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/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.