• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are we living in a simulated universe?

Sarcogito

Sarcogito

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
2,333
Reaction score
2,090
Location
SE Asia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Don’t take this too seriously. I am not saying I believe this, it is just a fun little thought experiment.

I have been listening to some podcasts lately and reading up on the simulation argument as put forward by Nick Bostrom. I will just go ahead and lay out my interpretation of it, with some modifications, and see what you all think.

The idea is that there is a strong likelihood that we are living in a computer simulation. Yep, that sounds crazy. But let’s follow the “reasoning”.

Condition A: Let’s say that one day in the future (10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, whatever) we are able to replicate the thought processes of the human brain on a computer. Assuming that there isn’t something special about the wet stuff in our heads that makes consciousness possible, and that consciousness truly is just a manifestation of a functioning neural system, it is theoretically possible that a conscious mind could be produced in a sufficiently advanced computer with sufficiently advanced software.

Condition B: Let’s say it is possible to create a simulated environment in which this simulated mind, or minds, to inhabit.

IF it turns out that Condition A and Condition B are in fact possible, it would therefore be VERY likely that all of us are in fact living in a computer simulation. Why? Because if a civilization were able to create such a simulate universe it is likely they would create numerous such universes. So the number of simulated universes would greatly outnumber the real universe. So the odds would be against you that you just happen to be living in the one real universe rather than the numerous simulated ones.

Like I said, crazy stuff. It certainly isn’t a new idea but I wanted to see what problems with the concept some of you might have.

The first problem I saw was the computing power needed to replicate the universe. If it were to be replicated down to the fundamental particle level, it would likely be impossible without a computer as big as the universe. But the simulated universe wouldn’t necessarily have to be an exact copy of the real universe. The programmers could implement certain restrictions that would reduce the necessary processing power required. Such as including a maximum speed. We’ll call it the speed of light. They could also set a maximum resolution possible. We’ll call it the Planck length. ;)

Any other issues you can see with the simulation argument?
 
Sarcogito said:
Don’t take this too seriously. I am not saying I believe this, it is just a fun little thought experiment.

I have been listening to some podcasts lately and reading up on the simulation argument as put forward by Nick Bostrom. I will just go ahead and lay out my interpretation of it, with some modifications, and see what you all think.

The idea is that there is a strong likelihood that we are living in a computer simulation. Yep, that sounds crazy. But let’s follow the “reasoning”.

Condition A: Let’s say that one day in the future (10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, whatever) we are able to replicate the thought processes of the human brain on a computer. Assuming that there isn’t something special about the wet stuff in our heads that makes consciousness possible, and that consciousness truly is just a manifestation of a functioning neural system, it is theoretically possible that a conscious mind could be produced in a sufficiently advanced computer with sufficiently advanced software.

Condition B: Let’s say it is possible to create a simulated environment in which this simulated mind, or minds, to inhabit.

IF it turns out that Condition A and Condition B are in fact possible, it would therefore be VERY likely that all of us are in fact living in a computer simulation. Why? Because if a civilization were able to create such a simulate universe it is likely they would create numerous such universes. So the number of simulated universes would greatly outnumber the real universe. So the odds would be against you that you just happen to be living in the one real universe rather than the numerous simulated ones.

Like I said, crazy stuff. It certainly isn’t a new idea but I wanted to see what problems with the concept some of you might have.

The first problem I saw was the computing power needed to replicate the universe. If it were to be replicated down to the fundamental particle level, it would likely be impossible without a computer as big as the universe. But the simulated universe wouldn’t necessarily have to be an exact copy of the real universe. The programmers could implement certain restrictions that would reduce the necessary processing power required. Such as including a maximum speed. We’ll call it the speed of light. They could also set a maximum resolution possible. We’ll call it the Planck length. ;)

Any other issues you can see with the simulation argument?
Click to expand...
If this were true, why did the programmers have to be such dicks when designing it? Why all the rape, murder and suffering? (Don't try to use Agent Smith's answer, that we need to suffer.)
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If this were true, why did the programmers have to be such dicks when designing it? Why all the rape, murder and suffering? (Don't try to use Agent Smith's answer, that we need to suffer.)
Click to expand...

Good question. That involves asking why they would have created our universe in the first place. Bostrom posits that some of these simulations are "ancestor simulations". Meaning they are studying how their own histories played out or could have played out. If suffering exists in their own universe they wouldn't learn much about their own development by creating a utopia universe. Though they probably would have created some of those as well. If it is technology that is open to teh general public, much in the way I can download programs on my ipad that let me play around with the laws of physics, then I am sure some of the programmers are assholes. Or maybe they are only studying the big picture and don't pay much attention to the individuals. The possibilities are endless.
 
Sarcogito said:
Good question. That involves asking why they would have created our universe in the first place. Bostrom posits that some of these simulations are "ancestor simulations". Meaning they are studying how their own histories played out or could have played out. If suffering exists in their own universe they wouldn't learn much about their own development by creating a utopia universe. Though they probably would have created some of those as well. If it is technology that is open to teh general public, much in the way I can download programs on my ipad that let me play around with the laws of physics, then I am sure some of the programmers are assholes. Or maybe they are only studying the big picture and don't pay much attention to the individuals. The possibilities are endless.
Click to expand...

The problem with these arguments is that they are entirely theoretical. At the core is an assumption, and then further assumptions are built off the assumptions. I have to reject the idea until there is absolutely any evidence of any kind that this is happening.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The problem with these arguments is that they are entirely theoretical. At the core is an assumption, and then further assumptions are built off the assumptions. I have to reject the idea until there is absolutely any evidence of any kind that this is happening.
Click to expand...

Of course. I also only believe things for which I have evidence. Doesn't mean it isn't fun to think about, though. :) It's also why I put it in the philosophy forum instead of the science and technology forum.
 
Sarcogito said:
Of course. I also only believe things for which I have evidence. Doesn't mean it isn't fun to think about, though. :) It's also why I put it in the philosophy forum instead of the science and technology forum.
Click to expand...

I remember when I was a kid, I watched The Truman Show movie. For several weeks after that I was rather messed up because I thought my life might be a TV show. Then one day I realized: If my life were a TV show, it would've been cancelled long, long ago. Nobody wants to see someone sit at a computer for hours and hours on end.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I remember when I was a kid, I watched The Truman Show movie. For several weeks after that I was rather messed up because I thought my life might be a TV show. Then one day I realized: If my life were a TV show, it would've been cancelled long, long ago. Nobody wants to see someone sit at a computer for hours and hours on end.
Click to expand...

Maybe we are just all supporting players in this guy's life.

The-Most-Interesting-Man-in-the-World.jpg
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The problem with these arguments is that they are entirely theoretical. At the core is an assumption, and then further assumptions are built off the assumptions. I have to reject the idea until there is absolutely any evidence of any kind that this is happening.
Click to expand...

Which opens up the possability that millions of years ago, on a forum far far away a man was confronted by a post, near identical to the OP & responded as you did, causing an observer to strive to provide this proof, which he could only do by creating a simulation, which youre living in now.

Your post could be an inevitable occurence that repeatedly causes the creation of infinite universes, one of which youre living in.
 
Paul Austin said:
Which opens up the possability that millions of years ago, on a forum far far away a man was confronted by a post, near identical to the OP & responded as you did, causing an observer to strive to provide this proof, which he could only do by creating a simulation, which youre living in now.

Your post could be an inevitable occurence that repeatedly causes the creation of infinite universes, one of which youre living in.
Click to expand...

Well, my mom always did say I was special.
 
Sarcogito said:
Well, my mom always did say I was special.
Click to expand...

Being special is over rated, I mean its all well and good being a possible catalyst for the creation of an infinite number of universes, sustaining an infinite number of sentient beings, but it doesnt help in a loan application.

Trust me, Ive tried it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom