Tech Billionaires Are Asking Scientists For Help To Break Humans Out of Computer Simulation (businessinsider.com)

Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of the simulation. The New Yorker recently did a profile about Y Combinator's Sam Altman. In the story, Altman discusses his theories about being controlled by technology and delves into the simulation theory. From an article on The New Yorker: Many people in Silicon Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a computer; two tech billionaires have gone so far as to secretly engage scientists to work on breaking us out of the simulation. Business Insider adds: The piece doesn't give any clue as to who those two billionaires are -- although it's easy to hazard a few guesses at who they might be, like Musk himself or Altman's friend Peter Thiel -- but it's fascinating to see how seriously people are taking this theory. According to Musk, it's the most popular topic of conversation right now.Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation.

Comments

When did "The Matrix" become a religion?

[tekrat]

Seriously people. This is reality. Deal with it. Just freaking get over it. Just because the universe doesn't fit into your limited imagination is no reason to suspect that we are in a simulation or that an invisible man in the sky created the world, or that we are reincarnated from aliens chained to a volcano.

Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion?

[PvtVoid]

It's called Gnosticism, and it has been around since at least the Second Century.

Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion?

[Troed]

The argument is of course not Musk's, but Nick Boström's:

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.

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

I cannot find any flaws in the statistics. I thus agree we're _likely_ living in a simulation.

Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion?

[nine-times]

And even beyond that, if we are in some way "in a simulation", we have no reason to think that we will be able to detect it, let alone break free of it. If you actually think about it, for any enclosed simulation, the simulation is reality, and there's no opportunity to see beyond that horizon. If the block in a game of Pong became sentient, it would find itself in a 2D world with no gravity, where the laws of physics include conservation of momentum, no friction, and no energy transfer when object collide. There would be no information in these rules of physics that would allow the Pong block to determine whether these physical laws were artifacts of computer programming or the "real" laws of physics. What's more, even if the Pong block were to assume it was in a simulation, there would be no avenue to investigate what the "real" laws of physics are outside of the simulation. Imagining what the "real" laws of physics were might be interesting, but it couldn't be based on anything empirical.

I could see a billionaire having a conversation with a scientist or philosopher, and asking if they can think of any way we could even know whether we were in a simulation-- and that may have been what these conversations were really like. But offering them money to research "breaking out" is pretty stupid.

Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion?

[Nemyst]

Seriously people. This is reality. Deal with it. Just freaking get over it. Just because the universe doesn't fit into your limited imagination is no reason to suspect that we are in a simulation or that an invisible man in the sky created the world, or that we are reincarnated from aliens chained to a volcano.

Eh, I'd say the actual point is that our universe is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced simulation, so "breaking out" of it is pointless. We may as well just appreciate the fact our universe, be it real or not, is relatively stable, systematic and logical. What does it matter if it's a simulation or not, when for us it's all there is?

Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion?

[Ash-Fox]

What's the answer? -PCP

Usually when I tell other people, they seem disappointed with the answer.

Why do I exist?

I exist because of the result of biological processes that seek to procreate that have over time evolved into much more complex lifeforms that have self awareness.

Why am I here?

My biological function is to procreate and protect and give my spawn the best advantages so they can procreate and continue their biological function too.

They're pretty easy questions...

Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion?

[ShanghaiBill]

I exist because of the result of biological processes that seek to procreate

No. That is the reason that your constituent atoms have a particular form and function. But it is not the reason they exist in the first place.

Science tells us that the Universe began as an infinitely dense singularity 13.85 billion years ago. We have no idea why that happened, but the answer is not "Darwin", since that skips over the first 10 billion years, especially those first few planck times.

god people are dumb

[Thud457]

As Charles Fort noted:

It's steam engines when it's steam engine time

People use the predominant zeitgeist as a model to understand everything.
In Victorian times, we had steam engines and the blind watchmaker. In the 1910's everything was electricity this and xyz-rays that. Today it's all digitalizamizated technomolology and iPhones.

That and these billionaires think their smarts in one realm of knowledge make them experts in everything everywhere all the time.

Obligatory Alpha Centauri

[Sumus Semper Una]

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

Elon Musk knows!

[sgage]

"Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation."

Elon Musk said it, I believe it, and that settles it. (rolls eyes)

Stupid

[Geoffrey.landis]

This is insanely stupid. Entities simulated in computer programs can't "break out" of the simulation: if you stop the simulation, they cease to exist.

Re:Stupid

[narcc]

We're watching new myths and religions form around pseudo-scientific ideas (like the simulation hypothesis) and science fiction based beliefs about the current and future state of artificial intelligence.

As you point out, to believe someone could "break out" of the simulation seems to imply a deeply inconsistent metaphysic. I expect this to change as these odd believes evolve in to something more coherent.

It's like watching UFO cults develop all over again.

Now, who on Slashdot things Small Wonder was a documentary?

Re:Stupid

[Tx]

This is insanely stupid. Entities simulated in computer programs can't "break out" of the simulation: if you stop the simulation, they cease to exist.

That's two very separate statements. The latter is patently true; if you stop the simulation, entities within the simulation will cease to exist. The former, however, is not so simple. First you need to define what it means to "break out" of the simulation. The entities could certainly try to prove that they exist in a simulation. They could try and determine the nature and functioning of that simulation. And the could then try to hack the simulation itself, and therefore potentially be able to interact to some degree with things outside the simulation, for starting with whatever system the simulation is running on, which I would personally class as "breaking out" of the simulation.

Now if you want to talk about the entities actually existing entirely outside the simulation, that's a whole other level.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep sandboxed apps never break out of their sandboxes, and anything in a VM always stays inside that VM and always plays by the totally bug free rules. Always, every time, it's just a fact.
It's like the new first commandment. Simple people are incapable of breaking out of their simple thinking.
(Yes simpleton narcc I'm looking at you.)

Re:Stupid

[myrdos2]

Yeah. Elon Musk's argument was that if we assume any improvement rate in computers at all, then one day it will be affordable to simulate entire worlds, and therefore there are billions of simulations for every real Universe, and therefore we're likely in one.

But, like most arguments, that one is wrong. He seems to be under the impression that it's inevitable that computers will improve indefinitely, and that there's no limit to how complex and powerful they can become while still remaining inexpensive to mass produce. But there's no reason to think that is true. Just because there's a rate of improvement now doesn't mean it won't taper off and eventually flatten in the future.

Also, his thinking is sloppy.

The desire for religion

[Qbertino]

The desire for religion must really be genetically programmed if influencial bigwigs like this dream up a new one after the old ones have been debunked.
Truely amazing.

Double standard?

[Vermonter]

So if you believe in God, the science world think's you're crazy/stupid, but if you believe in a programmer of the universe, it's totally cool and many of them agree. Gotcha.

Re:Double standard?

[Translation Error]

Maybe it depends on whether you declare your belief to be the absolute truth 'because' or if you start looking for evidence to support/refute your belief, test hypotheses, and are willing to change your viewpoint on what is discovered.

Re:Double standard?

[JoshuaZ]

Completely missing the point. The actual argument for a simulation doesn't rest on anything remotely like that. The primary argument is that it looks like under the laws of physics, simulations should be possible. It also seems likely that an advanced species would be interested in making simulations of their ancestors and would likely make many such simulations. Thus, if one thinks that society is likely to survive to a very high tech level, one should expect if one is a remotely interesting time period that one is much more likely to be a simulation than the original. There are problems with this argument (and I don't buy it), but it is far more interesting than simply dismissing it as akin to belief in religion or gods. It is unfortunate that you and many others in this thread are simply ridiculing the argument rather than actually addressing it.

Why break out?

[garyok]

The smart move is to try and figure out how to access the admin console and object browser. Then, instead of 'escaping' to a reality you're not equipped to survive, you can make this shit show into your own personal paradise.

Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula

[__aaclcg7560]

You seemed to be objectively bashing trump, then you defended Clinton and lost all credibility.

Clinton is the only credible candidate for POTUS. That doesn't mean she isn't a deeply flawed person. As a moderate conservative, I have no one else to vote for.

Re:How to Break Out?

[Rockoon]

If I exist in this simulated reality, then I only exist because of the simulation. Shut down the simulation and I cease to exist.

This.

Tech billionaires and a lot of slashdot users hear "You are living in a simulation" and they think "Neo in the matrix" rather than "Agent in the matrix"

I think this is because they are dumb.

Re:Elon Musk was high as shit in that interview...

[Archangel Michael]

His flaw is assuming that his assumptions are even close to being accurate. The problem with these kinds of thought processes, is that they are fraught with limited thinking. Do you know how hard it is to keep exponential growth going for any length of time? And he wants it going for ... thousands of years. He has no idea what it will take to make that exponential growth keep going indefinitely forever, nor the consequences of that growth on humanity.

There are way too many assumptions, way too many unproven constants. He isn't as smart as he thinks he is, and that is where the problems start for his "simulation theory". I actually understand that I couldn't begin to theorize what things might exist in 20 years, let alone 1000, 5000, or 10,000 years down the road.

Re:you're partly right

[AmiMoJo]

That's actually a quite believable interpretation of the Bible. Player starts out being a genocidal maniac, playing with all the god-level powers they have, sending plagues of locus and flooding the entire planet just to see what will happen. Then we get to the New Testament, where the player is kinda bored just breaking stuff and decides to try to build a nice world.

It's basically everyone's first game of Sim City.

Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula

[Immerman]

Unfortunately, given the mathematical realities of the "first past the post" voting system we're forced to work within, the dichotomy is not false. It's possible to change which parties are in power, as has happened several times in the history of the country, but the only stable configurations are either one or two strongly dominant parties.

I'm all for building a strong competing party to replace one of the current ones with something more populist, or even just less corrupt (though that's always a transitory condition, quickly remedied once it wields power worth corrupting) but that's a long-term project that requires dedicating considerable resources to building "brand awareness" and enthusiasm among the electorate, and one that's not appreciably aided by voting for candidates that have no chance of actually getting elected (well, not beyond reaching the minimums required for the party to gain access to public funds and other legal hurdles)

By making a protest vote, knowing it will have no direct effect on who wins the election, you'll be guilty of contributing to whatever ills *whoever* wins inflicts - including if it's the "greater evil" that you refused to vote against.

If you really want change, then go out and participate in activist organizations trying to either build viable third party support, or establish less easily captured voting systems such as instant runoff voting. As long as your only contribution is casting a ballot every couple of years, your real options are limited to either voting for the lesser of evils, or abstaining (or protest-voting), and thus willingly surrendering your support to whoever happens to win.

And lets be honest here - no matter how many viable parties are actually on the ballot, you'll *always* be voting for the lesser evil, because *nobody* is going to agree with you 100%. There will always be a compromise to be made, and whether that compromise falls below the arbitrary line you call "evil" or not, is a distinction that exists only within your imagination.

Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat

[Immerman]

And they're nuts. Humanity has a solid evolutionary record on this planet. Life might have originated elsewhere, but it became human here. If humanity exists elsewhere in the universe, it almost certainly originated here and was exported, either via alien influence, or some improbable human culture that developed the ability to travel between worlds without leaving any archaeological evidence. The only other option is convergent evolution - and to converge enough to be called human (say, able to interbreed?) is so outlandishly unlikely as to make the alternatives seem positively mundane in comparison.

Yeah, yeah. Battlestar. Whoosh. etc.