We are most likely in a simulated universe (1 Viewer)

[ronnknee]

There is a good chance that we are living in a simulated reality.
It requires the assumption that technology could get to the point that it could simulate a being that is conscience of their being but unaware of their simulated nature.

If that is possible then, it is not probable that some beings with this technology have created thousands of simulations for reasons such as entertainment and replicating history? Then for one real universe, there are many thousands, which might also make thousands one day? So therefore the chance of our universe being simulated is so high it is nearly 100%?

I've talked about this issue with so many people and none have given any arguments against it. The only problem is perhaps not ever being able to simulate such a being.

 

[withoutaface]

Occam's Razor.

Boom.

 

[BackCountrySnow]

Well there's no doubt about it, obviously we are all living in a simulated universe. i've always thought that to be common knowledge.

 

[scarybunny]

ARE YOU THE MATRiX?

 

[BackCountrySnow]

no, just a product of your imagination.

 

[withoutaface]

To actually properly dismantle the argument:
1. You've acknowledged that it may not be possible to create such an artificial consciousness.
2. If such consciousnesses were created, it is likely they'd have a few glitches here and there that we would experience in everyday life. The likelyhood of us beng in a glitch free existence would be fairly low.
3. While we don't have definitive evidence saying that we aren't in a synthesised reality, there's certainly nothing to suggest we are. Occam's razor therefore says that we make less assumptions by simply taking it at face value.

 

[chicky_pie]

Can we now create a REAL God that would respond to our prays and needs?

 

[KFunk]

I actually find this argument quite interesting because it's not entirely unreasonable.

1. You've acknowledged that it may not be possible to create such an artificial consciousness.

2. If such consciousnesses were created, it is likely they'd have a few glitches here and there that we would experience in everyday life. The likelyhood of us beng in a glitch free existence would be fairly low.

3. While we don't have definitive evidence saying that we aren't in a synthesised reality, there's certainly nothing to suggest we are. Occam's razor therefore says that we make less assumptions by simply taking it at face value.

Replies to waf's points:

(1) This is really the crux of the issue. Is it even possible to create an artificial consciousness? I don't think our neurosciences are complete enough to make proper judgements on these questions. At bare minimum it at least seems plausible, for all we know (possibility is a much larger claim, in my opinion).

(2) You would have to determine the nature of these glitches before you can wield this argument. Otherwise you are simply saying 'some undefined problem/event, x, has not occured' - I don't think you can make such a determination without first fleshing out what exactly constitutes 'x'.

(3) I'm not sure that this is an appropriate application of Ockham's razor. It's not simply an assumption in this case - it is a provisional conclusion based on empirical/statistical considerations. If we could construct a solid argument which demonstrated that it is far more likely that our experiences are the result of a simulated than a non-simulated reality then we would have to conclude that we are most likely in a simulated reality.

Nonetheless, I am doubtful that probabilities can be adequately ascribed here. Our knowledge of the mind and the universe seem far too incomplete for that.

 

[ronnknee]

To actually properly dismantle the argument:
2. If such consciousnesses were created, it is likely they'd have a few glitches here and there that we would experience in everyday life. The likelyhood of us beng in a glitch free existence would be fairly low.

Our universe could be paused you know? And we'd never know. Someone could've paused it for a billion years and then pressed play again. To us, no time would've passed at all. In that way glitches could be fixed. Who knows, we could even be rewinded to when the bug first appeared
And for occhams razor, the guy who does med/philosophy above this post gives a good counter.

 

[P_Dilemma]

why does this even matter... c'mon, back with our tedious lives...

 

[Kwayera]

why does this even matter... c'mon, back with our tedious lives...

Well, it's an interesting idea, but you're right, it doesn't matter - we'd never be able to determine either way.

 

[katietheskatie]

i ran over about ten agent smiths on the way home, maybe you're right

 

[ronnknee]

1.
It may not be possible to create an artificial consciousness, but it is equally possible that we can. Therefore, this argument is not entirely valid, as neither can be proven/disproven

3.
I can't argue you last point. I'm not familiar with Occam's razor.

Occam's razor states that all things being equal in terms of a theory, then just choose the simplest one. Of course its by no means perfect but its a rule of thumb. For the first point, I don't think you can say there both equally valid. I'm leaning towards it being possible because I think we can create robots that are self aware and then its only a few steps away from doing the same thing in a simulator.

why does this even matter... c'mon, back with our tedious lives...

It would influence how I live my life for sure. Wouldn't we all live a bit differently if we knew we were living in a simulation? Plus its interesting.

 

[veloc1ty]

It would influence how I live my life for sure. Wouldn't we all live a bit differently if we knew we were living in a simulation? Plus its interesting.

In what ways would your behaviour change if you knew 100% we were living in a simulation?

 

[A High Way Man]

its pretty obvious this is true

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

I dare say the main reason to doubt it is that while I do actually think it's theoretically possible I don't think it's very likely that many civilisations would last long enough to reach such a level of technology. In how many universes might this be true?

 

[withoutaface]

Occam's razor states that all things being equal in terms of a theory, then just choose the simplest one. Of course its by no means perfect but its a rule of thumb. For the first point, I don't think you can say there both equally valid. I'm leaning towards it being possible because I think we can create robots that are self aware and then its only a few steps away from doing the same thing in a simulator.


It would influence how I live my life for sure. Wouldn't we all live a bit differently if we knew we were living in a simulation? Plus its interesting.

You've provided a bunch of "maybes" and "what ifs". Your theory explains nothing about the universe as it is, or has been, and in fact all it provides is a whole bunch of new hypotheses. Therefore it is invalid.

It may not be possible to create an artificial consciousness, but it is equally possible that we can. Therefore, this argument is not entirely valid, as neither can be proven/disproven

Just because there are two possibilities for something doesn't imply that both are equally likely.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

It would influence how I live my life for sure. Wouldn't we all live a bit differently if we knew we were living in a simulation? Plus its interesting.

Simulated reality is 'reality' to those living in it, it doesn't essentially matter if my reality is a dream, it's as real as anything I'm ever going to know.

 

[A High Way Man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

 

[Foxodi]

Simulated reality is 'reality' to those living in it, it doesn't essentially matter if my reality is a dream, it's as real as anything I'm ever going to know.

QFT. Even if we were in a simulated reality it wouldn't really change anything, its just that we know some 'being' is watching us for lol's (we would be the ultimate sim game for them.... imagine how popular that would be)