- Thread starter
- #41
Fyle
Inkling
It's unfalseafiable at this point in time in the same way God is unfalseafiable. So, no we could not have figured it out.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
SIM argument
- Thread starter Fyle
- Start date
It's unfalseafiable at this point in time in the same way God is unfalseafiable. So, no we could not have figured it out.
My suggestion about the Infinite Simulations means that everything would be a simulation repeating itself over and over again, so there would be no Real World after all, nowhere, and the argument loses all power. It would be a little similar to the Infinite Regression theory, just kind of weirder.
The main problem with the Simulation argument is that it's based on stating humans this and humans that and we can do this and technological advances are so incredible and all that. I do not want to seem harsh, but it all sounds like a product of the unlimited narcissism and arrogance of the human species.
This argument takes for granted that the Simulation is a human creation, made for the purpose of recreating the past world and observing it. It's like saying: Oh yeah, we are so smart that we invented this incredible simulation by means of our all powerful computers! We are the best!
In case the universe really is a computer simulation, very well it could be like this instead:
The Fluid Sharks Theory
We live in a computer simulation. All the history of humanity, all of the technology, everything that we know is not real at all... The real world outside of the computer is composed by the Fluid Space, a watery and orange realm which exists beyond our fake rules of physics, and this Fluid is inhabited by unimaginably smart sharks.
In order to amuse themselves, the Fluid Sharks have created super computers that simulate entire universes inside of them, everything according to the wishes and imagination of a particular shark.
One day a young Shark was bored, so her father went and got a Simulation computer.
This Shark has a great imagination... so great, that she imagined humanity and invented from scratch all of the history, civilizations and technology that can only exist within our fake universe. Nothing that we know is real, nothing matters except for the Sharks and the Fluid Space where they live.
My theory is as good as the other Argument, so... what do you think?
The main problem with the Simulation argument is that it's based on stating humans this and humans that and we can do this and technological advances are so incredible and all that. I do not want to seem harsh, but it all sounds like a product of the unlimited narcissism and arrogance of the human species.
This argument takes for granted that the Simulation is a human creation, made for the purpose of recreating the past world and observing it. It's like saying: Oh yeah, we are so smart that we invented this incredible simulation by means of our all powerful computers! We are the best!
In case the universe really is a computer simulation, very well it could be like this instead:
The Fluid Sharks Theory
We live in a computer simulation. All the history of humanity, all of the technology, everything that we know is not real at all... The real world outside of the computer is composed by the Fluid Space, a watery and orange realm which exists beyond our fake rules of physics, and this Fluid is inhabited by unimaginably smart sharks.
In order to amuse themselves, the Fluid Sharks have created super computers that simulate entire universes inside of them, everything according to the wishes and imagination of a particular shark.
One day a young Shark was bored, so her father went and got a Simulation computer.
This Shark has a great imagination... so great, that she imagined humanity and invented from scratch all of the history, civilizations and technology that can only exist within our fake universe. Nothing that we know is real, nothing matters except for the Sharks and the Fluid Space where they live.
My theory is as good as the other Argument, so... what do you think?
- Thread starter
- #43
Fyle
Inkling
Well, yes, but the base argument is over 10 years old as is. Bostrom has updated it and revised comments in interviews and videos addressing how much the core argument means to suggest. The most logical answer, based on the way we think and act; that is to say how we would make a simulation - how we stride to perfect technology, having conscious beings in a simulation would be an ultimate goal.
He offers recreating the past as a motive for people to relate to why someone would build this type of simulation... to kind of nip too many why questions in the bud.
What is running the simulation cannot be known, only assumed, or to say the world outside the simulation is a separate issue from if the world is a simulation itself.
Look, anyone can make up a logical theory, but you have to match that theory with where current advances in technology are headed and observe what we do now in the real word; make simulations and observe other human beings, read about them etc.
Sharks are not something that are leaning towards advances in technology, so, this is not simply a argument based on a well thought idea, it attempts to pull its predictions by projecting a possible future.
For the record, I am more fascinated with the idea that the world is digital rather than solid. This is just a particularly interesting hypothesis since I can relate to the vague gaming aspect.
Look for yourself how far certain inventions have come in the last 100 years at a slow pace (and now the pace it rapid!). Look at the gap between Pong and the World of War Craft or a PS4 game. The difference is literally astounding. Look at how far the car has come since Henry Ford’s clunky first 35mph? automobile. Now, imagine the gap computers will have in another 100 years than the ones we have today. Is it so unreasonable to think they will be able to simulate incredible amounts of information that is hard for us to even fathom today? Especially since we already see a direct connection between computers and our brains were people can link the two together and move a mouse on the screen – take that 10 steps further and the sky is the limit really…
Last edited:
Queshire
Istar
After further reading through the article I have some more thoughts. I looked through his math and there's three (technically four) main factors he includes to determine the chance of whether or not someone might be a simulation.
First there is whether or not humanity will live long enough to develop powerful enough tech to create sufficient enough tech. Basically whether or not 1 is true. This presumes that such technology is even possible at all. For the purpose of this argument I am going to presume that's true as well, furthermore I'm going to presume that we will live long enough to reach that tech, since if we don't there's no point going further. He called this (Fp).
Secondly is (H) which stands for number of Humans. He defines H as average number of humans in a simulation. Let's presume that each simulation is a perfect recreation of history so that every simulation has the same number of humans as well as the alpha reality doing the simulations. If some have more and some have less then it would introduce errors that would skewer the percentage. H is important because you are a human.
Third there is the number of simulations run which is (N). It's exactly what it says on the tin.
The number of humans who will ever exist is a big number, but it's really not important. Say that there's the alpha reality and they run two simulations. You have to be in one of them. You have 2 simulation options and 1 alpha reality option for a total of 3 options. Similarly if they run 100 simulations then you have 100 simulation options plus one Alpha reality option. In this you can see that the total number of possible options is always one more than the number of simulations run. If each simulation has the same number of humans on it and so does the alpha reality then the number of humans doesn't matter since it's all the same between them.
Thus we can see that your chance of being in any particular simulation / the alpha reality is 1 out of the (N)umber of simulations run plus 1 for the alpha reality, or 1/(N+1)
However the article doesn't talk about your chance of being in each particular stream, it talks about the chance of being a simulation at all. If you have 1/(N+1) chance of being in any particular simulation and there's (N) number of simulations then to determine the chance of being in a simulation at all you would multiply 1/(N+1) times (N) which would be (N) / (N+1) or the number of simulations run out of the number of simulations run PLUS the alpha reality.
You can see where the guy's claim of the high likelihood of being in a simulation by plugging in different numbers for the number of simulations run. For example, 1 simulation leads to 1/2 or 50% while 99 simulations would be 99/100 or 99%.
I must stress the extent of these proposed simulations. For the calculations to make sense they have to be perfect, tracing the entire history of mankind from the beginning of time up to the point where the simulation finishes. To do otherwise would skew the chance of being a simulation as, presumably, the number of people in the far flung future of the Alpha Reality would have a different number of people alive than are alive now. I'm not saying this to disabuse you of the notion that it is even possible or not. Remember, for the sake of the argument we're presuming that it is possible. I just want you to wrap your head around how mind boggling big the simulations would have to be.
If each simulation is perfect and more than just a handful of simulations are run then by far most of the people to have ever lived will be in simulations. This is basically the crux of his number 3, though in much less sensationalist phrasing.
I'm not done there. We've seen that the only important factor to determine the likelihood of a person being in a simulation is the number of simulations run, but how do we determine that? Let's say that everyone who has the interest AND the capability runs a simulation. It's also possible for someone to run multiple simulations, but that's a matter of their level of interest so let's just file that under interest. The only number we have for a quantity of humans is (H) so let's use that. Let's call the percentage of H who have interest and capability to run a simulation (F2). That would make the (N) umber of simulations run to be equal to (F2) multiplied by (H).
We have established (H) as a constant number, the number of humans who will ever live. So to determine (N) we need to figure out what (F2) is.
This is where I disagree with the author of the article. He thinks that (F2) would be relatively large due to the truly tremendous computing power we would theoretically have when technology advances to the point where such simulations are even possible. I disagree. Compared to the total amount of humans who have ever lived only a small fraction would live far enough into the future to have access to that technology. True, the number of such people would increase as time goes on and if it ever reaches 1 that's still a 50% chance, but it is far smaller than what he claims.
WHAT THIS MEANS: Though the math is technically correct the way it is portrayed is needlessly sensationalist and unless the simulations are a perfect 1 to 1 map to reality then the odds would be skewed. Such a 1 to 1 map would also mean that the alpha reality would also have the computer elements noted earlier in the thread which would either mean that reality is a simulation too or the computer elements have nothing to do with the simulated nature of such things.
If the odds are skewed, well we're dealing with large enough numbers here that it wouldn't make much of a practical difference. The chance of you being in a simulation might be higher or lower than what the equation as stated might suggest.
I see little reason to treat this theory with anything other than the general apathy any other scientific theory is met with. It has some possible interesting aspect to play around with in a story but has no practical effect on your life.
First there is whether or not humanity will live long enough to develop powerful enough tech to create sufficient enough tech. Basically whether or not 1 is true. This presumes that such technology is even possible at all. For the purpose of this argument I am going to presume that's true as well, furthermore I'm going to presume that we will live long enough to reach that tech, since if we don't there's no point going further. He called this (Fp).
Secondly is (H) which stands for number of Humans. He defines H as average number of humans in a simulation. Let's presume that each simulation is a perfect recreation of history so that every simulation has the same number of humans as well as the alpha reality doing the simulations. If some have more and some have less then it would introduce errors that would skewer the percentage. H is important because you are a human.
Third there is the number of simulations run which is (N). It's exactly what it says on the tin.
The number of humans who will ever exist is a big number, but it's really not important. Say that there's the alpha reality and they run two simulations. You have to be in one of them. You have 2 simulation options and 1 alpha reality option for a total of 3 options. Similarly if they run 100 simulations then you have 100 simulation options plus one Alpha reality option. In this you can see that the total number of possible options is always one more than the number of simulations run. If each simulation has the same number of humans on it and so does the alpha reality then the number of humans doesn't matter since it's all the same between them.
Thus we can see that your chance of being in any particular simulation / the alpha reality is 1 out of the (N)umber of simulations run plus 1 for the alpha reality, or 1/(N+1)
However the article doesn't talk about your chance of being in each particular stream, it talks about the chance of being a simulation at all. If you have 1/(N+1) chance of being in any particular simulation and there's (N) number of simulations then to determine the chance of being in a simulation at all you would multiply 1/(N+1) times (N) which would be (N) / (N+1) or the number of simulations run out of the number of simulations run PLUS the alpha reality.
You can see where the guy's claim of the high likelihood of being in a simulation by plugging in different numbers for the number of simulations run. For example, 1 simulation leads to 1/2 or 50% while 99 simulations would be 99/100 or 99%.
I must stress the extent of these proposed simulations. For the calculations to make sense they have to be perfect, tracing the entire history of mankind from the beginning of time up to the point where the simulation finishes. To do otherwise would skew the chance of being a simulation as, presumably, the number of people in the far flung future of the Alpha Reality would have a different number of people alive than are alive now. I'm not saying this to disabuse you of the notion that it is even possible or not. Remember, for the sake of the argument we're presuming that it is possible. I just want you to wrap your head around how mind boggling big the simulations would have to be.
If each simulation is perfect and more than just a handful of simulations are run then by far most of the people to have ever lived will be in simulations. This is basically the crux of his number 3, though in much less sensationalist phrasing.
I'm not done there. We've seen that the only important factor to determine the likelihood of a person being in a simulation is the number of simulations run, but how do we determine that? Let's say that everyone who has the interest AND the capability runs a simulation. It's also possible for someone to run multiple simulations, but that's a matter of their level of interest so let's just file that under interest. The only number we have for a quantity of humans is (H) so let's use that. Let's call the percentage of H who have interest and capability to run a simulation (F2). That would make the (N) umber of simulations run to be equal to (F2) multiplied by (H).
We have established (H) as a constant number, the number of humans who will ever live. So to determine (N) we need to figure out what (F2) is.
This is where I disagree with the author of the article. He thinks that (F2) would be relatively large due to the truly tremendous computing power we would theoretically have when technology advances to the point where such simulations are even possible. I disagree. Compared to the total amount of humans who have ever lived only a small fraction would live far enough into the future to have access to that technology. True, the number of such people would increase as time goes on and if it ever reaches 1 that's still a 50% chance, but it is far smaller than what he claims.
WHAT THIS MEANS: Though the math is technically correct the way it is portrayed is needlessly sensationalist and unless the simulations are a perfect 1 to 1 map to reality then the odds would be skewed. Such a 1 to 1 map would also mean that the alpha reality would also have the computer elements noted earlier in the thread which would either mean that reality is a simulation too or the computer elements have nothing to do with the simulated nature of such things.
If the odds are skewed, well we're dealing with large enough numbers here that it wouldn't make much of a practical difference. The chance of you being in a simulation might be higher or lower than what the equation as stated might suggest.
I see little reason to treat this theory with anything other than the general apathy any other scientific theory is met with. It has some possible interesting aspect to play around with in a story but has no practical effect on your life.
This is what I am trying to say...
First the theory says that the universe is a simulation, and then we are supposed to accept the simulation itself as clues or hints that support the validity of these ideas. If the theory is true then quite possibly even gravity and electricity themselves are just a piece of fiction, and all of the glorious human technology could be the imagination of a shark.
We are supposed to accept that future human civilization created the simulated universe, because that's what our incredible inventions are aiming at, but that just feels like arrogance from my point of view.
It's not that I hate humanity, but I do dislike very much this belief that we are special because we invent all this stuff... special to the point that we created a simulated universe, which feels like nonsense to me because the Simulation Argument pretty much destroys its own foundations.
I do not want to be offensive, it's just how I think about this particular theory.
First the theory says that the universe is a simulation, and then we are supposed to accept the simulation itself as clues or hints that support the validity of these ideas. If the theory is true then quite possibly even gravity and electricity themselves are just a piece of fiction, and all of the glorious human technology could be the imagination of a shark.
We are supposed to accept that future human civilization created the simulated universe, because that's what our incredible inventions are aiming at, but that just feels like arrogance from my point of view.
It's not that I hate humanity, but I do dislike very much this belief that we are special because we invent all this stuff... special to the point that we created a simulated universe, which feels like nonsense to me because the Simulation Argument pretty much destroys its own foundations.
I do not want to be offensive, it's just how I think about this particular theory.
- Thread starter
- #46
Fyle
Inkling
Well Sheil,
That is an exellant response. Whilst neither one of us can convince the other, i will say this, and this is what i really like about theories like this (i see you called it a theory as well, i got told it was not technically a theory but for ease its a good word).
It makes you think. It makes you think in a new way in where we have a replacement for the theism vs atheism debate, it kinda adds a third contender. Is the universe digital？God in this sense only becomes a term for something way more advanced than us, which could be anything, technically they could be shark like, just unlikely.
This theory was actually proposed in the 1970s, i forget by who and i am on my android so cant look it up.. point is, the guy was utterly laughed at.
With computers developing at a rapid rate, when Bostrom brought up his own version in 2003, well, some people laughed - but not nearly as hard, and some stopped laughing when they thought about it.
So, when 30 more years goes by, my guess is theories / hypothesises (whatever you label them) like this will be in the forefront of popular belief.
There is also a hologram hypothesis i want to read up on, sounds interesting too. This one is partcularly fun to ponder because i know humans are building better and better simulations. You may have one yourself of some type right now.
Cant respond with much more than that from my phone... typing that just took 15 minutes lol
That is an exellant response. Whilst neither one of us can convince the other, i will say this, and this is what i really like about theories like this (i see you called it a theory as well, i got told it was not technically a theory but for ease its a good word).
It makes you think. It makes you think in a new way in where we have a replacement for the theism vs atheism debate, it kinda adds a third contender. Is the universe digital？God in this sense only becomes a term for something way more advanced than us, which could be anything, technically they could be shark like, just unlikely.
This theory was actually proposed in the 1970s, i forget by who and i am on my android so cant look it up.. point is, the guy was utterly laughed at.
With computers developing at a rapid rate, when Bostrom brought up his own version in 2003, well, some people laughed - but not nearly as hard, and some stopped laughing when they thought about it.
So, when 30 more years goes by, my guess is theories / hypothesises (whatever you label them) like this will be in the forefront of popular belief.
There is also a hologram hypothesis i want to read up on, sounds interesting too. This one is partcularly fun to ponder because i know humans are building better and better simulations. You may have one yourself of some type right now.
Cant respond with much more than that from my phone... typing that just took 15 minutes lol
I just wanted to make clear that this wasn't a scientific argument. It's a philosophical one. And not to beat a dead horse, but in the realm of science, this can't be called a hypothesis either. A hypothesis must be testable.
But for the purposes of this discussion, since it's clear now we are in the realm of philosophy, I won't nitpick any further on that. From now on I will assume we're using the more generalized meaning of terms.
It's not a rebuttal of the SIM argument. It's a rebuttal of your claim of "There is no other theory that has clues as good as this, you follow, clues that point toward probability of truth."
There are many science base theories as to the nature and origin of the universe that have equal or greater, testable evidence that point towards their probable truth.
Nor does it help, because connecting a mind to a computer is not the same as building a mind or a universe in a computer.
- Thread starter
- #48
Fyle
Inkling
Yes, this is true. What i meant to say by any other was better than religious claims, Christianity, Judism etc
I did not want to come out and say that, but to explain what i really wanted to say by other i have to
Other Scientific claims i consder equal of course. I am all about science.
I guess we have a disconnect on what clues are and how they can be used to predict the future
I am open to anything with any other solid foundation besides its in some book or millions believe it so it might be right
This happens to be pretty interesting
Last edited:
Tom
Istar
Hey now...I'm all for science, but science can't disprove religion. Science deals with the physical world, the here and now, the building blocks of reality. Religion is all about the metaphysical, the incorporeal, the stuff beyond the physical world. Trying to apply science to religion is like trying to paint a portrait with a c-wrench; a c-wrench is a great, useful tool, but painting is not what it's made for. Likewise science is not made to explain, prove, or disprove religion.
Hello everyone.
I find the conversation in this thread good and exciting, but it's always a good idea to remember some of the rules that we have in Mythic Scribes. The subject discussed here has been on the verge of Religion territory since it started, so before continuing, please follow this link:
The Guidelines for Discussing Religion.
Thank you!
I find the conversation in this thread good and exciting, but it's always a good idea to remember some of the rules that we have in Mythic Scribes. The subject discussed here has been on the verge of Religion territory since it started, so before continuing, please follow this link:
The Guidelines for Discussing Religion.
Thank you!
BronzeOracle
Sage
I couldn't agree with you more Tom. I love science, I find it absolutely fascinating - evolution, astronomy, geology - I would have loved to seen the dinosaurs, the megafauna. Relativity blows my mind! But it doesn't help me with how I should live, how I should love. I'm not saying that religion has all the answers, either in the books or the actions of its followers - my inspiration has come from so many people, so many places - but I just love the light of spirit in life! Pardon the schmaltzy term but I can't describe it any other way. It's simply beautiful and it compliments the wonder and power of science just perfectly in my opinion. Science is the engine, spirit is the rudder.
BronzeOracle
Sage
Actually to reply to my own thread - the fields of psychology, brain chemistry etc do help me with how I live - understanding thoughts and emotions etc. They provide an understanding of why I feel and act a certain way, they help me to make strategies. But I don't find courage in them in helping me to direct my own life or dare to love others.
Tom
Istar
Absolutely. I have studied and applied psychology to my own life, but religion is what gives me purpose in living it. Psychology tells me that I--the mind, the real me--am nothing more than neurons arranged into synapses, but religion also tells me that the body and the organic brain are not the extent of what I am. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with being a bundle of neurons, but I'm also glad that I have assurance that I'm so much more than that.
To add a different perspective to this. For me, I have yet to find any thing that makes me think there's any more to my existence than my physical form. In my younger days, I was exposed to different religions and nothing has spoken to me.
For myself, find the prospect of a finite existence reason to cherish every moment. It makes me realize when I ask someone for a second of their time, I'm asking for something that can never be replaced.
I find wonder in the idea that even though I may cease to exist, I will go on. Every element in my body was born in a star. Every atom composing those elements will continue to exist long after I am gone. They will form new molecules and go on to become other things, plants, animals, and other people. Parts that were once me will live again, love again, a billion trillion times over, and given enough time, may travel to the stars as something or as someone.
There is a finite number of ways that atoms can arrange themselves in human form. Though that number is immensely large, and it is said that the universe will end before two human patterns will ever repeat, I like to think that maybe my pattern will repeat one day. Will that pattern be me? Probably not. But it would be neat see, and it's kind of cool to think about.
Jabrosky
Banned
I agree with you on this, but if atoms that used to build you up will get redistributed throughout existence, with some even ending up part of another individual's consciousness, might that not give credence to a (very indirect) theory of reincarnation? It wouldn't have anything to do with the movement of souls, but maybe once I die, maybe the molecules that built up my brain eventually become part of some Aboriginal Australian chick who wouldn't even know I ever existed?
Tom
Istar
I've never had any proof for the existence of my own soul, but I've chosen to believe it exists. That's just my perspective.
When I was in my early teens, I had doubts about my Christian faith and eventually walked away from it. My time as an atheist/agnostic was one of the lowest points of my life. I've always had a deep, innate fear of death, and as an agnostic that fear came to a head. I realized that if I didn't believe in God, I didn't believe in assured life-after-death either. All I had to look forward to after death, then, was oblivion. I hated the idea that my memories and consciousness would be gone and I would never even know that I had once existed. That fear of death and emptiness is what brought me back to Christianity.
Sometimes I think I can prove the existence of my soul--in moments when I feel joy or sorrow so deep and piercing it just has to transcend the physical--but then I remember that science can't be applied to religion. So I guess I'll have to be content with faith.
I used to fear death, too, but after a bit of soul searching--no pun intended--and a minor but significant bout with illness, I realized there are worse things. To me, death is the lifting of all burdens, no more fears, no more pains, no more bills, no more waiting on the phone line for stupid customer support
, nothing, and I'm ok with that. I don't remember a time before I was born, and I won't remember a time after my death. There's a nice symmetry to that. Knowing that, I realize what matters is what we leave behind. No, I'm not going into that atom spiel again. What I mean is family. I don't have children yet, but I have nephews. And sometimes I see them do or say something that is an echo of myself, and it makes me smile and gives me this great sense of fulfilment. And if I ceased to exist after that, I'd be OK with it.
Tom
Istar
I admire you for your acceptance of death. I don't have the courage to do so yet. After a close brush with death in an ATV accident, I realized how easily life can be snatched away, and I've really started to appreciate how great it is to be alive.
BronzeOracle
Sage
I agree Penpilot! The thought of our bodies made of stars, a slow flux of atoms kept in a temporary form by our DNA - absolutely mind blowing and I can't help but smile at it. What on earth are we really? How little do we understand our own nature! I love to walk at night and look at the stars above - I feel strangely connected, like its where I came from and will go to again - a being of star dust here just for a little while.
I also wonder what I will leave behind, who my kids will be as adults and I hope so much they will be joyful, connected and have loving lives. But I also try to be present when I can and share loving moments with family and friends, particularly after times have been hard and we've come back from it. It feels right and I'm grateful when it happens.
I also wonder what I will leave behind, who my kids will be as adults and I hope so much they will be joyful, connected and have loving lives. But I also try to be present when I can and share loving moments with family and friends, particularly after times have been hard and we've come back from it. It feels right and I'm grateful when it happens.
- Thread starter
- #60
Fyle
Inkling
The Simulation Argument is has nothing to do with religion.
The thing is, it is actually compadible with athesim and religion cause it only states there is a layer of reality above this one. Not that anything in this one does or doesnt exsist.
Lets bring it back on track.
For the record, it is philosophy, some call it future science since it makes predictions based on possible progression of actual science.
The thing is, it is actually compadible with athesim and religion cause it only states there is a layer of reality above this one. Not that anything in this one does or doesnt exsist.
Lets bring it back on track.
For the record, it is philosophy, some call it future science since it makes predictions based on possible progression of actual science.
