What do you think about the simulation argument?

First you might ask, "What is the simulation argument?"

You have your choice of ordinary text

... or a video presentation by Sir Martin Rees with help from John Conway and others:

What We Still Don't Know, 1 of 5 on YouTube
If you watch that video, then you will get a series of links so that you can see all five videos.

Please don't hesitate to post a link to a description and/or explanation of the simulation argument that is in your opinion more accurate, more clear, or easier to understand than the above two. If you prefer to write your own explanation and post it in this thread, then I encourage you to do that, if you can spare the time.

There is honestly no reason why there must be a God (creating force), or even with one, an intelligent deity. Weve seen complex fractals graphed from very simple equations, for example. No matter what the particular origin for existence is, or what it is that space and time are within, very complicated systems can be forged through nothing but simple patterns and laws over large periods of time.

Ive thought about programming my own simulator before the machine chewed me up and threw me into a web programming career.

The end of vid #1 freaked me out, in a good way:)

I'll watch all in time...

Since I was a kid I wondered if I was real... or if I was alive only in my own mind. Or if our world was a spec on the butt of a flea in a much larger world... imagine my surprise and delight when I read Horton Hears a Who! :rofl:

Its really irrelevant to your temporal happiness. So why bother?

You most definitely are anyway...depending on the definition of reality. And although a simulation I make may not be real to me, its most definitely real to any of the entities in it that may become self aware.

If there's something I want to know, or wonder about, I'm not ever really satisfied or "happy" unless I can figure it out. Sure, there are many things that I don't care to know in that much detail. With many curiosities I'm content to hear the explanation from another without the desire to fully understand the details.

I have a recurring dream about reality and life that I've been having regularly for over 40 years. In it I find a simple mathematical or philosophical "equation" that, when applied to just about any human or natural problem, an answer is revealed. This simple thought could cure the ills of nations, and of people. I get so excited about this, and I'm so intent on unleashing this great knowledge, that I have yet another very simple thought. "I can't wait to wake up and put this into action!" In that split second of lucidity, I awaken... and the idea/thought/philosophy/calculation, whatever it is, is completely gone... and there is faint laughter in the background. As bizarre as this all sounds, it started me on this idea that nothing is real outside of a mind.

It's probably just a little tumor... :rofl:

JuniperLea, how much have you watched?

More like a validation, really, is that what we know is a single grain of sand compared to all there is to know, which is represented by all the sand on all the beaches of the world.

These videos, as well as the abstracts, create more questions for me than they answer. We are asked to think about abstract ideas, but we only have our own limited knowledge of science on which to base our assumptions. There are new theories in physics, and some new laws, that lay waste to past beliefs. It will be interesting how the string theory studies pan out. Our idea of time and space is from our own limited perspective. The idea that our perceptions are predetermined is the stuff The Twilight Zone is made of! I don’t mean to make light of it all. It sure would explain a lot of things in the human condition. Déjà vu, precognition, dreams… all would be easily explained. Art imitating, or prophesying life when artists, writers, filmmakers, even comic book writers… all have used their imaginations to foresee… or did we follow their lead? Or were these things planted to cause us pause?

I remember as a child, somewhere around age five, being told I had a lot of imagination; that caused me to spend a lot of time contemplating what exactly imagination was and how it can manifest in our lives. I remember telling my mother that she didn’t exist, that she was just in my imagination. We had this long existential conversation, one that I later had with my own oldest child when he began asking questions about life and reality. Again, there were more questions than answers, but it did point to a reality about youngsters gaining perspective while inquiring about the very basics of human existence.

“Nothing is fine tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident.”

In the end, as Rees says, does it really matter? As long as we retain “we”… as long as the thought processes remain unchanged, does it really matter? First, I thought that no, if this were the case, why aren’t we all perfect? Well, perhaps imperfection is part of the grand design, and overcoming the obstacles of a human existence is part of the experiment or process, or whatever this is.

"The astounding reach of the human intellect..."

"The key question is that which we don't know... " Heady stuff.

The argument contains some big assumptions, such as the ability to create self aware computer programs.

That your sense of self-aware computer programs being difficult to create may just be part of the simulation. In the "real" reality, they may be the norm.

Is it possible that when high levels of artificial intelligence are developed, an AI entity may begin to acquire self-awareness?

Link to a thread in the DU Science forum

high levels of ai becoming self aware?

If we are currently a part of a computer simulation, then, either the environment inside the computer is a complete simulation of the universe we think we're living in (I doubt they have that much computing power) or, not only has our consciousness been programmed, but all our sensual stimulations; again I doubt they have that much computing power.

I think of it in about the same way I thought about the brain in a vat idea; interesting to consider, hard to take seriously.

Maybe the folks here are trying to tell you something?

Of course, it's possible that I completely misunderstood the words that I quoted above.

This DU thread shouldn't be and probably isn't a high priority for anyone, but an occasional kick of this thread isn't exactly a crusade. Not everyone will have seen this thread before. Some have seen it, but maybe didn't have time, and might consider today to be a convenient day.

explanation for our existence.

Worthless simply because we have no way of knowing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

that this scenario is untestable. It could be shown to be true by forces outside of our control, but there is no test, experiment or observation that we can make that would let us evaluate its likelihood. It is not necessarily false, it is simply of no use as an explanation for anything.

Maybe if SimUniverse had a side-effect, say an easter egg in the software that showed the message "We apologize for the inconvenience." in the land of Sevorbeupstry, on the Quentulus Quazgar Mountains...

Otherwise, you're right.

in some lab and the people there tell me that I lived the 50 years of my life in the last 24 hours, then I'll know. I just hope TV is better in the "real" world, and that Bud, Miller, Coors and Adam Sandler were just shit they made up to bother me.

in that string theory (and its cohorts) resolve, at least to some extent, actual problems with current theories, while the simulation scenario does not. And while string theory is untestable in practice, the simulation scenario is untestable in principle.

Still, untestable is untestable.

But 500 years ago, a hypothesis that generated predictions about Saturn's atmosphere, or the existence of planets around other stars would have appeared untestable, too. Sometimes you just have to be patient.

Interestingly, I rarely visit this forum, but just so happens this is exactly what I have been entertaining as my own belief system for years. I didn't actually read the article yet, but I presume it says that odds are we are living in a computer simulation of some sort. Within the next 40 years, or around the time I'm scheduled to die, the human race probably will create a VR that is totally lifelike, at which point we'll come full circle.

I can't count the number I've times I've said to folks that there will certainly be a mass exodus of the human species into VR within the next 20-40 years. But chances are we're already in VR. This human experience is just a distraction for a bunch of hyper evolved beings, I think, that live for eternity, just spending 80 years or so in this computer simulation to pass time.

> This human experience is just a distraction for a bunch of hyper evolved beings,
> I think, that live for eternity, just spending 80 years or so in this computer
> simulation to pass time.

That's also an interpretation/explanation/description of the concept of "soul"
according to a number of people throughout the ages: the time spent in this life
is but an interlude, a training exercise that will allow the "soul" to grow.

I had a similar reaction to your when I first read essays on the simulation
argument - partly as I was occupied with computer graphics at the time and
was truly fascinated by being able to "create" trees of different "species"
simply by adjusting the values of specific initial constants before running
the program. Granted that this was just playing with 2D forms (way before VR,
decent 3D graphics systems or even powerful CPUs on the desktop) but my brain
just leapt with joy & amazement when considering the ability for future extensions
from such incredibly simple beginnings.

Interesting reading recently in a book (yes, old paper stuff with no links :P)
about hypnotic regression too ... not sure how strongly I buy into the author's
interpretations but, again, it struck a chord.

I would image that in this simulation, events in the distant past would also be artificial. Our notions of the soul that we've read about could be a way of phasing us out of this simulation in a less traumatic way. It looks like we are working to dig ourselves out of this simulation, or further into it.

If we are to transition into a simulated life, we'd need to figure out how to simulate all the senses too, like force feedback, scent, etc., and I'm not sure if that can be done by simply plugging a socket in the brain like they do in the movies.

I don't know, really. I'm as agnostic to this idea, as I am to any other religion. But I recognize the common-sense of it. As edhopper mentions, there may be no way to prove this hypothesis, but there is good evidence that computer technology will improve significantly, using memristors for instance, which could facilitate a post-human civilization. A lot of people say they'd never want to live in VR, but if it feels as real as real life then they are lying.

Still I wonder what the point of life is... I go to work every day trying to do what, make the world a better place? Why? Maybe there is no such thing as purpose.

of Occam's Razor with not a scintilla of evidence to even suggest it.
And since we have never seen a "post-human" civilization, his sample is zero and he is just pulling meaningless numbers from his ass.
In other words, sci-fi fantasy bullshit.

Here's a new link to the same video

Edited to add: that's a link to the first of five parts. After you watch each part, you should get access to a link to the next part.

that part of the simulation abruptly ended.

What should I make of this post? Neo, is that you?