Can anyone make a good case against the simulation argument?

The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Dear lampsalot,

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

It's just a specific extrapolation of the old, "if anything can happen, it will happen."

If the universe is infinite, then a monkey will one day type out the complete works of
Shakespeare, and a jumbo 747 will spontaneously coalesce....it is the nature of infinity.
All things are possible, given enough time and enough opportunity.

So no, I cannot make a case against the simulation argument because as far as we know,
infinity exists...

reply to post by lampsalot

Mr. Confusion checking in. In looking at the "argument" from simulation, I start having problems right at the beginning. How do we know that simulated universes are possible? By the same thinking that says one-legged, albino, elephants are possible? We know those mal-formed elephants are possible, but what does that show?

Step 2 All possible things have "probably" been created before? So that's one possible and a probable. Not a very rigorous argument so far.

Step 3 "If" they have been created, (a big if, see above) there are more of them then non-simulated universes? Then why, following that logic, are there not more one-legged, albino, elephants than the normal kind? Why can't there be just one, assuming there is one?

Step 4 If you grant 1, 2, and 3, are true, which I don't believe have been shown, I might consider step 4 as a possibility. But 1, 2, and 3 aren't strong enough to build any kind of a conclusion on.

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Dear lampsalot,

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

It matters quite a bit. I mean, we're talking about the origins of life as we know it after all, I would think that's a pretty interesting topic for most

reply to post by rival


Dear rival,

Here is the difference, one scenario assumes that laws of probability and possibility, one scenario assumes there are rules and that science can see some of them. The other assumes that there are no rules, not that we do not understand all the rules, it assumes there are none. That is a big difference. Anything is possible (no rules) versus there are things we do not know (rules we do not understand yet).

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Dear lampsalot,

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

It matters quite a bit. I mean, we're talking about the origins of life as we know it after all, I would think that's a pretty interesting topic for most

Dear GrandStrategy,

I do not deny it is interesting, I asked what it would matter? If you believe your life is real then you decide how you respond to it, you define you. Who are you is the question and whether this is all real or an illusion, it is all you ever get to decide, who are you?

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

for me the first premise is unsound - what evidence is there for this being true?

Originally posted by AQuestion

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

The question is can you think of any reason why the simulation argument might be wrong?

And by the way, I disagree. I think we have the right to be curious.

Originally posted by charles1952
Step 3 "If" they have been created, (a big if, see above) there are more of them then non-simulated universes? Then why, following that logic, are there not more one-legged, albino, elephants than the normal kind? Why can't there be just one, assuming there is one?

The assumption in response to this is that a simulated reality is created, the likelihood is that life in said reality would reach a similar point to the original, and the sinulated would want to simulate, for whatever purpose. I mean, if we now how had the technology, we'd use it you would think.

So it would be sort of like a matryoshka doll of simulated realities, with the simulated simulating new universes, and so on.

It stands to reason, theoretically, that if simulated realities are possible and even 1 was made, that in that simulated reality someone somewhere would develop the technology to create their own simulated reality, and after a while the simulated realities would outnumber the authentic realities. Pretty soon the stimulated universes would be highest in number.

a One-legged, albino elephant is sort of different in that even if there was one, it wouldn't survive long enough to pass on its genes, it would be rejected at birth and get ate by a hyena or something

Really it all hinders on the 1st point you mention. Are simulated universes possible? If they are then the likelihood is that we are in fact living in one. But that is an if, it's conjecture.

Here are some Wikipedia arguments

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that


2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before

Incorrect. Probability and possibility are not related.

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

Dear lampsalot,

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

It matters quite a bit. I mean, we're talking about the origins of life as we know it after all, I would think that's a pretty interesting topic for most

Dear GrandStrategy,

I do not deny it is interesting, I asked what it would matter? If you believe your life is real then you decide how you respond to it, you define you. Who are you is the question and whether this is all real or an illusion, it is all you ever get to decide, who are you?

You're talking philosophy, but the thread was created to discuss the science and plausability of the simulation argument, not to discuss the frivolity or legitimacy of life within a simulated reality.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by AQuestion

Lets start with the most simple question, what would it matter? Whether your experience is "real" or imagined, you still define you, what more power in the world did you think you had beyond determining who you are? Real or simulated, you do not control the experience of life, you determine the decision of who you are. What is the question again?

The question is can you think of any reason why the simulation argument might be wrong?

And by the way, I disagree. I think we have the right to be curious.

Dear lampsalot,

You are playing games with words, I never said that we should not be curious. I asked what difference the answer mattered. It is also a fair question. As for your question, can I think of a reason why we might not be in a computer simulation, yes, an easy one, we are in the real world. That is an answer. Is the world a representation? Yes, it is a representation of reality, we experience with our senses real choices and real people and the effect our choices have on them and us.

Perhaps I can make an argument for it. Well, not really me, but people much smarter than I would ever claim to be.

This is from back in March of this year and it's no joke or from some crazy wannabe fringe scientist:

"Strange Computer Code Discovered Concealed In Superstring Equations!
“Doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code,” first invented by Claude Shannon in the 1940′s, has been discovered embedded WITHIN the equations of superstring theory! Why does nature have this? What errors does it need to correct?

Dr. S. James Gates, Jr., a theoretical physicist, the John S. Toll Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, and the Director of The Center for String & Particle Theory, is reporting that certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the Universe and reality, contain embedded computer codes. These codes are digital data in the form of 1′s and 0′s. Not only that, these codes are the same as what make web browsers work and are error-correction codes! Gates says, “We have no idea what these ‘things’ are doing there”.

Gates discloses that some of his research can be interpreted that we do live in a virtual reality. He describes this as “mind-blowing” and similar to the movie “The Matrix”! Further, he adds, that if someone suspected they did live in a virtual reality, then detecting computer codes would be a way to confirm. He concludes with finding these computer codes in equations that describe our world: “that’s what I just proposed!”.

What to make of this? There are two issues: 1) if String Theory will ultimately be a viable and therefore proven model of reality and 2) if so, whether embedded coding is in fact within the related verified equations. Michio Kaku has stated “String Theory Is the Only Game in Town” because it is the only testable theory available.

If true, then any theory of reality should eventually confirm this, if the theory has staying power and does not succumb to an early death. Accordingly, time is on the side of the simulation hypothesis to be verified first through theory and then via experiments in the long-run. Technology to provide the means to test that the Universe is a virtual reality is the next step."

reply to post by lampsalot


Can you give any more explanation of why your proposition 3 is true? That to me needs to be established before I can accept your conclusion.

If one were to accept the conclusion it brings up an interesting debate on the definitions of 'real' and 'simulated'. If our universe was a simulation then what exactly would we mean if we said another universe was 'real'. As the only reality to which we could compare it would be our own (simulated) reality, what would the term 'real' actually mean?

Thoughts?

it's possible until proven other wise.... or its not possible until proven

my glass is half full

reply to post by GrandStrategy


Dear GrandStrategy,

LOL, then let one of the Mods come on the thread and tell me I am off topic. I will respect them, you just don't like my questions.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by lampsalot

 

If one were to accept the conclusion it brings up an interesting debate on the definitions of 'real' and 'simulated'. If our universe was a simulation then what exactly would we mean if we said another universe was 'real'. As the only reality to which we could compare it would be our own (simulated) reality, what would the term 'real' actually mean?

Thoughts?

You're raising a good question. When I first heard of what I posted above (on the detection of program code in String theory equations) I must say I was, well, shocked may best describe it. I'm not even talking about thinking whether or not parallel Universes would be "real". I first would have to come to grips with the fact that I'm not more than a character in a friggin Sim City Game.

I think I just blue screened and need a reboot.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

Dear GrandStrategy,

LOL, then let one of the Mods come on the thread and tell me I am off topic. I will respect them, you just don't like my questions.

Your questions are objectively off topic. Let's hope a Mod does see them and cleans the thread up. The last thing we need is people pondering the legitimacy of a simulated reality when it has nothing to do with the OP's question

Stop showing off

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

Dear GrandStrategy,

LOL, then let one of the Mods come on the thread and tell me I am off topic. I will respect them, you just don't like my questions.

Your questions are objectively off topic. Let's hope a Mod does see them and cleans the thread up. The last thing we need is people pondering the legitimacy of a simulated reality when it has nothing to do with the OP's question

Stop showing off

Dear GrandStrategy,

Pick a Mod and notify them, there is a button for that. You asked a question and don't like my answers; but, they are on topic.