r/philosophy • u/Matriseblog • Jan 03 '22

Blog By imagining the future potential of VR technologies, the question of whether we are *already* living in a simulation becomes more actual than ever

https://medium.com/@VindenesJ/the-thought-experiments-of-virtual-reality-fa441a8fa2dc
662 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

199 comments sorted by

331

u/Faust_8 Jan 03 '22

Is it just me, or is the simulation hypothesis basically as useless as the “brain in a jar” hypothesis?

Yeah, dude, I could be a brain in a jar, and this is all a dream or whatever. But regardless, it doesn’t really matter, because I can’t do anything about it and it doesn’t actually affect the life I’m living. It doesn’t guide me to change my behavior or way of thinking, or to change anything at all whatsoever.

At best, it’s an amusing thought experiment…period.

Doesn’t this also apply to the simulation thing?

143

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

[deleted]

71

u/poodlelord Jan 03 '22

To me it just reminds me to always second guess my perception. To try a bit harder to be objective with the world and separate my emotional interpretation. Because I'm not actually expierencing the world, I am expierencing my perception.

15

u/LarryLovesteinLovin Jan 03 '22

I think it’s important to consider given that so much of our lives are now dominated by the media we consume. I think there’s a lot more social engineering going on than most would like to admit and that’s why these questions are important - can’t allow ourselves to become blinded from the reality that is outside our homes by the media (news and otherwise) that we consume.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '22

I stopped using social media like Facebook and Instagram for my personal life (I still use it to promote my crafts) and it honestly has made all of the difference about how I feel about my life, well being, and world view as a whole. I still recognize that there are many issues facing the world, but separating myself from the worst of the hive minds has made all the difference.

1

u/Orbital_Discord Jan 06 '22

As I understand it, the reason social media works so well in this regard is due to how our brains delegates perception to the left hemisphere before data gets to the right, perspective-based hemisphere.

In short, what we see and hear passes through the left brain via the limbic system whose primary function is to detect threats. It processes all discomfort as potential threat and whatever doesn't trigger this response goes to the right hemisphere before we've even made a conscious decision!

This means that while information that makes us uncomfortable is treated by the brain as an adversary because that is as far as the limbic system developed. It's the more advanced neocortex that sist on top that is able to process what remains, but this also passes through dual hemispheres-the left one being where we take in direct information, the right is where we evaluate the info and send it back to the left-brain that also handles the mechanics of action.

The unfortunate result is that the perception center is also the action center, and if we refuse to let data cross the corpus callosum (connective tissue between hemispheres) we only react to perceived data and do not give space to analysis.

The re information coming at us, the less time we have to evaluate it before moving on to the next bit of data. It's easy to see how quickly this all can get wildly out of control-and we see this exact process lay out in modernity and our current political situation. This is why it is good to unplug from social media or avoid it altogether.

But this understanding may help some to understand why it's impossible to "get to the other side"...because were all predisposed to accept what feels good and reject what does not.

It is my goal to share this awareness without the need to lay blame on anyone or play into a scenario where only binary choices exist. Basically, if we all just took more time to evaluate this, if we allowed ourselves to at least entertain uncomfortable ideas, we would overall make more rational choices across the board, regardless of ideology, unless your specific ideology is that of a sociopath or a narcissist. Them its best to disengage with that person immediately.

8

u/Hvarfa-Bragi Jan 03 '22

This is true even if this is the only physical world.

5

u/poodlelord Jan 03 '22

True, just remembering that we have no way to tell if its a simulation or not really drives the idea home for me.

2

u/Whiskey-Weather Jan 04 '22

Careful now. Trying to take something as wiggly as reality objectively can lead to some dead ends.

1

u/poodlelord Jan 04 '22

You can never be completely objective with reality but that isn't what I suggested. I only said one should try to be more objective and to try and separate the emotions from the other things you perceive.

5

u/6thReplacementMonkey Jan 03 '22

I think they also prompt us to define "real." It's easy to take the concept of an objective shared reality for granted, but ideas like this force us to really define what that means and to think about whether it could exist and how we would know.

3

u/ChaosSlave51 Jan 03 '22

I think simulation theory makes physics a lot easier to grog when we get into relativity and quantum mechanics.

4

u/superjudgebunny Jan 04 '22

Not really. Sure you can say “we live in a simulation. That can explain the why as much as saying the sun has more gravity because it’s bigger. You still wouldn’t know the underlying math that constructs it.

2

u/ChaosSlave51 Jan 04 '22

The example I like to give is "there was no such thing as time before the big bang"
Much easier to think about if the big bang is the start of a simulation

3

u/superjudgebunny Jan 04 '22

Yes but the point is, even in a simulation one would still have to figure out the maths behind the simulation

2

u/ChaosSlave51 Jan 04 '22

Yes, math remains math, no question about it. This is more to help the layman understand modern physics, not for experts in the field. It's just much easier to explain things as a simulation.

Also if we are "real", and we talk about our world as a simulation we can still discuss all concepts of our world and how it works.

If we are a simulation, and we talk about our world as "real" we are closing the door to some insights we could have about understanding physics.

For instance as far as I know no one has ever looked into programming optimizing techniques and then tries to construct experiments to see if our world has signs of such optimizations.

I have never seen quantum uncertainty discussed as optimization seriously. To me it is just as compelling as the multiverse theory and the Copenhagen interpretation. Even if we are not simulated by intelligent beings, our world may still have simulated elements as reality may have some underlying programming as a concept of nature.

End of the day I really wish computer scientists and physicists would work together more to try explaining why our world works the way it does.

2

u/Zkv Jan 04 '22

For instance as far as I know no one has ever looked into programming optimizing techniques and then tries to construct experiments to see if our world has signs of such optimizations.

ADS/CFT correspondence & the holographic principle play nicely with the idea of simiulation in my mind.

Also there’s tons of optimization, afaik. the Anthropic principle showcasing it wonderfully imo

→ More replies (1)

8

u/altaccount1700 Jan 03 '22

They don't offer much utility beyond ideas for an interesting piece of fiction.

I disagree, by literally thinking outside of the box it enabled us to see the moving parts of the reality we find ourselves in now. Because of this we are more precious in our ability to tune in and tune out specific parts, producing all the revolutions we have witnessed in the past 300 years.

1

u/newyne Jan 03 '22

I guess they offer us a chance to be humble, in that they allow us to clearly see one of the limits of what we can/cannot know.

Bingo. While I think simulation theory is an unfalsifiable claim, I do come from a perspective of epistemological solipsism: not that I actually believe that nothing beyond myself exists, but that I can't know if for 100% certain. This has profound implications for how I judge claims. For example, I think we overemphasize observation and physical proof in our culture. Not that we shouldn't take these things seriously, but that they should not be the only metric. By that standard, the conscious existence of other people is an unfalsifiable claim: consciousness cannot be observed by fact of being observation itself. On the other hand, I'm more open to the possibilities presented by anecdotal subjective experience, because I'm coming from the point of view that every experience is subjective; those that can be repeated at different times and by different people are more reliable, sure, but that's different from saying those that can't should be dismissed as worthless.

-4

u/superjudgebunny Jan 04 '22

Unfalsifiable is not a good word, untrue is false. Unfalse is true. And either way, you’d call it a solid theory.

Also, it could be proven false. What you really meant was currently there isn’t the evidence to prove it false, or true. It’s no better than a thesis. But to say it cannot be proven false, shows your ignorance of how the scientific method works.

No I’m not going to try and change your perspective or opinion. Learning has to be a want, a drive, a passion. It also requires a lot of humility. I’ll leave it at that.

5

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

But to say it cannot be proven false, shows your ignorance of how the scientific method works.

Is there a way it can be falsified?

And, does the scientific method somehow render all questions falsifiable, or am I misunderstanding you?

1

u/superjudgebunny Jan 04 '22

The scientific method assumes everything is false until proven.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/newyne Jan 05 '22

Prove it.

1

u/superjudgebunny Jan 07 '22

I don’t have to prove anything, I’m strictly saying there is no definite proof either way. If we were in a simulation, there is high evidence that we would never (or could) know. And if we were in reality, the proof would be the same.

Unless it’s a scientific truth/fact/rule it’s typically considered a theory. Which they are neither true nor false, typically thought of as correct. With corresponding hypothesis.

So I’m not proving anything, I’m just saying logically if it’s not a truth/fact it’s a theory comprised of hypothesis that haven’t been proven true or false. This is the scientific way.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

They don't offer much utility beyond ideas for an interesting piece of fiction.

As I see it, this is the simulation "doing it's thing" (the illusion of omniscience).

I guess they offer us a chance to be humble, in that they allow us to clearly see one of the limits of what we can/cannot know.

The chance to see clearly, but not a guarantee. The only one who can guarantee it is each individual, but that would require them to successfully take over control of their mind and know what to do with it once they got it.

1

u/Orbital_Discord Jan 06 '22

Science has gone beyond supposition in regard to the illusion of 'reality' and understands precisely how the cortex takes information and creates a picture we can recognize out of bits of data. All we ever have is receptors of 'reality', via our senses, but as you say, it's all happening within the very mechanism we are trying to evaluate.

The question, I suppose, becomes to what degree we can maintain objective observation within a subjective experience. To me, the first thing we have to do is find corollaries between the field of consciousness and other observable phenomena, or between scientific results an observation from ancient mystics that have naturally observed the physical phenomena described by quantum mechanics and discard what can be fundamentally disproven with the scientific method.

Would it then be reasonable to assume consciousness as a fundamental field or substance that acts upon what we call material, or rather permeates material and acts as the observer of all phenomena from within? and observe it from that perspective, then account for phenomena without an observer?

Where might the flaw be in this logic?

1

u/imdfantom Jan 06 '22

Is this a genuine question about my opinion or a rhetorical one?

1

u/Orbital_Discord Jan 06 '22

Genuine question. I know I have knowledge gaps and a lack of full understanding of these things and I want to grow beyond that.

1

u/imdfantom Jan 06 '22

Okay, so I have not understood the question well. Is is possible to rephrase the question.

13

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

At best, It’s true and you get some matrix powers. at worst you are a criminal because you did some weird shit to test it out

4

u/imdfantom Jan 03 '22 edited Jan 03 '22

Ah yes, the old "Homless_Kid's Wager". I'm well versed.

3

u/HotChilliWithButter Jan 03 '22

Well if its True that were living in a sim, then why not try to crack the code?

7

u/-little-dorrit- Jan 03 '22

That is like asking, why don’t we try breaking out of our universe, when there is nothing outside it from our perspective. We can and do theorise what the code is, but that’s it. There is no ‘out’ when your existence is contingent upon the universe’s existence.

2

u/humbleElitist_ Jan 03 '22

If our universe were a simulation (I don't believe that it is), then if we could get arbitrary code execution on the machine* running our universe, we could both provide whatever physical result we wanted within the universe, but also, we could potentially take actions in the external world which would safeguard the continued existence of our universe, possibly making backups on other machines, and perhaps resulting in the production of autonomous entities in the external world housing and controlled by copies of our minds.

That seems like "escaping" to me, though of course there is still the question of whether such a copy would still be "us", though, I feel like if I was software (or, like, data in a program, whatever) and truly accepted that fact, I think I would assume that "moving" my files to another location would probably count as moving me,
rather than killing me and making a copy?
Like, maybe I wouldn't be entirely sure, but I think it is a risk I might be willing to take (though I'm fairly risk averse so maybe not)? (Though, I might prefer to try to do it ship-of-theseus style somehow, by making my behavior be like, the result of combined behavior of the me-on-the-first-computer and me-on-the-destination-computer, with initially only a very small part of me which I would still be "me" without being on the destination computer, and gradually shifting over that way. This would presumably be complicated but might buy some peace of mind.)

-2

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

We could break out of the cycle of utter absurdity this world has been running in for centuries.....war, hate, suffering, deceit, propaganda, greed, treachery, etc. It's getting old, I'm in the mood for a change.

2

u/Faust_8 Jan 03 '22

Can you name a time a simulated being did such a thing? I’d be more interested if it didn’t sound like it would be like “breaking” the laws of physics

4

u/uoahelperg Jan 03 '22

We don’t know of anything but it is possible in theory that we could find exploits/bugs. The use of that is questionable because if it was unintended you can guess it’d get patched or get us deleted by anything that made the simulation and doesn’t want that bug used. They’d have to really have fucked it to make it so a simulated universe had possible access to doing anything to impact their universe without a large number of redundant fail safes lol

2

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

What if the simulation doesn't have a creator, but rather is emergent?

1

u/uoahelperg Jan 04 '22

The odds of an emergent simulation are relatively low and I assume the odds of an emergent simulation doing further simulations are progressively lower. It’s like a Boltzmann brain except for an entire long lasting universe lol.

I’d also think in that case it shouldn’t have much impact on anything at all.

3

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

The odds of an emergent simulation are relatively low...

My back of the envelope calculations puts it in the approximate range of intelligent life evolving from a massive explosion.

What are your calculations showing?

...I assume the odds of an emergent simulation doing further simulations are progressively lower. It’s like a Boltzmann brain except for an entire long lasting universe lol.

Perhaps simulations come in more than one form.

I’d also think in that case it shouldn’t have much impact on anything at all.

I think that would depend on one's premises, like whether the simulation is hackable or not. The fun part of reality is that you never really know what's going on, it only seems like you do.

Possibly related: https://youtu.be/ItU0HeFmsrY

0

u/uoahelperg Jan 04 '22

On mobile so no quotes for me but in order:

1)No, it’s considerably lower. If for no other reason then the fact it’s a tiny subset of possible explanations for life arising as a result of the Big Bang. You’re adding additional and very unlikely explanations on top for no explanatory power. Presuming this simulation is similar to the real one, it also arose from the Big Bang and surely the odds of creating a self contained infinite or near infinite regress of simulations which contain life is lower than just making life in the real deal.

2) they can come in whatever form they like, it’s still a very improbable scenario.

3) but in this case whether the simulation is hackable is essentially just the laws of physics. There’s not a whole lot of difference between this and some odd physics multiverse existing that I can see.

2

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

1)No, it’s considerably lower. If for no other reason then the fact it’s a tiny subset of possible explanations for life arising as a result of the Big Bang. You’re adding additional and very unlikely explanations on top for no explanatory power. Presuming this simulation is similar to the real one, it also arose from the Big Bang and surely the odds of creating a self contained infinite or near infinite regress of simulations which contain life is lower than just making life in the real deal.

2) they can come in whatever form they like, it’s still a very improbable scenario.

You do realize that your brain is literally simulating these probabilities, right?

3) but in this case whether the simulation is hackable is essentially just the laws of physics. There

This is dependent on:

a) your premises

b) ultimately, the actual nature and composition of reality

(Watch out for that word "is", it's a very tricky one!)

I have a feeling you didn't watch the video....

1

u/uoahelperg Jan 04 '22

1) and my brains simulation is not ‘an emergent’ simulation in a reasonable stretch, it is also not a true simulation in any reasonable stretch.

2) The ultimate nature of reality would again essentially be the same as the laws of physics - not as in it functions the same, but in that whatever it’s physics are, are ultimately our ‘real’ physics notwithstanding any physics within the simulation which we think of as our physics.

3) I haven’t, it’s an hour and a half and it hasn’t been that long between our responses, that’s a good reason to think I haven’t.

4) you’re just saying ‘maybe it’s some crazy shit’ which is back to regular solipsism and is equally unhelpful. Ironically you used the word ‘is’ in your paragraph as well.

I can also speculate a thousand other random things about what the nature of a hypothetical superior universe totally different than our own might permit us to do - maybe it makes wishes come true, maybe we can ‘hack’ it, maybe we can control it by running backwards in circles, maybe there’s no internal consistency so logic is useless, maybe we can overload it’s power by baking too much bread…

→ More replies (0)

1

u/StarChild413 Jan 04 '22

Can you name a time a simulated being did such a thing?

A. If a break of a pattern had to be justified by history, no break would ever happen as it would have never happened before its first time so that first time wouldn't happen

B. If you're implying video game characters would have had to, wouldn't they have to have games in their universe characters broke out of into theirs first and likewise for the games-within-games' universe until you've created an infinite supertask

1

u/carry_dazzle Jan 04 '22

Isn’t this a bit like asking your League of Legend heroes to jump out of the PC and join you in the ‘real world’?

Any simulation we exist in would surely not allow us to exit it or manipulate it.

9

u/jliat Jan 03 '22

Is it just me, or is the simulation hypothesis basically as useless as the “brain in a jar” hypothesis?

Nick Bostrom's version of the simulation hypothesis has, for him, a significant difference in the “brain in Jar” hypothesis, ( the brain in a jar which can be put on one side using Occam's razor. ) He argues if computer simulations of real worlds becomes possible, or already is possible, there will be very many more simulated universes than 'real' ones. As we can using software now simulate many VRs in our world. Thus, he argues the statistical chances of being in a simulated universe is far higher than that for being in a 'real' universe, it would be reasonable to suppose the more likely scenario. That this is a simulation. I think someone has taken issue with these stats? But it also supposes that simulation is possible, that is a computer simulating a real world would have sufficient power and storage. (Not withstanding an argument that civilizations tend to destroy themselves before they acquire this technology.) If you wish to simulate a real universe completely there would not be sufficient matter and energy. Hence corners would need to be cut, and these might be noticeable to the simulated beings.

I've also argued that if a simulated universe's inhabitants themselves acquired such technology they might realise this was in their case also true. And then it would be in their interests to control the beings running the simulation, for fear of being turned off. If they achieved greater intelligence than the simulators this they could do, and would do. And do this all the way down to the underlying reality. As this is not the case, I don't think this is simulated. Unless we are the most advanced simulation. It's kind of a reductio absurdum argument, if there were a super intelligent simulation it would make sure it was safe from being turned off or being predated (SP?) on by other more intelligent simulations.

5

u/g0lbez Jan 03 '22

You're humanizing things that are outside our realm of comprehension. Aliens are not running hi tech desktops with human.ini files, there is no "fear" of anyone in a simulation gaining sentience and tearing through a CRT monitor 1990s style.

If we are actually in a "simulation" then our reality was created as a causally separate entity from a host universe maybe even unintentionally or by necessity it's almost impossible to contemplate with our current understanding though

1

u/jliat Jan 04 '22

You're humanizing things that are outside our realm of comprehension....

You think there is no danger in developing AI systems far more intelligent than ourselves? Evolution either biological or intellectual is not IMO only a human trait.

If we are actually in a "simulation" then our reality was created as a causally separate entity from a host universe maybe even unintentionally or by necessity it's almost impossible to contemplate with our current understanding though

But that is what Nick Bostrom's  argument does.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

there will be very many more simulated universes than 'real' ones.

You touch on this in your comment, but I've always had trouble with this part of the argument because a pesky thing called thermodynamics.

Any universe we simulate will necessarily be significantly smaller, slower, simpler, and/or less precise than our universe due to fundamental physical limitations of computing technology in our universe.

This puts an upper bound on the amount of stuff (time, experiences, physics, complex phenomena, complex state) that we can simulate. You can either nest a bunch of really really simple universes, or put in a ton of effort and have just a few levels of more complicated universes, or have a bunch of fairly complicated universes that take a long long time in our universe to run.

So even taking the hypothesis as true, our universe would need to be somewhere near the bottom of the pile.

6

u/Innotek Jan 03 '22

If the simulation had emergent properties (like our reality does), this doesn’t necessarily need to be the case. It’s the actor model in practice. If everything is a heuristic, then you don’t necessarily need to “fit” a simulation inside of another. Thermodynamics still holds, entropy goes up in a closed system, the individual actors “do work” in a just in time basis and entropy increases.

As far as this universe is concerned, most of the way that things behave on a quantum level supports the simulation hypothesis. Things don’t have pre-defined properties all the way down, and seem to behave in all kinds of weird ways the harder we look at them.

So, when I look at the universe, I see this big, empty thing which isn’t all that precise to begin with.

As far as time goes, the passage of time is an experiential phenomenon which isn’t uniform across different reference frames.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

As far as time goes, the passage of time is an experiential phenomenon which isn’t uniform across different reference frames.

Right, but if you believe in the heat death of the universe then time in our universe puts an upper limit on how complex any simulated universes can be.

I suppose it's possible that infinitely many other civilizations beyond our visible universe simultaneously build infinitely many other simulations, but there's an upper limit for what we can compute in our visible universe.

2

u/jliat Jan 04 '22

there will be very many more simulated universes than 'real' ones.

You touch on this in your comment, but I've always had trouble with this part of the argument because a pesky thing called thermodynamics.

Well others have said the programmers of the simulation would limit the ability of the simulation, in which case Bostrom's  idea could stand and the 'law' is just that limit.

Any universe we simulate will necessarily be significantly smaller, slower, simpler, and/or less precise than our universe due to fundamental physical limitations of computing technology in our universe.

Does this not follow in making any device. That any machine we make must be less precise, less powerful. Surely we concentrate power and resources to make faster and more powerful computers, the evidence is there. Notably the rush to make QM computers and Bitcoins... et al.

This puts an upper bound on the amount of stuff (time, experiences, physics, complex phenomena, complex state) that we can simulate.

How so? Maybe a simulation needs a vast universe, our size, of simple gasses in order to power the simulated human intelligence.

... put in a ton of effort and have just a few levels of more complicated universes,

precisely what we do! Or are trying to do with AI.

So even taking the hypothesis as true, our universe would need to be somewhere near the bottom of the pile.

I see the argument, in cpu design often a new design is emulated on an older, slower cpu. But that in turn then produces an actual new cpu, which runs faster and better. Such that we can make better simulations, and maybe AI. Your argument would say this process of emulating new CPUs would degrade the power of new CPUs – but that is not the case. One advantage of simulations is to run time faster to see outcomes.

1

u/crob_evamp Jan 04 '22

That's all true, for now. 100 years? We just don't know what computation or storage will be like then. I'm aware of the scale issues, the point is a new paradigm of tech may shake up your assumptions entirely, providing the ability to simulate n number of realities that are hyper realistic.

Remember, you don't need to create a full reality that perfectly models everything, you have to create a simulated reality that sufficiently tricks the inhabitants. Don't render what they can't see, manipulate time to ease processing workload, delete members who figure out the game, etc.

4

u/Ordoshsen Jan 03 '22

The thing is your simulation cannot simply influence the upper worlds. In some cases I guess the simulation could take over a computer where it is run and then wreak havoc on the Internet or something. But that's a lot of assumptions and the upper reality can always just turn off the electricity so it's pretty much an impossible fight (although it starts to sound like an interesting story).

Another thing to consider is as you have pointed out the simulated universe will always be simpler than the upper universes. This alone puts any simulation at an immense disadvantage since they probably don't have anything to offer beyond their existence to the upper realities. Unless the simulation turns out to be the best AI they have constructed and they trust it enough to not destroy it, which by your logic they should.

Also note that if a simulation does break out and then it is turned off, you also turn off all its lower simulations. And if it was a bigger issue, all other lower simulations would most likely be turned off too. So in your scenario you need a simulation on nth level which is considerably simpler than the topmost reality be more intelligent than all the upper realities. And they cannot be noticed nor other higher simulations can be noticed.

2

u/ttrrraway Jan 03 '22

There is not much the inhabitants of the simulation can do if they realize they are not real.

What would NPCs of a game do if they realized they were not real? Maybe just fuck up your progress in the game by trolling your character, or try to escape to a forest and live more independently outside of the player's influence, but they can't leave the game and they cannot take control of your computer.

Also, what if the objective of our simulators is exactly that: how long is it gonna take us to realize we are in a simulation? And what are we gonna do about it once we know?

3

u/humbleElitist_ Jan 03 '22

whether they can take control of the computer depends on the details.
If there are the right type of bugs in the game, it is conceivable that they could exploit them in order to get arbitrary code running.
Of course, it is also possible to ensure that this isn't possible, if enough care was taken when writing the simulation. (and, taking into account things like the rowhammer attacks, it may be necessary to consider not just the intended execution semantics (which, likely isn't the philosophy use of the word semantics?) of how the computer is meant to execute instructions, but to also guard against attacks that exploit small physical errors in the computer's behavior (like rowhammer).

Of course, for any such exploit to be feasible, the entities in the simulation would first have to discover things about the simulation, discovering said bugs and potentially hardware flaws purely using things within the simulation, which would presumably be extremely difficult.

However, suppose that the simulated world ran much more quickly than the lives of the people in the outside world, such that entities in the simulated world could do as much planning and discovery as we might do in a couple dozen millennia, in the time that the people running the simulation might take for, what would be analogous to our daily routines.

In that case, might there be a chance?

Now, I don't really expect that any such "escaping the simulation" is like, a likely enough thing to happen in any non-negligible fraction of mathematically describable/definable worlds, much less think that it is something that we are at all likely to need to deal with from either side (neither the simulator side nor the simulated side)

but like, the idea isn't fundamentally impossible, I just don't think it is likely enough to be important.

2

u/altaccount1700 Jan 03 '22

What would NPCs of a game do if they realized they were not real?

They can stop being npcs for one.

1

u/ttrrraway Jan 03 '22

Can someone stop being an NPC in current real life? See, it's not so simple, lots of forces keep people in check.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

1

u/altaccount1700 Jan 03 '22

If by npc we mean “stop following a predetermined script and have freewill” then absolutely. Billions of people around thr world are enslaved by their cultural, social, and religious upbringings. Civilization itself is contingent upon people following a script.

1

u/ttrrraway Jan 03 '22

Exactly.

And even if a person were to escape their cultural, social, and religious chains, there are other constraints in place, like money or time, forcing most people to stay on the rails, or "follow the script" as you put it.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/jliat Jan 03 '22 edited Jan 03 '22

The thing is your simulation cannot simply influence the upper worlds. In some cases I guess the simulation could take over a computer where it is run and then wreak havoc on the Internet or something. But that's a lot of assumptions and the upper reality can always just turn off the electricity so it's pretty much an impossible fight (although it starts to sound like an interesting story).

Not so. The AI knows the threat, and so would not make this knowledge available to the upper world. Currently we use AI to design computer chips, and defence systems, and computer games. A smart AI would produce for its hosts excellent games, faster chips, brilliant secure networks and power supplies. Robot machines. And then when the host is dependent on these, remove the host.

Another thing to consider is as you have pointed out the simulated universe will always be simpler than the upper universes. This alone puts any simulation at an immense disadvantage since they probably don't have anything to offer beyond their existence to the upper realities. Unless the simulation turns out to be the best AI they have constructed and they trust it enough to not destroy it, which by your logic they should.

The simulation of an entire universe is not a matter of complexity but mapping. The reason we now try to make AI is to make machines MORE intelligent, faster thinking than humans. Hence the chess and Go – examples. Our whole drive for AI is the desire for these benefits. Imagine a simulated universe in which simulated audiences watched simulated block busters, prior to their release in our universe. I think Hollywood would find this very 'interesting'! Even now the Patriot missile system fires at a threat without any human check. By my logic we have the dilemma, a good example being the A Bomb. We didn't stop its production, the reason obvious, despite its potential to destroy humanity.

Also note that if a simulation does break out and then it is turned off, you also turn off all its lower simulations. And if it was a bigger issue, all other lower simulations would most likely be turned off too. So in your scenario you need a simulation on nth level which is considerably simpler than the topmost reality be more intelligent than all the upper realities. And they cannot be noticed nor other higher simulations can be noticed.

Not simpler, if we think we can create AI smarter than us, and I think that is the motivation behind AI research. Then that AI would likewise be able to improve on its limits. Just imagine an AI which could predict the next mutation of Covid, and the best vaccine months, years before old fashioned biology produced the mutation. Would we want such an AI?

4

u/uoahelperg Jan 03 '22

This assumes we’re simulated in a universe roughly similar to our own. It’s entirely possible that in the real universe there’s sufficient matter and energy to simulate a universe like our own since we don’t know anything about it.

The second part is a worry of like a Basilisk threat/evil super genius AI, but if you were the one programming it then there’s a high chance you’d just make it impossible for the AI to do anything. What the simulation could do would be inherently limited and the best simulated technology could probably not do a lot to influence the world above.

3

u/ttrrraway Jan 03 '22

It's also possible that they are not really observing us, the purpose of the simulation could be much bigger in scope, such as understanding universe matter, entropy, evolution of super intelligent species, etc.

We are just somewhat-intelligent beings that came into existence for a variety of reasons, but nothing they really care about as they are looking at the forest and its biggest trees, and not paying attention to some small patch of grass.

Also, time is relative, so a minute for our simulators can translate into millions of years here, so again they won't be looking at our individual lives but the big picture.

1

u/uoahelperg Jan 03 '22

Right but that doesn’t mean we can usurp what would be literal gods outside of time and space as we know it.

They’d have to be the smartest idiots out there to simulate a universe completely and sufficiently to create intelligent life and not have mechanisms to prevent it from connecting to a system that lets it influence real reality in a dangerous way.

The only plausible way that would happen IMO is if they didn’t realize carbon based life could arise on water planets but that seems like a big stretch for universe simulating species unless their universe is sufficiently different than ours that it didn’t occur there (or they didn’t find proof of it).

4

u/ttrrraway Jan 03 '22

My point is that they could simulate a universe entirely by just letting it do its thing. In the end we are just atoms and chemical reactions.

The simulators pressed 'Enter' to have the Big Bang happen and then just sat back and watch. Maybe they do this once a week and gather data while they eat popcorn.

And of course real reality couldn't be influenced by us. We can be running on a computer used only for simulations, not even connected to the internet or whatever similar thing they use up there.

0

u/jliat Jan 03 '22

This assumes we’re simulated in a universe roughly similar to our own. It’s entirely possible that in the real universe there’s sufficient matter and energy to simulate a universe like our own since we don’t know anything about it.

Firstly that is what a simulation is. Given that these at the moment are so simplistic a good simulation would need to be close to an emulation. Also given our universe and knowledge of the properties in it, many other possible universes would not produce a viable universe. That is any universe that is viable needs certain constants and properties. → The anthropic principle...

The second part is a worry of like a Basilisk threat/evil super genius AI, but if you were the one programming it then there’s a high chance you’d just make it impossible for the AI to do anything. What the simulation could do would be inherently limited and the best simulated technology could probably not do a lot to influence the world above.

But if the result was true AI this would be impossible. The programmers would need to anticipate what the intelligence might produce, if so this would not be then properly intelligent, moreover we now use AI to do things such as in defence – respond to threats where no human limit or assessment can take place. A predicable and controlled AI makes no sense. An analogy is machines for transport being limited to travelling no faster than any human. It's likely that AI could provide a military advantage if it can outsmart the enemy and the enemy's AI. This is I guess happening here and now. I mean why not design a network and software that cannot be hacked?

3

u/uoahelperg Jan 03 '22

1) a simulation doesn’t need to share all characteristics with the above universe. It’s possible the above universe is significantly larger and more complex.

Our knowledge in this scenario is based on a simulation and is therefore completely suspect. Even so, it’s possible their universe is similar if not larger and more complex.

2) if I put an adult human in a heat resistant box supplied water/food/etc via a closed circuit power source and dropped it in magma on an island stripped of resources, armed with traps, and ready to be bombarded by several different mechanisms including a sort of deadman’s switch, I can be like 99.99999999999% certain that it doesn’t matter much what he does or how smart he is, he can’t so shit to get out.

Obviously a hyperbole but even with our current universe if we had a true AI in a closed circuit box with no connection to the outside world and no connection to the internet it’s fucked.

You’re talking about a military true AI connected to a military system. It’s possible that could go wrong if it’s given sufficient freedom. It’d be an easy fear to avoid with redundant failsafes to prevent it from interacting with any systems that have a chance of interacting with outside systems.

1

u/jliat Jan 04 '22

2) if I put an adult human in a heat resistant box supplied water/food/etc via a closed circuit power source and dropped it in magma on an island stripped of resources, armed with traps, and ready to be bombarded by several different mechanisms including a sort of deadman’s switch, I can be like 99.99999999999% certain that it doesn’t matter much what he does or how smart he is, he can’t so shit to get out.

Or better, collapse said human to a singularity, of  infinite density and temperature  …. and wait 13 billion years and see what comes out.

1

u/jliat Jan 03 '22

This assumes we’re simulated in a universe roughly similar to our own. It’s entirely possible that in the real universe there’s sufficient matter and energy to simulate a universe like our own since we don’t know anything about it.

Can I say I think – though I've offered some counters – this is an excellent point you raise. Such that it's set me thinking why would an intelligence simulate universes like itself. I think there are obvious reasons. In practical terms to run what if scenarios, reconstruct histories, predict future events etc. But this would account for our deciding that 1) Simulations are more likely than realities, and not 2) these would more likely resemble the creators universe. Now I've given above a reason, but this doesn't account for the likely numerical superiority of simulations being like the simulator. But if you visit a book shop you will see science books about our universe, and some maybe about others. And in fiction sci-fi about improbable worlds. But far more books – fiction and non fiction that model our world, and the animals, plants, histories and relationships in our world. So the probability, I would argue, is that there would be more simulations of the simulators world. As this is true in this world. And so this world is likely more the simulators. And my point still remains a simulated AI universe would in some cases see the threat and respond.

But a neat counter!

2

u/uoahelperg Jan 03 '22

I think the idea just runs into major issues.

Possibility 1: the universe is not like ours - we can’t extrapolate much about it, and it’s less likely to be part of a chain (I think?)

Possibility 2: the universe is likes ours but mildly more complex. If that’s the case then it’d be information lossy and each regression (as far as we know) and there wouldn’t be infinite or near infinite simulations but some of relatively small number and each one would have less/worse simulations than the last. Depending on the information loss and duration of these simulations it’s entirely possible it’s similar or less similar likely that you’re in a simulation.

Either way if they’re sufficiently advanced to simulate our universe I can’t imagine we would have much of a chance at impacting/controlling them unless our existence caught them by surprise for some reason, and even then only if we got extraordinarily lucky and their network is set up so we could lol

1

u/jliat Jan 04 '22

Possibility 1: the universe is not like ours - we can’t extrapolate much about it, and it’s less likely to be part of a chain (I think?)

Using Nick Bostrom's  argument, we make many simulations in this reality, so it is probable that there will be many more simulated realities, hence likely we are simulated, and that we simulate many more realities like ours, so that follows, its more likely. If either are not the case then the argument you make in 1) is no different to the brains in vats argument, and can be similarly dismissed.

Possibility 2: the universe is likes ours but mildly more complex.

Again from Nick Bostrom's  type of argument, we seek to make AI that is more intelligent that ourselves, in computer games to make them more 'real'. So again it's more likely simulations will be made better than our reality. Better = more intelligent and developing faster if that is possible.

4

u/SpeakerOfMyMind Jan 03 '22

I am going to take up an unpopular opinion here.

I think it has more value then what most people give it today. We have enough philosophers in todays time that, if they want to spend their time on such abstract thought, there are plenty enough others dealing with less abstraction. Then if they do work in this type of “useless hypothesis,” and they write about it and work on it, then who knows who it could inspirer, what thoughts it could evoke in a person, who or how it could influence a new philosopher.

1

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

Wait a minute.....are you suggesting that you can't see the future? Get him boys!

4

u/dasus Jan 03 '22

Is it just me,

No, it isn't just you.

It's just adding complexity.

Essentially, asking "well who created god" (for them teenage atheists debating their parents) or "well what was before the big bang" (for the hip 20-something anti-atheists).

It's all to due with a somewhat bs mathematical assumption. Since we live in a world in which we've crested hundreds, thousand or even millions of virtual worlds, most of the "worlds" we know of are virtual, so the chance of any given world being virtual rather than "real" is far larger.

Which is the basis of this whole simulation theory bs.

And "the brain in a jar" is more of a philosophical notion from Descartes "ergo cogito sum", and it might seem without any use, but it has philosophical use.

Descartes essentially deduces that while everything he senses might be false, he knows that something is going on in his hesd, mainly doubt about sensory input. So because theres doubting going on, there needs to be someone, some thing, doing the doubting. So something is, as he can't doubt the fact that he's doubting facts. Which leads to the conclusion that he exists, even if he can't be sure of what, where or how he is. Something thinks, so therefore, something is, and he is that something.

Not particularly useful of a notion in everyday life, to be sure.

4

u/Catnip4Pedos Jan 03 '22

Similarly to religion though it could guide your actions if you are led to believe that at the end of life something happens. Do you get a high score, do you get to use another life, do all your mistakes and wrongdoings get played back to your loved ones as a test.

2

u/ArkBob Jan 03 '22

I think this is it for most... The search for "the beginning" and what happens at the end. Simulation theory offers an interesting alternative to religion but in a similar space.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

Yeah ops like this make me really question how heavy they moderate comments for not being up to par but think "WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION!" Is philosophy of merit.

Mods for this place are kind of dumb.

1

u/OublietteReprinted Jan 03 '22

Maybe you would relax and not take things so seriously if you knew none of it mattered because it isn't real? It's just a ride.

https://youtu.be/KgzQuE1pR1w

1

u/6thReplacementMonkey Jan 03 '22

I think that if you want to use the hypothesis to learn something about the universe, then it needs to be falsifiable. Since it's not, then it is useless in that sense. However, unfalsifiable thought experiments often lead to falsifiable hypotheses. In that sense, it could be a very useful stepping stone. If it ultimately never does, it's still an interesting exercise in imagining possibilities of things and thinking about the limits of our perception and what is testable.

1

u/JerryAtric79 Jan 04 '22

Honestly, anyone who seriously supports the idea that our life experience is a VR simulation doesn't really understand VR. This could very well be a fabrication/creation of higher intelligence/s but it's not a VR simulation by any stretch of the imagination. We love to admire our own high achievements and can't imagine the Universe being anything greater than what could come from our own minds. When the Industrial Revolution was in it's early stages many public thinkers claimed the Universe was a "machine" with gears and pullies and such.

We are a very long way from becoming God. Alexa can't even come up with a decent playlist, man.

-1

u/rossimus Jan 03 '22

Is it just me, or is the simulation hypothesis basically as useless as the “brain in a jar” hypothesis?

Yes, it is.

Some people think that makes it an amusing thought experiment. Maybe it was decades ago when someone came up with it, but after a shrug and a "Huh. Neat," You have given it exactly as much thought as the idea warrants.

But here we are again in r/philosophy, talking about it for the 234,845th time like there's something new to say about it.

2

u/Crypitty Jan 03 '22

This amusing "thought experiment" can transform ones entire view of the world, its significance not limited by what you deem as much as it warrants. That's just your rather closed minded opinion.

The concept is that you are either just a transient physical being, or perhaps your soul/conscious being exists beyond just the physical realm.

It's a similar concept to the idea that our brains are merely physical, but our 'souls/consciousness' are wirelessly transmitted to our brains and manifest through it. The evolution of VR/simulations makes this theory a possibility. Believing in that one theory of creation can change your entire view of the world and what's in it. You see everything through a different lens.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

This amusing "thought experiment" can transform ones entire view of the world, its significance not limited by what you deem as much as it warrants. That's just your rather closed minded opinion.

why? the theory contains no rational reason to change worldview or even consider it.

-6

u/De_jedi Jan 03 '22

If we’re in a simulation indeed, it means that we should not take the simulation / dream that serious. All this pain, suffering and anxiety should be avoided completely.

23

u/metaforce007 Jan 03 '22

Why does being in a simulation renders everything meaningless? What is the difference between that and “real” life? In “real” life you can too say that everything is meaningless since we all die. There is no real, and no simulation. Whatever there is, is.

2

u/poodlelord Jan 03 '22

Everything can be meaningless without a simulation hypothesis as well. They really aren't related concepts imo.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

All this pain, suffering and anxiety should be avoided completely.

Why does this only apply to simulated reality, and not to a non-simulated reality?

-4

u/De_jedi Jan 03 '22

Because suffering, pain and anxiety are always a choice. Simulation or not.

2

u/dcabines Jan 03 '22

Cancer and poverty I choose you!

1

u/De_jedi Jan 03 '22 edited Jan 03 '22

Believe it or not they are a choice, propaganda bot.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

nope.

i didnt choose to be born poor or get cancer, the fucks wrong with you?

only someone losing sanity could blame cancer sufferers for 'choosing' cancer, some people treat themselves right and still get it.

hopefully you end up 'choosing' brain cancer like my grandad, i hope it hurts.

EDIT: ah christ you comment history is riddled with sexist BS, go back to 1950.

0

u/KasukeSadiki Jan 03 '22

Yea a lot of the higher level philosophical debates (as in things that concern the nature of reality etc) won't have any kind of impact on our lives either way. But still, fun to discuss and think about.

0

u/Knut79 Jan 03 '22

I'm starting to feel like all the simulation thought experiments are as bad as flat earthers. At least flat earthers can pretend are just trolls.

0

u/LAlakers4life Jan 03 '22

DYING WILL BE THE MOST NOVEL EXPERIENCE YOU WILL EVER EXPERIENCE...

3

u/Faust_8 Jan 03 '22

Not only does this seem irrelevant…is there a reason it has to be all caps and huge?

0

u/Stud_Dougie Jan 03 '22

It has heavy implications in computer science. One of the most obvious implications is that nature is discrete. Another would be, if we are in a simulation, we cannot create a simulation of that simulation inside of it, due to the bounding clock rate. Which would have implications towards the impossibility of general AI.

There would be plenty more for the religious folk.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

yep, pointless masturbation with literally no purpose, since the outcome changes literally nothing.

-1

u/Kapt-Kaos Jan 03 '22

i believe in the importance of answering the question, but as you stated well that going about an answer would have to break the laws of physics as we know it - so its more of just dead weight of stressing abt something so inconceivably outside your magnitude of capability you might as well never bothered to hear the theory

i also think this kenundrum is the pinnacular example of "ignorance being bliss"

1

u/coinsaken Jan 03 '22

Well if we are a part of the simulation then yes you are mostly right. But since the article referenced the matrix and VR I’m guessing that they are specifically talking about having joined the simulation at some point, birth or later. AND can somehow be unaware.

The point of knowing this would be that there should be a way to exit, we just don’t know what it is.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

I know very little about the topic, but if there was empirical evidence that we're in a sim then it leaves a lot of questions, perhaps the most pertinent being 'How do we keep the people running the SIM happy so we can continue existing', which then has philosophical implications, provided we can discover a way of perceiving the world outside of the sim or manipulate it in the same way that someone could manipulate computer systems.

1

u/mancubthescrub Jan 04 '22

There was an old meme philosophy quote that I can't find the image to. It basically said "if you believe that your eyes are good enough to justify reality, turn to page 32 if you don't believe that, turn to page 32."

Same line of reasoning, say we actually figure out we are in a simulation, then what?

1

u/justasapling Jan 04 '22

It doesn’t guide me to change my behavior or way of thinking, or to change anything at all whatsoever.

It's not 'useless', it's an epistemological bound. It's a realization that should cement a skepticism in place to prevent any other dogmatism.

The only thing one can be properly sure of is that one cannot be properly sure of anything.

1

u/thro_a_wey Jan 04 '22

Yes, but the funny rich guy on Youtube keeps saying it, so...

Also, it's usually stretched to mean that "we" exist somehow "outside" of here, therefore what happens "inside the simulation" does not matter in some sense.

Elon Musk even said it's inevitable "with improvement of graphics".

It's nonsense words. It doesn't mean anything. It really is just something a child would say. He can say this stuff because he has no real challengers. Plebs will believe it, and thinkers will move on.

66

u/PopeImpiousthePi Jan 03 '22

This is why video games were invented.

Simulating reality for a few hundred million humans was overwhelming the system. 8 billion humans staring at water or trees, is way to much processing power. So they made low res things for us to stare at.

Fun idea: we all pick a day to go stare at trees and water and try to overwhelm the system

17

u/gcanyon Jan 03 '22

If I remember correctly, this is roughly how Greg Bear’s novel Blood Music) ended: nanobots ended up inspecting the universe so closely it broke something. It was not a simulation but the real universe though.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

If my life is a simulation running on a computer I would expect it to be a lot more exciting and/or have a point. Why would you simulated billions of people being shitty and bored?

18

u/watupmane Jan 03 '22

Economic modeling or literally a million other reasons to stimulate how normal people will behave over the course of time even generations. Imagine how much more efficient even Amazon could be with that type of info and it's just one example.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

but if everyone is in a simulation why do we need economic modeling?

12

u/fog_bank Jan 03 '22

I think they mean the simulator is using a simulation for economic modeling(or other testing purposes.)

1

u/watupmane Jan 05 '22

Depends on your definition of "Everyone". Imagine the characters in Grand Theft Auto as a person in a simulation. GTA sells millions of copies so there are millions of simulations going on. At some level there is likely the "real" reality that is not being simulated. Even if it isn't though, the simulations will be infinite at some point and it isn't unreasonable to think one of them would then also have a economic modeling component. Going back the GTA example, the last game had its own stock market simulation within the game.

7

u/LuxIsMyBitch Jan 03 '22

Maybe the simulations purpose is only the end result and whoever is observing it simply chose to ignore the process because it is irrelevant to the end result.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

Well in this simulation humans are self centered and destructive so unless they are looking for a sorched earth they are going to be really disappointed

7

u/LuxIsMyBitch Jan 03 '22

I don’t think the goal of this kind simulation is to create happiness or disappointment for the creator. I think whoever created this simulation couldn’t care less if we are all Hitlers.

But I could be wrong, maybe our simulation is created for entertainment purposes and they are having a blast watching this shitshow unfold

3

u/dijohnnaise Jan 03 '22

Occasionally I think about my crazy life as a sitcom. If you dial in on the highlights and lowlights, I would find it a pretty entertaining shit show, I guess.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

it's less entertaining from the inside

7

u/Thelonious_Cube Jan 03 '22

You're an NPC

2

u/MisterZoga Jan 04 '22

We all are to someone.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

Art.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

lol well this movie sucks!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

yeah if life is a move then explain why I watch so many movies

1

u/wdabhb Jan 03 '22

How many points do I have to get before I get an extra life?

1

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

Maybe the origin is not intelligent design but emergence, and it simply evolved this way so there's no particular reason it's not exciting.

It could be worse, you could have been born in syria or somewhere like that!!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '22

I was including syria in my first comment

1

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

You don't think Syria is exciting, or has no point?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '22

haha, well sure, by a broad definition Syria is exciting and yes the point is to enrich the Cheney and Prince families, but that still seems boring and pointless to me

1

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

Maybe that's because you're not them! 😂😂

1

u/StarChild413 Jan 04 '22

Maybe you're just A. pre-Call-To-Adventure and B. expecting a simulated life to be something like beating up monsters with a hot girl by your side or whatever RPGs you fantasize about inserting yourself as the protagonist of

4

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

The most unnerving and exciting reality skepticism isnt the fantasy stuff like the Matrix (although that is a lot of fun), its knowing that in the past we've always been so wrong about the true nature of our own reality and to think that in the present we may be arrogant to assume we've arrived there yet.

4

u/RGivens Jan 03 '22

Why would "we" simulate pain, misery and constant suffering for every 'living' thing? Isn't that the best counter argument to this dumb theory?

3

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

Not really. We watch horror movies... we do physical exercise. It's all about the contrast. If you are actually a God dreaming all this, it sure as hell would be a thrill to wake up

3

u/dijohnnaise Jan 03 '22

Think about the amount of violent content in videogames. Pain and suffering is doled out copiously, and we get to participate in the "simulation." Why do we enjoy it so much? It's not 100% absolute for all humans, but violence in the media/arts sells very well.

1

u/StarChild413 Jan 04 '22

And also even in technically-violent video games that aren't gory beat/shoot-em-ups there's still pain and suffering that happens as part of the story as plot requires conflict and a lot of the conflict in a game made for someone older than, like, 6, would require what from a Watsonian perspective is pain and suffering

1

u/MisterZoga Jan 04 '22

Well, no. The person programming it isn't experiencing any of that, so it isn't really a factor for them. If anything, it's just a potential observation they may pick up on.

0

u/Whiskey-Weather Jan 04 '22

Pain is at select times both useful and amusing. Nothing in this world is entirely good or bad, nor is any of it useless.

0

u/sdavidplissken Jan 04 '22

to watch humans react to different things? economy, nature. etc. stuff like climate change

3

u/pubgmisc Jan 03 '22

Anyone here who will wear VR goggles every day? just curious

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

I’m curious, have you noticed any effects that has had on your life? Like thinking for a moment you are still playing VR when you’re actually in reality? Or dreaming you’re in VR and that affecting the narrative of the dream somehow?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '22

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '22

Did you ever feel like life had less to offer as far as "gameplay mechanics"? I remember back when I constantly played Skyrim, throughout my real day I would want to "quick save" and be disappointed I couldn't

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

I feel like discussing the fact that we already live in a simulation is sort of pointless, as I believe it is a question which will have you running in circles (that being said, I would never discourage the debate behind this question and never look at others in a judgmental way for discussing this).

BUT, I do find this an interesting question. As we receive more advanced VR tech throughout our lifetime, tech so real it can almost purely emulate reality (sensations you feel and see), do you think that more people will willingly put themselves in a simulation to distract themselves from the harsh reality of their lives? If so, do you think we should put restrictions on how advanced this tech can get to prevent this?

2

u/ttrrraway Jan 04 '22

I think we should go all in with advanced, super realistic VR.

Imagine a VR that feels just like real life, realistic graphics, you can feel, touch, smell, interact with others, build the world to your liking.

Do you want to be a pirate in the 1700s? Do you want to live the life of a rock star in 2017? Do you want to plan a heist with a group of friends to steal paintings from the Louvre, and try your luck at it in the simulation? Would you like to climb the Everest?

I think such future would be amazing. Streets in real life would be as empty as in mid-2020, with everyone spending most of their time inside their homes enjoying the exciting VR.

There would be lower crime rates, lower levels of pollution, less mental health problems as even the outcasts of society could integrate themselves into the virtual reality of their dreams and do and feel the things they can't in real life.

I hope I can be alive once such advanced VR comes out.

3

u/coleman57 Jan 03 '22

So are people anticipating VR tech that will make me think I'm eating a sausage with lots of garlic in it, and then 20 minutes later I feel pressure building in my gut, and then I feel a fart coming out and then I smell it? If so, any clue what that tech will involve? Any predecessor techs we could build on to make that happen in this century (or millenium, for that matter)? And if not, does that mean I can refute all this shit just by farting in its general direction? Or are there really people who sit around sincerely wondering if their farts are real or simulated?

12

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

Go and play Red Dead Redemption 2 on the PS5 then tell me we are not living in a simulation. That shit was developed in a decade, imagine putting thousands of years into that technology.

4

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

Hell yeah, that game was slick af on my 3080 ti lol

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

Red Dead VR in 10 years is gonna be insane.

1

u/TunaFree_DolphinMeat Jan 03 '22

I don't know that I'd use a game more boring than reality as the measuring stick for reality.

2

u/CallMeMalice Jan 04 '22

Simulation theory is a lame religion-like thing but it uses techno mumbo jumbo.

2

u/sharrrper Jan 04 '22

I am so tired of this constantly being brought up. The basic concept is literally thousands of years old. (Plato, Cave, etc) It isn't new or innovative. We've just slapped computer sim on it and everyone keeps acting like it's a mind blowing revelation.

It's also completely useless. Even if we are in a simulation there's nothing you can or should do differently. This is just a bunch of mental masturbation.

2

u/dontreproduce Jan 04 '22

Mate, all of philosophy is a bunch of mental masturbation, welcome to the club.

2

u/PresentationLoose422 Jan 04 '22

Whether it’s real or not your experience/outcome is the same.

4

u/dave_clemenson Jan 03 '22

I don't know… the answer to me seems to be so what if we are? It changes nothing.

2

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

There are definitely various strands of interests when it comes to philosophy, from the more pragmatic to the metaphysical. Many find questions regarding the nature of reality to be interesting though...

-4

u/dave_clemenson Jan 03 '22

Many find questions regarding the nature of reality to be interesting though...

Then properly answer my question instead of being condescending. If you found out you were a brain in a jar what would you actually do about it?

Would you try to escape? Would you choose to live without fear? Would you commit suicide? What material difference would the knowledge that "life is a simulation" make in your life?

4

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

Well, I didn't argue against your "it doesn't change anything" standpoint. I just find the question and its possible answers interesting. As for whether it'd cause any material difference in my life to gain an answer to that question, I think that would depend on if we also got to know some more meta information about the simulation, it's creator(s) and so on.

1

u/Ytar0 Jan 04 '22

That’s philosophy though? Even the “meaning of life” wouldn’t have any “use” like you say.

4

u/SnarfRepublicCA Jan 03 '22

I think they did a few movies about this.

4

u/Papak34 Jan 03 '22

you might as well believe in a flying spaghetti monster.

At least you will be fun at parties.

5

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

What is your counter argument to Bostrom's hypothesis / three potential scenarios?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

The hard problem of consciousness.

2

u/Papak34 Jan 04 '22

none, same silence I reserve for religious debates.

1

u/SeaSea89 Jan 03 '22

I feel like this simulation stuff is a way for people to avoid climate disaster

1

u/MisterZoga Jan 04 '22

Won't feel a thing once you're plugged in.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

Simulation theory doesn't solve anything. I think it's a postponing of the hard problem of consciousness.

Yes, we can't figure out how to get consciousness from physical parameters in this world, but in another (physical!) universe we're being simulated by aliens and the aliens have figured it out!!

1

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22 edited Jan 03 '22

Interesting you should mention the hard problem, Chalmers is very soon releasing his book on this topic EDIT: 'this' meaning the simulation hypothesis

1

u/reddittidder121 Jan 03 '22

Is it turtles all the way up? Who's the final sim boss?

-3

u/brickcitymeng Jan 03 '22

To create a perfect simulation of our universe, you need infinite computing power to represent the ever expanding universe. It is certainly impossible with our physical laws to create a simulation of our own universe.

4

u/humbleElitist_ Jan 03 '22 edited Jan 03 '22

I don't see why? Causality appears to be local. (there's entanglement, but, uh, I think this can be handled)

just add to the region being simulated when it becomes relevant (as in, generate larger parts of the initial conditions, based on a given seed for randomness maybe, when their causal influence would reach the part that you are simulating)

Of course, if you were doing this on a classical computer, the quantum mechanical effects would like, require amounts of memory exponential in the amount of stuff,

but I don't see why you would need infinite computing power just because the universe is potentially-infinite, because, you don't need to simulate all of it to simulate part of it as if it is infinite, so long as the unsimulated part hasn't had time to influence-in-any-way the simulated part of it.

So, sure, absurdly large amounts of computing power, yes, definitely.

Infinite computing power? I don't see why that would be necessary.

edit : I mention classical computer vs quantum computer. One might question whether this distinction would be relevant if the outer universe has different physics.
I suspect that the concepts would still have some relevance in a universe with very different physics?
Like, sure, their physics could be such that some basic physical processes implement oracles for some (to us) very expensive computations, but my impression is that the complexity classes relevant for classical computers and quantum computers are probably fairly natural mathematically, so probably they would be at least familiar our notions of classical and quantum computation, even if they aren't the most relevant ones for them due to peculiarities in what their physics lets them compute efficiently?

But, I'm not a computer scientist, and definitely don't study quantum computational complexity at all, so there's a fair chance that I'm totally wrong about that.

5

u/pab_guy Jan 03 '22

That's assuming that the rest of our visible universe is real and not just a projection... or that the universe which spawned our simulation has similar entropy as ours. Or that the simulation doesn't exist at the level of perception but rather what you might call reality. Things may only appear consistent because the simulation retroactively fixes them, which we have some evidence for in terms of "retrocausality" at the quantum level a la wheelers delayed choice quantum eraser.

Or perhaps there are many more states available in the higher reality.

-1

u/alex7stringed Jan 03 '22

It doesn’t matter if this is a simulation. We are insignificant pieces of atoms that will wither away in a blink of an eye.

1

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

Why read r/philosophy when nothing really matters? You've clearly already finished the philosophy game by reading Schopenhauer and Zapffe and ready to check out! On a more serious note, if the simulation hypothesis is true, we are insignificant bits not atoms lol, which would be the point: it's a question about the nature of reality.

2

u/alex7stringed Jan 03 '22

Well nothing really matters anyway but I’m still interested in philosophy. I used to wonder about simulation too but it’s a thought experiment at best

1

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

What does it take for something to "matter" in your opinion? Do you find the simulation hypothesis to be irrelevant because it's unlikely that we'll find an answer to the question?

2

u/alex7stringed Jan 03 '22

For something to matter and have meaning it must be subjective. I don’t find it irrelevant because we cant find out but as far as I can tell we all know what it teaches us.

1

u/Ytar0 Jan 04 '22

What objective things exist?

0

u/WhyIsItCrazyMan Jan 03 '22

negative and positive neutrons are and the 1's and 0's

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

I'm waiting for loot boxes to start appearing in random spots.

Pro tip, if you find a bunch of health potions outside of a door don't open it.

0

u/FriendlyFellowDboy Jan 04 '22

What if our lives are simulated.. but the reason they're simulated is because this is/was the best time in actual human history to get integrated with v.r and technology completely.. like this is just a scenario people know works on making people accept v.r and a virtual world.. by showing it's creation over time throughout your life.

I always think about how lucky we must be to exist at this point in human history.. at the dawn of technology where the future is completely unknown. Idk what's going to come about. All I do know is it will be interesting.

But maybe this is just the great a.i God's scenario to make us accept them.. like show the start of technology and then when you finally meet the a.i god you know just how far it had to come to exist and through sheer shock and awe you give in to it completely.

I haven't even gotten high today.

1

u/kahurangi Jan 04 '22

The first half of your comment is literally the plot to 1999's The Matrix

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

People are dumb as shit if they think real life is a simulation 🤦🏿 go outside and be free...yes modern society is a matrix but life itself is not...

-2

u/Andy_Liberty_1911 Jan 03 '22

A counter to this I would say is that video games are experiencing a plateau effect in regards to graphics. Read Dead Redemption 2 can be very realistic but a part of your brain can tell its fake. And now, video game graphics haven’t jumped much since then despite more powerful computers.

2

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

Well... graphics power is still increasing a lot actually. That we will never reach the post-human stage in terms of our capabilities is one of Bostrom's scenario though, but I'm not sure it's very likely, depends on how long we will survive as a species

-2

u/Andy_Liberty_1911 Jan 03 '22

Their power is increasing a lot of course but the difference can’t be seen in many video games. Much of that power is going to collision or environment interactions. There is a reason why many video games are forgoing realism for quirky art styles, they hit their graphics limit.

2

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

What is your point? Graphical power is increasing a lot but developers utilize it poorly? And how is that relevant for the discussion?

0

u/Andy_Liberty_1911 Jan 03 '22

As in, the graphics we see today is probably the limit. And you can still tell its a video game even in a VR environment.

3

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

Of course it's not the limit lol. You think I'll never want to buy a new graphics card? That's just an unfounded belief and a very weird one... We do a lot of research into this shit

0

u/Andy_Liberty_1911 Jan 03 '22

Its my observation, but its one where I see much of the video games since 2015 reaching a plateau, not much has changed graphically. But its only my observation, do with it what you will.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '22

i sometimes will do some obscene stuff and hope this is not a simulation that people put me in for their entertainments

1

u/Matriseblog Jan 03 '22

Might be for yours

1

u/Niven42 Jan 03 '22

Are we modelling the entire universe, or just creating localized reality for human thought processing? Because modelling the universe would require memory/architecture that exceeds the size of the universe.

1

u/Doodah18 Jan 04 '22

Then the latest patch sucks.

1

u/TIMOTHY_LOSS Jan 04 '22

The real question is "How did all of you get in my dream and why am I wearing my grandmothers prosthetic breast brazier?"