RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Is Reality a Simulation Game?

Monday
October 7, 2002

Is Reality a Simulation Game? by Francois Tremblay

Religious mystics propose that it is the supernatural that is the true reality; meditators propose the absence of thought as a profoundly significant state of being; Idealist philosophers propose a "realm of ideas" which is the true reality; promoters of Near-Death Experiences propose that the NDE is the highter reality... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (32 messages)

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 5:33am

If reality is a videogame, then where the hell are all the save points? Not to mention the power-ups and the reset button for when I screw up?

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 6:33am

Wasn't this a movie a few years ago? The 13th Floor?

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 7:33am

Actually, I was thinking of The Matrix. I think that The 13th Floor might work as well, but I haven't seen that one.

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 8:27am

"The Matrix" had real humans that were used as energy. But they existed. "The 13th Floor" had these "humans" as non-existent, just as computer simulations. Sort of like tv for the "real humans" who created them, although the simulations thought they were real. Of course you don't find all this out until the end of the movie. But maybe this professor just watches too much tv.

BTW, how do you get italics in your post?

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 9:39am

Oh, right. Like I said, I haven't seen The 13th Floor. That, and the last time I saw The Matrix was when it played in the theaters. Yeah, the prof might be watching too much TV. Either that, or he needs to unplug the Nintendo.

As for the italics, read the "Formatting" link on the left side of the page (in the "Documentation" menu); this site uses a LaTeX-like syntax for formatting instead of HTML tags.

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 10:25am

Francois,

I really wish I had the time and was going to be around to comment further on your article, as these kinds of speculations interest me (to a certain extent) and because I see flaws in the professor's position that are new to the "brain in a vat" argument.

For example:

Given that the number of future simulated beings far surpasses the number of living beings, the argument goes, we must conclude that it is probable we are simulated beings as well. That is, it is probable that we are part of the simulations of the human species from the future; we are nothing but a reproduction of the state of Earth as programmed by the real, technologically-advanced humans.

This contains a self-refuting premise. He is assuming that eventually technology will exist to create such a simulation. Well, by assumption then, at one point in time such technology did not exist. Therefore, there is nothing to refute the notion that we are living in such a time (before simulations), since someone must have done so.

Later:

Actually, there is something else I must tell you. The argument I have refuted is not quite the one Bostrom made. Rather, he proposes three possibilities: "(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a 'posthuman' stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation (see www.simulation-argument.com)."

Is this meant to be collectively exhaustive? Because, if so, it is certainly false. There is, at least, option (4): we are living in a society that simply pre-dates such computer simulations.

Like the "brain in the vat" scenario, these proposals have to assume the very things they deny: brains, vats, etc., etc.

And one quibble:

I can think of two more objections to the "simulated reality" hypothesis, on theoretical grounds. One fact that seems problematic to me is that we are able to discuss this hypothesis. If this reality is controlled by people running a simulation, then why haven't they hard-coded obstacles to discussion of the simulation, or at least have seen that it was under discussion and stopped Dr. Bostrom's research?

Well, since we don't know how to do AI, it may very well be the case that the kinds of constraints you're suggesting are incompatible with AI. That is, hard-coding such constraints might be inconsistent with a functioning AI, i.e., it could represent a form of severe computer "brain" damage.

Regards,
Kernon

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 10:55am

Hell, I'm convinced! I'm destroying my copy of "The Sim's" immediately!

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 11:04am

Wait! Please wait! YOUR copy is the one running this whole show!

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 1:09pm

Hey, who's that dude with the long white hair and the black trenchcoat? >^..^<

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 4:22pm

Francois,

Thanks for this very interesting article. You brought up an issue that I've been wanting to discuss for quite a while, and it's also related to an earlier post of mine today, about a Richard Dawkins statement (wonderful, by the way). So I just posted a long item about all this on the blog. Hope you stop by and take a look. And look at the comments on the Dawkins item: Eve Tushnet, Joe Katzman and the Raving Atheist have left their thoughts about it all. Very interesting -- and even very polite so far, which is pretty amazing in itself.

Best, Arthur

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 5:41pm

Mr. Gibes, thank you for your comments. I will address them here, if that's allright.

"This contains a self-refuting premise. He is assuming that eventually technology will exist to create such a simulation. Well, by assumption then, at one point in time such technology did not exist. Therefore, there is nothing to refute the notion that we are living in such a time (before simulations), since someone must have done so."

Well, yes. That's entirely true.

But even taking that into account, the number of hypothetical simulated being that an advanced society could create would still be orders of magnitude above the total population. Adding pre-simulation-technology populations would only be a minor addition.

"Is this meant to be collectively exhaustive? Because, if so, it is certainly false. There is, at least, option (4): we are living in a society that simply pre-dates such computer simulations."

Same answer as before.

"Like the "brain in the vat" scenario, these proposals have to assume the very things they deny: brains, vats, etc., etc."

Well, I considered using this rebuttal, but I quickly realized it was besides the point.

The point of Dr. Bostrom is not that we cannot trust our senses. If it was, then your rebuttal would be valid.
That is, the only reason to invoke the Stolen Concept Fallacy about objects involved in the argument, is to show that these concepts are valid. But this is not put into question by Dr. Bostrom.

"Well, since we don't know how to do AI, it may very well be the case that the kinds of constraints you're suggesting are incompatible with AI. That is, hard-coding such constraints might be inconsistent with a functioning AI, i.e., it could represent a form of severe computer "brain" damage."

Yes, that might be the case. However, making such predictions about future technology is unadvisable. Since there is no obvious reason why this would not be possible, I don't see why this possibility should be considered as such.

Monday, October 7, 2002 - 8:12pm

Ok, you've all studied Ayn Rand, or even Aristotle, correct? Does existence exist? A simulation of reality does not refute the axioms of existence, including consciousness in relation to man and other living things. Do I not have volition? What about primacy of consciousness in the relation to the 'game god'?

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 - 6:28am

Wouldn't a simulation of reality require the existence of another reality in which the simulator resides? I'm probably misusing Occam's Razor, but it isn't necessary to posit the existence of another reality in which the reality in which we exist is simulated.

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 - 6:35am

No one said the possibility of the simulation refuted the axiom of existence. Similar arguments have been proposed as refuting realist epistemology. Since this is not the case here, I'm not sure what your point is.

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 - 9:34am

Would not a simulation of reality be considered the
primacy of consciousness and omniscience contra to
the primacy of existence? *for those in the simulation, of course.

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 - 1:51pm

Why would it ? Either we can find evidence that we are in a simulation, or we cannot. In the first case, we would understand the mechanisms that regulate the simulation, in the second case we would rule out such possibilities just as we do today.

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 - 7:02pm

It would because existence exists and it exists independent of consciousness. A simulation would prove to be the primacy of consciousness like God would. The developers or administrators being in control of the simulation as God would be of existence.

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 - 11:34am

No. That control would be physical, not metaphysical (unless you really believe that the primacy of consciousness is possible, in which case there is no point in discussing ;).

Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 12:04pm

That is essentially the point i'm trying to make. A simulation that had 'physical control' would also have to have some sort of meta-physical control over the simulated existence. This would seem to rule out a 'perfect simulation' as unless the simulation masters are omniscient, there would be errors and 'psuedo-physical' contradictions. This all being hypothectial, because there is only one reality to begin with :)

Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 12:47pm

Why would "physical control" imply "meta-physical control" ? I still don't understand. Today's simulation programs, for instance, work very well despite reality being objective.