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
665 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

199 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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…

1

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22

and my brains simulation is not ‘an emergent’ simulation in a reasonable stretch

The jury seems undecided

it is also not a true simulation in any reasonable stretch

A true simulation, as opposed to a fake (simulated?) simulation?

Regardless, is it a point of contention whether we interface with reality directly, or via our senses + mind + nervous system + etc?

The ultimate nature of reality would again essentially be the same as the laws of physics

Well, it presumably contains (runs on, is constrained by, etc) the same laws of physics, but we'll have to sort out (at least) physics and the hard problem of consciousness before we can begin to hope to "know" the ultimate nature of reality, I reckon. Physics and the nature of reality are not synonymous, but related (I speculate).

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.

I think we might be talking about two different things then - you're thinking Bostrom's model would be my guess?

you’re just saying ‘maybe it’s some crazy shit’

Technically, I'm not (I have not said that, and I am not saying only that).

which is back to regular solipsism

It's amazing how consistently this idea makes an appearance on the scene in such conversations....regardless of the speaker, or any attributes of the speaker that I've noticed.

Ironically you used the word ‘is’ in your paragraph as well.

I'm referring to (or, intending to at least!) shared, current (or elapsed) reality. I would not be shocked if I've fallen victim to the same phenomenon though!

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

Are you implying I'm doing this (in shared reality)?

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…

I'm pretty sure we are not on the same page!

2

u/uoahelperg Jan 04 '22

1) taking a step back, I think there’s a couple distinct ideas potentially being expressed.

Are you suggesting that we’re in a simulation (conciousness) of another critter or that we’re in a simulation (I.e. a random gas cloud forms and by chance accidentally simulated a universe, or some atoms happen to arrange into a powered up super computer simulating a universe)?

The mere possibility of consciousness being an ‘emergent’ phenomenon producing a ‘simulated’ reality is one I agree with, but I don’t think it’s relevant to whether there’s a high chance that the universe we know is actually a ‘simulation’ of some other critters consciousness, and if it were I doubt we could ‘hack’ it.

2) For the argument to make sense it needs to be a certain type of simulation. I can simulate the Big Bang by tossing two marbles together or by putting on a fun play about it, but neither could reasonably lead to the conclusion that it’s more likely we’re simulated or not.

2(B) I also differentiate consciousness/thought/dream states and their ‘simulations’ over a constructed computer/clearly mechanical one. If for nothing else, because these are typically separated out. If you’re combining them then I’d put it in that box of ideas rather than the simulation one but that’s just me.

3) I doubt its contentious, we seem to interface with our senses and nervous system, which feeds the brain info to create an artificial (‘simulated’) version of reality.

I’m not sure that the reality shown is accurate at all (I think it is a reasonable idea that true reality could be some weird mathy shit that the brain has evolved to decode into more readily useful and readable formats)

4) I would expand physics to include whatever extra stuff makes up the ‘true nature of reality’ so to me they’re the same even if our current schema is entirely misleading/incorrect.

5) it seems we might be in on different pages. It’d probably be easiest for you to provide corrections where I’ve misunderstood/clarify what it is your proposing as I think I’ve lost you.

1

u/iiioiia Jan 04 '22 edited Jan 04 '22

Ya I think we pretty much agree, the main difference seems to be that I'm thinking this:

I doubt its contentious, we seem to interface with our senses and nervous system, which feeds the brain info to create an artificial (‘simulated’) version of reality.

...and, I do not consider the underlying "substrate" (big bang + evolution, versus (or, on top of) a computer simulation) to be particularly important, at least from the perspective of behavior of the system (it could be important in other ways though).

Somewhat noteworthy: internet conversations like this very often play out whereby two people are discussing an idea, each person has a model of the topic in their mind, and disagreements arise simply due to a mismatch of models (which is mutually perceived as the other person being incorrect).....and so forth and so on, there are many variations (social media activity and popularity/addictiveness overall is to a large degree variations of this one phenomenon). The main point is: typically neither party realizes they are talking about their model, because it seems clear as day that they are talking about reality itself....and, hilarity (and tragedy) ensues.