bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,142
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
And if it were possible, it wouldn't follow that it would happen billions of times. Once you simulate all of reality, why do it again?
-
Features
Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?
- Thread starter excreationist
- Start date
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
If the latest consoles could play games that are indistinguishable from reality, how many times would people collectively run those games over the coming centuries? Once? There are already over a billion people playing games and they'd play multiple games...
Also it isn't about faithfully simulating all of reality (like the 10^57 atoms in the Sun) - it just needs to be realistic enough from the point of view of a player - I think it would resemble reality but a lot of the specifics might be different.
Last edited:
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I think representations in a way are simulations. So a video of a real event is a simulation of the real event and a video of a fake event is a simulation of a representation or simulation of a simulation. So what you seem to be asking is since layman using ordinary senses through a computer interface have a hard time distinguishing between a simulation and a simulation of a simulation, wouldn't that imply your original thesis: one day it will be possible to make a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality.
Let me try to define some things here. First, a simulation to me is a representation of a thing in some way, it's a thing that mimics some features of another thing or category of things and in order to do that it is either incomplete as there are things that it does not possess, at a minimum it could be the true process or true location, or it is inconsistent with the real thing or category of things, meaning a feature(s) does not fit. Second, "distinguishable" to me means that it is logically possible for an appropriately trained or skilled person utilizing the right technology to ascertain such difference (incomplete mapping or inconsistent mapping) between thing A and thing B (or set of things C). Thirdly, I will now posit that the technology to create simulations cannot surpass the technology of the same era that is used to detect either the incompleteness or inconsistency between a simulation and a real thing. Though particular experts from time to time may have difficulties--perhaps not all information is available to them for example--it remains logically possible at all times to distinguish one from the other.
Now when you write about indistinguishability you seem to be using it in a less academic manner--like say socially by laymen and expert fraudsters. So, for example, suppose a hundred years from now a person is drugged and a future-technology VR head set is placed on them so that when they become semi-conscious they experience a simulated environment. They then behold themselves in the VR murdering a person and in the VR eventually they go to sleep while in reality they are drugged more to go unconscious. They wake up and some people dressed up as police take them to the station to question them and yell at them. Would they _believe_ they were in a real event? Probably.
To me, that is a very different thing from a blanket statement saying that a simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Finally, I will just add that I don't think this idea of a simulation is new, except for the terminology makes it sound scifi. It really is more of a vestigial artifact of religion. The way religions function is to offer something to people and get something back (usually money, sex or power). The thing offered is unreality--usually the fake existence of something beyond life such as an afterlife or an enlightened state. There's no waking up and taking off the VR headset in another dimension when we die. When we die, we die. There's no interesting cool Matrix. There's just life while we are here.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
I think that is an advantage - for it not to just be a new idea. I am a fan of this dream thought experiment - apparently it is related to Hinduism:
1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1
I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []
web.archive.org
In that previous link you "wake up" after you die, also in this scenario:
If I still believed there was definitely no afterlife I'd be more likely to try and commit suicide again. The last time I was gassing myself in my car I thought I'd listen to the radio and heard Ben Lee's "Gamble Everything for Love" and the start of New Radicals' "You Get What You Give". After I heard the lyrics of "you've got a reason to live" from that song I stopped things but I was pretty disorientated. There are also quite a few other stories. I'm not saying there would definitely be an afterlife but I now believe I might be penalised in some way if I killed myself at this point in my life (and also I don't want to negatively impact my wife, etc).
Being "indistinguishable from reality" is from the player's point of view. Nick Bostrom also says that people's memories could be modified if they came across some problem with the simulation.
To go back to what you said earlier, even though it happens in Black Mirror a lot, you think that people will never hook up a mind or brain up to a simulation? Even in 10,000 years time?
On the other hand it's good that most people don't believe we're in a simulation because that would make things less immersive - that first link says:
Last edited:
pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 7,140
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
The key point, though, is that there is no reason to think anyone in any video or simulation is conscious.
Now, of course, maybe it is POSSIBLE for such to be conscious, but the jury is out because we lack data on what consciousness exactly is or how it is generated from physical processes. But I find it really far fetched to suppose that avatars in video games are conscious. Agree? Disagree?
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
Actually I think that is a good thing...
I think the player is conscious though. If an electronic copy of a brain can't be conscious then you could use a biological brain. It would also be far cheaper to make NPCs appear to be conscious (like in the video I shared with Trump, etc) than for them to truly be conscious. The cheaper the simulation is the more likely there would be lots of them.
Last edited:
pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 7,140
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
Actually I think that is a good thing...
I think the player is conscious though. If an electronic copy of a brain can't be conscious then you could use a biological brain. It would also be far cheaper to make characters appear to be conscious (like in the video I shared with Trump, etc) than for them to truly be conscious. The cheaper the simulation is the more likely there would be lots of them.
But since we are conscious, that undercuts your argument that we, who are conscious, live in a simulation,
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
I'm saying the player is definitely conscious. The others give the impression that they are conscious. If it is possible for NPCs to be conscious then it is up to the creator of the simulation whether they want billions of people to experience suffering and also want to pay billions of times more to run the simulation. Black Mirror also shows simulations where many of the NPCs aren't truly conscious, they just give that impression.
Anyway to be practical I just assume everyone is conscious because that is a more psychological healthy thing to do. My psychologist and psychiatrist and GP would get concerned if I insisted just about everyone else is probably a philosophical zombie. Though I do tell them I think I'm probably in a simulation.
So I try to not cause suffering for people even if it is possible they can't experience genuine suffering. That also makes things more immersive.
Last edited:
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
Are you saying that all the people on this messageboard seem to be conscious so therefore they are conscious and consciousness might not be able to be simulated so therefore we aren't in a simulation?
BTW this was from a year ago where AI could respond in real time with a voice that seemed to have genuine emotions like having laughter/sense of humour:
Later in the video where the AI is told to sing a whispery lullaby about "majestic potatoes".
I'm sure AI can also convincingly sound like they are in unbearable agony - without having to be capable of experiencing genuine pain...
Last edited:
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Isn't the big question where we will ever be able to meet or talk to them? And if we could talk, could we ever understand eachother?
Considering how big the universe is and how far apart advanced civilisations will be, it's possible that no civiliastions will ever come into contact.
The universe isn't stable. It's expanding. And the expansion is accelerating. The world's that support intelligent life might never be able to interact. Or if they do, communication might be so slow no meaningful communication can be established.
Considering how big the universe is and how far apart advanced civilisations will be, it's possible that no civiliastions will ever come into contact.
The universe isn't stable. It's expanding. And the expansion is accelerating. The world's that support intelligent life might never be able to interact. Or if they do, communication might be so slow no meaningful communication can be established.
pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 7,140
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
I am trying to get clear on this. Do you believe you live in a simulation but that everyone but you is a p-zombie? That is effectively, though not quite, solipsism.
Why would you believe these things if in fact you do?
There is the philosophical problem of other minds, but I don’t think it is intended as a serious argument that no one except you has a mind or qualia. I think it is more intended as a thought experiment to show how damned hard it is to be certain of anything beyond any doubt whatsoever (as opposed to reasonable doubt).
In any case, I assure you I am not a p-zombie. I just can’t prove it.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I think that is an advantage - for it not to just be a new idea. I am a fan of this dream thought experiment - apparently it is related to Hinduism:
I see each session of dreaming as being relevant to a simulation/game. It begins in God mode, etc.1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1
I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []
In that previous link you "wake up" after you die, also in this scenario:
If I still believed there was definitely no afterlife I'd be more likely to try and commit suicide again. The last time I was gassing myself in my car I thought I'd listen to the radio and heard Ben Lee's "Gamble Everything for Love" and the start of New Radicals' "You Get What You Give". After I heard the lyrics of "you've got a reason to live" from that song I stopped things but I was pretty disorientated. There are also quite a few other stories. I'm not saying there would definitely be an afterlife but I now believe I might be penalised in some way if I killed myself at this point in my life (and also I don't want to negatively impact my wife, etc).
Being "indistinguishable from reality" is from the player's point of view. Nick Bostrom also says that people's memories could be modified if they came across some problem with the simulation.
To go back to what you said earlier, even though it happens in Black Mirror a lot, you think that people will never hook up a mind or brain up to a simulation? Even in 10,000 years time?
On the other hand it's good that most people don't believe we're in a simulation because that would make things less immersive - that first link says:
I appreciate you sharing your perspective, and I want to respond to the philosophical points, but first, I must address the personal comments. The experience you described is a serious matter, and I strongly recommend you seek appropriate professional help. My primary concern is your well-being, and I encourage you to contact a crisis hotline or a mental health professional. As you know, there is also a Support Fireside forum here. I am intentionally not engaging with these personal details further, as they are entangled with your belief system and require professional support, not forum debate.
Regarding the issue of commonality between the simulation hypothesis and religious models, I believe you are focusing too narrowly on the surface-level comparison without examining the underlying function of religion.
You brought up the idea of forgetting you are dreaming to make it seem real--a point which perfectly highlights the structural similarity between the simulation idea and many religious doctrines. Let's use Mormonism as a concrete example, as it makes these simulation parallels particularly clear:
- Pre-existence: Prior to birth, your consciousness/soul exists in a separate, perfect realm (the Celestial Kingdom). (Analogy: The true person existing outside the simulation.)
- Life Selection: the almighty decides what life you will go into based on what you can handle in theory (Analogy: player profile)
- The Veil: Upon birth/conception, the soul passes through a "veil," causing it to forget all memory of its pre-earth existence. This forgetting is essential for the "test" to be valid. (Analogy: VR Headset)
- The Simulation: Existence on Earth is a limited, difficult trial period. (Analogy: limited-time game session)
- Resurrection/Judgment: Upon death, the veil is removed, and the person is judged on their performance, with their soul/conscious mind returning to the pre-existence, now able to remember everything. (Analogy: VR Headset is removed.)
lim n--> infinity [ Time on Earth / Reward Time (After Life) ] = 0
If n (the time in the afterlife) approaches infinity, the fraction of your existence spent on Earth approaches zero. This life is rendered practically meaningless relative to eternity.
The greatest logical flaw in a "test" religion—or a religion framed as a simulation—is the paradox of being told it is a test in the middle of it.
- If the purpose is a pure test, then any hint of the rules, the stakes, or the existence of a reward system (i.e., the entire religious text) breaks the integrity of the test. An effective test requires true-to-life consequences.
- If the purpose is total immersion (as the quote you provided suggests), then the whole structure of religion—the promise of an afterlife—should be completely hidden until the simulation ends.