Simulationism

[Ken Korda]

I have spotted a couple of problems with your 'philosophy':

Firstly, there is no way to prove your idea either way. How would we no if you were wrong?

Secondly, it is entirely based on out modern understanding of computers. You assume these 'creators' operate the simulation based on the same rules as contemporary, human computing.

Third, this idea had no use or rlevance to anyone. Even if it were true how would it help anyone to know this?

This is not philosophy, this is the plot of a science-fiction novel

 

[Jupsto]

no its not originally from the matrix, some greek philosopher came up with this idea a LONG time ago. so its a perfectly respectable thing to believe, something I definately given thought to the possibility. so you might wanna look that guy up since I don't do philosophy my brother does, I just read one of his books once since it was in the bathroom, too much detail?

 

[Baby Tea]

I have spotted a couple of problems with your 'philosophy':

Firstly, there is no way to prove your idea either way. How would we no if you were wrong?

Secondly, it is entirely based on out modern understanding of computers. You assume these 'creators' operate the simulation based on the same rules as contemporary, human computing.

Third, this idea had no use or rlevance to anyone. Even if it were true how would it help anyone to know this?

This is not philosophy, this is the plot of a science-fiction novel

I agree.
I also find it funny that a few people on here whom I've had conversations with about religion and who were saying 'No proof! I don't believe it!' about religion, are saying 'this seems plausible!' or 'this is more likely then religion!', when the exact same issue they had with religion exists with this notion of a simulated world.

Actually it's worse, since we can discuss the historical foundations and accuracies of different religious texts, but this has no foundation, no basis, and not even a shred of circumstantial evidence.

And, like Ken Korda said, this offers nothing in terms of one's daily worldview. In fact, you might consider it dangerous since life isn't life at all, but merely computer code. Then life isn't as sacred, or sacred at all, and killing isn't such a big deal. It isn't a big deal at all, actually, since there is no morality. Machines and computers and computer programs don't have morality, after all. Propagation of the species is out for the reason for morality, since if the species dies out, according to this theory, they can just reset it or make more with the press of a button.

I'm not buying it.

 

[GloatingSwine]

And, like Ken Korda said, this offers nothing in terms of one's daily worldview. In fact, you might consider it dangerous since life isn't life at all, but merely computer code. Then life isn't as sacred, or sacred at all, and killing isn't such a big deal. It isn't a big deal at all, actually, since there is no morality. Machines and computers and computer programs don't have morality, after all. Propagation of the species is out for the reason for morality, since if the species dies out, according to this theory, they can just reset it or make more with the press of a button.

The argument from morality doesn't score any points against even as weak a theory as this, I'm afraid.

Whether we like and idea or not, or whether it has "dangerous" implications or not, have no bearing on whether the idea is true or not.

 

[hannahdonno]

I believe that the "world" we believe in, and live in, is just a simulation. This does bear some similarity to the Matrix, slightly. However, this is not just the planet, this is everywhere and everything in this 'world' (universe, etc).

You see, I believe we are all code. We are not humans 'plugged in', but are just like characters in a game. You know how AI is getting more advanced? Well, this is the result! We are all coded and placed in a simulation, which is also coded and created. Maybe for observation, or maybe 'gamers' play in this simulation like some wannabe-pilots play in flight sims? Recreating events in a realistic replication if life, with no repercussions because we aren't actually real?

Maybe they are the ones going insane and massacring? Because they have no fear of death, since they are only 'playing' a character, they can do anything that we would be too afraid to do. That character was created by them, but they provided a back-story/history, implemented that character into people's minds, maybe as a father, brother, etc, and with all the right tweaks, they just appeared and everyone thought it was normal? That or they took control of a character already created, like they could be with me right now, making me post. Makes me seem crazy, so you don't believe me! They are cunning.

Those considered 'insane' could be trial-and-error examples left within the world to provide an example to future coders? Not quite sure on that one.

Also, the fact that my code allows me to have these thoughts, shows that the 'creators' wanted to allow me to think that, so you all then use it as an argument to disprove my belief. They are using it as defense of the system. You see, if we figure it out, the simulation does not work. Like an ant farm that sees you and just freezes - you can't observe it in it's natural state.

I have no idea about the origins of The Creators, but I am sure they are technologically advanced, and are from what we could call the 'future' in comparison to our time-scale.

But here is another thing - this simulation could have been created a year ago, a month ago, or right when I post this topic! All they must create is a back-story (eg. history itself), characters, and memories and lives for those characters, and BAM, you have life that has supposedly existed for this amount of time (however many billions of years), that has possibly, in reality, (not a pun) existed for only a few moments.

How do we know The Creators are what we believe to be 'human', or 'normal'? Maybe we're the aliens in their little scheme?

I know it's a touchy subject, but religion could be a defense mechanism - people believe in god, and creationism, and so I seem like I'm bat-shit insane, and nothing compared to their faith. Again, the system's defenses are in play!

But here is the main question- you thinking me crazy is just a defense mechanism. So I could be speaking the truth. How do you know?

I've heard this before... kinda like:

Think of the game The Sims. Think of how they have evolved from simple needs to wants and fears. Where does this stop? What if it is possible to ingrain such intelligence into these Sims that they begin to question their own existence? There is the possibility, however I am not saying that this is what I believe in, but it is a very coherent argument.

 

[Nia-san]

Ahh, but if they did, and removed any trace of me from every mind, another one of me would pop up at some point - people always catch on, and someone, somewhere, thinks the same as I do. If I was not deleted, you would say "Oh, but you're not deleted! You mustn't be speaking the truth!" Maybe they know I am onto them, but upon seeing this, they leave me within the system, so you can use that very argument against me! Then, if other believers (or potential believers) see me, and see that everyone thinks I'm crazy, it may stop them from acting (sharing their information), and so removing the problem before it exists, and with no effort, as well as defeating me in your eyes (you think I am crazy, which I am not).

May this intelligent discussion continue. Thank you for not ignoring my beliefs

Your very welcome. A little discussion is always fun and I'm glad to do my part.

 

[Weaver]

I think the OP should just read Descartes.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I think the OP should just read Descartes.

Or preferably someone whose philosophy has something to do with the real theory of mind. Descartes was actually a bit wrong about the whole "I think therefore I am" bit. It turns out that "you" only appear to exist as a result of networks of activity in the brain, and there is no centre of consciousness as he posited.

I'd reccommend David Hume as a place to start, because it really did start with him in most of the ways that matter, but he's fucking hard to read, so try Daniel Dennett instead, he's a bit more modern in his language.

 

[Weaver]

I think the OP should just read Descartes.

Or preferably someone whose philosophy has something to do with the real theory of mind. Descartes was actually a bit wrong about the whole "I think therefore I am" bit. It turns out that "you" only appear to exist as a result of networks of activity in the brain, and there is no centre of consciousness as he posited.

I'd reccommend David Hume as a place to start, because it really did start with him in most of the ways that matter, but he's fucking hard to read, so try Daniel Dennett instead, he's a bit more modern in his language.

Blah, Hume. I'd say Kant put Hume in his place pretty good, but he's nearly indecipherable. And no, Descartes wasn't RIGHT (as I don't think dualism is true either) but you shouldn't be reading philosophy if you're looking for answers

 

[Knonsense]

Occam's Razor.

 

[CIA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Reminds me of this.

I think what you say is crap. Interesting crap though, fun to read.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Blah, Hume. I'd say Kant put Hume in his place pretty good, but he's nearly indecipherable. And no, Descartes wasn't RIGHT (as I don't think dualism is true either) but you shouldn't be reading philosophy if you're looking for answers

The only real difference between Hume and Kant (and Hume is where Kant started as well) is that Kant placed more weight on the limits of human perception. Hume's empiricism is still exceptionally useful when those limits are overcome (by, for instance, high precision measurement), and therefore is much better at evaluating actual reality than Kant, though Kant is better (though I'd argue that the multiple drafts model is a finer grain than transcendental idealism) at evaluating the theory of mind.

 

[Wildhound]

Actually it's worse, since we can discuss the historical foundations and accuracies of different religious texts, but this has no foundation, no basis, and not even a shred of circumstantial evidence.

Since a lot of people in this thread seem to be too lazy to follow a simple link to inform themselves on a topic before discussing it, I'll share the following:

The philosopher Nick Bostrom investigated the possibility that we may be living in a simulation.[1] A simplified version of his argument proceeds as such:

i. It is possible that a civilization could create a computer simulation which contains individuals with artificial intelligence.
ii. Such a civilization would likely run many?say billions?of these simulations (just for fun; for research, etc.)
iii. A simulated individual inside the simulation wouldn?t necessarily know that it?s inside a simulation?it?s just going about its daily business in what it considers to be the "real world."
Then the ultimate question is?if one accepts that theses 1, 2, and 3 are at least possible? which of the following is more likely?

a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself? Or,
b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)
In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, that:

either
intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (or this is impossible in principle); or
races who do reach such a level do not tend to run such simulations; or
we are almost certainly living in such a simulation.

You claim the argument has no foundation or basis. However, both can actually be found in logic, reason and probability. It actually has a much stronger theoretical foundation than most religions.

Now I'm not saying I believe this. It doesn't even matter because if all of our lives were in fact inside a simulation it would actaully have no revelance, even if we knew about it. However to dismiss it out of hand without looking at the very reasonable premises of the argument for it is equally absurd.

 

[Madshaw]

god dammit can't you people just ignore all these people telling you that you are computor codes and let me cary on with my game? i mean realy im just about at the bit where i get to make you all into my slaves

 

[Weaver]

Blah, Hume. I'd say Kant put Hume in his place pretty good, but he's nearly indecipherable. And no, Descartes wasn't RIGHT (as I don't think dualism is true either) but you shouldn't be reading philosophy if you're looking for answers

The only real difference between Hume and Kant (and Hume is where Kant started as well) is that Kant placed more weight on the limits of human perception. Hume's empiricism is still exceptionally useful when those limits are overcome (by, for instance, high precision measurement), and therefore is much better at evaluating actual reality than Kant, though Kant is better (though I'd argue that the multiple drafts model is a finer grain than transcendental idealism) at evaluating the theory of mind.

Hume also rejected cause and effect. This made Kant pissed off (or "awakened him from dogmatic slumbers" as I think he puts it) since it meant science couldn't work as a method, so he wrote Kritik der reinen Vernunft (critique of pure reason) and was very opposed to Hume's empiricism. Granted, this is the only work of Kant I have read, and hopefully the last as it was an exhausting task lol.

I do have to concede that much of Hume's empiricism is quite interesting and still useful, but I much prefer Kant's take on cause and effect since it allows the scientific method to remain functional.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Edit: The Matrix is not even that good.

Don't you dare say that around me ever again.

I think that the idea is almost as silly as people believing they are vampires. I mean, it's interesting to think about, but there are lots of flaws in your logic but I could probably argue from both sides.

 

[KamachoMcSagget]

this sounds like scientology

 

[Baby Tea]

You claim the argument has no foundation or basis. However, both can actually be found in logic, reason and probability. It actually has a much stronger theoretical foundation than most religions.

Now I'm not saying I believe this. It doesn't even matter because if all of our lives were in fact inside a simulation it would actaully have no revelance, even if we knew about it. However to dismiss it out of hand without looking at the very reasonable premises of the argument for it is equally absurd.

Wait wait.
So since we would have no way of knowing that it's going on, then it's probable?

With no empirical evidence, no circumstantial evidence, and only the 'we wouldn't know if it was going on' argument, then logically and with reason we could see how it can be true? Even probable?

Yeah, I'm not following you down that road.
And I don't find the premise for this notion even remotely 'reasonable'. More like 'Science Fiction'.

 

[oktalist]

So who created the creators' universe?

And what difference does it make?

And just what is a simulation anyway? In order to precisely simulate all the atoms in the universe, you would need a computer with at least as many atoms as there are in the universe. Seems to me, that's what the universe is! A flippin' enormous computer "simulating" physical laws, where simulation is indistinguishable from - nay, equivalent to - non-simulation.

"Life is just a dream and we're the imaginations of ourselves!" -Bill Hicks

BTW IMO the Matrix is more about how the political puppet theatre and the Brave New World style bread and circuses of the media keeps us in a kind of "imaginary world" where we have little idea of how the world truly operates, even though both said worlds are literally the same world, for the purpose of having us willingly participate in the rat race of modern life where our labour is extracted from us by exploitative employment of humans as resources.

Also why has this thread attracted a disproportionately large number of illiterate Escapists? Like bees to honey I guess.

"Why are bees so attracted to honey when they make it? It can only be vanity." -Simon Munnery

 

[GloatingSwine]

Hume also rejected cause and effect. This made Kant pissed off (or "awakened him from dogmatic slumbers" as I think he puts it) since it meant science couldn't work as a method, so he wrote Kritik der reinen Vernunft (critique of pure reason) and was very opposed to Hume's empiricism. Granted, this is the only work of Kant I have read, and hopefully the last as it was an exhausting task lol.

I do have to concede that much of Hume's empiricism is quite interesting and still useful, but I much prefer Kant's take on cause and effect since it allows the scientific method to remain functional.

Not quite. All he really said was that when we see a long chain of correlations we label it causation based on our past experiences, but we don't know if it actually is causation, because we can't percieve what he called the "necessary connexion".

If taken overbroadly, that gets silly, because it means that absolutely every causal relationship can only be expressed statistically. If you keep it in mind whilst performing science, however, it stops you from being too eager to draw causal links where they might not actually exist (A might not cause B even if they keep happening together, they might both be independently caused by C).

Nick Bostrom's Argument:

Appears to be a needlessly complicated version of p-Zombies. It's also one of those philosophical arguments that proceeds using pure reason, and is logically sound, but never investigates whether it's premises are true.