Can anyone make a good case against the simulation argument?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


Bit confusing when 1 asserts "simulated universes are possible" and 2 "if simulated universes are possible" (i.e. simulated universes are either possible or not possible). Which is it?
edit on 29-10-2012 by Kovenov because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.

I like where this is going. lol
This looks pretty solid at first glance, I'd need to marinade on it for a while to have any chance of coming up with a good counter-argument.

They recently had success in building the first quantum processor, so I suppose we will have the computer technology for a full universe simulation in another couple centuries, if humanity makes it that far without a reset.

But just thinking about the simulated universe #1 reaching the point where they simulate their own universe inside of their unbeknownst simulated universe... that kind of blows my mind. At what speed would say, universe #5 be running at in relation to universe #1... and how much extra computing would be required to have all those universes inside of universes at the same time.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


I believe there is a large leap in logic from 2 to 3.

Just because they have been created before does NOT mean they automatically outnumber real universes. Just because something can be done does not mean it is done often.

We have no idea how much power an entity requires in order to create and maintain a simulated reality that controls the lives of other beings.
edit on 29/10/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Well, in our limited development, not to mention the incredible potential we can now see for future development, if we think intelligently and imaginatively...

It is certainly possible to create realistically programmed logic-sequences that could create a 'realistic' seeming world...and it is certainly possible to create a technology that could simulate realistically sense-perceptions...and those sense-perceptions would go along with the previously mentioned realistically programmed logic...

Therefore, the initial premise IS solid...

And if the initial premise is solid, it DOES follow there would be more simulated realities than realities, since a given universe would almost definitely produce more than one simulation

Therefore, it IS more probable that we are in a simulation than a real world...

Not saying I believe it, but certainly interesting to think about



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Who says simulated universes aren't "real"? Of course they are. Which begins the question, if there is an "original" universe or if it's even possible. Perhaps simulations are an infinite cycle of sorts.

When we begin creating simulations, an endless number of them can be treated as a ladder/hierarchy for drawing out information on anything that can possibly be created, invented, or essentially exist.

For an example; by 2050 we're running quantum computers that can simulate a universe, & the progression of natural events (evolution) over the course of X amount of years. Let's just say 14 billion years for this example. So inside the simulation the time is relative to itself, i.e 'true', but to the simulators posting by their quantum machine, the simulation passes by in a matter of seconds, minutes, etc. By the end of the simulation, the data is collected; let's assume there were trillions of sentient beings that lived on different worlds (planets). From there we can take & use ALL that information on their thoughts, experiences, & creations for our own purpose. For whatever possible purpose it is, even if just for the sake of knowledge. Multiply that times millions of machines running simulations all day every day.

So basically, if simulations become a real possibility to us -- at whatever point that is -- it will literally create a singularity of information/data, where we're collecting the experiences/progression of COUNTLESS universes. At which point, there will be no limits to our knowledge, no bounds to what we can do or know.

The first, and pretty much only step towards this singularity, is the ability to create simulations. That may require an insane amount of computing power, but with the evolution of our processing technology I think it's closer than we think. I just posted a thread recently on the new Princeton discovery for manufacturing quantum processors with millions of qbits. That may be the key to a reality we can't even begin to comprehend.
edit on 29-10-2012 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
If simulated realities are possible and probable and in reality they outnumber real realities... wouldn't it be crazy if we existed in a Real Reality?

What are the chances of that!!!

More possible than probable? And if so, doesn't that mean that there are also more real realities than simulated ones, which diametrically opposes both arguments nullifying any outcome.

One legged albino elephants wouldn't exist in a simulated reality. Who could get the texture correct.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   


It is certainly possible to create realistically programmed logic-sequences that could create a 'realistic' seeming world...and it is certainly possible to create a technology that could simulate realistically sense-perceptions...and those sense-perceptions would go along with the previously mentioned realistically programmed logic...
reply to post by TheJourney
 


creating a realistic environment that can fool a human being is still way beyond our computing power

human beings are capable of percieving only a tiny fraction of their environment - we can't percieve anywhere near the atomic scale and there are degrees of complexity beyond this.

even our entire planet is only an infinitesimally small part of the universe that we can see.

i took the op's question to be about simulating an entire universe

the amount of computing power required would be so many orders of magnitude larger than we are capable of now i don't think there's any way for us to comprehend it - let alone to say we'll be able to do it

edit on 29-10-2012 by aynock because: filled out



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Simulated reality is a personal truth for me, one that I can't proof to others but I can proof it to myself by my own experiences.
So far I came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. I'm here till the moment I die and then I either have more experiences or I don't.
I only have one question left: who/what creates the simulation?
Is it pre-set? Do we co-create? Or does the individual brain create it?
And... can we consciously change it? Only in the now, or also through time?



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 
I don't accept we live in a simulated reality although I do accept that they may be theoretically possible.

Look at the road surface as a specific 'reality' to think about. Consider the constant destruction by eolian forces, friction, water and sun. Every second of every day, particles are sheared off and go somewhere else on the whims of wind and rain. Brake dust and tyre particulates are showering down on the road surface along with pollens, leaf matter and even bird crap. Blood and bones, fur and skin - all part of the environment that road surfaces represent.

The incredible complexity of life and our universe is encapsulated by these very human constructions. For me, I cannot accept an intelligent designer or advanced civilisation that could, or would, design a simulated reality with such complexity. That doesn't mean I can't conceive of separate realities or parallel worlds, I just think the 'simulated universe' idea is adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to what is already too complex for current physics and the human experience.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by aynock


It is certainly possible to create realistically programmed logic-sequences that could create a 'realistic' seeming world...and it is certainly possible to create a technology that could simulate realistically sense-perceptions...and those sense-perceptions would go along with the previously mentioned realistically programmed logic...
reply to post by TheJourney
 


creating a realistic environment that can fool a human being is still way beyond our computing power

human beings are capable of percieving only a tiny fraction of their environment - we can't percieve anywhere near the atomic scale and there are degrees of complexity beyond this.

even our entire planet is only an infinitesimally small part of the universe that we can see.

i took the op's question to be about simulating an entire universe

the amount of computing power required would be so many orders of magnitude larger than we are capable of now i don't think there's any way for us to comprehend it - let alone to say we'll be able to do it

edit on 29-10-2012 by aynock because: filled out


I didn't say we already could...I said we can conceive of the possibility, with continuing improvements



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


I agree that it matters to find out. But one of the popular guys jumped in one of these threads once with the opinion that its doesn't matter and now some people seam to be following him.


I thought it was human nature to want to discover? as soon as we can talk we ask questions.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.


First of all in order to present a hypothesis such as that in your post,the extremes must have been defined,i.e what is the definition of reality and what constitutes a simulation?,To me this question is unanswerable as these two states have not been defined,and never really can be.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible


Possibly, lol.


2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before


The "probably" makes that a weak statement, but it's invalid anyway, because you can't derive a positive conclusion from a possibility.


3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes


That's another invalid assumption, which stems from another "if" statement.


and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis?


Yes -- it is a house of cards, built off of illogical conclusions. Pull out any of those probabilities and the whole argument falls apart, and the easiest one to pull out is the first, because positively averring that something is possible doesn't make it so.

Look at it another way -- science says that, practically, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. So let's apply that to the basic question "why is there something, rather than nothing?" Now, the simplest explanation is that there should be nothing -- one can argue, in fact, that it is nearly infinitely more probable that there would be nothing, rather than something, and yet here we are.

Following your line of logic, one can only come to the conclusion that there is, in fact, nothing, because it is infinitely implausible for there to be something. The fact that there is something, rather than nothing, indicates that the logical argument is invalid.
edit on 29-10-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by lampsalot
The argument from simulation states that

1) Simulated universes are possible
2) If they are possible, they probably have been created before
3) If they have been created, they outnumber real universes

and therefore

4) we most likely live in a simulated universe.

Is there any argument you would put against that hypothesis? It sounds pretty solid to me and makes a lot of sense, though it's such a bold claim that I think there's also a good chance it's wrong.


This line of reasoning as a reductio ad absurdem. First of all, under what conditions are simulated universes possible? It seems only when man creates them. Every 'simulated universe' that has been possible or even fathomed has been created by man within the confines of the real universe. Every simulated universe needs a real universe to simulate. Without the real universe, there could be no simulated universes to base them on.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Without the real universe, there could be no simulated universes to base them on.


Tell me how you come to this conclusion. And what exactly is a "real universe"? Of course we consider ours real, but what would make a simulated replica not real -- at the very least to its sentient inhabitants.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
edit on 29-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Without the real universe, there could be no simulated universes to base them on.


Tell me how you come to this conclusion. And what exactly is a "real universe"? Of course we consider ours real, but what would make a simulated replica not real -- at the very least to its sentient inhabitants.


Any simulation ever conceived is modelled, at least partially, after reality. If it isn't, it cannot be called a simulation. The word simulation, the idea of a simulation, and all creations of simulations have been done so by man on a planet called earth. How can one fathom the idea of a simulation outside of its context? It cannot be done.

A simulation of the universe existing and persisting from somehow outside of the universe is a paradox.

Lets pretend an ant farm is a simulation of an anthill. To the ant inside, the ant farm appears and works much like an ant hill. For all the ant knows, his home is an anthill. But who created this simulation? Every time the answer would be man created it. So unless man is somehow existing outside of our universe, there is no need to believe reality is a simulation. Doing so is an anthropomorphism.

By 'real universe', I meant what we label as the universe.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The weakest link is #1.

A simulation can be conscious only if the universe is strictly deterministic and consciousness "arises" out of the deterministic actions of particles and forces. But if consciousness is something more fundamental, and does not "arise" out of mathematical logic, then obviously no mere simulation can create it.

Determinism is dubious, not only for the obvious intuitive reasons (if consciousness just "arises", then how can we talk about it? Are we not affecting physical reality, the vibrations in the air or currents on the Net, by talking about it? Therefore consciousness must have an effect on physical reality), but also for the fact that it has been proven that we can never know whether or not the universe is strictly deterministic (Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle).

That's right, science has discovered that it is agnostic on the philosophical question of materialist determinism. But determinism would have to be true for #1 to be true. Therefore, #1 is open to doubt.

edit on 29-10-2012 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I love ATS because there are so many "geniuses" on here. OP did not pull this out of thin air.

www.simulation-argument.com...

Nick Bostrom is way smarter than any of you.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadda333
I love ATS because there are so many "geniuses" on here. OP did not pull this out of thin air.

www.simulation-argument.com...

Nick Bostrom is way smarter than any of you.


Ooooh, smart guy from Oxford makes illogical argument and suddenly it's logical!


If Bostrom posited it the same way that the OP did, he's no more correct than the OP... Oxford not withstanding. Sign him up with Larry Krauss to sing a duet of "Smart Guys, Stupid Ideas"





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join