Welcome to the Machine, Part 3: The Simulation Argument

No longer relegated to the domain of science fiction or the ravings of street corner lunatics, the “simulation argument” has increasingly become a serious theory amongst academics, one that has been best articulated by philosopher Nick Bostrom.

...

Complete entry

Posted by Elyandarin  on  04/12  at  06:55 AM

An interesting consequence of the simulation argument:
If most of the simulations are history simulations, then there is a reasonable chance that legislation made here has also been enacted on "level zero".
Also, it's a certainty that the programmers, if human, have given thought to the possibility that they themselves may be simulated.

If we legislate that simulations containing conscious organisms must provide an afterlife for them, and then reach a consensus of what form that afterlife should take, there's a good chance that such an afterlife is in fact waiting for us...

Posted by chris. harding  on  04/12  at  07:12 AM

Dear Sir(s):
Everests Many Worlds says that all the so called virtual worlds are real. Thus there is really no such distinction as a simulation !. The simulation is from your or my view point.
Best
Chris. Harding
Australia.

Posted by tin whiskers  on  04/14  at  02:19 AM

Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or abstract system.

Posted by chris. harding  on  04/15  at  12:39 AM

Since virtual worlds are never exact models of each other then all are simulations at some point meeting the definition of having certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or abstract system. If we accept the original concept of time travel put forward by GODEL then for such endless splintering of the worlds all may be seen as simulations of each other as an outcome of the physical complexitity of the 5 dimensional status of existence thus bluring any distinction between it and any notion of reality as something solid. It would appear to me that studies into simulation should be studies done into the degrees of matching ie it has a more quantitative aspect to it than previously thought.

Posted by Particleion  on  04/15  at  02:16 AM

So the question now is, how can we test to see if our universe is a simulation or not. Also is a test even possible considering weve been living a lie our entire existence?

Posted by chris. harding  on  04/16  at  12:27 AM

I would agree in that it becomes a question about modification of definitions. But then is not ones degree of intelligence the extent to which one can keep the concept constant !.
I do not have sufficient imagination to proceed from here.
chris. harding

Posted by Collin Bockman  on  04/16  at  08:12 PM

One possibility that seems to fit well here is the work being done on the "Holographic Universe" theory. Further evidence that we are basically living in a giant, cosmic hologram projected from somewhere else, I think, would lend concrete support to the possibility that we are indeed living in a simulation. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

BTW, if you haven't seen the movie The Thirteenth Floor, check it out.

Posted by Pepin Lachance  on  01/25  at  08:55 PM

Well considering the vast popularity of games like the sims I cant see this as being entirely unlikely. Would explain why life seems so random sometimes as well. We are the ultimate reality tv show. The inital variables i.e. the cosmological constants were set and now its running the cource. Who knows how much the simulators are futzed with. But I think given our collective inteligence their should be a way to test this.

Posted by chris harding  on  01/26  at  05:58 AM

This puts me in mind of the C.T.M.U. Theory of Chris Langon which you can find on the web, One of the outcomes of his theory is that if you could cut a hole in space-time nature would instantly reconfigure the Universe. The critical part of simulation is completeness in the outcome. Our maths tools are incomplete and there for stand in contrast to this. Incompleteness defines choice but this is a matter of scalability or rather lack there of. So interpretation becomes the very substance of our world perspective and is mirrored in the maths we employ. It is not that maths is some how wrong only that we have forgotten the convenience of our concept. String theory avoids the infinities: the attempt at the use of higher concepts in turn fails because of this convenient process of adaptive-forgetting. It is not that we are commiting errors of reason only miss applications of such concepts. So if you want to study your proposed question you must first put some limits on the question you are asking: it must fit within the meta-frame with no protruding elements least these become levers that work against your reason.
Chris. Harding

Posted by Miranda  on  07/03  at  05:19 PM

About that Holographic Universe theory --- never miiiiiind...

http://news.discovery.com/space/we-might-not-live-in-a-hologram-after-all-110701.html

"We May Not Live in a Hologram After All"

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: