Shower thoughts removed: What if we are living in a sophisticated simulation?

[SunlitZelkova]

I just realized I totally goofed when I said this thread should have been in the S&S section upon its creation.

The question of whether we are in a simulation is one for philosophy, not science. So it belongs here.

[kerbiloid]

It's pure mathematics, as the evolution theory (right) vs the creationism (wrong), but it would quickly meet the forum rule about religious discussions.

[Kerbalsaurus]

Even if it's true, I find the whole argument dumb. It's not like anything would change. Oh, we live in a simulation? Always have and always will. Even then, I find the whole idea backwards anyways. It just seems like it was made up by people who don't want to except the fact that humanity ultimately doesn't matter in the story of the universe. It's a coping mechanism. The idea that were the only life in the universe and that we alone only matter is a trap humanity needs to escape from.

[DDE]

3 hours ago, Kerbalsaurus said:

Even if it's true, I find the whole argument dumb. It's not like anything would change. Oh, we live in a simulation? Always have and always will.

There's at least three consequences that some people entertain. One, you've got people trying to incite a glitch in the Matrix just to prove it exists. Two, you've got people trying to "escape" the Matrix, whatever that means (usually it's a problem with their own head).

Three, you've got a really elaborate theory that the simulation has finite computing power, and so any computation-intense civilization could get violently aborted. At the same time, it's quite likely that advanced civilizations would start building their own simulations-in-simulations. Therefore, a believer would (1) have to institute and enforce strict rules against certain avenues of technological development and (2) eradicate all other civilizations, Dark Forest-style. Otherwise, nobody knows when the local galaxy cluster would get Ctrl+Alt+Del.

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, Kerbalsaurus said:

Even if it's true, I find the whole argument dumb. It's not like anything would change. Oh, we live in a simulation? Always have and always will. Even then, I find the whole idea backwards anyways. It just seems like it was made up by people who don't want to except the fact that humanity ultimately doesn't matter in the story of the universe. It's a coping mechanism. The idea that were the only life in the universe and that we alone only matter is a trap humanity needs to escape from.

I feel like this can go either way.

“We are of pointless atoms, insignificant in the universe”, to paraphrase Doctor Strange, is arguably an unscientific statement because it tries to be a “final word” on the nature of humanity when science is constantly finding new things and what we know is being amended and expanded all the time.

Such a statement could just be a coping mechanism from those who reject transcendent varieties of philosophy for whatever reason and want to have an “Aha! Told ya so!” moment directed towards the more numinous of the humans, in order to have validation of their rejection: know they are right and “the other” is wrong.

[adsii1970]

3 hours ago, Kerbalsaurus said:

It just seems like it was made up by people who don't want to except the fact that humanity ultimately doesn't matter in the story of the universe.

I think this -- but in a different manner of thought.

3 hours ago, Kerbalsaurus said:

It's a coping mechanism.

Yeah, just as is the parallel universe theory. The concept there are multiverses out there where the "other you-se" or is it the "other you^∞" may not have screwed up "your life" as severely as you did brings some comfort to the tortured soul.

28 minutes ago, DDE said:

There's at least three consequences that some people entertain.

Or more. It all depends on how far they want to entertain these ideas. It is even more dangerous and irresponsible when these ideas become discussed as a form of "proper" scientific theory, knowing there is no proper way to test whether the theory is valid or invalid. A theory needs to be able to have an observation, then a hypothesis that's testable or measurable, and then the ability to make a prediction based on the results of testing the theory (for the sake of argument, I am not even discussing the actual testing or the use of the results).

Neither "we live in a simulation" nor "we live in a multiverse of parallel universes" arguments are testable, and there's no way even to generate a hypothesis to test. At best, as a collective of human civilization, we are still at the "observation" stage of these ideas; however, I do believe they get traction because, as already pointed out, these alternate theories of existence give people who hold them some options for viewing their existence.

• They are dissatisfied with their current life and want to believe that the things that could be in their control are not. This reminds me of the ancient and classical Greek belief that life is determined by fate and that the will of the gods and goddesses determines the lives of men and women.
• It gives them a sense of false hope that, somehow, life is better anywhere but here. This can cause even more mental health issues or problems coping with problems they'll encounter in the future. I once had a student who believed their "double" in the parallel universe was born to wealthy parents. She also thought her double had an ideal boyfriend and a life of complete pleasure. And because of that, she received all the bad things life could throw at her.

Anyway, I would write more, but I am grading final exams.

[SunlitZelkova]

37 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

however, I do believe they get traction because, as already pointed out, these alternate theories of existence give people who hold them some options for viewing their existence.

I think they get traction because they are completely valid philosophical concepts.

The questions that drive traditional philosophy and religion come from deep within the human psyche. Statements like “we are meaningless specs in an indifferent universe” backed up by the cold hard facts and reality that science describes might drive away those “backward” and “pointless” thoughts temporarily but the ideas are just going to come back in scientific wording sooner or later.

I think recognizing philosophy is important for everyone (including materialist scientists), instead of holding views like Neil de Grasse Tyson (“A philosophy degree can really mess someone up”) is a way to prevent unscientific ideas like simulation theory and the many worlds interpretation from leaking into proper science.

[adsii1970]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think they get traction because they are completely valid philosophical concepts.

Yes, philosophical concepts they are. As such, they should not be treated as if they are sciences and featured on websites such as Space.com or other science-related publications since they are not grounded in science.

[Superfluous J]

There is one logical (not scientific of course, just logical) argument that I find fairly compelling.

Either a simulation with the level of detail required to make our universe is possible, or it is not.

If it is possible, and 1 has been created, then we have a 50/50 chance of being in that simulation.

When have you known people to - once they can create something - create only one of that thing? If there are billions of these simulations running, we have a billions-to-one chance of being in the "real world" vs a simulation.

(I'm sure the original poster of this theory explained it better)

[Hotel26]

The statement "I'm waiting for someone to convince me that we don't live in a simulation", has been attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Occam's Razor (or "an appeal to the elegance of simplicity") would indicate that evidence should be provided in order to believe something.  Scientifically speaking, anyway.

I was pretty shocked to see a 'name' like NdGT make such a shyster-typical statement, and I recall my involuntary reaction was, "what a poseur!".  But I know next to nothing about him, anyway.

An internet search seems to indicate him on both sides of the fence, so I'll just write it off as 'irrelevant'; pop-science.

Simulations kick the can down the road, don't they?  And they answer NO questions.  Why would you build a simulation and who would build it?

Sooner or later, you need a 'reality' in order to build a simulator -- because simulators run on computers.  And we think our universe is inconceivably huge!!  How big would this computer be, how much energy would it consume and how much heat would it give off?  And who would build it?

                                                                                        

So I was already an active programmer during the 1970s.  I wrote my first program in 1969, to be precise.  So I am going to give you a remembrance from that period of the 70s with no good way to prove  its veracity.

Moore's Law had kicked off in 1965 and computing power was 'exploding' in the 1970s.  A lot of focus and fascination came upon the study of computer simulation.  All this was on the heels of heavy adoption of Scientism (itself quite older) as a default belief: science was adequate to explain everything and -- building on advances in physics during the 20th century -- the idea was popular that, given complete information about the starting state of any physical system, one could, in theory, simulate and predict the whole trajectory of the whole system.

These days, with further advances in physics, those waters do seem a whole lot muddier to many!

I remember reading a book in the early 90s describing computer simulations and their power,  and I recall one example from it that indicates that level of excitement: a simulation of bird-flocking behavior.  Was almost certainly this actually: Boids, because I remember that the original version utilized just three, simple heuristics.

When this simulation was demonstrated in the neighboring faculty in Natural Sciences (or whatever; for ornithologists), the professors there were rather amazed at its fidelity.  It had been an unexplained puzzle for at least a century.  "How did you do it?!!"  The simple rules were described.  "But how do you know it works that way?"  "Well, we don't.  We just devised rules that made sense to us (humans) and that appeared to work the best.  We just wanted to simulate something challenging."

                                                                                        

What can I say, to sum up?

I think this idea was a passing fad -- titillating (especially served chilled with an olive) but now most truly passé...

Edited December 8, 2023 by Hotel26

[DDE]

9 minutes ago, Hotel26 said:

I was pretty shocked to see a 'name' like NdGT make such a shyster-typical statement

To be fair, he and Bill Nye are basically street corner Scientism preachers. It's not a good style of pop-sci.

Don't think I've thrown this in here yet: simulation theory is creationism for avowed atheists.

[SunlitZelkova]

@Superfluous J @Hotel26 I don’t think it has anything to do with logic or whether we could build a simulation with our understanding of computers. In my opinion, if there is a simulation it was built by something of such great knowledge and power its actions would be indiscernible to us, just as a fish isn’t really capable of discerning complex human behaviors.

But yes, the question of “Are we in a simulation built by ourselves/other humans” can be answered with a pretty certain no. Unless we start getting into questions of whether “we” is literally us, as in I built this simulation for myself but wiped my memory as I went inside. Which isn’t really a question about “are we living in a simulation” but could begin slipping into arguments about solipsism.

57 minutes ago, DDE said:

Don't think I've thrown this in here yet: simulation theory is creationism for avowed atheists.

Pretty much. Insofar as it isn’t a scientific idea but is being peddled as a sort of “higher truth” “within the boundaries of science*” it basically hits all the marks for New New Age theological thinking without the theo.

*At least this is the strong vibe I get from such believers who talk about their ideas.

EDIT- It should also be noted simulation theory can be an idea held while being religious too. Look up Philip K. Dick’s 1977 speech in Metz, France.

Edited December 8, 2023 by SunlitZelkova

[Hotel26]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

creationism for avowed atheists

^ yes indeed

somehow imbued also with fatalism and/or nihilism...  "poison for one's foes", some might think.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Hotel26

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t think it has anything to do with logic or whether we could build a simulation with our understanding of computers

To be clear: I never mentioned if WE could do it. Just if it is possible.

If it is possible, and there is no fault with my logic, then we are almost assuredly in a simulation.

[adsii1970]

5 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

I was pretty shocked to see a 'name' like NdGT make such a shyster-typical statement, and I recall my involuntary reaction was, "what a poseur!".  But I know next to nothing about him, anyway.

He seems to like the limelight and has made many bat-crazy statements in the past few years. I'd love to see a debate between him and people who are not afraid to stand upon actual science rather than dive into social media and "what ifs" for their gratification. My youngest daughter loves science but is instantly turned off when he comes on any show - much of it is his attitude. At times, he is funny and thought-provoking. But there are others where he is condescending and insulting.

5 hours ago, DDE said:

o be fair, he and Bill Nye are basically street corner Scientism preachers. It's not a good style of pop-sci.

Ha, yeah, I was going to get to him. Since you brought up Bill Nye, the wanna-be science guy, I won't waste my breath.

5 hours ago, DDE said:

Don't think I've thrown this in here yet: simulation theory is creationism for avowed atheists.

It also has all the earmarks of a religion, too. Many academic sociologists have treated atheism since the mid-1990s as a form of religion. It has its orthodoxy, core principles, and a distinctive philosophy, as do most mainstream (and minor) religions. Extreme atheism can be just as dangerous as any extremely held view of any particular form of religion and just as destructive socially (and violently, too). In my preparation for my modern world civ course, I usually spend two lectures discussing the impact of religion on cultures since 1500. I include atheism as a part of that lecture series.

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

To be clear: I never mentioned if WE could do it. Just if it is possible.

I think the idea came about because we run so many computer simulations in various elements of industry and science. And we even have them in forms of entertainment. Sure, we've mentioned movies and gaming. But we also see simulations in medical and flight training, engineering, city design, and other applications. But to think that life as we know it is an advanced simulation - Nah. Humankind does not have the technology to make it possible, so we'd have to be a simulation for some more intelligent species. Then we join the realms of Giorgio...

 

[AstroWolfie]

If this is all a simulation, wouldn't that mean that I could randomly clip through walls? or do the crouch-fly glitch?

 

[GluttonyReaper]

As always, the questions are: If you can't know one way or the other, does it matter? Even if we could know, would it matter? Part of the problem is we don't really have a concrete idea of what is 'real' in any meaningful sense - what makes my chair any more real than, say, a collection of particles whizzing around in a simulation running on my computer?

On 12/8/2023 at 5:03 AM, Superfluous J said:

There is one logical (not scientific of course, just logical) argument that I find fairly compelling.

Either a simulation with the level of detail required to make our universe is possible, or it is not.

If it is possible, and 1 has been created, then we have a 50/50 chance of being in that simulation.

When have you known people to - once they can create something - create only one of that thing? If there are billions of these simulations running, we have a billions-to-one chance of being in the "real world" vs a simulation.

(I'm sure the original poster of this theory explained it better)

This feels like some kind of logical fallacy, or an abuse of statistics... but I can't quite work out why. I think the issue is that we just don't have enough information about the conditions - it'd kinda be like a student coming out of an exam, and saying that they have a 50/50 chance of passing, because there's only two possible outcomes: either they pass, or they don't. Obviously that isn't true - the actual outcome is the result of a mixture of complex outcomes, which is clear if you know what an exam is and how they work. But if we had no idea what an exam was, and only that there were two potential outcomes... I still don't think it'd be reasonable to assume a 50/50 split. This applies to everything: a coin flip isn't 50/50 because there's only two options, it's 50/50 because there's two specifically equally likely outcomes.

At this point, we know so little about how such a simulation would even work - let alone what a host universe capable of running one would look like - that it's pretty much pointless to try and assign a probability to the possibility. 'Why are we in this universe and not another one' isn't a question we can answer with numbers alone.

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, GluttonyReaper said:

As always, the questions are: If you can't know one way or the other, does it matter? Even if we could know, would it matter? Part of the problem is we don't really have a concrete idea of what is 'real' in any meaningful sense - what makes my chair any more real than, say, a collection of particles whizzing around in a simulation running on my computer?

This is where philosophy comes in 

I like Philip K. Dick’s assertion that you can never really get out of the “maze” on your own. If we were to discover we were in a simulation and then we were suddenly “let out” by whoever made it, we would probably just be stuck in another simulation (or layer of the same simulation).

Does it matter what is real? Can we know what is real? What makes something real? These questions have been pondered for decades. I like the suggestion that reality is not a fact or physical characteristic of something, but rather its psychological importance and emotional characteristics. A compassionate android nurse is a real human being in comparison to an evil murderer. A mechanical toy dog is a real animate thing for a group of lonely elderly people compared to the plasticky, made-for-mass-consumption “reality TV” they might have used for entertainment before.

So in that sense, if you really enjoy life and can appreciate the things in it (and have things to appreciate in it), this world is “real” for you. But if you have lost everyone you love and been kicked to the curb by society? This world becomes more meaningless, more unreal, and the notion of a better one- whether it be the world outside the simulation or the notion of the afterlife in paradise- becomes more important, more real. For some people it’s in between.

As for whether it even matters whether we are in one or not? It depends on what you think about what the “true” reality might look like. If you are a regular ole guy who thinks it is the same as exists now, it might not matter. But for some, simulation theory and its older cousin, the religious notion that existence is cursed or imperfect from its original pure state, is a way of escaping whatever tragedies have occurred in their life, or the misery that exists in the world. For them it matters because the idea there is a true reality out there is somewhat akin to the concept of the afterlife- a promise of a better world than this one.

[Ryaja]

If we're in a simulation then I would've crashed it by now.

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, GluttonyReaper said:

If you can't know one way or the other, does it matter?

It matters if you can, and the only way to know if you can is to think about it and try.

The history of science if full of things we simply cannot know, and then smart people coming up with ways to know it.

[adsii1970]

But a physicist says we can:

https://www.businessinsider.com/physicist-experiment-could-test-universe-computer-simulation-crowdfunding-2023-12

[Hotel26]

7 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

But a physicist says

Thus positing a rational/real cause of the creation of our universe (including mathematics)?????

Spectacular.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Hotel26

[DDE]

20 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

A compassionate android nurse is a real human being in comparison to an evil murderer. A mechanical toy dog is a real animate thing for a group of lonely elderly people compared to the plasticky, made-for-mass-consumption “reality TV” they might have used for entertainment before.

Careful, before long, someone might mention "hyperreality" and "simulacra".

Whoops.

[magnemoe]

On 12/7/2023 at 11:23 PM, DDE said:

There's at least three consequences that some people entertain. One, you've got people trying to incite a glitch in the Matrix just to prove it exists. Two, you've got people trying to "escape" the Matrix, whatever that means (usually it's a problem with their own head).

Three, you've got a really elaborate theory that the simulation has finite computing power, and so any computation-intense civilization could get violently aborted. At the same time, it's quite likely that advanced civilizations would start building their own simulations-in-simulations. Therefore, a believer would (1) have to institute and enforce strict rules against certain avenues of technological development and (2) eradicate all other civilizations, Dark Forest-style. Otherwise, nobody knows when the local galaxy cluster would get Ctrl+Alt+Del.

Option 3 can be solves by tweaking the physical laws a bit. Mores law end earlier.
And yes large data set is an problem. This is known in games today, say in GTA random NPC are spawned and de-spawned at need, while in Skyrim they are persistent, even unnamed guards. You can dress them up if knocked out and they will wear the new outfit. Now if they get killed they get replaced. Benefit of the first is you can easy have sprawling densely packed cities. The Skyrim ones works better at an more rural place with fewer people but you run into them more often and its stupid if an farmer who is just background changes each time. 

But for an simulation you have to do it this way to. So all data collected in all field, history, archaeology, astronomy and cooperate big data has to be handled, on the benefit this is more like emulating computers not simulating them. 

Now the weird thing is that earth was flat, it would prove its an simulation at least by 1950 then computers became an thing. Other option an god created and run it. 
This would limit the scope of the experiment. 

[Iapetus7342]

If our universe was a simulation i think Pi would be it's integer limit.