SIM argument

[Fyle]

Found this already over 10 year old theory called the Simulation Argument.

It goes like this:

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true:

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

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

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.

I found this really interesting mainly because of what a string theory professor found in 2012. If I had read this "stand alone" I may view it differently. This is the recent discovery in Science which is the best evidence for this I would say.

Dr. S. James Gates, Jr., a theoretical physicist, the John S. Toll Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, and the Director of The Center for String & Particle Theory, is reporting that certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes. These codes are digital data in the form of 1′s and 0′s. Not only that, these codes are the same as what make web browsers work and are error-correction codes! Gates says, “We have no idea what these ‘things’ are doing there”.

Furthermore, assuming this to be true, temporarily answers some big questions in science.

Anyway, this is what I have been reading. For better or worse, it is actually more interesting than most fiction I have ever read/seen.

I have read quite a few rebuttals, but, I am not too happy with any of them. They do not acknowledge the rate at which technology is progressing very well, they seem to harp on the "why would anyone make a simulation?" which is less important... that reason is not yet relevant (but touched upon of course).

Here is the full paper :

Are You Living in a Simulation?

 

[2WayParadox]

While I do believe it is possible to predict everything in the universe if all the variables that are present in it are known, I don't believe it's possible for hardware to create a reality. Because that's what's being talked about here. A simulation is something that plays on the senses, it doesn't have anything to do with the hard work being done in the real world. I could open a can of beans in simulation, pour it, heat it and eat it. I could be made to taste, feel and smell it, but a simulation wouldn't feed my body.

So unless your computer simulation has the ability to shift around matter and to form all the complex chemical and physical interactions and connections that occur in reality, it's nothing more than a thought experiment.

 

[CupofJoe]

I have no idea what "posthuman" means... a species that evolves and survives will eventually and in hindsight become a separate species from those that have gone before... that is life. If it does one or neither - that is still life...
As for living in the Matrix... maybe we are - does it matter?
If your reality is yours and yours alone and the rest of it is a simulation... who cares?
Can you change it?
Can you get outside the Matrix?
There are definitely some kinks and quirks in reality as we currently understand it that would make more sense if it was all a computer program, but I tend to think that those kinks and quirks are because of our imperfect understanding. We do not have enough information yet - maybe god-the programmer won't let us... maybe we need a better microscope/super-collider/whatever.
Reality is one thing, Truth is another and Knowledge a third... We may think them to be carved of the same stone and in many cases they are facets of a single entity but they are very individual animals [to mix my metaphors very thoroughly].
The terminology has changed but this is a "do I/we/god really exist?" question... I think I exist and that is about as far as I can go... I'm not so sure about the rest of you though... especially the woman in the red dress...

 

[Hainted]

You're looking at it wrong. If the universe is a simulation, then you and I are simulations too. That's the heart of the simulation theory.

 

[2WayParadox]

Well, define simulation then.

 

[CupofJoe]

You're looking at it wrong. If the universe is a simulation, then you and I are simulations too. That's the heart of the simulation theory.

No I'm not. I am seeing it correctly. It is just that I am conceited enough to believe that I am the reason for the existence of everything. The machine is in my head and not the other way around...
YMMV - So I am almost certainly wrong but I do not care... I think I am right...
But seriously - does it matter? You cannot prove nor disprove reality to a unique and quantifiable level of certainty... all that we know and are is "as currently understood". Go... Search... Explore... but don't expect to find anything...
This debate has been going on for 5 thousand years and more... and by minds far better than mine.

 

[Devor]

It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.

Even following the flawed logic, it does not follow that we are living in a computer simulation. The conclusion of this statement should read as follows: Either we are living in a computer simulation, or such a simulation will never exist.

. . . . certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes. These codes are digital data in the form of 1′s and 0′s. Not only that, these codes are the same as what make web browsers work and are error-correction codes!

It's really interesting that this code is there, but attempting to make any ties with modern technology is misleading at best. A computer chip does not literally have 1s and 0s. It's more like a series of levers, or buttons, some switched one way, some switched the other way, which the system reads as 1s or 0s. Think about it. At the tiniest level it's likely that there's really no other way to process information. Some particle exists in one form or the other. I mean, who knows what that information would be. But it seems to me that its relationship to modern coding is clearly superficial and coincidental.

They do not acknowledge the rate at which technology is progressing very well . . .

Technology is growing at exponential rates. The thing is, exponential growth always stops, and usually quite suddenly, by smashing into a ceiling. It's not a straight line up forever; it's an S curve. There's no reason to believe that current growth will deliver us to any specific distant hypothetical futures, just because it must.

 

[Jabrosky]

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true:

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

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

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.

As far as I'm concerned, that anyone could reasonably believe that (3) must follow from (1) and (2) is most laughable.

What would the point of the whole simulation even be? I'm going to guess whomever came up with this conjecture was a big Sims junkie.

 

[Devor]

As far as I'm concerned, that anyone could reasonably believe that (3) must follow from (1) and (2) is most laughable.

The proposition wasn't that 1 and 2 lead to 3, but that one of the three must be true. Either humans die off, or they never run a simulation, or that we're in a simulation. I suppose that's because if they run a simulation, they would run several, so that would replay human history so many times that the chances are we're in one of those instead of the real thing.

The proposition seems to define a simulation in such a way that there's a chance we're in one. Which is the flaw that forces #2 to be the correct answer. It's very likely that scientists will run multiple simulations of evolutionary history; it's extremely unlikely (read: I would say impossible) that those simulations would in any way involve replicating human consciousness or be even close to approximating a physical representation of human history.

 

[2WayParadox]

If that's the conclusion, then the SIM argument seems moot to me.

 

[Fyle]

A simulation is something that plays on the senses, it doesn't have anything to do with the hard work being done in the real world. I could open a can of beans in simulation, pour it, heat it and eat it. I could be made to taste, feel and smell it, but a simulation wouldn't feed my body.

Well, the argument is that you have know way to determine what your senses actually are. That had you been simulated you would not know it. Senses are just impulses to the brain. If the brain does not function you do not feel, taste, smell or think anything. If something has control over your brain you can be manipulated to experience anything in the "real world."

There are some mysteries to science that when applied this simulation theory make more sense.

The first, being the fact that the universe is so "BIG." A popular theory assuming this is a simulation is that the rest of the universe is not rendered as heavy as things close to or on earth because the subjects/simulations would never get close enough to examine them on a molecular level.

The second, Only 4% of matter is "solid." Or that is to say, only 4% of what you consider "the real world" is solid when broken down on a molecular level. Why? When you touch something it feels solid to you, but that's actually just molecules/particles force rejecting each other - that is to say nothing actually touches anything on a molecular level (this is the science of physics, not theory). The theory that this is a simulation explains why so little of "the real world" is actually matter.

The third, my favorite, what I mentioned above: "certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes." Why would string theory (theory for examining what makes up the universe; what you call the real world) has computer codes?

If this was a simulation, it would explain that, and make sense.

I have no idea what "posthuman" means... a species that evolves and survives will eventually and in hindsight become a separate species from those that have gone before... that is life. If it does one or neither - that is still life...
As for living in the Matrix... maybe we are - does it matter?
If your reality is yours and yours alone and the rest of it is a simulation... who cares?

Of course it “matters,” it is a theory that is taking a stab at the true nature of reality. If you don’t care about what reality or this world really is, what’s the point?

Posthuman as I understand it refers to the next step we take in evolution. For example he is a monkey > he is a human > he is a posthuman.

Sooo, posthumans or whatever our next step in evolution is could feasibly build a CPU capable of simulating a universe (do not necessarily think of evolution as a physical form, most likely it would be a shift that happens much faster in brain cells).

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Fyle]

What would the point of the whole simulation even be? I'm going to guess whomever came up with this conjecture was a big Sims junkie.

He's a professor at Oxford University, the theory has actually been around in various forms since the 1970s (earlier in sci fi, but let's not count that just yet).

Jabrosky, if history has taught me anything, it is that things we laugh at now become reality or truth in the future. If not laughed at, people shrugged and were like "nah, that'll never happen."

Try explaining nano technology, LCD display screens or atomic bombs to a cowboy in 1845.

Now that we have a certain degree of data on the growth of technology, the future becomes easier and easier to predict. You can see for yourself how far it has come in your life time and how rapidly it is evolving. Can't you? So if a game like the SIMS can be run on a computer that doubles in power ever 2 years (which is that time it has taken computers in recent years to double processing power) at what point will we invent a computer that can start a simulation like the SIMS from the "start"? Not the start of the universe, all it would need was the start of the earth. Insert algorithms that make them think they are conscience, that is all the brain is - and, the theory is pretty solid.

Also, keep in mind, you only use 6% of your brain, so the simulation only needs to execute up to 6% to emulate human consciousness (which thinks it is real)

Laugh now, learn later.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

It's 3.

I'm telling you now it is 3, and if anyone tries to convince me it's 1 or 2, I'm going to hit the Reset Button—and then you'll know it's 3!

Well, at least you'll know for that one instant before human civilization is reset. Then you'll only know what you knew before, and we'll have this same argument and are doomed to keep getting reset every February 11th of 2015. But it'll all be worth it just for that one instant in which I prove it is, in fact, 3.

 

[Fyle]

It's 3.

I'm telling you now it is 3, and if anyone tries to convince me it's 1 or 2, I'm going to hit the Reset Button—and then you'll know it's 3!

Well, at least you'll know for that one instant before human civilization is reset. Then you'll only know what you knew before, and we'll have this same argument and are doomed to keep getting reset every February 11th of 2015. But it'll all be worth it just for that one instant in which I prove it is, in fact, 3.

We should stride to find out no matter what the answer is. Here's why:

Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

If that's the conclusion, then the SIM argument seems moot to me.

You're just jealous, 2WayParadox, because you've been one-upped…

…by a Three-Way Paradox.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

We should stride to find out no matter what the answer is. Here's why:

Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

Now, who can argue with that?

Not me. Bah… my wife just got home. I'll reset later.



(Seriously, though… the garage door opened as I was typing.)

 

[Fyle]

Now, who can argue with that?

Not me. Bah… my wife just got home. I'll reset later.



(Seriously, though… the garage door opened as I was typing.)

We could be in the face of armageddon... or the end of life as we know it. If you just YouTube a few videos on robots, a Terminator type robot is not too far in the future.

Now, could they turn on us? Well, who knows, that is a long stretch but not impossible.

Could govenments use them on thier citizens to control or worse? Ummm. I would bet my money yes.

SO, in that sense, I am actually using Rorschach's phrase seriously.

 

[Penpilot]

So if a game like the SIMS can be run on a computer that doubles in power ever 2 years (which is that time it has taken computers in recent years to double processing power) at what point will we invent a computer that can start a simulation like the SIMS from the "start"? Not the start of the universe, all it would need was the start of the earth. Insert algorithms that make them think they are conscience, that is all the brain is - and, the theory is pretty solid.

FYI, this is Moore's Law. Here's a link Moore's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And despite the name isn't really a law. It's an observation. The speed at which computing power doubles is slowing down. As of 2013 it doubles every 3 years. This is because there's an upper limit to how small you can make things and to what materials can handle. Think of it like folding a piece of paper in half. There's only so many times you can fold it in half before the material just won't allow another fold.

Also, keep in mind, you only use 6% of your brain, so the simulation only needs to execute up to 6% to emulate human consciousness (which thinks it is real)

Ummm... this is a Hollywood myth. We use 100% of our brain. Here's a link Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains? - Scientific American

If you google there are tons more articles that bust this myth.

Finally, this sounds like a variation of a classic philosophy argument by Descartes. Cartesian doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Descartes reasoned that our very own experience may very well be controlled by an evil demon of sorts. This genius is as clever and deceitful as he is powerful. He could have created a superficial world that we may think we live in."

In his paper, Meditations, he says that we can't be sure of anything except or own existence, which spawn the famous quote, "I think therefore I am."

 

[Incanus]

In his paper, Meditations, he says that we can't be sure of anything except or own existence, which spawn the famous quote, "I think therefore I am."

This sounds like 'solipsism'. While I'm a natural skeptic, I feel this concept is like skepticism on steroids--it goes a bit too far. If it were true, it would mean I wrote every piece of music in history, wrote every book I've ever seen, produced every piece of art, came up with every theory, etc.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

"I think therefore I am."

I think I am awesome; therefore, I am…

…awesome.



Yeah, that sucked. But I was only using 6% of my brain.