A philosophical question

Coded Logic

On the internet I keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation. While I think it may, in the future, be possible to simulate a high fidelity universe - I don’t think we should confuse the ability to model a universe with the ability to actually build a universe.

For example, we can model weather patterns inside a computer. But it doesn’t mean the computer will then actually have the properties of those weather patterns (e.g. wind, humidity, snow, etc). Likewise, we could simulate a human brain inside a computer - but that doesn’t mean the computer would then have the properties of a human brain (e.g. consciousness).

Mathematical models are descriptors. They describe how something might behave. But they don’t have the necessary quantities of space/time and energy to actually do the things they’re describing.

I am, thus far, NOT convinced it’s possible for us to be inside a simulation. But I wanted to get your guys feedback on this. Am I missing something? Is there any actual evidence that a simulation could ever produce something like consciousness?

(I should note that I’m completely open to the idea we may be able to build machines capable of self-awareness in the future. But that’s NOT the same thing as simulating a machine that would be capable of self-awareness. Building is a physical system with high volumes of different types of energy moving through it. A simulation is not.)

[Also, if you’re simply going to argue we don’t know that it’s “impossible” for us to be in a simulation - than please don’t waste my time. The lack of proof of impossibility in no way demonstrates possibility]

redpilltwice

shepherdless

I have not read such a thing. My thoughts are:

If the universe was a "simulation", then how can an individual in the universe say, "I think, therefore I am"? Put another way, if a simulated universe is able to have individuals who actually can say, "I think, therefore I am", then how does that differ from a real universe?

I can get the concept of the universe being created by some intelligent being setting the 4 fundamental forces of physics and watching the whole universe unpack from nothing (and there are serious problems with that). But to go one step further and say the universe does not even exist beyond a simulation created by a mathematical model, well surely that would be an explanation looking for a question to explain.

Sounds like some people out there have been playing too many computer games.

slimboyfat

I assume you've read about Bostrom's trilemma, which a lot of recent discussion about simulation has been based upon.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

I can't think of a good answer to his trilemma, except that the pessimist in me suspects that option 1 may be a good explanation.

People have also used this trilemma to invoke solutions involving a deity of course.

DJS

@Coded Logic: "On the internet I keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation."

Man goes to doctor. Says to doc: Doc, I hurt my leg in 3 places.

Doc says to man: Stay out of those places.

slimboyfat

Sounds a bit like my doctor who told me I have Tom Jones disease. I asked if that was a rare condition, he said it's not unusual.

OneEyedJoe

Well it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis and as such does not belong in any scientific debate, though it is somewhat interesting to think about.

Scientists have been able to fully map and simulate the neurons of a roach - how would their simulated roach tell that it was in a simulation? I agree that there's a tangible difference between a simulation and reality, but this difference is not something that could be discerned from inside the simulation.

There's evidence that our universe has a finite "resolution" (plank scale) like you'd expect from a simulation. There appears to be tricks going on to avoid rendering things until it becomes necessary (quantum superposition; uncertainty principle) and there are interesting things like black holes that appear to potentially be holograms - in fact our entire universe may be a hologram. All this is circumstantial evidence that points to us being in some sort of simulation. But like I said - it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis - any contrary evidence can simply be claimed to be part of the simulation.

It's an interesting idea, but one that really has no bearing on anything. What does it change if I told you with 100% certainty that we were all just bits in a giant computer? You could argue that even if everything is "real" (whatever that means in this context) that we're still just parts of a cosmic computer that's simply calculating how the universe will unfold. It really doesn't change anything on a practical level since nothing that we do can impact the world outside of our simulation. At least so far as we know - and how would we know if it did?

Saved_JW

The Philosophical question really boils down to a problem being debated since Ancient Greece...is reality Mind or Matter?

In other words, what is the nature of reality? This led to philosophers trying to determine what makes us human in the first place, how can we even prove we exist. This is the kind of stuff that will make your brain smoke if you go too far down the rabbit hole. They may seem like pointless discussions, but they are very important. Something we don't really struggle with today. We live in a Empirical world, where Sight, sound, taste, touch and smell determine reality, but nobody really questions that assumption.

Coded Logic

I assume you've read about Bostrom's trilemma
- SBF

I have. And it is predicated upon the assumption that simulated brains would be capable of consciousness. I've yet to see any demonstration of that such a thing is possible. If we don't have physical brains than what is it that's experiencing our first hand subjective experiences?

But to go one step further and say the universe does not even exist beyond a simulation created by a mathematical model, well surely that would be an explanation looking for a question to explain.
- Sheperdless

I'm not sure this is a valid critique of what the proponents of the simulation hypothesis are suggesting. Rather, what they're proposing is that the universe that we perceive is inside a computer simulation. It doesn't say the universe does not exist beyond the simulation. Our "reality" would be embedded in a deeper and truer reality.

Scientists have been able to fully map and simulate the neurons of a roach - how would their simulated roach tell that it was in a simulation?
-OEJ

I really feel like everyone who has taken the time to reply (and thank you guys for doing so) has genuinely missed the point which I was making. Why would we assume that simulated roaches would experience anything? Simulating a roach is not the same thing as being a roach. I don't see any evidence that simulating something in a computer would ever give the simulation the actual properties of its real life counterpart.

There's evidence that our universe has a finite "resolution" (plank scale) like you'd expect from a simulation.
-OEJ

We could accurately model our universe without going anywhere near the mind boggling smallness of the Planck Scale. I think one might even be able to argue that the universe having such an extraordinarily high fidelity is an indication it's not a simulation. It'd be like using a 64 bit processor to run an 8 bit game. Complete and utter overkill.

is reality Mind or Matter?
- S_JW

As far as I know all minds are composed of matter. Thus it would follow, if those really are the only two options, that reality is matter.

In other words, what is the nature of reality?
- S_JW

I suppose overly broad questions deserve overly broad answers: Reality is the interactions of space/time and energy.

This led to philosophers trying to determine what makes us human in the first place
- S_JW

If by "human" they mean our species - than our genes are what make us human. But if by "human" they mean something else than they need to clarify exactly what they're asking. Identity is never one thing.

how can we even prove we exist.
- S_JW

We start with Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am" and work from there. And we have different inputs of sensory information (sight, sound, touch, etc.) that all converge on there being an objective reality which we experience.

We live in a Empirical world, where Sight, sound, taste, touch and smell determine reality, but nobody really questions that assumption.
- S_JW

This is not true. Every night when we go into REM sleep we experience all kinds of sights, sounds, tastes, etc. But we don't use our dreamed experiences are actually real. Rather, we determine reality by consistency, continuity, and the ability to repeatedly demonstrate the proposed explanations of events. We DON'T think that dreams, hallucinations, or pareidolia are accurate representations of reality even though we perceive them in an identical manner to how we experience real sensory inputs.

OneEyedJoe

I really feel like everyone who has taken the time to reply (and thank you guys for doing so) has genuinely missed the point which I was making. Why would we assume that simulated roaches would experience anything? Simulating a roach is not the same thing asbeing a roach. I don't see any evidence that simulating something in a computer would ever give the simulation the actual properties of its real life counterpart.

Well just for fun they've actually put the simulated roach brain into a little robot that had artificial antennae and other senses that emulated the roach's body, and sure enough the robot behaves like a real roach did. What's to stop someone from simulating that same sensory input to the roach brain without the robot body? How would the roach know the difference?

The argument isn't that the simulation actually takes on the properties of the simulated, but that to anything in the simulation, the simulation itself is indistinguishable from reality.

A philosophical question

Share this