God is a computer programmer (or we're doomed)

[Kernel Hapablap]

I'm wondering what people think of Nick Bostrom's argument that the universe is a computer simulation. I cannot post a link because I'm a newbie, but here's the abstract:

"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."

Basically as I understand it, he is arguing that the number of posthuman civilizations is bound to be vastly smaller than the number of history simulations about those civilizations. Because of advances in technology, in thousands of years (or less), simulations will be indistinguishable to reality.

Of course most of me thinks he's crazy, but then when I read about all of the funky crap that physicists are finding the deeper they delve, I can't help but wonder "is our civilization going to end up poking its own binary code?"

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'm wondering what people think of Nick Bostrom's argument that the universe is a computer simulation. I cannot post a link because I'm a newbie, but here's the abstract:

"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."

Basically as I understand it, he is arguing that the number of posthuman civilizations is bound to be vastly smaller than the number of history simulations about those civilizations. Because of advances in technology, in thousands of years (or less), simulations will be indistinguishable to reality.

Of course most of me thinks he's crazy, but then when I read about all of the funky crap that physicists are finding the deeper they delve, I can't help but wonder "is our civilization going to end up poking its own binary code?"

That sounds like a movie --- oh yeah - The 13th Floor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor)!

[Ducky]

<snip>
Of course most of me thinks he's crazy <snip>

There you go.

[Kernel Hapablap]

That was a good movie...
but I'm not sure that its existence in a movie negates it as a valid argument

[Kernel Hapablap]

Okay, nobody seems interested in this thread, but I can post links now and I think the article is worth an amusing read:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

[INRM]

Okay, playing the game. If the universe as we know it is a computer simulation, what does the universe *OUTSIDE* the simulation look like?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Okay, playing the game. If the universe as we know it is a computer simulation, what does the universe *OUTSIDE* the simulation look like?
Computer Science major's dorm room.

[DC]

the universe is a computer simulation?

graphic and sound rock but the community sucks :D

[empeake]

...we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

True. Unfortunately, it is a beta version running on Vista.

[Safe-Keeper]

the universe is a computer simulation?

graphic and sound rock but the community sucks :DI'd like a save/load function, and some extra lives.

[empeake]

I'd like a save/load function, and some extra lives.

Easy, just switch to Religious or Reincarnation mode, respectively.

[AkuManiMani]

the universe is a computer simulation?

graphic and sound rock but the community sucks :D

Lawl.

[theprestige]

So... how does the OP's proposition change anything?

I mean, does it get us anywhere "cogito ergo sum" hasn't already gotten us?

[INRM]

Marquis de Carabas

Computer Science major's dorm room.

Naturally... *rolls eyes*


The Prestige,

What does Cogito Ergo Sum mean?

[theprestige]

What does Cogito Ergo Sum mean?
It's latin for "I think, therefore I am".

I'll let someone better versed in the philosophical context explain it further...

[Ron_Tomkins]

Wait.... whoa.... dude you mean that this is like that movie The Matrix?..... Dude, I knew it. I was getting a lot of Deja Vus lately. We must... find.... Morpheus

[Kernel Hapablap]

Okay, what separates this argument/article from a simple "thirteenth floor" scenario is that he is looking at scientific probabilities. The only assumption that he makes is that given the length of time, an advanced culture would be able to, and some point, create a history simulation that is indistinguishable from reality.

Then, he says, only one of three possibilities remain.
1. Most cultures become extinct before they reach such advancement.
2. For some reason, advanced cultures have absolutely no reason/interest in creating history simulators
3. We are most likely living in a simulation.

'3' follows because if '1' and '2' are false, then there would be more simulations than 'real' advanced cultures.

His arguing is actually pretty tight, in so far as you do kind of have to pick one of the 3 propositions. If someone can come up with a 4th proposition, I'd like to hear it.

[linusrichard]

I don't believe his assumption is correct. If it is correct, I choose option 1. And I consider 2 to be a better choice than 3.

Here's a thought: If an advanced culture had the ability and will to create a history simulation that is indistinguishable from reality (and such that the simulated people inside it had consciousness), the culture inside that simulation would eventually develop a history simulation. And if the original simulation is literally indistinguishable from reality (at least to those within it), that second-level simulation would also contain people with consciousness, and those people would eventually develop a simulation, and so on...

So the question isn't just whether it's more probable than not that we're in a simulation, but what level of simulation are we likely to be in? There is no limit to how many levels "deep" the simulations go. Proof: if there were a last level, call it z, then z would not be identical to z-1, because z-1 would have z, and z would have nothing. Which means that z-2 would not be identical to z-1, since z-1 would have a sub-level different from z-2's sublevel. And so on.

Given that, then for any n, there is a greater probability that we are in a simulation of a level greater than n than a simulation less than n, right? So it is more likely than not that we are, say, a billion levels "deep" or "deeper" than "shallower."

And that's not even considering the probability that the real people might be running more than one simulation, meaning each of those simulations would be running the same number, and each of those ...

Put it all together, and it basically only works if you can have infinite processing power. That might be possible, but I don't think it is, which is why I think the core assumption is false.

[Kernel Hapablap]

Finally, someone thought about it!

I don't believe his assumption is correct. If it is correct, I choose option 1. And I consider 2 to be a better choice than 3.

Given that, then for any n, there is a greater probability that we are in a simulation of a level greater than n than a simulation less than n, right? So it is more likely than not that we are, say, a billion levels "deep" or "deeper" than "shallower."

And that's not even considering the probability that the real people might be running more than one simulation, meaning each of those simulations would be running the same number, and each of those ...

Put it all together, and it basically only works if you can have infinite processing power. That might be possible, but I don't think it is, which is why I think the core assumption is false.

That is a really hilarious point that I hadn't considered. However, I don't think that infinite processing power is required. It might seem that way to us, now, but it would really only be an AWFUL lot of processing power, not infinite. And, there would be an AWFUL lot of simulations, but I don't think we could say it would be infinite. Give two thousand years of technological advancement, and it's possible.

I don't go for proposition (1), simply because there is no evidence that we are in danger of going extinct. Even massive asteroids and destruction of much of the planet would doubtfully lead to extinction.

I think proposition (2) is essentially true, in so far as I can't feasibly see how an exact replicate of human thoughts of long-dead-people would be created. I think it more likely that we are living in a simulation that has nothing to do with the recorded history of the species that created it.

Proposition (3), while amusing, is pretty irrelevant. Even if it were true, it could/would make no difference. We couldn't really claim we were any less real or important, and I don't see how it would change how we live our day-to-day lives.