Role reversal challenge: Disprove we are not "in the Matrix"

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
This thread may go nowhere, but I thought it would be an interesting exercise for the CTers and debunkers to reverse roles. This would give people a better insight into the difficulty in proving anything beyond any possible doubt. Based on the movie "The Matrix" , can the CTers conclusively prove, beyond any possible doubt, that we are not in the Matrix..... and the forum's debunkers could argue for the theory that we are all in the Matrix and look for any possible holes in the other side's logic as to why we are not in the Matrix.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As technology advances it is inevitable that simulations of the universe will also develop.

There's no limit to the number of simulated universes, but there can only be one real universe.

Therefore the ratio of simulated to real universes is infinity:1

We are in a universe, but we don't know which one, so randomly it's going to be one of a basket of the infinite number of simulated universes plus the one real one.

Infinity-1 is still infinity.

Therefore we are in a simulated universe.

[Update 2020: Just want to clarify I don't think this argument is correct, it's a devil's advocate argument as suggested above]]
 
Last edited:

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
My belief is that if anything is even extremely remotely infinitesimally possible, that with time and space and multiverses being infinite ... in some place that remote possibility would have to come to pass (actually in infinitude of times, but that is a different mental exercise). The concept of the Matrix is obviously conceivable and it is my belief that it therefore is possible. I have seen nothing to convince me that we are not in the Matrix, so I am going with the assumption that we are trapped in the Matrix. :D
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But then the question is if we are entirely constructed as virtual beings, or are simple virtual avatars of a physical being who is in a vat somewhere. i.e., is it possible to exit the matrix?
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
But then the question is if we are entirely constructed as virtual beings, or are simple virtual avatars of a physical being who is in a vat somewhere. i.e., is it possible to exit the matrix?

I'd imagine that going with the Matrix scenario would offer more opportunities for debunking, whereas I could see the virtual being thread becoming a metaphysical/philosophical discussion.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It might be provable that we're in the Matrix if we have an emergence to the next level, but we can never prove that the next level is not still of the Matrix.
We just have to learn to live with the existential uncertainty.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
Seems that debunking this idea might not be possible after all......


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...niversity-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745.html


Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the universe is a computer.

A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it is more likely than not that we're living inside a machine.

The theory basically goes that any civilisation which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened.

And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.

And it's not just theory. We previously reported that researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany had found evidence the Matrix was less than fiction. That story was by far our most popular of the year - indicating it's something about which you lot have wondered too.

READ MORE: Physicists Have Evidence Universe Is Computer Simulation
Now another team have devised an actual test to see if this theory holds any hope of being proven.

Professor Martin Savage at the University of Washington says while our own computer simulations can only model a universe on the scale of an atom's nucleus, there are already "signatures of resource constraints" which could tell us if larger models are possible.

This is where it gets complex.

Essentially, Savage said that computers used to build simulations perform "lattice quantum chromodynamics calculations" - dividing space into a four-dimensional grid. Doing so allows researchers to examine the force which binds subatomic particles together into neutrons and protons - but it also allows things to happen in the simulation, including the development of complex physical "signatures", that researchers don't program directly into the computer. In looking for these signatures, such as limitations on the energy held by cosmic rays, they hope to find similarities within our own universe.

And if such signatures do appear in both? Boot up, baby. We're inside a computer. (Maybe).

"If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge," Savage told the University of Washington news service.

Zohreh Davoudi, one of Savage's students, goes further:

"The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?," she said.

Now that would be a long-distance phone call.
Content from External Source

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

Physicists say they may have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation.

How? They made a computer simulation of the universe. And it looks sort of like us.

A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.

Now a team of researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany led by Silas Beane say they have evidence this may be true.

In a paper named 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation', they point out that current simulations of the universe - which do exist, but which are extremely weak and small - naturally put limits on physical laws.

Technology Review explains that "the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time."

What that basically means is that by just being a simulation, the computer would put limits on, for instance, the energy that particles can have within the program.

These limits would be experienced by those living within the sim - and as it turns out, something which looks just like these limits do in fact exist.

For instance, something known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. But Beane and co's paper argues that the pattern of this rule mirrors what you might expect from a computer simulation.
Content from External Source
 

MikeC

Closed Account
From Critical Thinker's post:

The theory basically goes that any civilisation which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened.

And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.
Content from External Source
I'd like to know why it is that this is "the statistical likelihood".

From the 2nd extract:

A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.
Content from External Source
Why is it that there are many more such simulations than real universes? It seems a circular argument.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think it's philosophical nonsense. The probability argument is meaningless as the scope and nature of any enclosing universe (the "real" universe) is an unknown, so this might be it.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Well, the universe certainly couldn't be simulated with current silicon-based computers. For every atom we simulate, we must have more atoms that represent the information of that atom and other atoms to store the logic for processing that atom, ad infinitum.

If we're in a simulation, it's some crazy quantum computing that I couldn't even begin to fathom right now. But maybe that's what reality is, an unfathomably complex quantum computer, the atoms and subatomic particles themselves being the "bits" and "logic gates". But then again perhaps our contemporary view of computing is not even applicable.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The concept of the Matrix is obviously conceivable and it is my belief that it therefore is possible. I have seen nothing to convince me that we are not in the Matrix, so I am going with the assumption that we are trapped in the Matrix. :D

That's all very well CT, (sorry but have you actually considered the possible Freudian implications here; that CT could a subconscious, subtle allusion to 'Conspiracy Theorist'... ?), but I digress; just because something is 'possible', doesn't mean 'it is'.

What do you think is the best bit of hard evidence to substantiate your assumption that we are trapped within the Matrix. Have you had any 'personal' revelations or strange happenings which are not consistent with accepted reality?
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
For me it's simple ....
The stuff that tastes good is bad for you and vice-versa, thus this must be reality.

(Unless it's all some kind of bizarre test ...! )
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
This assumes the Matrix is fantasy fulfilment - pain frustration and suffering could be simulated too.
Actually, suffering is always a simulation that we create. (see, the Buddha)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The matrix could of course just be simulating the individual particles in the universe, so the only way of telling would be to look at the lowest possible level, to try to find the resolution of the universe.

lee h oswald has an interesting theory about how it's a simulation, but the other way around, there's one big blob of universal consciousness being simulated, individuals are aspects of that consciousness, and the necessary bits of the universe don't exist even in simulation but are extrapolated whenever the individual aspects need to measure them. He claimed there was proof of this via astral plane out of body communication.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/11...on-Darwin-The-Quantum-mechanics-Bohr-Einstein
 
Last edited:

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
From Critical Thinker's post:

The theory basically goes that any civilisation which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened.

And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.
Content from External Source
I'd like to know why it is that this is "the statistical likelihood".

From the 2nd extract:

A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.
Content from External Source
Why is it that there are many more such simulations than real universes? It seems a circular argument.


Lets say that within any given universe that there are at least 2 intelligent civilizations that are soooo advanced that they have been able to create a simulation of a universe. Then you would have at least 2 simulated universes per actual universe. Further on they discuss that within those simulated universes there would be simulated civilizations that would be soooo advanced that they too would create a simulated universe... this would be the case where you have a simulated universe within a simulated universe. Based on this situation you would have more simulated universes than actual universes... and since there are more simulated universes than there are actual universes, therefore odds are that any universe (actual or simulated) would be a simulated universe
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Lets say that within any given universe that there are at least 2 intelligent civilizations that are soooo advanced that they have been able to create a simulation of a universe. Then you would have at least 2 simulated universes per actual universe. Further on they discuss that within those simulated universes there would be simulated civilizations that would be soooo advanced that they too would create a simulated universe... this would be the case where you have a simulated universe within a simulated universe. Based on this situation you would have more simulated universes than actual universes... and since there are more simulated universes than there are actual universes, therefore odds are that any universe (actual or simulated) would be a simulated universe

Lol.... Thought we were role reversing...sorry.

Thirteenth Floor seems a precurser to The Matrix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor
Whitney enters the 1937 simulation, assuming the role of bartender Jerry Ashton, who has kidnapped Ferguson (Hall’s 1937 identity) and bound him in the trunk of his car. When Whitney is killed in a car crash inside the 1937 simulation, Ashton’s consciousness takes control of Whitney’s body in the 1990s simulation. David assumes control of Hall again to kill Ashton, and then attempts to rape and murder Jane. Jane is rescued by Det. McBain, who shoots and kills David. McBain at this point has realized the nature of his own reality, and jokingly asks Jane "So, is somebody going to unplug me now?" She answers "no", so McBain follows with the request "Look, do me a favor, when you get back to wherever it is you come from, just leave us the hell alone down here, okay?"

David's death as Hall in the 1990s simulation allows Hall’s artificial consciousness to take control of David’s body in the real world. He wakes in 2024, connected by a device to the VR system. He disconnects the system and finds Jane and her father, the real Hannon Fuller. Jane wants to tell Hall more about the simulation, but as she begins the film ends, the screen image turning black like a computer monitor being turned off.
Content from External Source
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Is there any reason to assume the simulation is for anyone other than my self? Why would 'we' be in the Matrix and just not me? You are the Matrix to me.

Anyway, here's a good video presentation on the theme of knowing reality.
[video=youtube_share;L45Q1_psDqk]http://youtu.be/L45Q1_psDqk[/video]
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The Matrix scenario assumes we are connected to the primary reality but being fed the secondary, but the simulation scenario would presume that we ourselves are simulations of sentience.
I think 'me' being a simulation of sentience is closer to the real situation - I *appear* to be primary but all my existence depends on causes beyond me, therefore I am simulated.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
As technology advances it is inevitable that simulations of the universe will also develop.

There's no limit to the number of simulated universes, but there can only be one real universe.

See now that's where this fall apart -

1/ who says there can be only 1 real universe?? :)

2/ and/or if there can be an infinite number of simulated universes from 1 real universe than that real universe must itself be infinite.

Either way there's infinity on both sides of the equation, so the "chances" are meaningless :)
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
See now that's where this fall apart -

1/ who says there can be only 1 real universe?? :)

2/ and/or if there can be an infinite number of simulated universes from 1 real universe than that real universe must itself be infinite.

Either way there's infinity on both sides of the equation, so the "chances" are meaningless :)
If we have an infinite universe,
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.[5][6]
Content from External Source
Then by definition, everything must exist within it, including any simulated universes, although the simulated universes cannot be infinite as they are contained within the 'real' universe, (which is infinite/never ending).

However, if we went with Multiverses
: a theoretical reality that includes a possibly infinite number of parallel universes
Content from External Source
, the implication is that infinity cannot exist.

Then there is the Infinite Non Expanding Universe theory.

http://www.ineu-theory.com/ineu-theory-explained.php
There is no place for a sudden creation, the Big Bang, in order to make a beginning. Creation of all living things (and any possibility of a Creator) is outside the scope of this paper. The Big Bang theorists, attempting to take ancient philosophies literally, have not succeeded in finding a scientific origin for time space and matter and have rested their case with the creationist version.

If the universe is infinite, it cannot expand, and the red shifting of light from distant galaxies is therefore of 'tired light' nature due to loss of momentum of the photon. The energy depleting factor is not certain as Hubble himself believed, it is still unknown but not unknowable.

The Doppler interpretation (the sound parallel of which is a drop in pitch from a retreating siren) of the red shifting of light from distant galaxies produces a theory of distance-dependent acceleration away from a centre and requires backward extrapolation to a moment of creation out of a pre-existing state of nothing. The challenge was taken up by Georges Lemaitre a priest and astronomer who postulated a primordial atom exploding to produce a creation of the universe. Development and defence of this theory has taken a troubled course but is still far from having a scientific conclusion, with evidence out of the hands of the home philosopher.
Content from External Source
Interesting that the Big Bang Theory was first expounded by a priest.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Not really - before the materialist/non-materialist kerfuffle by "modern" fundamentalists became "popular" organized religion was very much at the cutting edge of "science", Gallileo et al not withstanding 'cos "science" per se hadn't quiet been codified then.

Newton and other early "scientists" as we would understand the term were all quite religious men too.

It shouldn't be a surprise of course - for thousands of years religion WAS the best explanation of how the universe worked!
 

exu156

Member
This is a fascinating topic. Certain schools of philosophy believe that the world as we know it is one of appearances. We do not know it as it really is; we know it only as it is represented in our consciousness. Struck by the unreliability of the senses, Descartes doubted the existence of everything but resolved that, since he was contemplating the world, the act of thinking is the one thing he could be certain of and from that the rest could be deduced. This insight was similar to that of Schopenhauer, who insisted that only our own consciousness is known immediately: everything else is mediated through our consciousness and is therefore dependent on it.

Kant adopted the terms phenomenon and noumenon to distinguish between the thing as it appears to us and the thing as it is in itself. Thus 'phenomenon' applies to the world of appearances, the phenomena that inhabit our consciousness, and 'noumenon' describes the world that 'lies behind' the world of appearances. If we cannot know the world as it is in itself but can know it only through our perceptions, how is it that our perceptions are so uniform we can communicate with each other effectively through a shared view of the world? Kant maintained that humans' capacity to perceive the outside world and thus form representations of it depends on certain 'conditions of sensibility' that exist before the experiences themselves, notably the forms of space, time and causality. These are inbuilt forms of the human mind, and they provide the structure that allows us to receive in an intelligible way the sensory data of the outside world. They are present before experience. As a result, instead of learning the forms of space, time and causality through experience of the world, we in fact impose them on the world. This is the meaning of the often-quoted observation in the Talmud: "We do not see things as they are, but as we are."

Now you may notice that many of these concepts have a similarity with Eastern mysticism. Schopenhauer was the first Western philosopher to appreciate the deep insights of the East, where it is said that the world as we experience it has no real being but is instead 'a ceaseless becoming'. In the Hindu Vedas the idea can be found in the doctrine of Maya, the chimera of the everyday world, 'an unstable and inconstant illusion without substance . . . a veil enveloping human consciousness'.

As with time, so with space: both are forms that inhere not in the world itself but rather in our representations of it. Thus in the Upanishads, space is, in addition to being a property of things, the 'creator' of things, and all things are contained within space as Brahman: "Space, as it is called, is the bringer into being of name and form. That which contains them is brahman, the immortal." All phenomenal forms exist 'inside' the boundless and timeless ground. When the subject brings the form of space to the world, differentiation is created since the spatial coordinates of a thing distinguish it from another thing. In Schopenhauer's words, "only the one and identical essence can manifest itself in all those phenomena." This idea reappeared across the ancient and modern worlds, in the writings of the Platonists and the Sufis and the works of Spinoza and various Christian mystics, before Kant took it up and argued it using the rules of logic rather than just mysticism.

In the Upanishads the idea of oneness from which all else is manifest is explicit in the idea of Brahman. The unifying or subtle essence can be interpreted as the sacred power of the whole universe—that is, the universal 'energy' that is the essence of the noumenon. It is the source of creation yet is uncreated. Thus Brahman is said to be 'self-born'. In Buddhist teaching, which is atheistic, this is captured in the notion of the 'suchness' of the world, the essential quality that infuses all things and reflects the oneness of the whole creation: "When the Ten Thousand things are viewed in their oneness, we return to the Origin and remain where we have always been."

Aldous Huxley summarized the insight of the sages of all traditions by describing a hierarchy of the real:

"The manifold world of our everyday experience is real with a relative reality that is, on its own level, unquestionable; but this relative reality has its being within and because of the absolute Reality, which, on account of the incommensurable otherness of its eternal nature, we can never hope to describe, even though it is possible for us directly to apprehend it."

Apologies for the overly long post.
 

"They"

New Member
Is there any reason to assume the simulation is for anyone other than my self? Why would 'we' be in the Matrix and just not me? You are the Matrix to me.
I agree and disagree with your post. Since we are both here discussing this, we could both be in The Matrix.
But
If it is just me, I do gotta say in the words of Doug Quaid from Total Recall "If it is my delusion, who the hell invited you?" :p
 

Inti

Senior Member.
Seems that debunking this idea might not be possible after all......


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...niversity-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745.html


Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the universe is a computer.

A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it is more likely than not that we're living inside a machine.

The theory basically goes that any civilisation which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened.

And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.

And it's not just theory. We previously reported that researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany had found evidence the Matrix was less than fiction. That story was by far our most popular of the year - indicating it's something about which you lot have wondered too.

READ MORE: Physicists Have Evidence Universe Is Computer Simulation
Now another team have devised an actual test to see if this theory holds any hope of being proven.

Professor Martin Savage at the University of Washington says while our own computer simulations can only model a universe on the scale of an atom's nucleus, there are already "signatures of resource constraints" which could tell us if larger models are possible.

This is where it gets complex.

Essentially, Savage said that computers used to build simulations perform "lattice quantum chromodynamics calculations" - dividing space into a four-dimensional grid. Doing so allows researchers to examine the force which binds subatomic particles together into neutrons and protons - but it also allows things to happen in the simulation, including the development of complex physical "signatures", that researchers don't program directly into the computer. In looking for these signatures, such as limitations on the energy held by cosmic rays, they hope to find similarities within our own universe.

And if such signatures do appear in both? Boot up, baby. We're inside a computer. (Maybe).

"If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge," Savage told the University of Washington news service.

Zohreh Davoudi, one of Savage's students, goes further:

"The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?," she said.

Now that would be a long-distance phone call.
Content from External Source

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

Physicists say they may have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation.

How? They made a computer simulation of the universe. And it looks sort of like us.

A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.

Now a team of researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany led by Silas Beane say they have evidence this may be true.

In a paper named 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation', they point out that current simulations of the universe - which do exist, but which are extremely weak and small - naturally put limits on physical laws.

Technology Review explains that "the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time."

What that basically means is that by just being a simulation, the computer would put limits on, for instance, the energy that particles can have within the program.

These limits would be experienced by those living within the sim - and as it turns out, something which looks just like these limits do in fact exist.

For instance, something known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. But Beane and co's paper argues that the pattern of this rule mirrors what you might expect from a computer simulation.
Content from External Source

Nick Bostrom who originated the serious version of the argument in his paper “Are you living in a Computer simulation” .http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html has acknowledged one possible objection to his scenario as he framed it: In this podcast, for instance http://philosophybites.com/2011/08/nick-bostrom-on-the-simulation-argument.html); if John Searle, or other critics of the computational theory of mind (Raymond Tallis, Roger Penrose, Mark Bishop etc). are right, the idea that we could be inside a computer based simulation is "debunked", because computation as it is normally understood (algorithmic manipulation of digital symbolic representing data) cannot be a sufficient cause of consciousness.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that a machine-based simulation is impossible, as these critics happily agree (as far as I know, they are all convinced naturalists, so they believe that the human brain is an evolved machine giving rise to consciousness; they just argue that it is a qualitatively different type of machine to a digital computer in a very fundamental way.


Statistically, it seems that computer people are more likely to reject Sear;e and the other anti-computationalists, while biologically-based neuroscientists are more prone to be broadly sympathetic. So my guess would be that Mick may not accept Searle type “debunking” of computationalism. However, I might be wrong: I was surprised to find Aaron Swarz arguing strongly in favour of Searle in his blog, for instance. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/searle

I’ve thought about bring this topic up on Metabunk, but I’m not sure that either side of the pro- or anti-computationalist debate are really pushing bunk, whoever is right; it’s a serious philosophical or scientific debate on both side, and perhaps not really what Metabunk is for.
 

Amgbmwlover

New Member
The simulation idea is a great arguement!

This article finally seems to lay to rest the idea that we're in a computer.

https://patrickjuli.us/2016/10/23/debunking-the-simulation-argument/

Of course, the typical form of the argument isn’t nearly so cogent. In popular outlets as prestigious as the New York Times, Scientific American and the New Yorker, the idea is simply presented as “We are living in a simulation.” The only major outlet I could find that properly presented Bostrom’s disjunction was PBS. Indeed, there are now some Silicon Valley billionaires who believe the argument, or at least think it merits enough attention to be worth funding research into how we might escape the simulation we are in. (Frankly, even if we were inside a simulation, it’s not clear that “escaping” would be something worthwhile or even possible.)

Yet most people, when presented with this idea, think it is profoundly silly and a waste of time.

I believe this is the correct response. I am 99.9% sure we are not living in a simulation.

But it’s one thing to know that an argument is wrong, and quite another to actually show why; in that respect the Simulation Argument is a lot like theOntological Argument for God:


Worth a read to finally lay to rest the idea.
 

0x90

Closed Account
Yet most people, when presented with this idea, think it is profoundly silly and a waste of time.

I believe this is the correct response. I am 99.9% sure we are not living in a simulation.

I'd also point out that there are people still living at this moment who were born more than a decade before (for example) Alan Turing. Such people have witnessed, in its entirety, the invention and development of the general purpose computer, along with the concept of simulation it has fostered, which we now see put forward as a fanciful explanation of the nature of reality itself.

Which is all well and good, until it is extended to the point of saying that this is somehow an inescapable fact, because that ignores not only that the very concept could not have existed a comparatively-short while ago, but also fails to consider discoveries that may be made over the next century (say), which themselves will then likely be woven into incompatible, yet similarly "inescapable" conclusions (at which point the previous ones will quietly be forgotten).

In actuality, this is just another example of pseudo-scientific dilettantes (too often encouraged by attention-seeking scientific popularizers who should know better) myopically fixating on the current/latest thing, and feeling as though they're having some really deep thoughts. But just because we can write the sentence "this statement is false" does not mean that we are saying anything about reality itself, when it is really more just a quirk of (or indicates fundamental problems with) our language and logical systems.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Whether in The Matrix or not, the real question is, what difference would it make? How would you live your life if it were proved you were in The Matrix? And: what's stopping you from doing that now?
 

Inti

Senior Member.
Nick Bostrom who originated the serious version of the argument in his paper “Are you living in a Computer simulation” .http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html has acknowledged one possible objection to his scenario as he framed it: In this podcast, for instance http://philosophybites.com/2011/08/nick-bostrom-on-the-simulation-argument.html); if John Searle, or other critics of the computational theory of mind (Raymond Tallis, Roger Penrose, Mark Bishop etc). are right, the idea that we could be inside a computer based simulation is "debunked", because computation as it is normally understood (algorithmic manipulation of digital symbolic representing data) cannot be a sufficient cause of consciousness.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that a machine-based simulation is impossible, as these critics happily agree (as far as I know, they are all convinced naturalists, so they believe that the human brain is an evolved machine giving rise to consciousness; they just argue that it is a qualitatively different type of machine to a digital computer in a very fundamental way.


Statistically, it seems that computer people are more likely to reject Sear;e and the other anti-computationalists, while biologically-based neuroscientists are more prone to be broadly sympathetic. So my guess would be that Mick may not accept Searle type “debunking” of computationalism. However, I might be wrong: I was surprised to find Aaron Swarz arguing strongly in favour of Searle in his blog, for instance. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/searle

I’ve thought about bring this topic up on Metabunk, but I’m not sure that either side of the pro- or anti-computationalist debate are really pushing bunk, whoever is right; it’s a serious philosophical or scientific debate on both side, and perhaps not really what Metabunk is for.
I had thought that the Simulation hypothesis was rather like solipsism (the hypothesis that only I exist and everything else is an illusion in my mind) . That, that it untestable and unfalsifiable by its nature.

True, unlike solipsism it proposes (very vaguely) a mechanism by which the illusion might come about - via computer-based simulation.

Now that give rise to a fork: does this mean something like what we call computers, that is devices that process data by algorithms. If so, John Searle and others have given us good reason to believe that no simulated mind inside such a computational simulation could be conscious.

On the other hand, if the simulation isn't based on computers (algorithmic data processing). then we have to take the technology on faith, and the Simulation hypothesis really is very like solipsism.

I don't know enough physics at the right level to judge the Bonn argument mentioned above, though.
 

Inti

Senior Member.
By the way, Nick Bostrom has written a terrific book, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, which makes a convincing case why we should be very careful about developing high level artificial intelligences


http://www.nickbostrom.com

This starts with the following fable:


"The Unfinished Fable of the Sparrows


It was the nest-building season, but after days of long hard work, the sparrows sat in the evening glow, relaxing and chirping away.

“We are all so small and weak. Imagine how easy life would be if we had an owl who could help us build our nests!”

“Yes!” said another. “And we could use it to look after our elderly and our young.”

“It could give us advice and keep an eye out for the neighborhood cat,” added a third. Then Pastus, the elder-bird, spoke: “Let us send out scouts in all directions and try to find an abandoned owlet somewhere, or maybe an egg. A crow chick might also do, or a baby weasel. This could be the best thing that ever happened to us, at least since the opening of the Pavilion of Unlimited Grain in yonder backyard.”

The flock was exhilarated, and sparrows everywhere started chirping at the top of their lungs.

Only Scronkfinkle, a one-eyed sparrow with a fretful temperament, was unconvinced of the wisdom of the endeavor. Quoth he: “This will surely be our undoing. Should we not give some thought to the art of owl-domestication and owl-taming first, before we bring such a creature into our midst?”

Replied Pastus: “Taming an owl sounds like an exceedingly difficult thing to do. It will be difficult enough to find an owl egg. So let us start there. After we have succeeded in raising an owl, then we can think about taking on this other challenge.” “There is a flaw in that plan!” squeaked Scronkfinkle; but his protests were in vain as the flock had already lifted off to start implementing the directives set out by Pastus.


Just two or three sparrows remained behind. Together they began to try to work out how owls might be tamed or domesticated. They soon realized that Pastus had been right: this was an exceedingly difficult challenge, especially in the absence of an actual owl to practice on.

Nevertheless they pressed on as best they could, constantly fearing that the flock might return with an owl egg before a solution to the control problem had been found. It is not known how the story ends, but the author dedicates this book to Scronkfinkle and his followers."

I hope this isnt too far off-topic in this discussion.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
I had thought that the Simulation hypothesis was rather like solipsism (the hypothesis that only I exist and everything else is an illusion in my mind) . That, that it untestable and unfalsifiable by its nature.
Surely that is testable and falsifiable? Perhaps not by the believer, but by anyone else with access to a blunt instrument...... :)

Ray Von
 

Rory

Senior Member.
You could kill them, but then they wouldn't be around to view the results.

And if you only injure them, then it's happened as if in a dream. Therefore the hypothesis could still be true.
 
Last edited:

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
You could kill them, but then they wouldn't be around to view the results.
Would that matter? I'm sure many hypotheses have been tested without requiring the proposer of the hypothesis to not have already fallen off his or her perch. And aren't you presuming the result?

I also think merely maiming would have to be considered a failure in the test process, poor execution if you will.

I see three main possibilities:-

1) The "subject" ceases to be, reality rolls on. Hypothesis falsified.
2) The "subject" does not expire, but their illusion of reality likely ends. Hypothesis proved. Imagining further realities is optional.
3) The "subject" expires and reality ends. Further testing required.

I suppose option 4 would be that neither is affected, but that sounds more like the plot of Highlander than the Matrix.

Whichever way it goes, the real winner is science.

Ray Von
 

Inti

Senior Member.
Surely that is testable and falsifiable? Perhaps not by the believer, but by anyone else with access to a blunt instrument...... :)

Ray Von

But you are begging the question, by assuming that there are other people at all. If solipsism is true, then there is only one consciousness being (me, of course ;-) ) Any result of any test would have to be an illusion created by "my" mind.

That was the point of this philosopher's joke:

As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." (Russell, p. 180). Russell, Bertrand., Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits,London: George Allen & Unwin, 1948.
Content from External Source
 

Inti

Senior Member.
Would that matter? I'm sure many hypotheses have been tested without requiring the proposer of the hypothesis to not have already fallen off his or her perch. And aren't you presuming the result?

I also think merely maiming would have to be considered a failure in the test process, poor execution if you will.

I see three main possibilities:-

1) The "subject" ceases to be, reality rolls on. Hypothesis falsified.
2) The "subject" does not expire, but their illusion of reality likely ends. Hypothesis proved. Imagining further realities is optional.
3) The "subject" expires and reality ends. Further testing required.

I suppose option 4 would be that neither is affected, but that sounds more like the plot of Highlander than the Matrix.

Whichever way it goes, the real winner is science.

Ray Von

Why do you assume that the results we have always seen when somebody gets hit on the head are not the result of the simulations?

This is very like Dr Johnson's famous reply to Bishop Berkeley.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/

Berkeley argued that all reality was made of ideas - either our own or, ultimately, ideas in the mind of God. That's close enough to the Matrix or The Simulation hypothesis for our purposes.

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'”(Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson, quoted from Wikipedia.)
Content from External Source

But Johnson's attempted debunk of Berkeley fails completely, as almost every philosopher of every stripe agrees. If Berkeley was right, what Johnson experienced was exactly what you'd expect him to experience. Johnson's argument is a circular and question-begging and start by assuming that Berkeley's idealism is wrong.

More good stuff on this here: https://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/when-dr-johnson-kicked-the-stone/

Your proposed tests have the same problem - whatever the result, it might be what you could expect. After all, there might be a sub-module of the simulation that detects our attempts to test it and fakes the results as required.
 
Top