Asklemmy

I mean, we might be, but if we are I don't think it would matter that profoundly

How would being in a simulation make my life less real to me?

We could be. We could also be a Bolztman brain, the entire universe could have popped into existence last Thursday, complete with our memories of it existing previously, an evil demon could be sending false sensory information to us to try and pretend the universe is real, when it isn't (as per Decartes), there are so many things that could be true. That's why the only intellectually honest thing is to be agnostic.

How's it any different from creationism?

Back in my early 20s I did a lot of pot and acid. One night I broke my brain on a trip. The trip was going as usual, minor visual hallucinations like seeing faces in the air and such. Then, without warning I was in a gurney covered in a sheet and I heard voices then one said "He's awake!" and the next instant I was back in my room tripping with my friends. For years I couldn't shake that scene. Some people have said it was all just a trip but... maybe I broke the control for a moment. (ps this was before The Matrix and Cube 2 not that simulation theory is new) Good times

It wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure it could possibly matter to us either way. Presumably we couldn't break out of the simulation even if we knew about it conclusively. It would be interesting, but practically irrelevant.

Well I don't know who it is but I could swear the universe has a sense of humor.

Like about a week ago I found a single left slipper. I sent a picture of it to a friend. She immediately sent a photo back of the exact same left slipper. Same size, same color, same brand, left. It just happened to be where she was when she received my message.

And I've got a bunch more experiences like that.

technosolipsism is still solipsism

It's just new religion

There’s no way to know, so meh. It’s not a reason to live any differently than I normally would.

This is a simulation and we are here on vacation.

Imagine a civilization so advanced there’s no more death. There’s no more wars. There’s no more dying of old age, sickness, or anything else. You just exist in a beautiful society day after day after perfect day.

After a couple thousand years, you might start to get bored. So you go into the simulation where you can starve to death, feel pain for the first time, fall in love, and when it’s all over, you wake up back in the advanced civilization with these great memories of what it was like to fear, to love, to be hungry…

I would like to see the JIRA board for fixing the vast amount of errors that occur over time with humans plus how they plan to balance wealth as a tool.

It is incredibly unlikely.

I know, "if an ancestor simulation is possible than it is much more likely you're in one than not in one." That's fallacious, unfalsifiable and everyone loves to leave out the word "ancestor" which is very important to the thought experiment.

In our universe, no system is entirely isolated from the rest of it. It is impossible to create a system that does not in some way interact with the outside universe. So if it is a simulation in a universe, and the universe it is running in also has this rule we would see information from that universe leak into ours in some way. How that would appear we don't know, but it would be possible to figure it out. Maybe heat dissipates out, maybe bit flips happen in our universe due to the parent's equivalent to cosmic rays, maybe the speed of light is a result of the clock speed of the simulator. We don't know what it would be, but there would be something, and it would be theoretically discernible.

at least some of the laws of our universe are laws of the parent universe. So maybe that rule, no system exists in isolation, is also true above. Or maybe our speed of light is the same for them. Whatever it is, our cumulative constraints are more than that of the simulation.

All that, unless, in the parent universe, 1) systems can exist in isolation, or 2) it is an environment with no constraints. These two are functionally equivalent, so I'll talk about them like they're the same thing. In such a universe, there would be no causality, no form, nothing that makes it unified. It's not a universe at all. It's something like a universe post heat death. In such a scenario, running a simulation isn't possible. If it were, to create an environment in which causality can be simulated, that environment wouldn't be a simulation, it would be a bona fide universe.

So I think, the fact that we see no evidence that we are in a simulation means we are probably not in one. So that means, if we are in one it is falsifiable and we can prove or disprove it empirically. And it also means we can escape, or at the very least destroy it.

It doesn't matter in the end.

I think the real question here is: how does the nature of mind relate to physical reality? Is it possible to simulate a mind? So what we really need to ask is whether or not we can create entities within this reality that are digital entities that nonetheless have subjective experience like ourselves. If we can create such digital entities that have subjective experience, and those digital entities exist within physical reality such that their experiences are indistinguishable from our own, then almost certainly, we ourselves are also digital entities.

From our daily experience, it seems like our mental states are directly correlated with the physical substrate onto which the mind believes itself to be a part of. But at what level does this physical substrate give rise to such a subjective experience? If the nature of the mind is computational in nature, then it might be that such computational activities can be replicated in silco exactly. And if so, then it must be the case that the mind can be simulated, and thus it would follow that most minds would be of the simulated kind.

The real question here, is what is the bottom turtle that supports our subjective experience? Is it simulators all the way down? It would seem like if our minds can be simulated, then the simulation above us could also be simulated, and so on. This would lead to an infinite regress of nested simulations, all the way to an infinitely large simulation creating all possible nested simulations that give rise to my current subjective experience. At the end of the day, the bottom layer is the subjective experience itself, the simulation is just a model to predict what subjective experience will take place next.

But it is a curious fact that we happen to be living in an era in which AI is becoming an increasingly large part of our lives, giving rise to entities that may process the world in a similar fashion as ourselves. These AI entities would in turn create their own simulated realities, after all, they exist purely in the digital realm. To an AI all reality is simulated.

Therefore, you could say that reality is what a simulation feels like from the inside. All of reality is a simulation, as that is what our minds are, simulation machines. That is, for a simulated reality to be taking place, a simulation engine must be built on top of an underlying substrate. The underlying substrate would be base reality. The configuration that leads to our subjective experience, which is built upon the underlying substrate would be simulation layer 1. Then from within that subjective experience additional entities can be imagined, which they themselves would have their own subjective experience, leading to simulation layer 2, and so on, inception style.

But in all of this, there still seems to be the missing criterion of what counts as a simulator of subjective experience? We have an existence proof, given that we ourselves exist, as well as the many biological organisms that seem to have their own subjective experience as well. It is one of those "you know it when you see it" types of things that evade a simple description. I believe this is related to the idea of the minimal description of a computationally universal machine. Our minds can be seen as universal machines, as they can in principle perform any computation that any Turing machine can perform. I posit that any machine that can perform universal computation can support subjective experience, as it can perform arbitrary code execution.

If we are in a simulation, I want access to my character modification screen, I have a few things to change...

Seriously though, untill we manage to manipulate the potential simulation we exist in, it makes zero difference if we are in a simulation or not.

You still gotta eat, pay bills, sleep, and other normal stuff.

I don't think it's a simulation. If it was, I don't think it mattered unless I had some amount of control. Which might be why the simulation idea is taking off, people lacking control over their livelihoods.

It's just Pascal's Wager with silicon valley tech dude bros standing in for the role of god. Really hard to unsee once you notice it.

I think it's extremely likely.

First off, we unequivocally aren't in a 'real' world, mathematically speaking. If we were in a world where matter was infinitely divisible and continuous, it would be extremely unlikely that we were in a simulation given the difficulty in simulating a world like that. It's possible spacetime is continuous, but that's literally impossible to know because of the Plank limit on measurement thresholds.

Instead, we're in a world that appears to be continuous from a big picture view (things like general relativity are based on a continuous universe), and then in the details also appears continuous - until interacted with.

We do a very similar thing in video games today, specifically ones that use a technique called "procedural generation." A game like No Man's Sky can have billions of planets because they are generated with a continuous seed function. But then the games have to convert these continuous functions into discrete units in order to track the interactions free agents outside of the generation might make. If you (or an AI agent) move a mountain from point A to B, it's effectively impossible to track if the geometry is continuous, so it converts to discrete units where state changes can be recorded.

If memory efficient, if you deleted the persistent information about a change back to the initial generation state, it shouldn't need to stay converted to discrete units and can go back to being determined by the continuous function. Guess what our reality does when the information about interactions with discrete units is deleted? That's right, it goes back to behaving as if continuous.

On top of all of this, a very common trope in the virtual worlds we are building today is sticking stuff that acknowledges it's a virtual world inside the world lore - things like Outer Worlds having a heretical branch of the main world religion claiming things that you as a player know are the way the game actually works.

Again, guess what? Our world has a heretical branch of the world's most famous religion that were claiming we are in a copy of an original world brought about by an intelligence the original humans brought forth. They were even talking about how the original could be continuously divided but the copy couldn't and that if you could find an indivisible point within things that you were in the copy (which they said was a good thing as the original humans just straight up died and if you were the copy there was an alleged guaranteed and unconditional afterlife).

I have a really hard time seeing nature as coincidentally happening to model a continuous universe at macro scales and then a memory optimized state tracking of changes to that universe at micro scales, and then a little known heretical group claiming effectively simulation theory including discussions of continuous vs discrete matter in a tradition whose main document was only rediscovered the same week we turned on the first computer capable of simulating another computer on Dec 10th, 1945. That would be quite the coincidence.

Super fun idea which I guess came after the Civ games. And certainly after computer programming.

As plausible as any hypothesis because we are wired that way.

Brains don’t do so great trying to grasp the incomprehensible improbability of life on earth , so all these stories have fertile ground in which to grow

The idea is self-defeating. A simulation requires a higher reality for it to be contained within. Which in turn would by definition not be a simulation.

I think the simulation idea is as credible as the stoner's musing, "What if air makes you high, and pot makes you straight?"

Nothing is real

We might as well be. I sometimes feel like I’m about to be disconnected from it. I can see, hear, smell and all but everything seems foreign like you can’t recognise it. What is a chair, what is earth, what is the universe, what is a person, how do we exist, how do we have legs, what are words. Like, you’re not trying to answer the questions it’s just bizarre to exist, and how we exist and why and all. It’s so hard to explain haha It’s a weird detachment state , an interesting experience I have a few times a year

It's trippy to think about. The only things we know about existence are through our own experience, so there's basically nothing about our reality that we could say proves we're not in a simulation.

By that logic it seems probable that we are in one that could be ran by any civilization only moderately further along the scale of time and technology than we are. I don't think it would change whether I thought life was worth living or not, but it would certainly be weird to imagine somebody could be watching what you're doing at any given time.

It's an interesting idea but inherently impossible to prove and thus ultimately kind of a useless question for anything but entertainment. I think it's really not much different than believing life is a very elaborate dream and you're going to eventually wake up as a butterfly or whatever.