Are we in a simulation?

[sibraa5]

Well, some people believe we are in a simulation...I don't belive it but Nick Bwostrom makes a weird arguement..Read it:

We are living in a simulation

Nick Bostrom's argument

The philosopher Nick Bostrom investigated the possibility that we may be living in a simulation.[1] A simplified version of his argument proceeds as such:

i. It is possible that a civilization could create a computer simulation which contains individuals with artificial intelligence.

ii. Such a civilization would likely run many—say billions—of these simulations (just for fun; for research, etc.)

iii. A simulated individual inside the simulation wouldn’t necessarily know that it’s inside a simulation—it’s just going about its daily business in what it considers to be the “real world.”

Then the ultimate question is—if one accepts that theses 1, 2, and 3 are at least possible, which of the following is more likely?

a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself? Or,

b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)

In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, that:

either

1. intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (or this is impossible in principle); or

2. races who do reach such a level do not tend to run such simulations; or

3. we are almost certainly living in such a simulation.

Bostrom's argument uses the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to simulate entire inhabited planets or even larger habitats or even entire universes as quantum simulations in time/space pockets, including all the people on them, on a computer, and that simulated people can be fully conscious, and are as much persons as non-simulated people.

A particular case provided in the original paper poses the scenario where we assume that the human race could reach such a technological level without destroying themselves in the process (i.e. we deny the first hypothesis); and that once we reached such a level we would still be interested in history, the past, and our ancestors, and that there would be no legal or moral strictures on running such simulations (we deny the second hypothesis)—then

* it is likely that we would run a very large number of so-called ancestor simulations to study our past;

* and that, by the same line of reasoning, many of these simulations would in turn run other sub-simulations, and so on;

* and that given the fact that right now it is impossible to tell whether we are living in one of the vast number of simulations or the original ancestor universe, the likelihood is that the former is true.

Assumptions as to whether the human race (or another intelligent species) could reach such a technological level without destroying themselves depend greatly on the value of the Drake equation, which gives the number of intelligent technological species communicating via radio in a galaxy at any given point in time. The expanded equation looks to the number of posthuman civilizations that ever would exist in any given universe. If the average for all universes, real or simulated, is greater than or equal to one such civilization existing in each universe's entire history, then odds are rather overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that the average civilization is in a simulation, assuming that such simulated universes are possible and such civilizations would want to run such simulations.

Now, He does make a strange point, but if we were a video game, we wouldn't really last 2008 years, right?

EDIT: And, you can't get graphics THIS good yet

Discuss..?

Edited March 16, 2008 by sibraa5

[Wheelman101]

Well, i might sound stupid, but, i honestly feel weird when i just think of how shit is held down by Gravity, how dense it is, etc, trips the fuck out of me, also scares me, makes me think like im in a game everyday..

[Gerard]

Not a new argument, but not a bad article on it.

The first thing to consider is that (if we were in a simulation) the people who were running the simulation probably wouldn't be similar to us. Their universe would be much more complex and larger than ours.

One thing that (to me) seems to increase the likelihood of intelligent design is that (until recently) we were confined to a single planet. We had no means to escape it, except we could see stuff going on in the background. This is very similar to our own simulations and game designs, where each instance is separate. Once we managed to escape the confines of Earth (or were allowed to) there's just a few simple rocks and burning gases, no pre-existing civilisations. If life could accidentally form on one planet through chemical reactions and stuff, surely it would have happened elsewhere by now.

However an argument against that is that the universe is not mathematically perfect. There are not exactly 365 days in a year, and it does change over time (slowing down, more days per year, more hours per day). If one were to run a simulation such as that, you would probably make it simple and keep things exact and constant.

Another thing is to look at how random events do not occur. In our games, things can spawn from nowhere and where there isn't anything where the user isn't looking.

A look how stuff hasn't changed the universe is still following the same rules as it always has done - no upgrades and no alterations. Surely in an experiment they would introduce new things to see how we would react, unless it was purely a social observation.

Before anyone suggests "but our minds could have been altered to make us remember stuff that hadn't happened" - that would require a series of simulations to reach the stage where they could put it into our heads and make us believe it. Might as well simply do that first time round if it's possible.

And the universe isn't 2008 years old......

[chris82]

Looks as if Nick Bostrom has watched The Matrix too many times.

No.

[Harwood Butcher]

Well, i might sound stupid, but, i honestly feel weird when i just think of how shit is held down by Gravity, how dense it is, etc, trips the fuck out of me, also scares me, makes me think like im in a game everyday..

Gravity is caused by mass and distance from the matter's center of gravity. It's not some weird thing we, as a civilization, don't understand.

F = G*(m1*m2/d^2)

F - Force

G - 6.67*10^-11

m1 - Your weight (KG)

m2 - What you're on (Earth) = 5.98*10^24

d - Distance you are from the center of the Earth(Earth's center of gravity) = (6.37*10^6)^2

There is a much simpler way to figure out how much you weigh on Earth, which is simply move the decimal over to the left once.

EXAMPLE: 80KG = 800N

Pretty simple...ehh?

[Gerard]

You didn't answer the question at all. You demonstrated how to work out much force gravity exerts on something, but not how it is caused.

KG is mass, not weight. Weight is the force caused by your mass and gravity, which is measure in Newtons (kg m/s²). So to work out your weight on Earth in Newtons from your mass, it's 10x your mass.

Newton never figured out what the source of gravity was. He obviously figured out it was caused by objects with mass exerting force on each other, but not why that happened. Einstein said it is caused by curved spacetime, essentially us being constantly moving away from the centre of the earth (in absolute spacetime terms, not in relative terms) because of its effect on the continuum.

[Harwood Butcher]

You didn't answer the question at all. You demonstrated how to work out much force gravity exerts on something, but not how it is caused.

KG is mass, not weight. Weight is the force caused by your mass and gravity, which is measure in Newtons (kg m/s²). So to work out your weight on Earth in Newtons from your mass, it's 10x your mass.

Newton never figured out what the source of gravity was. He obviously figured out it was caused by objects with mass exerting force on each other, but not why that happened. Einstein said it is caused by curved spacetime, essentially us being constantly moving away from the centre of the earth (in absolute spacetime terms, not in relative terms) because of its effect on the continuum.

Yeah, you're right, KG is mass, not weight. But KG could be converted into lbs...which is weight. So I myself consider KG weight and mass. That's just me though. If I go further into it I could consider Newton's(N) as weight...but that just fucks everything up.

Anyways, yes, Newton never figured it out...but Henry Cavendish did, which is the formula I posted. Every piece of matter has gravity, it's just that other things, such as the Earth, have a lot more. Every single thing in the universe attracts to the things around them, but may have weaker gravitational pull than other things and vise versa.

Gravity is caused by object's masses and the distance from the object's center of gravity and other objects around.

[chris82]

One thing that (to me) seems to increase the likelihood of intelligent design

Intelligent design is basically just creationism under a new name.

Impossible to happen, if the universe was created by something, that thing is is obviously not the God as thought of by the major religions. Why? If it was omniscient it would have the ability to change the universe to its liking. If this was a God that "loves us," he obviously would have done so by now.

Watch these if you want proof against 'intelligent design'

[Gerard]

Yeah, you're right, KG is mass, not weight. But KG could be converted into lbs...which is weight. So I myself consider KG weight and mass. That's just me though. If I go further into it I could consider Newton's(N) as weight...but that just fucks everything up.

Anyways, yes, Newton never figured it out...but Henry Cavendish did, which is the formula I posted. Every piece of matter has gravity, it's just that other things, such as the Earth, have a lot more. Every single thing in the universe attracts to the things around them, but may have weaker gravitational pull than other things and vise versa.

Gravity is caused by object's masses and the distance from the object's center of gravity and other objects around.

What you measure on scales is weight, our normal understanding of mass is weight. However if you remove gravity, you lose all weight but you keep mass. They amount to the same thing at sea level on Earth.

I understand this might be a separate discussion, but it's sort of relevant. There is almost a possibility that gravity is just a complication shoved in by the programmers of this universe to see how we cope not being able to float everywhere. Remember without gravity there would be no planets, just everything floating around on its own (hard to see how life would happen). Or it might be stronger/weaker than IRL. Or the real cause of gravity is removed, and in this simulation it just "happens" (like gravity in a game, we just program it in and force it to happen).

We all understand that things with mass have gravity, and things with massive masses (eg planets) have enough for you to notice it. But why? What is causing it to pull towards you? How can a big lump of rock perform action at a distance? These are the questions Newton couldn't answer, and Einstein forwarded everything within the concept of general relativity. Henry Cavendish just figured out the Earth's density and stuff for working out G.

Intelligent design is basically just creationism under a new name.

Impossible to happen, if the universe was created by something, that thing is is obviously not the God as thought of by the major religions. Why? If it was omniscient it would have the ability to change the universe to its liking. If this was a God that "loves us," he obviously would have done so by now.

I chose those words carefully - I said ID to mean beings created us (as opposed to us evolving totally on our own). The beings that created the simulation would essentially be gods - they would not exist in our universe, and they have full control over it. The only difference is that we're suggesting that our universe isn't real in the way we perceive it to be the top-level of everything, and that the beings exist in their own universe rather than being part of ours.

God (or Gods) in the religious sense created us as the only group of inhabitants of the only universe. There are perhaps other parts of the universe that we can't access (heaven, hell etc) within this, but there isn't another universe with us running inside of it. The gods have full control over everything we do, although generally they choose to give us free will and only interact occasionally. Sounds like a pretty boring life.

If we're talking about a computer-like "artificial" simulation, the chances are that the beings that created it would create it and leave it running, observing the results like an experiment - they don't have to interact all the time (The religious gods don't). There would probably be loads of other simulations running, and would have been several test ones before now. Or there is a possibility that this one is the "big" experiment, bigger than any other one before.

You're saying it is impossible for intelligent design to be true because God hasn't changed everything to be perfect? God might enjoy watching us suffer; or he's decided to leave us with free will; or he doesn't care. The programmers might want to see how we cope on our own; or they might just not care. The other alternative is that things DO change, and we don't notice/remember it.

[Mendoza]

this is by far a strange thought i myself have had and i know it seems weird but take the sims games for instance and hour of them is a minute for us,maybe a year for us is a minute to them and the person just hasn't stopped it yet or something really its a weird concept to even think about which is why i try not to focus on such things since i throw myself into a loop of ideas

[Harwood Butcher]

What you measure on scales is weight, our normal understanding of mass is weight. However if you remove gravity, you lose all weight but you keep mass. They amount to the same thing at sea level on Earth.

I understand this might be a separate discussion, but it's sort of relevant. There is almost a possibility that gravity is just a complication shoved in by the programmers of this universe to see how we cope not being able to float everywhere. Remember without gravity there would be no planets, just everything floating around on its own (hard to see how life would happen). Or it might be stronger/weaker than IRL. Or the real cause of gravity is removed, and in this simulation it just "happens" (like gravity in a game, we just program it in and force it to happen).

We all understand that things with mass have gravity, and things with massive masses (eg planets) have enough for you to notice it. But why? What is causing it to pull towards you? How can a big lump of rock perform action at a distance? These are the questions Newton couldn't answer, and Einstein forwarded everything within the concept of general relativity. Henry Cavendish just figured out the Earth's density and stuff for working out G.

G isn't Earth's density. That's actually the number you would use for everything. It's the other numbers that you need to know in order to figure it out.

We know WHAT causes gravity, but we don't really know WHY it causes gravity.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Original GTA Master

[osiris.]

Gerard, I believe it was you who mentioned earlier about the fact of time not being constant and how events don't occur at random in order to elicit an observable response from us.

First off, if we are in fact simulation subjects within a program designed for research, then the testers would not want to alter any aspects of the environment. To do so would be to violate the rules of natural experimentation; it would generate inadequate results. Furthermore, in terms of having events or objects just appear at random would be highly unacceptable in an experiment that involves conscious beings. An unconscious figure would simply react to the setting it's placed in. Nothing more, nothing less. But a conscious being would provide unfavorable responses to such a test being as the setting is unnatural; observable reactions would be mixed with inquisitive confusion and uncertainty, which could ultimately manifest into biased physical responses.

And Original GTA Master, you still have yet to answer the question of what causes gravity. You've only managed to explain the relationship between gravitational forces of attraction, not the fundamental cause of such a force. By the way, 80 kg is equal to 784 N, not quite 800.

There's one thing to note, however, after reading all of this. Whether or not we are living within a simulation has absolutely no effect on practically anything at all. Assuming the postulate that we exist in a controlled environment based on an exact replica of that from the testers, then we essentially have the same understanding of the universe as they do, just with less-advanced technology and a substantially lower degree of historical knowledge. The only real difference between our reality and theirs may be that ours experiences an occassional glitch in the program.

[MishoM]

I wonder if my characters in the Sims wonder if they are in a simulation.

OH SHI-

[Harwood Butcher]

And Original GTA Master, you still have yet to answer the question of what causes gravity. You've only managed to explain the relationship between gravitational forces of attraction, not the fundamental cause of such a force. By the way, 80 kg is equal to 784 N, not quite 800.

I believe I did answer the question.

Gravity is caused by mass and distance.

Yeah, I know that 80KG isn't 800N, but I us g=10...so you could probably see why I got 800N. g isn't exactly 10.

[Gerard]

That doesn't explain why... as you admit you've explained what causes it, and how you calculate it, but not why. Anybody got a nice way of explaining this in spacetime terms? Or any other theories?

I never suggested G was the density - I said Henry Cavendish figured out the Earth's density, and someone else used his data to figure out the Earth's mass and G.

Osiris - I agree and disagree. All experiments (excluding Controls) involve see what happens when you do something. You apply something usual to multiple situations. This can range from adding different drugs to people suffering a disease, seeing who gets better. Or adding a stimulus to someone and seeing how they react compared to without the stimulus. They still have to give us the drug, or make something unusual happen, to see how we respond. So most of the universes they create for these experiments require the alteration of something. However, a computer simulation could be programmed with some differences from the start - such as seeing what happens if gravity was weaker on Earth, and seeing how civilisation managed with the problems and advantages of that different situation/scenario.

My point is that things that are normal to us ARE the points in the experiment. In the "Real world" things might be quite a lot different. A civilisation advanced enough to generate a universe like this would of course have the power to tailor everything how they wanted it. If their universe is similar to ours, they might only have changed a few things. If theirs is totally different, we're probably one in loads of simulations.

[Harwood Butcher]

That doesn't explain why... as you admit you've explained what causes it, and how you calculate it, but not why. Anybody got a nice way of explaining this in spacetime terms? Or any other theories?

You never directly asked why...you said "what". I even said "We know WHAT causes gravity, but we don't really know WHY it causes gravity."

I never suggested G was the density - I said Henry Cavendish figured out the Earth's density, and someone else used his data to figure out the Earth's mass and G.

...fair enough.

[osiris.]

Yeah, you're right.

The whole concept runs very deep. Who's to say that this simulation or any others are operated purely for reasons of research? Some of them may simply be for entertainment.

Also, while this idea does have some large differences to that of The Matrix, it still provides all the necessary justification for a scenario of a similar situation. Essentially, it's just an idea that explores the possibilities that lay beyond our awareness, which can be virtually anything.

[Harwood Butcher]

Oh yeah and maybe the creators of this "simulation" are simulations themselves...

[Hansui]

if you would ask the religious people... they would say God is the simulator

i remembered when my philosophy teacher told us about 5 ways that proves that there is a God... i think that relates this issue

[chris82]

God (or Gods) in the religious sense created us as the only group of inhabitants of the only universe. There are perhaps other parts of the universe that we can't access (heaven, hell etc) within this, but there isn't another universe with us running inside of it. The gods have full control over everything we do, although generally they choose to give us free will and only interact occasionally. Sounds like a pretty boring life.

There are so many things ridiculous about this whole concept but here's the best one: If the 'beings' knew that we knew that we were a simulation, wouldn't they alter something because that knowledge on our part could change the 'experiment's' outcome?

Also, please do relay the "5 ways that proves there is a God" so I can lulz a bit.

[Alkali64]

This guy thinks way too much...

Why not just enjoy life, instead of pondering over what else could be out there?

[Gerard]

You never directly asked why...you said "what". I even said "We know WHAT causes gravity, but we don't really know WHY it causes gravity."

That was the original question from Wheelman101 - he doesn't understand how gravity is possible or why it works. Sure we have figured out how to use it, and how to calculate it, and figured out what causes it, but not fully how it exerts a force on things far away from it.

There are so many things ridiculous about this whole concept but here's the best one: If the 'beings' knew that we knew that we were a simulation, wouldn't they alter something because that knowledge on our part could change the 'experiment's' outcome?

If it was an experiment, they would probably only change one thing each time, and see how everything reacts. This could be something small like changing people or situations or things like that, or something much larger like how far away the earth is from the sun, or something how strong gravity is, or the distribution of matter and antimatter (there's a lot more matter than antimatter).

[osiris.]

There are so many things ridiculous about this whole concept but here's the best one: If the 'beings' knew that we knew that we were a simulation, wouldn't they alter something because that knowledge on our part could change the 'experiment's' outcome?

Also, please do relay the "5 ways that proves there is a God" so I can lulz a bit.

It's all relative to the nature of the simulation. It may not even necessarily have to be an experiment. It could just be a simulation created for reasons of entertainment.

Despite the fact, even if it was an experimental based simulation, there's always a multitude of possible reasonings why the testers would allow such a thing to happen. It's just a byproduct of free-thinking conscious thought.

[MishoM]

God (or Gods) in the religious sense created us as the only group of inhabitants of the only universe. There are perhaps other parts of the universe that we can't access (heaven, hell etc) within this, but there isn't another universe with us running inside of it. The gods have full control over everything we do, although generally they choose to give us free will and only interact occasionally. Sounds like a pretty boring life.

There are so many things ridiculous about this whole concept but here's the best one: If the 'beings' knew that we knew that we were a simulation, wouldn't they alter something because that knowledge on our part could change the 'experiment's' outcome?

Also, please do relay the "5 ways that proves there is a God" so I can lulz a bit.

Well if it was for pure entertainment, wouldn't it be funner if there were a few guys no one believed running around knowing the truth?

[Harwood Butcher]

You never directly asked why...you said "what". I even said "We know WHAT causes gravity, but we don't really know WHY it causes gravity."

That was the original question from Wheelman101 - he doesn't understand how gravity is possible or why it works. Sure we have figured out how to use it, and how to calculate it, and figured out what causes it, but not fully how it exerts a force on things far away from it.

So you don't understand why an apple falls from a tree???