A very famous and popular paper that's often cited when debating the simulation hypothesis. I'm squarely in the "not a simulation" camp for a few reasons.
1) Limits of computation. First, we need to find out whether or not the universe is computable. To me, it doesn't seem like it is[1] due to "funky" phenomena like quantum effects.
2) Consistency. It doesn't seem that a simulation ought to be as consistent as our universe appears to be. In fact, if there was a hyper-advanced society making simulations out there, the great majority of simulations would be failed attempts or bug-addled, inconsistent messes. So the probability of picking a random simulation that's perfect quickly approaches zero. And yet, we live in a staggeringly consistent universe.
3) Meta-cognition. If you're making a simulation, why even give sims the capability of understanding what it means to be simulated? Make this very thought akin to contemplating a "square circle" -- a logical impossibility. And yet, there's an entire corpus out there discussing this very hypothesis: from Descartes' Demon to the Wachowski's Matrix.
4) Moral responsibility. Living in a simulation relinquishes me (and everyone else) of moral responsibility. This is deeply troubling, although not a particularly good argument against us living in a simulation. What is a good argument is thinking about the hyper-advanced species that built this simulation: why would they create morally-sensitive beings in a world where morality is irrelevant? That wouldn't make for a very good simulation.
5) Personal experience. I feel like I'm living in the real world, why would I doubt that? Everyone else seems to feel the same way. This is the same argument found in the "Other Minds Hypothesis" -- where we basically give the benefit of the doubt.
1) Computation isn’t limited to how we have developed computing so far.
2) You’re analyzing someone else’s ‘code’ in the same way an oyster would analyze yours. I bet there’s bugs all over the place but we call them features.
3) This is silly. I’d even argue we don’t actually understand what it means to be simulated. We understand the symptoms but not the reality.
4) It’s morally repugnant to bully children online, which is a virtual space, so I’m not sure why a simulation would affect morality.
5) I bet you believe a bunch of other wrong stuff.
I don’t think you can consistently be in either camp as much as oysters can debate tabs vs spaces.
Full disclosure: AP is my brother. This is a long running argument. I am right. Beep beep beep nothing is real.
2 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 16.7 ms ] thread1) Limits of computation. First, we need to find out whether or not the universe is computable. To me, it doesn't seem like it is[1] due to "funky" phenomena like quantum effects.
2) Consistency. It doesn't seem that a simulation ought to be as consistent as our universe appears to be. In fact, if there was a hyper-advanced society making simulations out there, the great majority of simulations would be failed attempts or bug-addled, inconsistent messes. So the probability of picking a random simulation that's perfect quickly approaches zero. And yet, we live in a staggeringly consistent universe.
3) Meta-cognition. If you're making a simulation, why even give sims the capability of understanding what it means to be simulated? Make this very thought akin to contemplating a "square circle" -- a logical impossibility. And yet, there's an entire corpus out there discussing this very hypothesis: from Descartes' Demon to the Wachowski's Matrix.
4) Moral responsibility. Living in a simulation relinquishes me (and everyone else) of moral responsibility. This is deeply troubling, although not a particularly good argument against us living in a simulation. What is a good argument is thinking about the hyper-advanced species that built this simulation: why would they create morally-sensitive beings in a world where morality is irrelevant? That wouldn't make for a very good simulation.
5) Personal experience. I feel like I'm living in the real world, why would I doubt that? Everyone else seems to feel the same way. This is the same argument found in the "Other Minds Hypothesis" -- where we basically give the benefit of the doubt.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043
2) You’re analyzing someone else’s ‘code’ in the same way an oyster would analyze yours. I bet there’s bugs all over the place but we call them features.
3) This is silly. I’d even argue we don’t actually understand what it means to be simulated. We understand the symptoms but not the reality.
4) It’s morally repugnant to bully children online, which is a virtual space, so I’m not sure why a simulation would affect morality.
5) I bet you believe a bunch of other wrong stuff.
I don’t think you can consistently be in either camp as much as oysters can debate tabs vs spaces.
Full disclosure: AP is my brother. This is a long running argument. I am right. Beep beep beep nothing is real.