Slashdot Mirror

The best argument in favor of an ID-type theory I've ever heard was made by Nick Bostrom. Granted, this probably isn't what the Dover Board had in mind...

(Yes, I prefer Bostrom's argument over the FSM, but that's just me, I guess.)

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Make that the first *simulated* qubyte. we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

When you think about it, what is it really that makes our "reality" something better than "virtual"? For all we know, we could just be A.I.'s in some simulation. It's not unreasonable to believe that computer power will continue to increase at the incredible rates they have until now. Wouldn't the ultimate game be populated by Artificial Intelligences whose only inputs and outputs are within the simulation itself, making it their reality? I have to admit, being a god in a realistic simulation is something I expect from games within my lifetime.

Very important argument you have there. Creationists place God as the creator of our universe, whereas it might be that this universe is just a simulation. The movie 'Matrix' was based on a similar idea.

The idea of simulation may sound far-fetched initially, but it is not. In the game GTA - San Andreas, there is a homeless guy somewhere in San Fierro that has a cardboard box on his head that says "God is playing with us", meaning the programmers and players of the game. That's a clear case of simulation! In a sufficiently advanced simulation, a computer character could start develop queries about the world and someday start wondering how it all started.

There also was a Star Trek - TNG episode that posed the same question. Picard was playing Sherlock Holmes in the Holodeck, which was simulating 19th century London and of course, professor Moriarty (arch-enemy of Holmes). Moriarty was very clever, and he noticed that Holmes disappeared on certain hours from London by approaching a specific point and saying "computer, open door" or something similar. Then Moriarty attempted something like that and suddently he was inside the Enterprise! He even managed to reach the bridge! It was something that I have seen when I was young, but it really made me think about this universe...

... and on the same topic. It's more likely that we are living in a simulation than that we aren't.

http://www.simulation-argument.com

There exists the simulation argument theory, which is a pretty solid theory concerning our universe being a computer experiment of some sort. It may be possible even for us, some day, to simulate an entire universe using quantum computers.

people don't "observe the universe from the outside"

http://www.simulation-argument.com/ :)

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

...is our universe a simulation?

See http://www.simulation-argument.com/ for some insightful articles about that.

And they mod you funny?

Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument offers pretty good proof for this idea. According to Bostrom, if simulation is indeed possible, then the odds that we're not already running in thousands of layers of simulation is next to nil.

Check it out. It's cool.

Don't worry, chances are we were previously uploaded and are already living in a simulation.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Next thing you know, someone will discover the Simulation Argument and then it's all over...

Nick Bostrom thinks so:

Are you living in a computer simulation?

Oh wow!! you're so right. And just look at all the specific arguments and backing evidence you gave. Oh wait....

Heh... You're just lucky the guy who wrote the article was about as lazy as you are... My incredibility threshold gets hit about paragraph 5. I see tons of claims, and not a bit of backing. (see? didn't take an hour!)

Oh wait... a bit more digging. What you read is a synopsis. Here's the actual argument

it's just someone who is in actuality incredibly stupid, but has no idea that they are.

The bottom of the article claims the author is a post-doc... Guess he must be good at fooling others in addition to hisself.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

http://www.simulation-argument.com

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.

Also, your link is busted (probably because of the backslashes in your href). The actual link is here.

[snip]

How about on a Tablet PC? Do you guys consider context at all before unleashing your canned evangelism?

Are you all algorithms or something?

Or shadow people?

Rather than aliens, it has been hypothesised by Nick Bostrom (PhD) in his Simulation Argument that our future selves are simulating us.

(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.

Rather than aliens, it has been hypothesised by Nick Bostrom (PhD) in his Simulation Argument that our future selves are simulating us.

(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.

Ok, i could understand their idea get the idea that Matrix is more martial arts than sci-fi

Yet The Matrix may be the most likely and profound of the predictions in any of the SciFi movies.

And the kungfu was pretty damn cool.

"how unique our planet really is"... just like how unique the latest lotto winner is. And yet people do win lotto. When you have 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars each and billions of years, well that's a lot of planets in the lottery.

Not to mention the fact that life could certainly evolve in environments we wouldn't expect. Certainly earthlike planet is not necessary. Look at the various examples of harsh environments on earth that support life: eg bacteria thriving near ocean volcanic vents, or miles underground in earth's mantle. Once life gets a foothold like that, anything is possible, including the evolution of an intelligent species.

Regarding your point that intelligence is overrated, there is an article in a recent New Scientist which basically points out the same; in essense that intelligence is not the 'ultimate' survival adaptation, and plenty of species get by just fine without it. So if you are trying to reason against evolution by saying "why haven't more species evolved to intelligence", it doesn't necessarily follow that natural selective pressure will produce intelligence. It would be like a tiger wondering (if tigers could wonder) why all species hadn't evolved to hunt and kill as efficiently as they.

You sound thoughtful and intelligent; do yourself a favor and read some of the stuff by Richard Dawkins.

None of this is important anyway, since reality as we know it is probably running on a matrix-type simulator.

This, IIRC, was posted on slashdot and it kind of relates to your post.
The author argues among other things that complete simulation is not necessary, just simulation of certain parts that are being viewed.
The argument is different, of course, but it illustrates the point.

I'd say my sitting here, and typing into slashdot is pretty strong evidence I was born at some point in the past.


Well, no, because you're just a bunch of bits in a very big simulation being run by benevolent alien beings. Or possibly bored alien teenagers.

See here: Simulation Argument

.. the Theroy of Schrodinger's cat...

And, some would argue, that's a bug in the universe. Or at least our digital simulation of one. We've already figured out many of the constant variables, we're still working on decompiling the rest, but our reflection API is imperfect.

Hey, don't forget this "we're all living in a computer simulation" joke is actually a serious philosophical theory from Oxford's Nick Bostom (The Simulation Argument). Apparently, a lot of the numbers underlying our universe imply this world of ours really could be part of a computer program run by an advanced civilisation.

When our computers were first introduced, simulations were serious academic endeavours. Nowadays, fifty years later, most simulations of worlds are in computer games. Most computer games are run under Windows. So some future Microsoft probably really has built our universe's operating system.

Ooops.

What if this is all the matrix anyway?!?

It probably is.

you might currently be literally living in a computer simulation, running on a computer built by some advanced civilization

Supposedly this was was written by Nick Bostrom, PhD, but we all know he is L.Ron Hubbard reincarnated.

Regarding Nick Bostrom, see my related post here. I'd like to think that he has some academic honesty (and I am grateful to him for writing/editing the Transhumanist FAQ), but his simulation ideas are bullshit , indeed.

well, youre argument assumes that all parts of the word at the highest levels of detail must be modelled, but this isnt necessarily so. Even rooms or other types of areas that arent currently inhabited with humans (if our minds are the only real things in our Matrix) need not be drawn at all until they are needed.

Think about how 3D games work... they draw only what is immediately seem (experienced) by the player. Similarly, one would save a lot of processing power overall by not rendering (calculating physics, lighting, etc) fo that which is not seen.

For viewing things like atomic interactions and such, that could be modelled fairly easily too, because we dont DIRECTLY experience these things, we view them through screens via electron microscopes, etc.

The nature of our world actually lends itself to being a simulation - there is a limited (not infinite) detail to matter in the universe, which may corrospond to how small the numbers the matrix processors can compute (in real time, without using tricks, which may cost cycles).

If you're interested and haven't seen it, check out the simulation argument page (though I think his premise that our descendants - human or robot - would want to run simulations of their ancestors, is flawed).

Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves...

I just read a fascinating (but somewhat heavy going for the layperson) paper by a professor of Philosophy inspired by the Matrix - I think someone actually linked to it from a previous /. Matrix story. There are lots of similar hypotheses to the idea that we are all brains in vats (or bits in a computer simulation.) For instance, if the god-botherers are right after all and there's a big guy with a white beard and we're all just figments of his imagination, how is this different from the Matrix? What about the Wolfram cellular automata work (and other less well-known work in the same field)? What about advances in cosmology and physics?

Any pointers from /.ers to similar material received with thanks :)

See also http://www.simulation-argument.com.

but to discover Truth

How can you discover Truth ? the moment you find Truth, you can find yourself in another simulated environment. And then you find another Truth, another simulation and so on.

It's the same with God. Who created God ? And who created the environment that God operates into ? Another God ? And who created that another God ?.

You see, there is no point in searching for any Truth. Actually, there is no Truth. There are numerous small "truths" in our everyday life, but that are rather experiences than truths.

In short, we are living in a bubble, and that bubble can not be burst, no matter what. The Matrix says that Neo has burst that bubble. Well, I've got some news for him: the Matrix's real world maybe a simulation of a multidimensional entity.

Check out the simulation argument.

Share and enjoy!

It's too bad "The Matrix" is a category as it is instead of another word to fit the "living within a simulation" genre. We really don't seem to have a word or title to give to the concept as a whole.

There's a bunch of great papers on the subject as well, including one that proposes that we probably do live within a computer simulation.

It's too bad "The Matrix" is a category as it is instead of another word to fit the "living within a simulation" genre. We really don't seem to have a word or title to give to the concept as a whole.

There's a bunch of great papers on the subject as well, including one that proposes that we probably do live within a computer simulation.

Perhaps the rules were relaxed for what were assumed to be distant objects beyond the scope of our simulation. =)

There is no spoon...

Nick Bostrom from Oxford has an article here about the idea that we are living in a computer simluation. It is very intersting.

We have no way of proving we are not a simulation.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/ tries.

The Simulation Argument

Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?
Nick Bostrom (2002)
Forthcoming in Philosophical Quarterly.

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. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.