Are we living in a simulation?
.jpg)
I've been thinking for a while about Nick Bostrom's simulation argument.
Bostrom asserts that one of the following three options must be true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
How does this work? Well, if simulations of conscious being are possible, then Bostrom argues that most minds in existence across time are simulated, and therefore we are much more likely to be simulated than real.
Ouch!
Bostrom's argument is about the probability of one of these things being true - specifically number 3 - that we are in a simulation run by our distant post-human descendants. In order to refute it totally, we'd need a reason to say that what he is proposing isn't logically possible - and I'm not sure how to do that. I do however think there is a problem with what he is trying to show.
Any one of those options he puts forward are possibly true. If I remember correctly, he doesn't state it clearly in the original paper, but he does say in this video that us reaching post-human level, and being interested in running ancestor simulations increases the probability of (3). I can't quite put my finger on it, but I can't help but think that something is seriously amiss with this line of reasoning. Why would the fact that we did something make it more likely that someone else (or maybe posthuman version of ourselves) has done it already?
If we were in a simulation, then why would we assume that the chances of reaching post-humanity are the same within the simulation as in the real world? It would be like a character in Simcity, Civilizations, or Age of Empires speculating about history in our real world - they would almost certainly get it massively and spectacularly wrong.
In my mind, this indicates the following: The higher the probability of (3), that we are in a post-human simulation, the lower the probability is that we can accurately assign probabilities to (1) and (2). I think this indicates a problem with the argument. Unless there's some reason that simulated humans can accurately say what history in the 'real' world is actually like, Bostrom is back to odds of 1/3 for each.
This pretty much kills the simulation argument. But I'm not satisfied with making it seem weak - I'd like to crush it entirely (and will proceed to do so).
How do we know that those possibilities that Bostrom suggests are the only three options? Assuming one thing is simpler than assuming three - so he can't rely on simplicity to stop me from proposing further options.
Here's Bostrom's three:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Now, let's add some more:
(4) we are part of an infinitely branched multiverse, where every collapsing waveform, personal choice or random event gives birth to a new world-line;
(5) we inhabit a multiverse where each universe is a fictional narrative in another universe;
(6) we are part of an organic computer run by mice, aimed providing the ultimate question, soon to be demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass;
(7) we are dreams in the mind of a sleeping god
(8) etc.;
.....
(X)...
If we have X possibilities, and we assign the same probability to each option, the bigger X gets, the smaller each individual chance must get. As X gets closer to being infinitely large, the probability of each option becomes infinitely small.
If we can't rule out some possibilities, and we can't assign probabilities in any way other than evenly divided between all options, then all options are equally highly improbable.
So there it is: Stop worrying about being in a computer simulation. Start worrying about being a character in someone else's novel.
Thanks for reading. Comments, upvotes and resteems are awesome, and I appreciate them deeply.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
I read your post fully. But I really have no I dea what I just actually read. I think if you properly want to discus this topic you should focus more on the details of every aspect of it. Also clarifying what 'post human" means and stuff like that.
It may be because I have a lack of understanding, or just not smart enough to understand. But still it sparked an interest in me also because of you replying to that trending page dude with a shitty post haha.
Anyway it's a pretty complex topic you're starting here. This needs more indepth writing to really hit the reader with an "Aha" moment. Im not saying that im a wonderboy in writing but, it's just how I felt reading this post. I think this might be of value for you.
aaaaaanyway. thanks and have a good day ;)
Yeah, it's not my best work - just wanted to get it written down before I lost the thought. And you aren't the only person to pick me up on the 'post-human' thing. Part of the problem with working mainly with university people - and only a small minority of them at that - is that I forget that a lot of what I take for granted is totally obscure and/or insane.
(Also, it's not a 'smart' thing. My high school grades were barely worth the paper they were printed on, and some of my best students have come from backgrounds of pretty serious educational disadvantage.)
You are right though, I should do an explained on what Bostrom was on about in the first place, as well as a more general look at people who thought the world might be an illusion.
Don't be too hard on @chbartist. Sure, he's rolled in here and started splashing huge chunks of SBD around. But I suspect he's essentially decent, and is on a pretty steep learning curve. Anyone who can put up with my heckling has to be pretty tolerant at least.
Me, I've got my own lessons to learn, like how to be critical of people who are far richer than me, without pissing them off so much that I financially and/or professionally shoot myself in the foot, if you know what I mean.
Btw you are a philosophy teacher at an university?
I'm a casual/sessional philosophy teacher/tutor/lecturer at at least one university, yes.
Hahah, that last part.. You are actually holding back on what you want to say because someone with high steem power could flag you down?
It's not just that (though it is at least partially). Like it or not, people with money can get shit done. I'm about to help set up a public philosophy program for marginalised groups here in Melbourne. Things like this take money, so I need to work on not annoying the kind of people who can help me in this way.
@samueldouglas,
Beautifully written with well-articulated reasoning.
One of the problems with theoretical physics is the nomenclature. When you consider what's behind so many of the theories (or hypothesis as we ought call them), one could be forgiven for concluding that "hypothetical mathematics" might be closer to the mark.
Of course, admitting, "We Don't Know," creates a vacuum and, since nature abhors a vacuum, every conceivable "plug to fill the hole" is concocted.
When we observed that galaxies did not rotate they way they ought, according to our understanding of gravity, we conjured up Dark Matter. When we observed that the universe was not only expanding, but that the rate of acceleration was increasing, we conjured of Dark Energy.
As so, the universe is now 95% Dark something.
Of course, an alternative explanation would be that our understanding of gravity is incorrect.
For some reason, re-examining Einstein's Theories is knocking on the door of taboo. But is this how science is supposed to work? Or perhaps the Cosmological Constant (speed of light) is not in fact constant throughout Time and Space.
This is the problem when a thing becomes a First Principle: It becomes inviolable ... and that becomes, potentially, blinding.
Samuel, you left a comment on one of my posts so I thought I'd check out your feed. You've got some interesting stuff ... and a new Follower. My name's Paul, by the way. Check in any time.
Thanks for the kind words. I take pride in my work - regardless of the monetary value attached (or lack thereof), so praise from a fellow writer & thinker means a lot.
Science is complicated - the idea that we do what works, and that our knowledge just consists of the best theory we can come up with at the time (and that our rules for deciding what's a 'good' theory are slightly contested) is a bit much for most people. Not that I blame them, we aren't really conditioned by a typical education to deal with massive swathes of uncertainty.
@samueldouglas,
And it shows.
Another guy you'd like is @cryptogee. If you have the time, take a look at this exchange. I think you're one of us (read the links in order):
https://steemit.com/artificialintellegence/@quillfire/ai-and-humans-if-it-s-broke-don-t-fix-it
Talk again soon.
What is the definition of "post-human", otherwise this sentence seems self evident!?
LOL - I'd never thought of that! Seems like a much quicker way to refute Bostrom that what I was thinking of. I'm sure you could restructure the definition to get around this though.
My apologies, I wasn't planning to cause any damage to your well laid out argument!! lol! I think if I have any issue with science in general, then it would be that so many constructs and concepts have the same name! Caused by a kind of shifting of goal posts as it were, as a result of repair jobs as time progresses...
No need to apologise, my arguments are there to be damaged :)
Awesome, I've just given you a follow.
Nice.
Great critique! Bostrom is a fascinatingly idiosyncratic philosopher.
To me the simulation argument is most interesting by virtue of its existing at all! I think regardless of its ultimate soundness, it speaks volumes about our intellectual/technological zeitgeist.
When I first read the argument it blew me away... I think because it takes some relatively modest and scientific-consensual assumptions and outputs an intuitively absurd (or depressing) conclusion. I can see why it's gained such popularity among maybe more scientistic audiences. It's like an episode of Rick and Morty that we're forced to consider might actually be the case haha
What it did for me was break through my traditional or maybe even conservative expectations for the scientific (materialist) worldview. It's made me reconsider my prejudice towards the "irrational" narratives in theology... reaching counterintuitive conclusions given modest assumptions and extrapolations seems so trivially easy suddenly.
Anyways, this was a really enjoyable read thanks!
Thanks @distillationsbl. I'm not sure if it was this argument, but I did soften my views towards views I felt were irrational as I went through my 20's (was probably The Matrix, lol).
It is easy to get to counter-intuitive conclusions. Many people find panpsychism counter-intuitive. But if we are really rational, we wouldn't hold this against such a theory.
Nice presentation of your thoughts you gave:)
Also: Nah, I wouldn't go with Bostrom either. And that is it. LOL.
I would rather like to know with what you go instead? What is your worldview?
LOL indeed!
My view: I don't know, I don't always care, and am not always convinced that such a question even inherently matters. But since I don't have an answer I'm happy with, I would say that, wouldn't I!
I like your option 4!
But I like to think the "random event" or "personal choice" is only perceived that way by us as to give us the illusion we are in full control of our destiny.
So it is almost like a simulation in a way because all potentials have been factored in - for example, I decided to eat toast for breakfast over all of the other potential breakfast food on offer. That decision led me to an upset gut leading me sit on the park bench whilst walking the dog, which then saw someone a couple of minutes later sitting next to me and we ended up having a lovely mutually beneficial chat.
So, that chat and conversation and the benefits may not have occured if I had decided to just skip or have juice for breakfast.
Or would it?
I think everything we do and everything that happens has been predetermined. Everything unfolds as it is meant to. Our choices may make the path challenging or easy but all different outcomes have all ready been factored in.
Thats just my belief anyway - thanks for thought provoking post!
LOL - your entire post reads like one of the many ongoing conversations I had with my late sister. Neither of us really had anyone else around with whom we could discuss such things, so I frequently called her late at night, and we would talk well into the wee hours on some pretty esoteric subjects.
We also used to joke that no one else, had they listened in, would have been able to make heads or tails of our conversations, since we knew one another so well that we often spoke in a kind of shorthand. No one else could have deciphered it, with the possible exception of our mom, and she would likely have frequently been at a loss.
I'm lucky, in that my husband is equally interested in this sort of query, as neither of our former spouses were, but again, we're pretty much limited to talking about it with one another.
Nice to know that there are others wrestling with such questions in the Steemit world. ;-)
This is a subject that is brought up a lot in my group. Although I do not rule it out I find it highly unlikely (don’t tell Elon)
This is a good debate on the topic.
I have thought the obvious clue that we are in a simulation is that we are recreating these simulations, so it makes sense to me that we are just a giant bored infinite consciousness creating and recreating simulations of struggle. Then we are in it so long we forget that we created it and create more simulations to escape the shitty one we are tired of ahahah . Fractal behaviors. I'm not studied so my language is probably not precise, but I feel it so surely that it no longer freaks me out lol
It's simulations all the way down. Actually, there's a theory that the most fundamental basis of reality is actually information (possibly 2-dimensional - been so long since I thought about it). So maybe that isn't as wild as it sounds.
I need a paracetamol now lmao. I love this topic in a movie but trying to get my head around it is another story haha.