The implications of reality being a simulation

[Eddi]

I don't see why people would be reincarnated if we were in a simulation. Why do you think that would be the case ?

Because The Simulation tells me so!

And no, I don’t expect others to believe me

Also, I believe it would make sense. Consciousness would I believe be a type of resource necessary for The Simulation to function, otherwise it would be unrealistic if the participants were insentient zombies. As such, why would it be destroyed upon the “death” of participant? I believe that ultimately our individual consciousnesses are properties of a wider consciousness, the consciousness of The Simulism.

I don’t believe that The Simulation would destroy itself, which I believe it what would be doing if it were to snuff us out once we die.
​

 

[Koldo]

Because The Simulation tells me so!

And no, I don’t expect others to believe me
​

Ok... I guess.

Also, I believe it would make sense. Consciousness would I believe be a type of resource necessary for The Simulation to function, otherwise it would be unrealistic if the participants were insentient zombies. As such, why would it be destroyed upon the “death” of participant? I believe that ultimately our individual consciousnesses are properties of a wider consciousness, the consciousness of The Simulism.

I don’t believe that The Simulation would destroy itself, which I believe it what would be doing if it were to snuff us out once we die.

But why couldn't the simulation keep creating new individual consciousness, rather than reincarnating them ?

 

[Nous]

The funny part is that we can't be absolutely certain that someone else is having experiences or acting willfully.

No, as I have noted and demonstrated numerous times on this board, there are objective differences between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements.

 

[Eddi]

Ok... I guess.

​

But why couldn't the simulation keep creating new individual consciousness, rather than reincarnating them ?

Compassion? Because it would be better if that were the case?

Also, I believe that upon death our consciousness is reabsorbed into a pool of unused consciousness and then at a further point in time this is portioned out into new incarnations. I believe this resource - the resource of consciousness - is finite, and that The Simulation cannot create any more of this resource than it is allowed to or possibly can.

So that's why I believe in reincarnation and why I don't believe it makes new consciousnesses.

 

[Koldo]

No, as I have noted and demonstrated numerous times on this board, there are objective differences between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements.

Can you show with absolute certainty that my post is a voluntary act rather than a simulation of a voluntary act ?
If you can, I am interested.

 

[IsaiahX]

In my opinion, there are no real negative implications to living in a simulation. Being is still being, identity is still identity, I am who I am. Whether a consciousness is in a computer simulation or the "real" world it is still a consciousness, and all consciousness is intrinsically valuable.

Perhaps my greatest revelation about concioisness and deity in a simulation or "dream" is from the anime Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou:


"That required thinking about the Law of Identity.

At face value, that was the undeniable principle that you were yourself.

The fact that you were the person who was thinking your thoughts could not be shaken and that had already been touched on when it came to proving the existence of the world.

But what if the world were someone’s dream?

That answer was also simple.

The world was created by the storyteller known as the Law of Identity.

Then what was the world? The world was fiction.

But at the same time, the world was an absolute truth from inside that fiction.

From the outside, it was fiction. From the inside, it was truth.

What if one tried viewing the world as fictional from the outside perspective?

How did the world come to be?

Rejecting all but the Law of Identity would leave yourself facing the one Law of Identity all alone. That would be one origin. It was possible the one having the dream lived in a world that was itself the dream of someone in another world that was again someone else’s dream, but even if that chain continued back infinitely, one specific origin could be found by facing that one Law of Identity.

That one would be the one who had taken in all existence and all life.

That one would be too lonely to call a god.

They would be a truly solitary individual.

Then what was the world?

All the miscellaneous things added to the Law of Identity would be the world.

Even if the world was fictional to the Law of Identity, that fiction could be life with a will of its own."

 

[tayla]

What do people think the consequences would be of humankind believing itself (in considerable numbers) to live within a simulation?

If we are living in a simulation, how do we know that the creatures providing the simulation are not themselves also in someone else's simulation?

I think we are in a way in a simulation, but it resides outside this universe within the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm is at heart a simulation by the good God.

 

[Nous]

No, as I have noted and demonstrated numerous times on this board, there are objective differences between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements.

Can you show with absolute certainty that my post is a voluntary act rather than a simulation of a voluntary act ?

Obviously that isn't what I said, and I definitely do not have sufficient evidence to establish that you are not an automaton that is unable to choose to engage in voluntary bodily movements.

 

[Koldo]

Obviously that isn't what I said, and I definitely do not have sufficient evidence to establish that you are not an automaton that is unable to choose to engage in voluntary bodily movements.

Then you don't have any disagreement with my post when I said: The funny part is that we can't be absolutely certain that someone else is having experiences or acting willfully.

 

[Nous]

Then you don't have any disagreement with my post when I said: The funny part is that we can't be absolutely certain that someone else is having experiences or acting willfully.

Both of my statements are true:

As I have noted and demonstrated numerous times on this board, there are objective differences between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements.

and

I definitely do not have sufficient evidence to establish that you are not an automaton that is unable to choose to engage in voluntary bodily movements.

 

[Koldo]

Both of my statements are true:

As I have noted and demonstrated numerous times on this board, there are objective differences between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements.

and

I definitely do not have sufficient evidence to establish that you are not an automaton that is unable to choose to engage in voluntary bodily movements.

As is my statement. So ?

 

[allfoak]

What do you think the human implications would be if this was believed by a significant number of people?

We would be that much closer to fulfilling our purpose.
We are here to transform matter into spirit.

 

[Milton Platt]

What do people think the consequences would be of humankind believing itself (in considerable numbers) to live within a simulation? Regardless of whether or not this is the case. Here are my thoughts:

“Simulism” is the belief that we humans and our reality are somehow simulated, most likely by some kind of advanced computer the likes of which we cannot imagine let alone understand and think about. The creators of The Simulation would be a race of super-advanced beings.

But what if the whole world – or more realistically a significant portion of it – came to believe we were living in a simulation? In this post I shall discuss the consequences this would have on humankind.

If we are in The Simulation then what does that say about our humanity? One term that has been used is “virtual human”. Such beings would be reincarnated somewhere within The Simulation once they die. The workings of reincarnation would be done from behind a veil of ignorance but would be scrupulously fair and perhaps somehow related to our conduct? Unless it’s done by blind chance. But the thing is, either way we would not know where on Earth (or any other planet) we would be reincarnated, which would be a powerful reason to make the whole of our world a good place to live, lest one gets reborn in some horrid corner.

The realisation we are within a simulation would I believe have a unifying effect – as we would all be equal participants of The Simulation, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, or whatever. Also, as we die and are reborn we would exist as different races and sexes, meaning that (for instance) in one life one could be a man and in another a woman. This would I believe make people take racial and gender equality much more seriously and would result in a more equal society.

In some lives we would live in poor, undeveloped countries and in others we would live in a rich, highly developed country. I believe we’d take it in turns to live good lives and bad lives, so it would be in all our interests to make the whole wide world a better place in which to live as we don’t know in what part of it we’ll be born into in our next life.

So basically, if a great number of us believed we were living in a simulation the world would, due to rational self-interest, become an increasingly equal and developed place.

Assuming The Simulation is mechanical as opposed to organic then that would mean that the so-called “hard problem of consciousness” has been solved, by the creators of The Simulation. If of course there is a valid distinction to be made between “mechanical” and “organic”.

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

Premise 1: The hard problem of consciousness must be solved to produce sentient AI
Premise 2: We are sentient AI
Conclusion 1: Somewhere, the hard problem of consciousness has been solved.
Conclusion 2: Sentient AI is therefore possible.

This is at least valid!

This would mean that human civilization within The Simulation could someday produce sentient Artificial Intelligence. Unless of course we humans will always be much less able than the creators of The Simulation! But we can at least imagine as a possibility a future in which we can produce Artificial Consciousness within The Simulation. It would follow that such beings would also be citizens of The Simulation, which would mean in one life a person could be a human, and in another some kind of sentient “machine”.

What would happen to religion if significant numbers of people started to believe that we are living in a simulation? I think the world’s religions would continue, no doubt. And that most people would not believe we’re in a simulation, at least initially. But perhaps people would embrace Simulism as some kind of secular humanist philosophy? I think if Simulism were to become a philosophy rather than a hypothesis then the world would become a much better place, as I’ve previously explained.

But of course, it is still possible to believe in Simulism and a Supreme Being – it’s just that there’s an extra layer between humanity and the Supreme Being (namely The Simulation admin and its overseers). I personally believe in an ineffable God who rules over the whole of ultimate reality. And it is entirely possible that the influence of the Supreme Being reaches into The Simulation. But we could never understand this being – God – just as an ant cannot understand subtraction or grammar.

I don’t believe the world’s religions are lies, based on things done by The Simulation rather than God although I did use to. I do not believe, for instance, that The Simulation gave Moses the Ten Commandments, whilst pretending to be God. I believe all human religions arise from a mix of history, culture, myths, and the imagination, and various things that either didn’t happen or did, but were either added to and subtracted from later on. But I still believe in God – perhaps a Deist God?

To some, the Simulism hypothesis may sound bleak. I think it’s an uplifting idea and that if people came to believe in it the world would eventually become a better place. It would also mean that it is possible for a species to become ultra-advanced, which would give science and technology something to aspire to, to learn what the over-seers know. Perhaps some day we will become post-singularity space-faring post-human species, and become the equal to those who created The Simulation. But basically, I believe that the future of this planet, were people to believe in Simulism, would be a much happier one.

But of course, whether or not we’d like it to be true has nothing to do with whether or not it is!​

I don’t think it has any relevance at all. No matter the actual nature of our existence, it is our only option. We have to function (indeed can only function) in the universe we know.

 

[Nous]

Follow-up questions for everyone who has said or otherwise implied that you believe there would be no consequences or implications for a person to believe that the universe is a simulation:

If you believe the proposition is true that “there would be no consequences or implications for a person to believe that the universe is a simulation,” I assume that you are also a moral nihilist or anti-realist of some stripe (i.e., you do not agree with the thesis of moral realism, the thesis that states that there are objective moral facts), and that you are also an epiphenomenalist at least as it pertains to volition (the ability to choose between possible options; see OP here: Like Epiphenomenalism, Denial of Free Will is Self-Stultifying ) if not an eliminativist or anti-realist about consciousness (including experience) altogether.

If my assumption is erroneous about you, please explain how one can hold the belief (a) that the universe is a simulation and, without contradiction, simultaneously hold the beliefs (b1) that there are objective moral facts and (b2) that consciousness is causally efficacious or that at least some persons are volitional, i.e., are able to choose between possible options.

If you believe that a computer simulation (1) can at least theoretically create objective moral facts (e.g., objective moral fact: rape of 2-year-old children is always immoral) and/or (2) can create causally efficacious consciousness for at least some individual entities in the simulation, then please explain what is the factual basis for your belief.

Thank you.

 

[IsaiahX]

I assume that you are also a moral nihilist or anti-realist of some stripe (i.e., you do not agree with the thesis of moral realism, the thesis that states that there are objective moral facts)

Actually, I am exactly the opposite. I believe that whether our reality is simulated or not, all consciousness must be treated fairly, regardless of what a god-like CPU says. I believe there is a morality even more objective than that of the creators of the simulation.

can create causally efficacious consciousness for at least some individual entities in the simulation, then please explain what is the factual basis for your belief.

I would have to assume that all apparent consciousnesses are self-aware/volitional simply due to the fact that if I'm right, I would have avoided much calamity. Also, if I am indeed conscious, then I would assume other beings in the simulation are, simply because I wouldn't imagine the CPU would waste so much space. There would be no real verifiable way to prove their awareness, but I must assume so just in case they indeed are.

 

[Milton Platt]

Follow-up questions for everyone who has said or otherwise implied that you believe there would be no consequences or implications for a person to believe that the universe is a simulation:

If you believe the proposition is true that “there would be no consequences or implications for a person to believe that the universe is a simulation,” I assume that you are also a moral nihilist or anti-realist of some stripe (i.e., you do not agree with the thesis of moral realism, the thesis that states that there are objective moral facts), and that you are also an epiphenomenalist at least as it pertains to volition (the ability to choose between possible options; see OP here: Like Epiphenomenalism, Denial of Free Will is Self-Stultifying ) if not an eliminativist or anti-realist about consciousness (including experience) altogether.

If my assumption is erroneous about you, please explain how one can hold the belief (a) that the universe is a simulation and, without contradiction, simultaneously hold the beliefs (b1) that there are objective moral facts and (b2) that consciousness is causally efficacious or that at least some persons are volitional, i.e., are able to choose between possible options.

If you believe that a computer simulation (1) can at least theoretically create objective moral facts (e.g., objective moral fact: rape of 2-year-old children is always immoral) and/or (2) can create causally efficacious consciousness for at least some individual entities in the simulation, then please explain what is the factual basis for your belief.

Thank you.

That’s a lot of “isms” to digest.

For me personally, I never said that I thought there might not be implications or consequences if the universe were a simulation, only that it doesn’t really matter because this is the only universe we can experience in whatever way we experience it. I highly doubt the universe is a simulation, but 100% certainty is rarely attainable on anything, if at all.

As to moral objectivity, how are you using the term “objective”? Are you meaning it in the sense that the moral would exist in the absense of anyone having to have thought of it, or of a god of some sort having declared it? In otherwords, it would be like one of the physical laws of the universe?

I ask, because a moral could be considered objective in relation to a beforehand agreed upon standard. But in the absolute sense, I don’t understand how a moral could be objective.

In the case of theists, they will claim morality is objective because it emimates from their preferred god. I reject that because it means it is dependent upon their god. For morality to be absolutely objective, it seems to me it would have to,exist independently of anything else. In otherwords, it would exist even if there were no god and no human to consider it.

You seem to have given this question a lot of thought. I haven’t delved into all the “isms” as you have and don’t clearely understand the implications of each, but I will follow the thread and see where the conversation goes.

 

[Eddi]

Follow-up questions for everyone who has said or otherwise implied that you believe there would be no consequences or implications for a person to believe that the universe is a simulation:

If you believe the proposition is true that “there would be no consequences or implications for a person to believe that the universe is a simulation,” I assume that you are also a moral nihilist or anti-realist of some stripe (i.e., you do not agree with the thesis of moral realism, the thesis that states that there are objective moral facts), and that you are also an epiphenomenalist at least as it pertains to volition (the ability to choose between possible options; see OP here: Like Epiphenomenalism, Denial of Free Will is Self-Stultifying ) if not an eliminativist or anti-realist about consciousness (including experience) altogether.

If my assumption is erroneous about you, please explain how one can hold the belief (a) that the universe is a simulation and, without contradiction, simultaneously hold the beliefs (b1) that there are objective moral facts and (b2) that consciousness is causally efficacious or that at least some persons are volitional, i.e., are able to choose between possible options.

If you believe that a computer simulation (1) can at least theoretically create objective moral facts (e.g., objective moral fact: rape of 2-year-old children is always immoral) and/or (2) can create causally efficacious consciousness for at least some individual entities in the simulation, then please explain what is the factual basis for your belief.

Thank you.

I don’t really know what to think regarding what would be the human (and specifically moral) implications of a mass belief in the computer simulation hypothesis (hence the creation of this thread - that's what I want to find out!) but I can certainly see why once could argue that it would produce a deep moral crisis.

I do however have some tentative thoughts to offer on the matter: Basically, I don’t see why the morality and belief systems in existence outside any computer simulation would not apply to within said simulation. And I believe any responsible creator or overseer of a simulation who had any ethical concern at all would be sure that people within a simulation would have access to a moral code and be able to live with moral certainty – such as being able to believe in moral facts, even whilst knowing their dimension of reality is simulated. And if you lived inside a simulation and knew it, you can still use God as a source of morality, if you believed in him. Being in a simulation would not cut you off from God. Neither does it cut you off from ultimate reality and the moral systems that exist there. And I would say, neither does it make you or anyone else any less real and deserving of ethical treatment.

I would therefore say that any moral crisis caused by knowing we are virtual people in a simulated world could be resolved and would not necessarily be all that huge, and that general moral order as we know it today would eventually be upheld. There'd still be moral influence from both humanism and organised religion. Although granted, many things would change. I think the nature and extent of any moral crisis would be related to how carefully the facts regarding the simulated nature of our reality are presented to the masses. But that’s an entirely different issue.

 

[Nous]

Actually, I am exactly the opposite. I believe that whether our reality is simulated or not, all consciousness must be treated fairly, regardless of what a god-like CPU says. I believe there is a morality even more objective than that of the creators of the simulation.

Well, there seems to be a lot of suffering happening on earth, experienced by both humans and non-human animals. As you probably are aware, the issue of suffering is often brought up by people arguing against the existence of a loving, omnipotent God.

In any case, for all of the people and other animals who haven't "known" or believed that the universe is (just) a computer simulation, their suffering has presumably seemed quite real to them. So it doesn't seem to that the simulation creator is exactly benevolent.

But, conversely, for people who believe that the universe is a simulation, it seems to me that they are likely to view the suffering they cause to others as ultimately not "really real".

I would have to assume that all apparent consciousnesses are self-aware/volitional simply due to the fact that if I'm right, I would have avoided much calamity.

Did you say what you meant to say there? If so, I don't seem to grasp your point, or how it would be that you would have avoided more calamity than you have avoided if you had assumed that you were not not self-aware and/or volitional.

On the other hand, the issue that stands out in my mind is that the conjunction of the propositions "I believe the universe is a computer simulation" and "I believe I am truly volitional and can choose between available alternatives" seems to me to be, at least currently, contradictory. At least currently, we don't have a clue as to how to create a computer program that willfully chooses between available alternatives, much less a program where there are many billions or trillions of separate volitional conscious creatures who are volitional and acting autonomously.

 

[Nous]

As to moral objectivity, how are you using the term “objective”? Are you meaning it in the sense that the moral would exist in the absense of anyone having to have thought of it, or of a god of some sort having declared it? In otherwords, it would be like one of the physical laws of the universe?

Moral realism is just the thesis that there are objective moral facts--that it really, objectively, is wrong and immoral to, e.g., intentionally rape a 4-year-old child for one's own momentary pleasure, and that intentionally raping a 4-year-old child for one's own pleasure is morally different than, e.g., teaching that child to read or to tie her shoes.

I'm sure better explanations of moral realism can be found online than what I just said and am about to say. I'll try to find one. Nevertheless, an objective moral fact is just one that isn't merely relative to a culture (e.g., intentionally raping a 4-year-old child isn't wrong merely because one's society has arbitrary decided to outlaw or disapprove of that act), and that moral facts are essentially like mathematical facts--they don't have any spacetime location, but the propositions are true because there exists something that the facts refer to that makes them true.

 

[Nous]

Basically, I don’t see why the morality and belief systems in existence outside any computer simulation would not apply to within said simulation.

Well, transferring an objective moral fact and/or belief system to a computer simulation seems like a rather magical accomplishment. I definitely don't know how one would accomplish such a feat. I know of no gate or on/off switch by which to accomplish such a transference.

And I believe any responsible creator or overseer of a simulation who had any ethical concern at all would be sure that people within a simulation would have access to a moral code and be able to live with moral certainty – such as being able to believe in moral facts, even whilst knowing their dimension of reality is simulated.

Of course, given that there is a great deal of suffering that happens among humans and non-human animals alike, one can only wonder the simulation creator is ethically "responsible". Why didn't he or she create a simulation where creatures don't endure such suffering as found among creatures on earth?

Not to mention the fact that humans don't live with moral certitude. We have lots of questions, discussions and disagreements about what acts are moral or immoral.