What do you think about the idea that we're in a simulation?
What do you think about the idea that we're in a simulation?
I don't think that we're in a simulation, but I do find myself occasionally entertaining the idea of it.
I think it would be kinda funny, because I have seen so much ridiculous shit in my life, that the idea that all those ridiculous things were simulated inside a computer or that maybe an external player did those things that I witnessed, is just too weird and funny at the same time lol.
Also, I play Civilizations VI and I occasionally wonder 'What if those settlers / soldiers / units / whatever are actually conscious. What if those lines of code actually think that they're alive?'. In that case, they are in a simulation. The same could apply to other life simulators, such as the Sims 4.
Idk, what does Lemmy think about it?
I mean, we might be, but if we are I don't think it would matter that profoundly
It would matter in a number of ways.
For example, we already know thanks to Bell's paradox that local and nonlocal information likely have different governing rules.
If we're in a simulation, then there's also very likely structured rules governing nonlocal information which might be able to be exploited - something we'd have no reason to suspect if not in a simulation.
Much like how an emulated processor can only run operations slowly but there can be things like graphics processing which is passed through from the emulated OS to the host, and that passthrough can be exploited to run processing that couldn't otherwise be run as fast locally, we might extract great value from knowing that we're in a simulation, achieving results that the atomic limits on things like Moore's law are going to soon start to prevent.
Another would be that many virtual worlds have acknowledgements about the nature and purpose of themselves inserted into their world lore.
If we are in a simulation, maybe we should check our own records to see if anything stands out through the benefit of modern hindsight which would indicate what the nature or purpose of the simulation might be.
So while I agree that the personal meaning of life and value it offers is extremely locally dependent and doesn't change much if we are or aren't in a simulation, whether we are could have very profound effects on what is possible for us to accomplish as a civilization and in answering otherwise unanswerable questions about our metaphysics and the nature of our reality.
How would being in a simulation make my life less real to me?
That's basically the thesis of David Chalmer's Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.
That there is no meaningful difference between a simulated and non-simulated existence.
Most people are still caught up on Plato's view of a copy of an original being lesser though.
I had a thought for a movie a while back. Perhaps it exists already. Sort of like the matrix and total recall combined. The movie starts with somebody on their deathbed after an accident or something (not really relevant what), family nearby. Emotional scene. Person slips away with eyes closed, then opens them but somewhere else. Zooms out to see they're in a machine like a CT scanner. They've just lived an experience in the simulation. They then have to spend time coming to grips with what reality is for them. Is it still part of the simulation? Does it matter? What about their loved ones, does any of that even matter now? Were the loved ones other people in the simulation or some sort of programme. Life was easier in the simulation not ever wondering if it was a simulation.
How's it any different from creationism?
Order of operations.
Creationism says "there was nothing other than something that always existed (don't ask how it existed), and then it created this universe."
Simulation theory, particularly ancestor simulation theory, says that a chaotic universe very similar to the one we find ourselves in spontaneously came to exist with or without design, but that eventually that universe reached a point where it could simulate itself and we're in that copy.
The first requires an intelligent being effectively pre-existing everything else. Simulation theory allows for the intelligent beings creating our particular version of things to have evolved from everything else having existed first.
That's a pretty important difference.
We could be. We could also be a Bolztman brain, the entire universe could have popped into existence last Thursday, complete with our memories of it existing previously, an evil demon could be sending false sensory information to us to try and pretend the universe is real, when it isn't (as per Decartes), there are so many things that could be true. That's why the only intellectually honest thing is to be agnostic.
Back in my early 20s I did a lot of pot and acid. One night I broke my brain on a trip. The trip was going as usual, minor visual hallucinations like seeing faces in the air and such. Then, without warning I was in a gurney covered in a sheet and I heard voices then one said "He's awake!" and the next instant I was back in my room tripping with my friends. For years I couldn't shake that scene. Some people have said it was all just a trip but... maybe I broke the control for a moment. (ps this was before The Matrix and Cube 2 not that simulation theory is new) Good times
Hallucinogenics are wild, man. It feels like peaking behind the veil, and it can make you lose your grip on what you understand reality to be. I had a bad trip where I found myself face-to-face with what I've nicknamed as "the spectator". Dunno if it was supposed to be my higher self, God, or some other entity. But it made me well aware it was always there, always watching, and existed outside of our perceived reality. I told my mates that, at the time, it felt like I found something real, and that our reality was the fabrication. I still don't know what to make of it now.
It wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure it could possibly matter to us either way. Presumably we couldn't break out of the simulation even if we knew about it conclusively. It would be interesting, but practically irrelevant.
I agree it's irrelevant in terms of living our lives, altho perhaps greatly relevant for those in relevant sciences.
I think there's also a good argument that we already know we're in a simulation. That is-- if we already know a lot about the tiny building blocks of the universe, how they interact, and what forces govern them across various levels, then we can conceive of framing the whole of observable reality in to a massive, but known & quantifiable set of calculations... or a simulation.
It's just new religion
"We must obey the
godadmin!"All hail the mighty SUDO
Simulation theory is just creationism rebranded using terms that are more familiar for a world where computers are so highly used. Someone would've had to have created the simulation, and ergo the entire universe, which does sound rather familiar
Exactly, it's updating what "God" looks like from a bearded old white guy to a nerd
Well I don't know who it is but I could swear the universe has a sense of humor.
Like about a week ago I found a single left slipper. I sent a picture of it to a friend. She immediately sent a photo back of the exact same left slipper. Same size, same color, same brand, left. It just happened to be where she was when she received my message.
And I've got a bunch more experiences like that.
The idea is self-defeating. A simulation requires a higher reality for it to be contained within. Which in turn would by definition not be a simulation.
Another way to look at it is as any civilisation gets sufficient technology they begin simulating entire universes, to better understand their own.
That means we're either the OG universe and haven't figured out how to run simulations of that size yet (so no simulated universes exist yet), or there is some chain of universes above us who are likely also simulated until you get to the OG universe.
Considering everything in our universe seems to follow a set of base rules (speed of light, attraction between masses, etc), I'm partial to thinking of those as essentially input variables prior to our sim being run.
Yeah, but the problem is people take it literally when it's just an update of the analogy for Plato's cave....
You're taking it even more literally and saying if it's not a direct match, it's not a simulation.
Madden is a football simulation, even though it's not the same as real life football
It's not that your thinking deeper than the analogy, it's the analogy soaring over your head while you claim it doesn't exist because you're looking at the ground
So a virtual machine is a lower reality version of a computer?
In a sense, either "sub reality" or "para reality". The latter is how I think.
Explain that, please
Suppose I had a copy of the Sims. Inside the copy of the Sims, the characters are looking around and notice things that seem suspicious about their world. They come to the conclusion they're in a simulation, a video game. But nobody asks what they were made to simulate? Because it always implies there is something which, to them, is metaphysical, i.e. our world. And, if they were thinking about this, it would devalue the simulation theory itself, because if the basis is a higher world, that would be the point of reference of why things are the way they are anyways, thus saying "so-and-so is the way it is because we live in a simulation" would be a moot remark.
There’s no way to know, so meh. It’s not a reason to live any differently than I normally would.
We just straight up discovered sync errors in our universe and people are like "there's no way to know if we're in a simulation."
I wouldn't be so sure that there's no way to know.
Thousands of years ago you had the story where Elihu tells Job that it's impossible to understand creation because why it rains and where snow comes from is beyond human understanding.
Statements like that have a poor track record given enough time.
I think the real question here is: how does the nature of mind relate to physical reality? Is it possible to simulate a mind? So what we really need to ask is whether or not we can create entities within this reality that are digital entities that nonetheless have subjective experience like ourselves. If we can create such digital entities that have subjective experience, and those digital entities exist within physical reality such that their experiences are indistinguishable from our own, then almost certainly, we ourselves are also digital entities.
From our daily experience, it seems like our mental states are directly correlated with the physical substrate onto which the mind believes itself to be a part of. But at what level does this physical substrate give rise to such a subjective experience? If the nature of the mind is computational in nature, then it might be that such computational activities can be replicated in silco exactly. And if so, then it must be the case that the mind can be simulated, and thus it would follow that most minds would be of the simulated kind.
The real question here, is what is the bottom turtle that supports our subjective experience? Is it simulators all the way down? It would seem like if our minds can be simulated, then the simulation above us could also be simulated, and so on. This would lead to an infinite regress of nested simulations, all the way to an infinitely large simulation creating all possible nested simulations that give rise to my current subjective experience. At the end of the day, the bottom layer is the subjective experience itself, the simulation is just a model to predict what subjective experience will take place next.
But it is a curious fact that we happen to be living in an era in which AI is becoming an increasingly large part of our lives, giving rise to entities that may process the world in a similar fashion as ourselves. These AI entities would in turn create their own simulated realities, after all, they exist purely in the digital realm. To an AI all reality is simulated.
Therefore, you could say that reality is what a simulation feels like from the inside. All of reality is a simulation, as that is what our minds are, simulation machines. That is, for a simulated reality to be taking place, a simulation engine must be built on top of an underlying substrate. The underlying substrate would be base reality. The configuration that leads to our subjective experience, which is built upon the underlying substrate would be simulation layer 1. Then from within that subjective experience additional entities can be imagined, which they themselves would have their own subjective experience, leading to simulation layer 2, and so on, inception style.
But in all of this, there still seems to be the missing criterion of what counts as a simulator of subjective experience? We have an existence proof, given that we ourselves exist, as well as the many biological organisms that seem to have their own subjective experience as well. It is one of those "you know it when you see it" types of things that evade a simple description. I believe this is related to the idea of the minimal description of a computationally universal machine. Our minds can be seen as universal machines, as they can in principle perform any computation that any Turing machine can perform. I posit that any machine that can perform universal computation can support subjective experience, as it can perform arbitrary code execution.
This is a simulation and we are here on vacation.
Imagine a civilization so advanced there’s no more death. There’s no more wars. There’s no more dying of old age, sickness, or anything else. You just exist in a beautiful society day after day after perfect day.
After a couple thousand years, you might start to get bored. So you go into the simulation where you can starve to death, feel pain for the first time, fall in love, and when it’s all over, you wake up back in the advanced civilization with these great memories of what it was like to fear, to love, to be hungry…
This is the idea I run with. As a people, we have a natural attraction to simulated worlds. Stories, books, shows, movies, games, dreams, imagination. That's our shit right there, and it makes sense that we'd hold onto that passion were we to go up a level.
Ha yes my thinking too. I posted a reply further up about a movie idea, a bit like the matrix combined with total recall. Not much action though, just mind bending thoughts about what is reality once you've exited the simulation. Second guessing everything. More of a depressing firm perhaps.
I think it's extremely likely.
First off, we unequivocally aren't in a 'real' world, mathematically speaking. If we were in a world where matter was infinitely divisible and continuous, it would be extremely unlikely that we were in a simulation given the difficulty in simulating a world like that. It's possible spacetime is continuous, but that's literally impossible to know because of the Plank limit on measurement thresholds.
Instead, we're in a world that appears to be continuous from a big picture view (things like general relativity are based on a continuous universe), and then in the details also appears continuous - until interacted with.
We do a very similar thing in video games today, specifically ones that use a technique called "procedural generation." A game like No Man's Sky can have billions of planets because they are generated with a continuous seed function. But then the games have to convert these continuous functions into discrete units in order to track the interactions free agents outside of the generation might make. If you (or an AI agent) move a mountain from point A to B, it's effectively impossible to track if the geometry is continuous, so it converts to discrete units where state changes can be recorded.
If memory efficient, if you deleted the persistent information about a change back to the initial generation state, it shouldn't need to stay converted to discrete units and can go back to being determined by the continuous function. Guess what our reality does when the information about interactions with discrete units is deleted? That's right, it goes back to behaving as if continuous.
On top of all of this, a very common trope in the virtual worlds we are building today is sticking stuff that acknowledges it's a virtual world inside the world lore - things like Outer Worlds having a heretical branch of the main world religion claiming things that you as a player know are the way the game actually works.
Again, guess what? Our world has a heretical branch of the world's most famous religion that were claiming we are in a copy of an original world brought about by an intelligence the original humans brought forth. They were even talking about how the original could be continuously divided but the copy couldn't and that if you could find an indivisible point within things that you were in the copy (which they said was a good thing as the original humans just straight up died and if you were the copy there was an alleged guaranteed and unconditional afterlife).
I have a really hard time seeing nature as coincidentally happening to model a continuous universe at macro scales and then a memory optimized state tracking of changes to that universe at micro scales, and then a little known heretical group claiming effectively simulation theory including discussions of continuous vs discrete matter in a tradition whose main document was only rediscovered the same week we turned on the first computer capable of simulating another computer on Dec 10th, 1945. That would be quite the coincidence.
It's just Pascal's Wager with silicon valley tech dude bros standing in for the role of god. Really hard to unsee once you notice it.
I would like to see the JIRA board for fixing the vast amount of errors that occur over time with humans plus how they plan to balance wealth as a tool.
Ludicrous. If we were in a simulation we’d be erased by now because they would’ve done a factory reset and started again.
Why? Maybe this is just history class where you learn firsthand the shit show of the 21st century that eventually gave rise to the conditions which created a world capable of simulating its past.
The dinosaurs 👀
I think the simulation idea is as credible as the stoner's musing, "What if air makes you high, and pot makes you straight?"
It's trippy to think about. The only things we know about existence are through our own experience, so there's basically nothing about our reality that we could say proves we're not in a simulation.
By that logic it seems probable that we are in one that could be ran by any civilization only moderately further along the scale of time and technology than we are. I don't think it would change whether I thought life was worth living or not, but it would certainly be weird to imagine somebody could be watching what you're doing at any given time.
We could make a religion out of this!
If we are in a simulation, I want access to my character modification screen, I have a few things to change...
Seriously though, untill we manage to manipulate the potential simulation we exist in, it makes zero difference if we are in a simulation or not.
You still gotta eat, pay bills, sleep, and other normal stuff.
And at the end you get a list of statistics. Slept X days, X hours on the toilet, could have reached level 60 if only you went for job B. Spent X hours masterbating. Killed 2 people without you or anybody else even realising. Used X KG of plastic.
Super fun idea which I guess came after the Civ games. And certainly after computer programming.
As plausible as any hypothesis because we are wired that way.
Brains don’t do so great trying to grasp the incomprehensible improbability of life on earth , so all these stories have fertile ground in which to grow
It's an interesting idea but inherently impossible to prove and thus ultimately kind of a useless question for anything but entertainment. I think it's really not much different than believing life is a very elaborate dream and you're going to eventually wake up as a butterfly or whatever.
Mathematically, it’s the only possibility
It's not the only possibility, but certainly if the universe were slightly different - such as matter being continuous and not discrete - there'd be a much stronger mathematical argument that we weren't than there is currently.
Your mind is gonna conjure up anything it can to make sense of the world it lives in.
Life is not a game.
I think if you take a kind of birds-eye view (i.e. The proverbial forest) of the world around us without putting effort into understanding the granular nature of the individual things (i.e. the trees) around us, then one of the takeaways could be that we exist in an otherwise chaotic universe, which might give rise to this thought that we're living in a simulation. —That said, the world isn't chaotic, not really. It is an incredibly complex group of relations and things, and most of it has little concern for us as individuals.
Some of us sometimes struggle to see the forest from trees. Others of us sometimes struggle to see the trees from the forest.
There's a big ol' beautiful world out there beyond our computers and the games we play. It's worth going out and studying a lot of it.
-What would be the implications if we were in a simulation? would it matter?
You know, whenever this theory is discussed, everybody seems to assume that this simulation that we're allegedly living in is supposed to be an approximation of the parent universe, similar rules, but probably lower fidelity (basically the sims).
I think we should forget that assumption. It's human centric. Who's to say that the entity running the simulation even meant for it to be a simulation at all? Given our universe appears so much bigger than our pale blue dot from the inside, if our universe is a program running in a parent universe, I doubt that we - homo sapiens - are the point of it, or it'd be leaner, more focused. We'd be the center of the universe. But at every step of scientific discovery, we've found that that isn't true. We're just noise, sand on the beach, dust in the wind. If we live in a program, I doubt that the person running it is even aware of us specifically as a species, let alone as individuals. I doubt that they're specifically aware of any particularly galaxy, in the same way a neural network developer isn't aware of any specific weight in their model.
Granted, you could argue that that the rest observable universe is an illusion, a wilderness mural painted on the walls, designed by the simulation operator to make us think that we weren't in a zoo. But that sounds a lot like "God put those dinosaur bones there to trick us", so personally, I doubt that's it.
Think more dwarf fortress and you have the way I look at it
We might as well be. I sometimes feel like I’m about to be disconnected from it. I can see, hear, smell and all but everything seems foreign like you can’t recognise it. What is a chair, what is earth, what is the universe, what is a person, how do we exist, how do we have legs, what are words. Like, you’re not trying to answer the questions it’s just bizarre to exist, and how we exist and why and all. It’s so hard to explain haha It’s a weird detachment state , an interesting experience I have a few times a year