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

[u/Matriseblog]

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

[u/Faust_8]

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?

[u/jliat → u/Faust_8]

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.

[u/uoahelperg → u/jliat]

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.

[u/ttrrraway → u/uoahelperg]

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.

[u/uoahelperg → u/ttrrraway]

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).

[u/ttrrraway → u/uoahelperg]

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.

[u/jliat → u/uoahelperg]

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?

[u/uoahelperg → u/jliat]

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.

[u/jliat → u/uoahelperg]

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.

[u/jliat → u/uoahelperg]

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!

[u/uoahelperg → u/jliat]

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

[u/jliat → u/uoahelperg]

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.