Is our reality a simulation?

Insanity · 2016-06-25 15:49:16

This isn't a troll thread, it is actually a scientific theory known as the Simulation Hypothesis.

In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument". Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that we live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions must be true. The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors. Therefore, at least one of the following three propositions is almost certainly true:

1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero"

2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero"

3. "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"

Bostrom goes on to use a type of anthropic reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the one of those three that is true, and almost all people with our kind of experiences live in simulations, then we are almost certainly living in a simulation.

Bostrom claims his argument goes beyond the classical ancient "skeptical hypothesis", claiming that "...we have interesting empirical reasons to believe that a certain disjunctive claim about the world is true", the third of the three disjunctive propositions being that we are almost certainly living in a simulation. Thus, Bostrom, and writers in agreement with Bostrom such as David Chalmers, argue there might be empirical reasons for the "simulation hypothesis", and that therefore the simulation hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis but rather a "metaphysical hypothesis". Bostrom states he personally sees no strong argument for which of the three trilemma propositions is the true one: "If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3)... I note that people who hear about the simulation argument often react by saying, 'Yes, I accept the argument, and it is obvious that it is possibility #n that obtains.' But different people pick a different n. Some think it obvious that (1) is true, others that (2) is true, yet others that (3) is true."

PROOF OF THE HYPOTHESIS

The closest that anybody has ever gotten to even hinting at something like this to be possible is Physicist Silas R. Beane, who actually proposed a way that the hypothesis itself could be proved. He basically stated that:

Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe would be performed by dividing the continuum space-time into a discrete set of points. In analogy with the mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists run today to build up nuclei from the underlying theory of strong interactions (known as Quantum chromodynamics), several observational consequences of a grid-like space-time have been studied in their work. Among proposed signatures is an anisotropy in the distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, that, if observed, would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis according to these physicists (but, of course, would not prove that the universe is a simulation).

It would show that the hypothesis has merit but obviously there isn't enough info to concretely prove that we're in a simulation, we just don't have those kinds of resources.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Obviously Bostrom's hypothesis is purely philosophical considering that he's a philosopher, but if you look at it from a scientific perspective:

Physicists have been able to prove to almost 99% accuracy that the instance a few milliseconds after the big bang actually did in fact occur. However, what's insane is that AT the instance of the big bang, every single law we know about physics, biology, chemistry and any other science, and our knowledge of particles is completely and utterly shut down and simply doesn't hold true.

So if something like that happened, where our entire existence is basically a joke, what are the chances that it's not just made up? What if the big bang was simply the start of the simulation that is our reality? We wouldn't know. The universe is such an absurdly complex place that we know absolutely nothing about to the point where it may very well just be a simulation controlled by far greater beings.

So, do you think our reality is real? Or are we puppets in a larger picture?

Anatoly · 2016-06-25 16:01:08

Insanity wrote:

This isn't a troll thread, it is actually a scientific theory known as the Simulation Hypothesis.

Proof please

Insanity · 2016-06-25 16:10:25

AnatolyEE wrote:

Insanity wrote:
This isn't a troll thread, it is actually a scientific theory known as the Simulation Hypothesis.
Proof please

Here's a review from Stanford University:

http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys20 … eview.html

Koya · 2016-06-25 16:24:31

If we can build a simulator within a simulator then it's valid.

sthegreat · 2016-06-25 22:33:34

While this is a very interesting argument, I believe that proposition #2 is most likely to be true. I imagine that a sufficiently advanced civilization would have little interest in simulating their own past (they already know what happened...) and would instead simulate their future, which has immediate practical value to them. We are obviously not in a simulation of their future, so we are most likely in reality.

Edit: #1 could also be true if natural selection is inherently biased towards creating warlike beings likely to destroy themselves.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2016-06-25 15:49:16, last edited by Insanity (2016-06-25 15:56:02)

Is our reality a simulation?

#2 2016-06-25 16:01:08

Re: Is our reality a simulation?

#3 2016-06-25 16:10:25

Re: Is our reality a simulation?

#4 2016-06-25 16:24:31

Re: Is our reality a simulation?

#5 2016-06-25 22:33:34, last edited by sthegreat (2016-06-25 22:35:34)

Re: Is our reality a simulation?

Board footer