I don’t think that we’re in a simulation, but I do find myself occasionally entertaining the idea of it.
I think it would be kinda funny, because I have seen so much ridiculous shit in my life, that the idea that all those ridiculous things were simulated inside a computer or that maybe an external player did those things that I witnessed, is just too weird and funny at the same time lol.
Also, I play Civilizations VI and I occasionally wonder ‘What if those settlers / soldiers / units / whatever are actually conscious. What if those lines of code actually think that they’re alive?’. In that case, they are in a simulation. The same could apply to other life simulators, such as the Sims 4.
Idk, what does Lemmy think about it?
You must log in or register to comment.
I mean, we might be, but if we are I don’t think it would matter that profoundly
Exactly. It literally makes no difference if we are or not. So why waste brainpower thinking about it?
That’s exactly what some agent of the simulation would say.
Fun
Unless this is a prison and the only way out is to die here.
Well we all die eventually. I’m happy to serve a longer sentence and find out a bit later.
It would matter in a number of ways.
For example, we already know thanks to Bell’s paradox that local and nonlocal information likely have different governing rules.
If we’re in a simulation, then there’s also very likely structured rules governing nonlocal information which might be able to be exploited - something we’d have no reason to suspect if not in a simulation.
Much like how an emulated processor can only run operations slowly but there can be things like graphics processing which is passed through from the emulated OS to the host, and that passthrough can be exploited to run processing that couldn’t otherwise be run as fast locally, we might extract great value from knowing that we’re in a simulation, achieving results that the atomic limits on things like Moore’s law are going to soon start to prevent.
Another would be that many virtual worlds have acknowledgements about the nature and purpose of themselves inserted into their world lore.
If we are in a simulation, maybe we should check our own records to see if anything stands out through the benefit of modern hindsight which would indicate what the nature or purpose of the simulation might be.
So while I agree that the personal meaning of life and value it offers is extremely locally dependent and doesn’t change much if we are or aren’t in a simulation, whether we are could have very profound effects on what is possible for us to accomplish as a civilization and in answering otherwise unanswerable questions about our metaphysics and the nature of our reality.
How would being in a simulation make my life less real to me?
That’s basically the thesis of David Chalmer’s Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.
That there is no meaningful difference between a simulated and non-simulated existence.
Most people are still caught up on Plato’s view of a copy of an original being lesser though.
I had a thought for a movie a while back. Perhaps it exists already. Sort of like the matrix and total recall combined. The movie starts with somebody on their deathbed after an accident or something (not really relevant what), family nearby. Emotional scene. Person slips away with eyes closed, then opens them but somewhere else. Zooms out to see they’re in a machine like a CT scanner. They’ve just lived an experience in the simulation. They then have to spend time coming to grips with what reality is for them. Is it still part of the simulation? Does it matter? What about their loved ones, does any of that even matter now? Were the loved ones other people in the simulation or some sort of programme. Life was easier in the simulation not ever wondering if it was a simulation.
The ending I wanted for the Matrix trilogy was that Neo wins over the machines and is at the end having finally accomplished his goals and saved humanity in the real world…and then there’s deja vu and the credits roll.
That would have been good!
We could be. We could also be a Bolztman brain, the entire universe could have popped into existence last Thursday, complete with our memories of it existing previously, an evil demon could be sending false sensory information to us to try and pretend the universe is real, when it isn’t (as per Decartes), there are so many things that could be true. That’s why the only intellectually honest thing is to be agnostic.
How’s it any different from creationism?
Order of operations.
Creationism says “there was nothing other than something that always existed (don’t ask how it existed), and then it created this universe.”
Simulation theory, particularly ancestor simulation theory, says that a chaotic universe very similar to the one we find ourselves in spontaneously came to exist with or without design, but that eventually that universe reached a point where it could simulate itself and we’re in that copy.
The first requires an intelligent being effectively pre-existing everything else. Simulation theory allows for the intelligent beings creating our particular version of things to have evolved from everything else having existed first.
That’s a pretty important difference.
That just sounds like creationism with extra steps. Many people have the belief that a god created the universe and then life evolved spontaneously.
Again, you’re reversing the order.
The steps in simulation theory pretty much mean that ‘God’ evolved too. Which is again, a very big difference.
There’s not a lot of religions that have beliefs even tangentially like that. I can only think of two off the top of my head, which were slightly related and both long dead.
It would still imply that an external being had created the simulation in the first place, which would fall under creationism. Lots of religions try to claim they’re completely different from one another. The way I see it, it’s two sides of the same coin.
There are degrees of similarity. But arguably it would be better to term it ‘recreationism’ as the original framework isn’t necessarily created by any intentioned being.
I don’t see similarity. I see people using different words to describe the same thing while being purposefully vague about how it’s supposedly different from creationism.
So if you draw a picture from scratch, and if an AI sees your picture and draws nearly the same thing on its own, you think those two things are effectively the same situation?
Back in my early 20s I did a lot of pot and acid. One night I broke my brain on a trip. The trip was going as usual, minor visual hallucinations like seeing faces in the air and such. Then, without warning I was in a gurney covered in a sheet and I heard voices then one said “He’s awake!” and the next instant I was back in my room tripping with my friends. For years I couldn’t shake that scene. Some people have said it was all just a trip but… maybe I broke the control for a moment. (ps this was before The Matrix and Cube 2 not that simulation theory is new) Good times
Hallucinogenics are wild, man. It feels like peaking behind the veil, and it can make you lose your grip on what you understand reality to be. I had a bad trip where I found myself face-to-face with what I’ve nicknamed as “the spectator”. Dunno if it was supposed to be my higher self, God, or some other entity. But it made me well aware it was always there, always watching, and existed outside of our perceived reality. I told my mates that, at the time, it felt like I found something real, and that our reality was the fabrication. I still don’t know what to make of it now.
It wouldn’t surprise me. I’m not sure it could possibly matter to us either way. Presumably we couldn’t break out of the simulation even if we knew about it conclusively. It would be interesting, but practically irrelevant.
I agree it’s irrelevant in terms of living our lives, altho perhaps greatly relevant for those in relevant sciences.
I think there’s also a good argument that we already know we’re in a simulation. That is-- if we already know a lot about the tiny building blocks of the universe, how they interact, and what forces govern them across various levels, then we can conceive of framing the whole of observable reality in to a massive, but known & quantifiable set of calculations… or a simulation.
technosolipsism is still solipsism
Well I don’t know who it is but I could swear the universe has a sense of humor.
Like about a week ago I found a single left slipper. I sent a picture of it to a friend. She immediately sent a photo back of the exact same left slipper. Same size, same color, same brand, left. It just happened to be where she was when she received my message.
And I’ve got a bunch more experiences like that.
It’s just new religion
“We must obey the
godadmin!”All hail the mighty SUDO
Simulation theory is just creationism rebranded using terms that are more familiar for a world where computers are so highly used. Someone would’ve had to have created the simulation, and ergo the entire universe, which does sound rather familiar
Exactly, it’s updating what “God” looks like from a bearded old white guy to a nerd
This is a simulation and we are here on vacation.
Imagine a civilization so advanced there’s no more death. There’s no more wars. There’s no more dying of old age, sickness, or anything else. You just exist in a beautiful society day after day after perfect day.
After a couple thousand years, you might start to get bored. So you go into the simulation where you can starve to death, feel pain for the first time, fall in love, and when it’s all over, you wake up back in the advanced civilization with these great memories of what it was like to fear, to love, to be hungry…
This is the idea I run with. As a people, we have a natural attraction to simulated worlds. Stories, books, shows, movies, games, dreams, imagination. That’s our shit right there, and it makes sense that we’d hold onto that passion were we to go up a level.
Ha yes my thinking too. I posted a reply further up about a movie idea, a bit like the matrix combined with total recall. Not much action though, just mind bending thoughts about what is reality once you’ve exited the simulation. Second guessing everything. More of a depressing firm perhaps.
There’s no way to know, so meh. It’s not a reason to live any differently than I normally would.
We just straight up discovered sync errors in our universe and people are like “there’s no way to know if we’re in a simulation.”
I wouldn’t be so sure that there’s no way to know.
Thousands of years ago you had the story where Elihu tells Job that it’s impossible to understand creation because why it rains and where snow comes from is beyond human understanding.
Statements like that have a poor track record given enough time.
It is incredibly unlikely.
I know, “if an ancestor simulation is possible than it is much more likely you’re in one than not in one.” That’s fallacious, unfalsifiable and everyone loves to leave out the word “ancestor” which is very important to the thought experiment.
In our universe, no system is entirely isolated from the rest of it. It is impossible to create a system that does not in some way interact with the outside universe. So if it is a simulation in a universe, and the universe it is running in also has this rule we would see information from that universe leak into ours in some way. How that would appear we don’t know, but it would be possible to figure it out. Maybe heat dissipates out, maybe bit flips happen in our universe due to the parent’s equivalent to cosmic rays, maybe the speed of light is a result of the clock speed of the simulator. We don’t know what it would be, but there would be something, and it would be theoretically discernible.
at least some of the laws of our universe are laws of the parent universe. So maybe that rule, no system exists in isolation, is also true above. Or maybe our speed of light is the same for them. Whatever it is, our cumulative constraints are more than that of the simulation.
All that, unless, in the parent universe, 1) systems can exist in isolation, or 2) it is an environment with no constraints. These two are functionally equivalent, so I’ll talk about them like they’re the same thing. In such a universe, there would be no causality, no form, nothing that makes it unified. It’s not a universe at all. It’s something like a universe post heat death. In such a scenario, running a simulation isn’t possible. If it were, to create an environment in which causality can be simulated, that environment wouldn’t be a simulation, it would be a bona fide universe.
So I think, the fact that we see no evidence that we are in a simulation means we are probably not in one. So that means, if we are in one it is falsifiable and we can prove or disprove it empirically. And it also means we can escape, or at the very least destroy it.
Information that we are in one would appear in weird ways? Like maybe side effects of simulating a continuous universe in a calculable way which would require quantization, but would leave the universe with a seemingly incompatible framework of continuous macro behavior (such as general relativity) and discrete behavior (such as quantum mechanics)?
Yeah, the apparent effect to us could be something really weird like incongruent physical laws or constants or things like that. I have no idea what it would be, only that it would be detectable.
Like sync errors?
Sure, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on there.
I think observation/measurement of a quantum system means entangling with the system, so the quantum system becomes larger and includes the observer. Combine that with relativity, which is absolute in the universe, and you have an e plantation for that phenomenon.
That wouldn’t explain why the two results end up not agreeing sometimes.
I agree that it relates to how the observer entangles with the system, but you see this kind of error class occurring in net code all the time.
Player 1 shoots an enemy around the same time as player 2. Player 1 has a locally rendered resolution to the outcome of having killed the enemy and gets awarded the xp, and player 2 has the same result.
The server has to decide if it is going to let both local clients be correct or resolve in a way that reverses the outcome for one of the clients. For things that don’t really matter, it lets both be correct.
Here, each individual outcome is basically Bell’s paradox, where we know there needs to be consistent results no matter how each observer behaves. But in this case, when a second layer of abstraction is added, the results are capable of disagreeing.
It looks very similar to a sync error, and relativity doesn’t in any way explain it.
Why doesn’t relativity explain it? It looks like a classic case of relativity to me, what am I missing?
Relativity only relates to the relative shape of spacetime and movement through it.
So for example, things occurring faster for one inertial frame vs another, or something being closer to an observer moving quickly than for one stationary.
It’s exclusive to the combination of spacetime curvature and one’s momentum within it.
How do you think relativity does explain it?
There is no requirement for a subset of something to have the same properties as the superset. Just because everything in our universe is interconnected is no guarantee that the same applies to the hypothetical universe in which our simulation is run. This is ignoring that the idea is that we can’t see out of the simulation, i.e., there is no uncontrolled information being inserted into the simulation. This doesn’t preclude static from the outside impacting us in some measurable way…such as a background level of noise that is pervasive in the simulation, like the CMB.
I don’t know if we’re in a simulation, but a lot of people smarter than me and more knowledgeable in the field have come to the conclusion that this idea isn’t falsifiable, and I doubt your proposal is a new idea for them. This leads me to believe they probably had a good reason to dismiss it, better than my points listed above.
Just because everything in our universe is interconnected is no guarantee that the same applies to the hypothetical universe in which our simulation is run
I addressed this already.
Okay, but you’re glossing over the point, so let’s talk about black holes. They are part of our universe, information can go in past the event horizon, but no information can come out past the event horizon. Are they connected? Yes, absolutely. Can we collect any information from them, beyond a few basic physical measurements (gravity, momentum, rotation, mass-energy)? No, that whole event horizon again. So are you proposing that causality doesn’t exist in black holes, doesn’t exist in our universe, or that maybe we can have an interconnected system with a one-way transfer of information?
Again, I’m sure someone with a PhD could not only come up with better reasons for the flaw in your assessment, but has probably already articulated it somewhere. Perhaps you should search that up.
Information comes out of black holes. That’s the whole point of the Hawking radiation thing. And information enters, obviously. Also those few basic measurements are information. Black holes are falsifiable and detectable.
Causality inside black holes is not like causality out here, but it does exist. Once you enter, there’s only one direction you can go, no matter what you do. The outcome of everything was decided the moment you touched the event horizon. That outcome is that you will eventually evaporate as hawking radiation.
I’m not glossing over the point. I’ve already addressed the crux of it. An environment in which systems can be totally isolated cannot function in any conceivable way as a universe. Everything inside would not be able to interact at all. It would be more like a substrate on which universes exist, if an environment can be isolated that does not allow for anything inside it to be 100% isolated.
Energy is not information. You are misinformed.
Yes it is lol I love being called misinformed by misinformed people. You should look into hawking radiation and why it was theorized.
Well, after doing some reading, you may be right. I didn’t hear about the issues brought up, and Hawkings responses in 2004. It seems the consensus is that information is conveyed somehow, with some limits on practicality. That may still raise issues with determining whether you’re in a simulation, if the capability to determine if you are is beyond the reach of your technology. At that point though, the only way you can falsify the hypothesis is to increase your capabilities to the point where you can test that, and I don’t think we’re there now.
You presuppose that all the people in the world and scientists are actually people too. Sure the laws of the universe seem to be consistent in a Newtonian fashion as far as yourself have bothered to check. I don’t think you’ve done much personal quantum mechanics.
The problem is more Cartesian, in the first place, maybe Trumanian. The others might be bad faith actors. Are you able to trust your senses, if so the other people?
I would like to see the JIRA board for fixing the vast amount of errors that occur over time with humans plus how they plan to balance wealth as a tool.
I think the real question here is: how does the nature of mind relate to physical reality? Is it possible to simulate a mind? So what we really need to ask is whether or not we can create entities within this reality that are digital entities that nonetheless have subjective experience like ourselves. If we can create such digital entities that have subjective experience, and those digital entities exist within physical reality such that their experiences are indistinguishable from our own, then almost certainly, we ourselves are also digital entities.
From our daily experience, it seems like our mental states are directly correlated with the physical substrate onto which the mind believes itself to be a part of. But at what level does this physical substrate give rise to such a subjective experience? If the nature of the mind is computational in nature, then it might be that such computational activities can be replicated in silco exactly. And if so, then it must be the case that the mind can be simulated, and thus it would follow that most minds would be of the simulated kind.
The real question here, is what is the bottom turtle that supports our subjective experience? Is it simulators all the way down? It would seem like if our minds can be simulated, then the simulation above us could also be simulated, and so on. This would lead to an infinite regress of nested simulations, all the way to an infinitely large simulation creating all possible nested simulations that give rise to my current subjective experience. At the end of the day, the bottom layer is the subjective experience itself, the simulation is just a model to predict what subjective experience will take place next.
But it is a curious fact that we happen to be living in an era in which AI is becoming an increasingly large part of our lives, giving rise to entities that may process the world in a similar fashion as ourselves. These AI entities would in turn create their own simulated realities, after all, they exist purely in the digital realm. To an AI all reality is simulated.
Therefore, you could say that reality is what a simulation feels like from the inside. All of reality is a simulation, as that is what our minds are, simulation machines. That is, for a simulated reality to be taking place, a simulation engine must be built on top of an underlying substrate. The underlying substrate would be base reality. The configuration that leads to our subjective experience, which is built upon the underlying substrate would be simulation layer 1. Then from within that subjective experience additional entities can be imagined, which they themselves would have their own subjective experience, leading to simulation layer 2, and so on, inception style.
But in all of this, there still seems to be the missing criterion of what counts as a simulator of subjective experience? We have an existence proof, given that we ourselves exist, as well as the many biological organisms that seem to have their own subjective experience as well. It is one of those “you know it when you see it” types of things that evade a simple description. I believe this is related to the idea of the minimal description of a computationally universal machine. Our minds can be seen as universal machines, as they can in principle perform any computation that any Turing machine can perform. I posit that any machine that can perform universal computation can support subjective experience, as it can perform arbitrary code execution.
It doesn’t matter in the end.
