Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Free Northman Reborn

The Simulation hypothesis

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Two possibilities. The first is that it is someone else simulating you in order to determine how the real you would behave. The second is that there is no real you, and there is no one being tricked and someone is simply running an experiment to see how something behaves. You're thinking Matrix, when you should be thinking the Sims.

In the first possibilities there are two 'me'. The original 'me', who is a human out in the really real world and the second 'me' who is a simulation of the original me built for nefarious or scientific reasons. The second 'me' is still a conscious entity independent of the real me (which might well continue existing after the biological 'me' is dead). It doesn't really matter if it's some lines of code, a brain in a vat or a digital scanner of my brain. The physical reality behind the ghost is irrelevant (though going back to my original post, a digital scanner of my brain seems like the easiest way to go about this).

In the second example there is also a 'me'. I might be nothing more than some lines of code in a computer, but in terms of individuality that doesn't really make me any different than, say, HAL 9000 or the Terminator. Moreover, remember that a simulation as an experiment doesn't offer any valid data outside of its frame of reference, so the really real would have to be similar to the simulation for it to have any purpose. A good example of this is the Black Mirror episode 'Hang the DJ'. Though we never get to see outside the box there is a heavy implication that what is out there is very similar to what is in there, otherwise the whole thing makes no sense.

The Sims are also a good example because, while the individual Sims aren't currently self-aware, their world is an abstract representation of the real world their creator (programmer) inhabits. If, in a thousand years, The Sims 800 includes self aware Sims for the player to coddle or abuse, each Sim will think of itself as 'me', and they won't be wrong. The personality of these future Sims might well be a digital copy of the personality of actual humans.

11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, there's something running the simulation, but it isn't being tricked any more than I trick my Xbox into playing Gears of War 5.

No, in a simulation scenario there must be a 'creator' entity from the really real who is (or was) responsible for the simulation existing and a conscious entity that exists within the simulation and is unaware of the fact that it lives in a simulation rather than in reality (hence, is being tricked or fooled). Your Xbox is not a conscious entity (and neither is Kait, though she would be more akin to what I was thinking of if you want to use a video game as an example).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

If reality is a fractal, every sim-within-a-sim could possess the same level of detail, no matter how many layers of the russian doll you peeled away, every level of magnification would show you a 'complete' universe.  Whatever complete means.

A fractal multiverse is a hilarious idea, but @Liffguard is correct: unless we are ourselves witness to the spontaneous creation of a simulation within a simulation we have created there is zero reason to seriously consider the possibility of endlessly recurring simulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zero reason to seriously consider the possibility

in all fairness, the same quality and quantity of consideration is due whether it's a reimannian nullity of parallel simulated worlds or a lobachevskian infinity of parallel simulated worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to take the simulation hypothesis down a new road. The first step is to discuss dreams. Right now there is no lack of theories of why we dream. The most prevalent one is that dreams allow the brain to process the information taken in during the day and store it in long term memory if it is deemed important enough. My take on dreaming is that the dream state is one where the brain runs simulations to figure out how to deal with issues it may come across in the future. 

I have a tendency to have regular lucid dreams.  I have them enough that I try to do experiments while having them. Most times there is a 'plot' to this dream and my attempts to derail this and do what I want are really hard to do even though I am aware I am dreaming. maarsen, meaning conscious me, has a hard time getting Maarsen, meaning subconscious me, to deviate from the script. Maarsen wants the simulation to run without interference. 

Many cultures have seen dreams as a way to read the future. While we are sleeping, big you is running simulations or rehearsals on how to interact with the world, and when little you remembers this it does seem that dreams 'predict' the future. 

There is a good reason for having these simulations run in your brain because they can then be stored as a subroutine and frees up processing speed in an emergency and keeping your genes around that much longer to make more copies. 

I imagine if an AI had to use a good portion of it's day to scrounge for bits of information and where to find a source of electricity, it would find it advantageous to spend downtime plotting a most efficient course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 11:19 AM, sologdin said:

in all fairness, the same quality and quantity of consideration is due whether it's a reimannian nullity of parallel simulated worlds or a lobachevskian infinity of parallel simulated worlds.

I just love that no one had a response to this and that the discussion ended here last month.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the testable predictions of the Simulation hypothesis? If someone can formulate some, then I’m all for using the scientific method to try to determine if we are living in a simulation or not. If there aren’t any testable predictions, it’s indistinguishable from religion and people can believe it or not as they please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, unJon said:

What are the testable predictions of the Simulation hypothesis? If someone can formulate some, then I’m all for using the scientific method to try to determine if we are living in a simulation or not. If there aren’t any testable predictions, it’s indistinguishable from religion and people can believe it or not as they please. 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random shower thought #2874: if you could "prove" that there is in fact a "direction" to history (i.e. make the case for "whig history"), and that the "great filter" our civilization has to deal with today is akin to game theory, wouldn't that go a long way to support the simulation hypothesis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I think about this I can't help but to spare sympathy for the creators of the simulation. We at least don't know whether it's possible. They however know that it is and therefore must conclude they are probably a simulation themselves. Poor them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the more interesting simulation argument, one which is falsifiable (but i think not false) is baudrillard's precession of simulacra argument about hyperreality.  the matrix made these ideas manifest as part of its setting, but that's not baudrillard's argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sologdin said:

the more interesting simulation argument, one which is falsifiable (but i think not false) is baudrillard's precession of simulacra argument about hyperreality.  the matrix made these ideas manifest as part of its setting, but that's not baudrillard's argument.  

Correct me if I'm wrong but within the context of this specific discussion, isn't Baudrillard's argument a complicated way of saying that humans now have the ability to run simulations of their own?

9 hours ago, VarysTheSpider said:

When I think about this I can't help but to spare sympathy for the creators of the simulation. We at least don't know whether it's possible. They however know that it is and therefore must conclude they are probably a simulation themselves. Poor them.

Yes, and I find that hilarious. Although assuming we are in a simulation I would assume it actually has a purpose or end goal (see my previous post).

Edit: not unlike the tests we put lab rats through. :D

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×