Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see how many people here think the simulation theory of the universe is quite probable. If you're not familiar with it, here is a good synopsis: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
I believe that it is a moot question.<p>Let me explain what I mean. Some people say that Ben Franklin messed up when he named positive and negative charge -- that the charge which is on the electron should have been called "+" instead of "-". Imagine legions of physicists arguing back and forth over this issue, some vigorously defending "=" and others advocating for "-". It would all be wasted breath: they are just NAMES, and it doesn't MATTER which name you use. What matters is building a transistor, which depends on understanding that it's electrons that carry the charge, not on what the charge is called.<p>Similarly, any time that two MATHEMATICALLY equivalent theories both explain the facts, I personally don't care which one is true... I don't want to spend time debating it, and honestly I don't believe that one is more "true" than the other. Is classical mechanics driven by Newton's laws or by the Lagrangian "action is zero"? Both! Either one implies the other.<p>And this is how I view the question of whether the universe is a simulation. Finding out the laws of our universe seems interesting. Finding out whether those laws are implemented by a universe or a computer simulation of a universe... there is no meaningful difference so I don't care.
We'll never know. If the universe is a simulation then it's similar to a virtual machine running on top of a hypervisor.
The virtual machine doesn't know that it's not a real machine unless its hypervisor tells it so. From inside the virtual machine, there is no meaningful distinction to be made between being a real machine and being a virtual one.
This is like asking whether god exists. Until there is some evidence one way or the other, it is pointless to consider the question seriously. Though it's worth noting that the total ignorance implied by the lack of evidence about the purpose of the universe implies that any specific speculation on the question is almost certainly incorrect.<p>Fun to think about, though. Have you read Greg Egan's <i>Permutation City</i> or <i>Diaspora</i>?<p><a href="http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/Permutation.html" rel="nofollow">http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/Permuta...</a><p><a href="http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/DIASPORA/DIASPORA.html" rel="nofollow">http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/DIASPORA/DIASPORA.h...</a>
This seems to fail Occam's Razor. The argument boils down to "Our observations are consistent with what we'd see if we were in a simulation, so we're probably in a simulation" modulo some specious asymptotic extrapolation. There's nothing <i>impossible</i> about the idea that we're living in a computer simulation, but unless the idea is falsifiable it does not constitute a rational, scientific theory.
It's an interesting question, are we in a Matrix, or computer simulation, or the slightly older theory from 1641 where Rene Descartes imagined an omnipotent demon lying to him. Maybe I'm simplifying the question, but I reckon it boils down to how do we know what we know? Am I sat in front of a computer screen now, or do I just believe I am?<p>I'm not really a philosopher, at all, but the Oxford Companion to Philosophy says:<p>"Do you know that you are looking at a... book right now rather than, say, having your brain intricately stimulated by a mad scientist? The sceptic carefully describes this alternative so that no experiment can refute it. The conclusion that you really are looking at a book, however, explains the aggregate of your experiences better than the mad scientist hypothesis or any other competing views."<p>which I think makes sense to me. I've met one or two people who say they believe that they live in a Matrix/Alien computer simulation, but observing, they live as if they don't.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature" Karl Shroeder<p><a href="http://www.kschroeder.com/weblog/archive/2011/11/30/the-deepening-paradox" rel="nofollow">http://www.kschroeder.com/weblog/archive/2011/11/30/the-deep...</a>
BELIEVES??? What is this? A religion?<p>You can suspect. (That's honest.) Then, not being intellectually lazy like "believers," you have to apply the scientific method to test your suspicions. (Note: Using philosophy and semantics is no proof at all. It's physics or nothing. You could start with the double slit photons experiment.)
Yeah, sometimes I think we're just some kid's high school experiment. God only knows. :-)<p>I really wouldn't put too much time into this. Votes don't matter. Even if we all agreed, it wouldn't matter.<p>I'd put more time into things that do matter.
It's a pretty compelling thought experiment... the largest implication would be that there potentially would be some sort of "afterlife"-esque thing possible if we are in a simulation. Either being simulated more often, or possibly "promoted" to a layer above where we're currently at.<p>If it was true, and you wanted to exist some more, then it might be thinking about what would be make you in-demand in the higher level up. Perhaps some generalized broadbased creative knowledge combined, combined with an interesting well-thought perspective, and good communication skills?
Not me. It boils down to the meaning of universe - if you define it as everything, nothing outside it exists, as there's no outside, in particular there can't be any machine, that simulates the universe, otherwise we wouldn't call it universe. If you define universe as computable subset of everything we have access to, it might be possible to simulate that universe, using computing machine if this machine had access to enough resources outside that universe to hold its state.
A while ago, this article was on HN: <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/12/03/were-underestimating-the-risk-of-human-extinction/253821/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/12/03/were-und...</a><p>The article is based on an interview with Nick Bostrom, a philosophy professor at Oxford. His thoughts on the computer simulation scenario are very interesting. I've reproduced them below, but I recommend reading the whole interview; it's very fascinating. From the interview:<p>"Can you explain the simulation argument, and how it presents a very particular existential risk?<p>Bostrom: The simulation argument addresses whether we are in fact living in a simulation as opposed to some basement level physical reality. It tries to show that at least one of three propositions is true, but it doesn't tell us which one. Those three are:<p>1) Almost all civilizations like ours go extinct before reaching technological maturity.<p>2) Almost all technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating ancestor simulations: computer simulations detailed enough that the simulated minds within them would be conscious.<p>3) We're almost certainly living in a computer simulation.<p>The full argument requires sophisticated probabilistic reasoning, but the basic argument is fairly easy to grasp without resorting to mathematics. Suppose that the first proposition is false, which would mean that some significant portion of civilizations at our stage eventually reach technological maturity. Suppose that the second proposition is also false, which would mean that some significant fraction of those (technologically mature) civilizations retain an interest in using some non-negligible fraction of their resources for the purpose of creating these ancestor simulations. You can then show that it would be possible for a technologically mature civilization to create astronomical numbers of these simulations. So if this significant fraction of civilizations made it through to this stage where they decided to use their capabilities to create these ancestor simulations, then there would be many more simulations created than there are original histories, meaning that almost all observers with our types of experiences would be living in simulations. Going back to the observation selection effect, if almost all kinds of observers with our kinds of experiences are living in simulations, then we should think that we are living in a simulation, that we are one of the typical observers, rather than one of the rare, exceptional basic level reality observers.<p>The connection to existential risk is twofold. First, the first of those three possibilities, that almost all civilizations like ours go extinct before reaching technological maturity obviously bears directly on how much existential risk we face. If proposition 1 is true then the obvious implication is that we will succumb to an existential catastrophe before reaching technological maturity. The other relationship with existential risk has to do with proposition 3: if we are living in a computer simulation then there are certain exotic ways in which we might experience an existential catastrophe which we wouldn't fear if we are living in basement level physical reality. The simulation could be shut off, for instance. Or there might be other kinds of interventions in our simulated reality."
This universe is a simple computer program. Starting from the building blocks of life. Hydrogen has one proton and one electron, Helium 2, Lithium 3 and so on.. Adding one proton changes the whole element. Mixing these makes the whole universe. What we see as solid is 99% empty space. What we think we see is 1% of the visual spectrum. Soooo i wouldnt even bother thinking. We dont even exist.:)
A computer simulation of what? A universe?<p>How about this: the universe is an artificial life machine aimed at generating some interesting diversity. The intention is that the slime on planets begin performing galactic-scale engineering. Yes, we're a brilliant ant farm in God's den.
Anybody else who's played Minecraft :)<p>I've toyed with the idea, with the notion that the laws of physics are written such that it's easier and cheaper to simulate the universe.<p>But then one would have to ask, If the universe is a simulation, what is the seed number?
I believe it. I think that the fact that we can conceive of the concept strongly implies that it's possible, and therefore there's a pretty high probability that that's what our universe is.
I'm still leaning towards you all just being a figment of my imagination. I'm not crazy, but being the only being in the universe it's understandable that I would have imaginary friends.
It seems rather ontologically extravagant. I think they're vastly underestimating the amount of computing power it would take to seamlessly simulate a universe.<p>Still, there's one way to test the simulation hypothesis: build our own planet-sized universe-simulating computer and see if our own universe has a segfault.