Arguments for and against reality (as we know it) being a computer simulation

[Straw Man]

for and against

it's still an idea we cook up to explain what we don't understand

[Necrosis]

From another forum, about the same video OP posted.

Those are the basic arguments, however, Musk is correct, technology will speed up not slow down, as is the nature of technology.

Quantum processes will be understood and once that occurs, quantum computers will far exceed anything we could ever hope to simulate today.


A singularity will occur, like the one that started this simulation.

[Necrosis]

If we're a simulation then why can't things be deleted? You can kill someone but they still exist and need to be buried. 

In a game, the bits are still stored or used in a different manner, the same process occurs,  decomposition.

[Raymondo]

The argument for our universe being a computer simulation is unfalsifiable... it cannot be proved either way, therefore it's not to be taken seriously.

[Raymondo]

In 2016, what language would you recommend a person learn to be most marketable in the next few years?

Have a look at the stackoverflow surveys to learn more about current trends.

Imo it's not about platforms, it's about design skills and knowing what you're talking about.

[Necrosis]

The argument for our universe being a computer simulation is unfalsifiable... it cannot be proved either way, therefore it's not to be taken seriously.

Why do you think that?

There could be ways of knowing.

[loco]

Yeah, the theory isn't Musk's and has been around, in several different iterations, for years:

For philosophers: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

For physicists: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf

Enjoy.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (published in 1979), the characters visit the legendary planet Magrathea, home to the now-collapsed planet-building industry, and meet Slartibartfast, a planetary coastline designer who was responsible for the fjords of Norway. Through archival recordings, he relates the story of a race of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who built a computer named Deep Thought to calculate the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. When the answer was revealed to be 42, Deep Thought explained that the answer was incomprehensible because the beings didn't know what they were asking. It went on to predict that another computer, more powerful than itself would be made and designed by it to calculate the question for the answer. (Later on, referencing this, Adams would create the 42 Puzzle, a puzzle which could be approached in multiple ways, all yielding the answer 42.)

The computer, often mistaken for a planet (because of its size and use of biological components), was the Earth, and was destroyed by Vogons to make way for a hyperspatial express route five minutes before the conclusion of its 10-million-year program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

[Raymondo]

Why do you think that?

There could be ways of knowing.

I suppose if there were physical limits, it would be a hint. However, so far it seems the universe is infinite...

[mr.turbo]

there have been some smart guys who have worked on this question and given up.

Newton was one of them but you never know could be some better minds here on the forum.

 

[Yamcha]

Marty has the answer, he's just not sharing until everyone gets their heme under control

[Kahn.N.Singh]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Yeah. The "Sims Hypothesis" is widespread and its appearance in literature predates even Adams' Hitchhiker.

For more current and rigorous discussions, Bostrom's site is a rich source (note, e.g., his exchange with Brian Weatherson -- a very eminent philosopher).

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

[obsidian]

Basically unless we are the base civ, then we have to be a simulation, so there can only be 1 real civ and then the billions of sims that civ creates.

His argument — one presumably honed in the soothing waters of many a jaccuzi — goes that the incredibly fast advancement of video game technology indicates we'll be capable of creating a fully lifelike simulation of existence in a short span of time. In 40 years, Musk explained, we've gone from Pong to massively multiplayer online games with millions of simultaneous players, games with photorealistic graphics, and stand now on the cusp of a new wave of virtual and augmented reality experiences.

"If you assume any rate of improvement at all then games will become indistinguishable from reality," Musk said. "Even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now, let's just imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale." Given that we're on that trajectory and that these games are increasingly playable on any device, Musk said, the odds that we are living our lives in base reality — that is, "real" reality — is one in billions.

It's not necessarily a bad thing.  "If a civilization stops advancing then that may be due to some calamitous event that erases civilization," Musk said, presenting two options. "Either we're going to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, or civilization will cease to exist.

Tell me what’s wrong with that argument. Is there a flaw in that argument?"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/06/02/elon-musks-fallacy/#63c2aa515e76

"Yes Elon, there is a flaw in the argument. It is a very common informal fallacy known as begging the question, in which the conclusion is assumed in the premises. The odds that we are living in a simulation are only billions to one because Musk is assuming that such realistic simulations exist."

This is similar to the “everybody knows” type of argument, such as “everybody knows that electric car companies can’t be profitable, therefore Tesla will never be profitable.” The conclusion is only true because I’ve already assumed it in the premise. It’s a completely circular argument.

There are unknown physical limits to how fast computers can be in the future. And you would need an order of magnitude more processing power to simulate the Universe to the level of detail we observe.

[obsidian]

Those are the basic arguments, however, Musk is correct, technology will speed up not slow down, as is the nature of technology.

Quantum processes will be understood and once that occurs, quantum computers will far exceed anything we could ever hope to simulate today.


A singularity will occur, like the one that started this simulation.

http://www.lgcnsblog.com/features/quantum-computers-a-step-above-your-average-computer/

Pros and Cons of D-Wave

Pros

According to Google’s D-Wave benchmark in January of 2014, quantum computers show much higher speed in solving optimization problems compared to general PCs. Although there are reports that say its speed is sometimes slower than PCs, they seem to be faster than PCs, on average, to solve optimization problems involving data with regularity[2].

Cons

D-WAVE has three big cons.

First, despite being called the world’s first commercial quantum computer, it’s a shame that D-Wave is not considered a real quantum computer at the same time. This is because it’s designed to have an external computer read the processing results from the quantum CPU. Some may refer to it as just a “half-quantum” computer which consists of the regular workstation with a qubit CPU on the side[3].

Second, the CPU generates heat while operating, and the noise made while running the cooler to lower the temperature can create computing errors. The size of the computer is also quite large due to the big cooling unit on top to stabilize the temperature of absolute zero.

Finally, D-Wave is made based on the tunnel effect of quantum annealing unlike the formerly defined quantum computers. The tunnel effect here means the phenomenon where a particle stochastically tunnels through the energy barrier higher than its own potential energy. As a result, its computing speed is not overwhelmingly faster than in existing computers except for in particular calculating operations.

[El Diablo Blanco]

If we're a simulation then why has it taken so long for man to figure out computers?  There's  a big part of history during the dark ages that's not even documented or accounted for.  Then the renaissance in the 1400's brought us new thinkers, writers, artists but what happened before then?  So my question is, is Religion an anti virus program and has it been hacked to become a virus itself?

[Al Doggity]

I suppose if there were physical limits, it would be a hint. However, so far it seems the universe is infinite...

The size of the universe wouldn't necessarily prove or disprove whether or not you're in a simulation. Physicality is almost entirely perspective and relativity, anyway. Some physicists speculate that we are living in a hologram.

[Al Doggity]

If we're a simulation then why has it taken so long for man to figure out computers?  There's  a big part of history during the dark ages that's not even documented or accounted for.  Then the renaissance in the 1400's brought us new thinkers, writers, artists but what happened before then?  So my question is, is Religion an anti virus program and has it been hacked to become a virus itself?

Once again, you're  approaching this from a far too solipsistic view to gain a truly critical perspective. If we're in the simulation, that doesn't mean we're running the simulation. It doesn't mean that the ultimate purpose of the simulation is for the sims to analyze the collected date. It doesn't mean that the "computer" the simulation runs on would even be recognizable as what we consider a computer.

[loco]

If we're a simulation then why has it taken so long for man to figure out computers?  There's  a big part of history during the dark ages that's not even documented or accounted for.  Then the renaissance in the 1400's brought us new thinkers, writers, artists but what happened before then?  So my question is, is Religion an anti virus program and has it been hacked to become a virus itself?

Bet the little programs in these games are asking the same question.

[BBSSchlemiel]

It is said by an intelligent billionaire... so it must be true!

[Raymondo]

The size of the universe wouldn't necessarily prove or disprove whether or not you're in a simulation. Physicality is almost entirely perspective and relativity, anyway. Some physicists speculate that we are living in a hologram.

I agree, in fact nothing can prove or disprove the simulation hypothesis.

I don't think it matters in either case, simulation or not it is our reality, we should be trying to understand it anyway.

[Al Doggity]

I agree, in fact nothing can prove or disprove the simulation hypothesis.

I don't think it matters in either case, simulation or not it is our reality, we should be trying to understand it anyway.

If we live in a simulation, then being able to prove that would help us understand our reality. There's nothing inherently disprovable about a simulation hypothesis.

[Raymondo]

If we live in a simulation, then being able to prove that would help us understand our reality. There's nothing inherently disprovable about a simulation hypothesis.

Fair enough, but it is not possible to test your assertion, anyway. The argument is unfalsifiable, it can always be true given a sufficiently advanced simulation.

[Al Doggity]

Fair enough, but it is not possible to test your assertion, anyway. The argument is unfalsifiable, it can always be true given a sufficiently advanced simulation.

The title of this thread is "Arguments FOR and AGAINST yada yada yada". Can you imagine where science or the human race would be if we never contemplated things because some considered them unfalsifiable.

[mr.turbo]

In order for a simulation to exist there must be something concrete to simulate. "reality" is a concept we don't understand so how can we know if something we don't understand is a simulation?

 

[Raymondo]

The title of this thread is "Arguments FOR and AGAINST yada yada yada". Can you imagine where science or the human race would be if we never contemplated things because some considered them unfalsifiable.

Can you imagine where the human race would be if every unfalsifiable theory was taken seriously? Psychoanalysis was once considered the pinnacle of psychology, now it is considered a pseudoscience.

[Al Doggity]

Can you imagine where the human race would be if every unfalsifiable theory was taken seriously? Psychoanalysis was once considered the pinnacle of psychology, now it is considered a pseudoscience.

That isn't really a tautological argument. You said earlier that a simulation hypothesis can't be taken seriously since you considered it unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable =/= without merit. No theory has ever been taken seriously just because it could not be proven untrue. The very title of the thread asks whether or not this is something to take seriously. You may feel it is not, but historically and scientifically, simply saying something can't be taken seriously because you can't conceive of a test is not a good argument.