsifiable hypothesis, therefore rational argument doesn't apply.

~~~
gloob
Not quite. Science doesn't apply, sure, but rational argument still does. Two
very different things. Mind you, rational argument completely disassociated
from any assumptions about the verifiability of the world we appear to inhabit
has an irksome habit of going in circles.

~~~
arohner
Let's say person A claims we are all living in a perfect computer simulation,
and person B instead claims the world was created by a pink unicorn. How do
you construct a rational argument about which one to believe?

~~~
gloob
The problem really isn't constructing rational arguments. The problem is
finding premises that are either verifiable or that both parties will agree
are true. If the two parties will not make such an agreement, and the premises
are inherently unverifiable, the arguments will all be a waste of time and
will likely descend rapidly into trolling for kicks. Despite this, the
arguments will still have been rational.

