Argument from possible simulation

[excreationist]

Quoted in Silicon Valley S2E10:

“The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.”

― Frank Herbert, Dune

And simulations can be deliberately destroyed by intelligent forces.... (in addition to it being created and modified)

 

[Jarhyn]

Quoted in Silicon Valley S2E10:

“The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.”

― Frank Herbert, Dune

And simulations can be deliberately destroyed by intelligent forces.... (in addition to it being created and modified)

I can't destroy PI just by destroying a circle. You can't destroy a point on the number line by burning a piece of paper that it is graphed upon.

You can't destroy a universe just by mashing up a hard drive that instantiates it.

The power to destroy some instantiation of an identity doesn't destroy the identity.

It doesn't destroy the idea because ideas cannot be created or destroyed. At best you can create and destroy an awareness of the idea at some specific time and place. Maybe nobody will ever find the idea ever again.

I don't think that the power to lose track of something is much of anything special though.

 

[excreationist]

I can't destroy PI just by destroying a circle. You can't destroy a point on the number line by burning a piece of paper that it is graphed upon.

You can't destroy a universe just by mashing up a hard drive that instantiates it.

The power to destroy some instantiation of an identity doesn't destroy the identity.

It doesn't destroy the idea because ideas cannot be created or destroyed. At best you can create and destroy an awareness of the idea at some specific time and place. Maybe nobody will ever find the idea ever again.

I don't think that the power to lose track of something is much of anything special though.

If you can't destroy a simulation does that also mean you can't destroy files on a computer? You seem to believe in the reality of the world of Platonic ideas.... does that also mean that computer files can't be created since they already exist eternally?
A simulation is more than an idea - it also involves behavior....

 

[Jarhyn]

I can't destroy PI just by destroying a circle. You can't destroy a point on the number line by burning a piece of paper that it is graphed upon.

You can't destroy a universe just by mashing up a hard drive that instantiates it.

The power to destroy some instantiation of an identity doesn't destroy the identity.

It doesn't destroy the idea because ideas cannot be created or destroyed. At best you can create and destroy an awareness of the idea at some specific time and place. Maybe nobody will ever find the idea ever again.

I don't think that the power to lose track of something is much of anything special though.

If you can't destroy a simulation does that also mean you can't destroy files on a computer? You seem to believe in the reality of the world of Platonic ideas.... does that also mean that computer files can't be created since they already exist eternally?
A simulation is more than an idea - it also involves behavior....

You are conflating the power to destroy a thing with the ability to destroy a value.

The point I'm making is that ideas are not the sort of things that can be created or destroyed.

 

[George S]

I can't destroy PI just by destroying a circle. You can't destroy a point on the number line by burning a piece of paper that it is graphed upon.

You can't destroy a universe just by mashing up a hard drive that instantiates it.

The power to destroy some instantiation of an identity doesn't destroy the identity.

It doesn't destroy the idea because ideas cannot be created or destroyed. At best you can create and destroy an awareness of the idea at some specific time and place. Maybe nobody will ever find the idea ever again.

I don't think that the power to lose track of something is much of anything special though.

If you can't destroy a simulation does that also mean you can't destroy files on a computer? You seem to believe in the reality of the world of Platonic ideas.... does that also mean that computer files can't be created since they already exist eternally?
A simulation is more than an idea - it also involves behavior....

You are conflating the power to destroy a thing with the ability to destroy a value.

The point I'm making is that ideas are not the sort of things that can be created or destroyed.

No new ideas? That's a new idea.

 

[excreationist]

You are conflating the power to destroy a thing with the ability to destroy a value.

The point I'm making is that ideas are not the sort of things that can be created or destroyed.

If you responded to my questions, etc, in post #83 I would have a better understanding of what you're talking about....

I might be missing your point but a simulation is more than information ("values") - it also involves behavior and possibly conscious beings....

 

[connick]

Hi excreationist. I've seen your posts in pseudoscience lately regarding the possibility of being in a simulation. It's interesting to me that your musings on that subject extend to an argument for the existence of a god. I'd like to share some of my thoughts with you.

I've argued in the past on these fora that, while it is certainly possible that you or I or we are in a simulation (or any other scenario analogous to the deception of Descartes' Demon), we must axiomatically reject that possibility in order to make meaningful statements about the universe, other than "it may be a deception". If we entertain the possibility of being in a simulation, then any statement or argument is readily countered by that possibility. One could not, for instance, state that they experienced something without admitting that it is equally likely that the experience was a deception. Unfortunately, it means that unless a Descartes' Demon scenario (or any similar variant) is axiomatically rejected, then one is effectively rendered philosophically mute. As an example, each item in your opening post (and, in fact, everything you've ever written) could be appended with the phrase, "or it may be a deception", and thereby rendered practically meaningless.

In addition to the above I think there are some other points that you might find worthy of consideration.

If it were possible to coherently entertain the idea of being in a simulation, one might recognize certain limitations of what might be inferred about the simulation and the external universe in which it operates.

You've made statements regarding the possible origin, complexity, computability and perception of such a simulation that are, as far as I can tell, without a reasonable basis.

There is no reason to suspect that a simulation must have a creator per se. In our experience, simulations are created by people (though arguably this is the result of the behavior of the universe at large), but we can't justifiably expect that an external world in which a simulation operates contains anything like people or conscious entities or that they are required to establish the simulation. An equally likely possibility is that the apparent simulation is the product of some other kind of unguided process. Maybe the simulation is the natural outcome of some ordinary, non-intentional phenomenon in the supra-universe. In any case, it also begs the question of whether there are more creators in layers of simulation above that.

For similar reasons, there is no basis for assumptions about the complexity of such a simulation. Our understanding of complexity (and in fact all of physics and logic) may be entirely divorced from what goes on in the external world in which the simulation operates. As you and others have alluded, a simulation could operate with any rules whatsoever. Time within a simulation could flow backwards, branch or be traversable in multiple directions. Apparent laws of physics could be totally different, non-universal, mutable, or subject-dependent. Logic itself may work differently in the external world than within the simulation. Nothing within the simulation necessarily corresponds to the nature of the external universe.

Computationally, a full scale, high-fidelity simulation of our universe may be trivial to carry out in an outer world. Because one has no insight about what goes on outside of the simulation, one cannot assume the need for any part of our simulation to be abbreviated or for the "rendering" to scale based upon proximity or attention. Maybe simulated universes can be had for a quarter from a candy dispenser at the supra-market.

Lastly, perception within the simulation and the mechanisms that cause it, may render all of the above considerations moot (even if one ignores the epistemological hamstringing caused by entertaining the possibility of a simulation in the first place). As a simulated being, one would not know how or by what means perception occurs. Like Neo in The Matrix having kung fu skills "uploaded" into his brain or editing a save file from a video game, it is entirely possible that experience within the simulation could operate and be organized or manipulated in unknowable ways. Experiences and memories could be implanted or changed before, during or after an event. Elements of perception and knowledge could simply be injected and linked, sort of like in dreams where unfamiliar objects, people and places are readily understood and organized in ways that make no sense in the waking world (e.g. meeting a person in a dream who you immediately recognize as your daughter in a place that you immediately recognize as home, despite having no daughter at all and your house looking nothing like your dream).

In summary, we can't really have a meaningful discussion about whether we are in a simulation and, even if we break some rules of logic to speculate on the subject, it turns out we really have no good way of guessing what a world outside of such a simulation might be like.

Thanks for taking the time to read my take on your ideas and I look forward to any feedback you might have.

 

[skepticalbip]

.... snip ....

In summary, we can't really have a meaningful discussion about whether we are in a simulation and, even if we break some rules of logic to speculate on the subject, it turns out we really have no good way of guessing what a world outside of such a simulation might be like.

Exactly.

Any suggestion of a 'reality' that can not be tested is pretty much a waste of time. The suggestion that we are some critter that is asleep and only dreaming that we are a human on a planet we think is Earth and the rest of what we now see as reality is a suggestion that could equally be offered. If two groups of people were arguing with each other over which is of these possibilities was 'true', could either of them support their argument?

But then some people enjoy mental masturbation, as evidenced by a visit to our philosophy forums.

 

[excreationist]

....Computationally, a full scale, high-fidelity simulation of our universe may be trivial to carry out in an outer world.... Maybe simulated universes can be had for a quarter from a candy dispenser at the supra-market.

That supports my beliefs and my Elon Musk quote that there could be billions of simulations... Having even more simulations would strengthen that argument.

There is no reason to suspect that a simulation must have a creator per se. In our experience, simulations are created by people (though arguably this is the result of the behavior of the universe at large), but we can't justifiably expect that an external world in which a simulation operates contains anything like people or conscious entities or that they are required to establish the simulation. An equally likely possibility is that the apparent simulation is the product of some other kind of unguided process. Maybe the simulation is the natural outcome of some ordinary, non-intentional phenomenon in the supra-universe

BTW creator apparently means "a person or thing that brings something into existence." And some people call a natural force a "god".

The possibility of a completely unguided origin for a simulation seems to me like the Boltzmann brain argument....

....it turns out we really have no good way of guessing what a world outside of such a simulation might be like.

Well my hunch is that they would want to create and run simulations as cheaply as possible by using approximations and level of detail rather than explicitly simulating the 10⁵⁷ atoms in our Sun and similar stars. That way they can run more simulations... Note I'm not really being very specific about what the outside world might be like....

 

[connick]

Hi excreationist, thanks for the response.

That supports my beliefs and my Elon Musk quote that there could be billions of simulations... Having even more simulations would strengthen that argument.

No, it doesn't. We have no way of knowing how easy or hard it would be for our universe to be simulated. I remarked that it may be trivial only because you mentioned the apparent size and complexity of our universe and ways the simulation might cut corners to save on computation. We can't know if it's easy or if instead it requires a huge amount of time and resources. My point here is that an outer world may be nothing like the world we know.

BTW creator apparently means "a person or thing that brings something into existence." And some people call a natural force a "god".

The possibility of a completely unguided origin for a simulation seems to me like the Boltzmann brain argument....

I acknowledge pantheism, but that doesn't seem like what you're arguing for.

The Boltzmann brain argument is contingent on our understanding of the universe being correct. The argument from possible simulation which you are making entails that our understanding of the universe be nonexistent. Put simply, we can know nothing about a higher universe, if one were to exist.

Well my hunch is that they would want to create and run simulations as cheaply as possible by using approximations and level of detail rather than explicitly simulating the 1057 atoms in our Sun and similar stars. That way they can run more simulations... Note I'm not really being very specific about what the outside world might be like....

The hunch is unfounded. It's no better than a high thought, like those memes of Elon Musk smoking weed.

If we accept your first premise as true, that it's possible that we are in a simulation, then we can't accept any further premises as true.

 

[excreationist]

Well my hunch is that they would want to create and run simulations as cheaply as possible by using approximations and level of detail rather than explicitly simulating the 10⁵⁷ atoms in our Sun and similar stars. That way they can run more simulations... Note I'm not really being very specific about what the outside world might be like....

The hunch is unfounded. It's no better than a high thought, like those memes of Elon Musk smoking weed.

You said "Maybe simulated universes can be had for a quarter from a candy dispenser at the supra-market".

Let's say there were some for 25 cents each and others that didn't optimize the performance cost $25 million each.... (and level of detail and Machine Learning can make differences like that). Which ones do you think would sell better?

Or let's say one simulation simulated the 10⁵⁷ atoms in our Sun and another didn't and was able to create many trillions of simulations for a fraction of the cost....

You were the one that said the cost could be 25 cents each and that implies a less efficient simulation would be more expensive. I assume you're not saying that the outside world would have infinite resources making money meaningless....

But even if that is the case that implies there could be trillions of simulations making the odds that we're in a simulation higher....

If we accept your first premise as true, that it's possible that we are in a simulation, then we can't accept any further premises as true.

A creator apparently means "a person or thing that brings something into existence."

Would you agree that something would have brought a simulation into existence?

We have no way of knowing how easy or hard it would be for our universe to be simulated.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the worst case scenario is that its computers would be like ours.... and in the coming decades and centuries we would be able to make simulations that seem real.... otherwise please explain why the outside world would not be able to make computers similar to ours....

 

[connick]

You said "Maybe simulated universes can be had for a quarter from a candy dispenser at the supra-market".

Let's say there were some for 25 cents each and others that didn't optimize the performance cost $25 million each.... (and level of detail and Machine Learning can make differences like that). Which ones do you think would sell better?

Or let's say one simulation simulated the 1057 atoms in our Sun and another didn't and was able to create many trillions of simulations for a fraction of the cost....

You were the one that said the cost could be 25 cents each and that implies a less efficient simulation would be more expensive. I assume you're not saying that the outside world would have infinite resources making money meaningless....

But even if that is the case that implies there could be trillions of simulations making the odds that we're in a simulation higher....

Forgive me if I have not made my point clear. What I'm saying is that we cannot know or even reasonably justify a guess as to what an outside world might be like.

Anything, be it cost or computational complexity or even the physics and logic of an outside world, if they exist at all, is completely unknowable.

Nothing within a simulation necessarily corresponds with the world outside of it. Money, cost and complexity might have no meaning in an outer world. Physics, math and logic as we know them, might have no meaning as well.

We can say nothing about the probability of being in a simulation because nothing within the simulation necessarily provides any evidence about a world outside of it.

Like I said before, if we accept the possibility of being in a simulation, we can make no further statements about anything at all.

A creator apparently means "a person or thing that brings something into existence."

Would you agree that something would have brought a simulation into existence?

No, I would not agree. Even the concept of "thing" might be a deception caused by the supposed simulation if we accept the first premise of your argument. An outer world may be completely unintuitive and incomprehensible to us.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the worst case scenario is that its computers would be like ours.... and in the coming decades and centuries we would be able to make simulations that seem real.... otherwise please explain why the outside world would not be able to make computers similar to ours....

We can make no reasonable assumptions about an outer world. Certainly, computers like our own might possibly exist in an outside world, but that possibility is one of an endless set of unprovable possibilities. Outer world computers might not operate anything like the way they do for us. There might be no such thing as computers at all. The very concept of computations and simulation might just be artifacts of a simulation that have no correlate in the outside world.

Arguing for the possibility of being within a simulation is a self-limiting position. Every subsequent premise may be justifiably dismissed as being a potential delusion caused by said simulation.

 

[excreationist]

.....Nothing within a simulation necessarily corresponds with the world outside of it. Money, cost and complexity might have no meaning in an outer world. Physics, math and logic as we know them, might have no meaning as well.....

If there is no such thing as money or cost and they created our simulation that implies they've created a huge number of simulations. Or do you think ours is the only simulation they've created?

 

[connick]

If there is no such thing as money or cost and they created our simulation that implies they've created a huge number of simulations. Or do you think ours is the only simulation they've created?

I feel like you're not acknowledging the central point that I've been reiterating.

We cannot know anything about an outer world. Nothing at all. Worse, if you accept the premise that we might be in a simulation, then we cannot even know anything about OUR world.

 

[excreationist]

If there is no such thing as money or cost and they created our simulation that implies they've created a huge number of simulations. Or do you think ours is the only simulation they've created?

I feel like you're not acknowledging the central point that I've been reiterating.

We cannot know anything about an outer world. Nothing at all.

Do you think it is reasonable to assume that the processes running our simulation involve causality? In order to have causality, one event must come before another event. I'd say that there is a limit to how small delays in time can be. Or do you think there could be no limit to how tiny a period of time can be? If there is a limit then there is a limit to how fast a simulation can run. There would be a difference between a bottom-up simulation and a top-down simulation that could run a googol times faster. Do you think that the space inside an outer world has to have a limit to how small a distance can be? If time and space have no minimum size then I think the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise applies.

Worse, if you accept the premise that we might be in a simulation, then we cannot even know anything about OUR world.

We can know what we seem to be perceiving... this quote is somewhat relevant... (though I'm not that detached lately)
https://www.lifesplayer.com/happiness.php

"....The screen may be projecting a horrendous movie that is showing all kinds of pain and suffering - on the screen. Or the screen may reflect a happy movie that shows a beautiful sunset, a delightful sexual experience, or an enjoyable meal. But the essential you is the pure awareness that just watches the stuff go by on the screen of your life...."​

 

[connick]

Do you think it is reasonable to assume that the processes running our simulation involve causality? In order to have causality, one event must come before another event. I'd say that there is a limit to how small delays in time can be. Or do you think there could be no limit to how tiny a period of time can be? If there is a limit then there is a limit to how fast a simulation can run. There would be a difference between a bottom-up simulation and a top-down simulation that could run a googol times faster. Do you think that the space inside an outer world has to have a limit to how small a distance can be? If time and space have no minimum size then I think the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise applies.

It really puzzles me that you would ask me this question.

As I've indicated already, the answer is no. We cannot make any assumptions about what an outer world may be like. Here's an analogy that may help you understand what I've been saying.

Let's say Pac Man was questioning whether he was in a simulation. He might wonder things like, "what color ghosts chase the beings in the outer world?", "how many continues do the beings in the outer world have?", "how far do beings in the outer world have to travel before they warp back around to the other side of the screen?", "how many levels are there?", "how many points are cherries worth?", "what is the high score?", etc.

Of course, there are no ghosts chasing us in our world, nobody has any continues, we do not move on screens which warp back around when we reach the edge, there are no levels, there are no points earned by eating fruit and there is no high score.

Nothing in Pac Man's world necessarily tells him anything about our world. Similarly, if we were in a simulation, there are no observations that we could make that would necessarily tell us anything about the outside world.

Causality, time, anything and everything we think we perceive, could just be part of a simulation with no real correlate in an outside world and there is no way of knowing.

We can know what we seem to be perceiving... this quote is somewhat relevant... (though I'm not that detached lately)
https://www.lifesplayer.com/happiness.php
"....The screen may be projecting a horrendous movie that is showing all kinds of pain and suffering - on the screen. Or the screen may reflect a happy movie that shows a beautiful sunset, a delightful sexual experience, or an enjoyable meal. But the essential you is the pure awareness that just watches the stuff go by on the screen of your life...."

If we reject the notion that we might be in a simulation, sure, we can know something. But, if we don't reject that notion, then we have to admit that anything we think we know or perceive is possibly a total deception or delusion; we could know nothing.

 

[excreationist]

.....Causality, time, anything and everything we think we perceive, could just be part of a simulation with no real correlate in an outside world and there is no way of knowing.

If there is no causality in the outside world I think there is no "before" or "cause" for the simulation... this possibility sounds a bit like the Christian God - having no time at all then somehow creating our universe.... (though you'd say that the thing that created the universe might not have any intelligence)

If we reject the notion that we might be in a simulation, sure, we can know something. But, if we don't reject that notion, then we have to admit that anything we think we know or perceive is possibly a total deception or delusion; we could know nothing.

That quote was about watching a "screen".... i.e. a simulation. It says "the essential you is the pure awareness that just watches the stuff go by on the screen". Do you think that we don't have awareness?

BTW if PacMan was conscious I thought that he might assume that something outside of the simulation is also conscious (and in our case this is true). Though you'd insist that that doesn't need to be the case....

 

[excreationist]

connick:
All of the simulations/games in our world were started by an intelligent force. In the future this would probably also be the case. There would probably be billions or trillions of simulations in the coming years. So it seems likely that the simulation we might be in could have been created by an intelligent force. Perhaps the alternative is a simulation created by a non-intelligent force... chance...? Intelligence is a lot more efficient than unguided chance at creating meaningful complex structures. e.g. chance creating Boltzmann brains vs evolution or technology...
Intelligence being more efficient than chance means intelligence could create more simulations than chance with a given amount of resources - so it would imply that it is more likely we'd be in a simulation created by intelligence than by chance.

 

[George S]

connick:
All of the simulations/games in our world were started by an intelligent force. In the future this would probably also be the case. There would probably be billions or trillions of simulations in the coming years. So it seems likely that the simulation we might be in could have been created by an intelligent force. Perhaps the alternative is a simulation created by a non-intelligent force... chance...? Intelligence is a lot more efficient than unguided chance at creating meaningful complex structures. e.g. chance creating Boltzmann brains vs evolution or technology...
Intelligence being more efficient than chance means intelligence could create more simulations than chance with a given amount of resources - so it would imply that it is more likely we'd be in a simulation created by intelligence than by chance.

If we are an example of a created universe -- a logical possibility -- we can never know. If we are an example of a non-created universe -- there must be at least 1 -- we can never know. A non-created universe just is. Always has been. If there was a "time" before the universe turned on, then that "time" was meaningless. An empty universe with only time arunning, if there ever was such a state, was apparently unstable.

If we are a dream in the Boltzmann Brain then that was the instability which yielded a BB. If we are the result of the tiniest space that can contain all the energy in our universe -- a Big Bang -- the instability yielded a BB. If we are in a higher-being-created universe -- an artifact in a more fundamental, more real universe as Jewish myth asserts -- then we are in a simulation.

It doesn't matter. Conway's Game of Life is Turing complete. We can generate an artificial intelligence with CGoL. We can mess with the "physics" of the CGoL where that AI lives. We can play god creating and destroying at our whim.

There is no evidence of this. Yes, your logic is correct. If our existence is a simulation then Jewish-Christian myth (or any other) could be correct. The creator of the universe could be a dude named YHWH. He may be able to create backup copies of any individual and only those who worship him restored from backup in an alternate created universe named heaven with all memories intact. Could be. With exactly the same probability as being in a simulation. Just no evidence.

 

[Jarhyn]

connick:
All of the simulations/games in our world were started by an intelligent force. In the future this would probably also be the case. There would probably be billions or trillions of simulations in the coming years. So it seems likely that the simulation we might be in could have been created by an intelligent force. Perhaps the alternative is a simulation created by a non-intelligent force... chance...? Intelligence is a lot more efficient than unguided chance at creating meaningful complex structures. e.g. chance creating Boltzmann brains vs evolution or technology...
Intelligence being more efficient than chance means intelligence could create more simulations than chance with a given amount of resources - so it would imply that it is more likely we'd be in a simulation created by intelligence than by chance.

If we are an example of a created universe -- a logical possibility -- we can never know. If we are an example of a non-created universe -- there must be at least 1 -- we can never know. A non-created universe just is. Always has been. If there was a "time" before the universe turned on, then that "time" was meaningless. An empty universe with only time arunning, if there ever was such a state, was apparently unstable.

If we are a dream in the Boltzmann Brain then that was the instability which yielded a BB. If we are the result of the tiniest space that can contain all the energy in our universe -- a Big Bang -- the instability yielded a BB. If we are in a higher-being-created universe -- an artifact in a more fundamental, more real universe as Jewish myth asserts -- then we are in a simulation.

It doesn't matter. Conway's Game of Life is Turing complete. We can generate an artificial intelligence with CGoL. We can mess with the "physics" of the CGoL where that AI lives. We can play god creating and destroying at our whim.

There is no evidence of this. Yes, your logic is correct. If our existence is a simulation then Jewish-Christian myth (or any other) could be correct. The creator of the universe could be a dude named YHWH. He may be able to create backup copies of any individual and only those who worship him restored from backup in an alternate created universe named heaven with all memories intact. Could be. With exactly the same probability as being in a simulation. Just no evidence.

And there we are, back around the horn to the fact that "simulation" is metadata, and we have no "metareality" against which to determine such metadata. There is only the text of what is, for us.

This could get clarified through a clear identification of "a vector of magic", but we have yet to find such a thing, and even then it doesn't say one iota more than "these absurd things happened to happen in this new way we have identified things to be capable of happening."