We are living in a simulation

[atanu]

3 arguments for why we live in a matrix – and 3 arguments that refute them.

3 superb arguments for why we live in a matrix – and 3 arguments that refute them

 

[atanu]

And also:

Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation | Cosmos

"The researchers calculated that just storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe."

Physicists Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi note:

"And given the physically impossible amount of computer grunt needed to store information for just one member of this subset, fears that we might be unknowingly living in some vast version of The Matrix can now be put to rest."

However, as physicists are cautious and logical, the lead author Ringel says:

"There is a caveat to this conclusion: if our universe is a simulation, there is no reason that the laws of physics should apply outside it. In the words of Zohar Ringel, the lead author of the paper, “Who knows what are the computing capabilities of whatever simulates us?”

...

A discussion on Godel's Incompleteness theorem in Science cannot solve the final mystery triggered this thread for me. I wish to ask @Polymath257 the following.

Given the Incompleteness theorem and the premise of the simulation scenario that cognition is computation, can we ever know real from the virtual from within the scope of computations?

 

[Polymath257]

A discussion on Godel's Incompleteness theorem in Science cannot solve the final mystery triggered this thread for me. I wish to ask @Polymath257 the following.

Given the Incompleteness theorem and the premise of the simulation scenario that cognition is computation, can we ever know real from the virtual from within the scope of computations?

I don't think either the Incompleteness Theorem or the premises of the simulation scenario are relevant.

We cannot *know* we are not brains in a vat. We cannot *know* that everything we experience isn't an illusion. We cannot *know* that we are not living in a simulation.

But, we *define* our concepts in such a way that this is irrelevant to doing science, being a good person, etc.

 

[sayak83]

The whole of existence, including the conscious actors are in a massive virtue reality.

The question arises, is this questioning that we are indulging in, including Nick's paper, too is virtual?

I am saying that the proposition itself does not make any sense. A computer simulation does not contain any "entities" or "objects" ...so how does that question arise at all? This is like saying that the "people in the mirror" actually exist and we ourselves could be living in a mirror, or inside a painting....imo.

 

[atanu]

I am saying that the proposition itself does not make any sense. A computer simulation does not contain any "entities" or "objects" ...so how does that question arise at all? This is like saying that the "people in the mirror" actually exist and we ourselves could be living in a mirror, or inside a painting....imo.

Yes. To me also the proposition is absurd, since I believe that a Turing machine although indistinguishable from a living being still will not have the self.

The author however assumes substrate independence and says that minds can be simulated on silicon instead of carbon chemistry. You and me do not exist in reality but we are virtual. We could be virtual Turing machines, as per the paper.

Author himself however does not think that the idea that we are mere simulations a reality.

 

[atanu]

We cannot *know* that everything we experience isn't an illusion. We cannot *know* that we are not living in a simulation.

But, we *define* our concepts in such a way that this is irrelevant to doing science, being a good person, etc.

If we cannot know whether it is illusion that we experience or not, can we define our concepts to be free of illusion?

 

[Polymath257]

If we cannot know whether it is illusion that we experience or not, can we define our concepts to be free of illusion?

It all depends on what, precisely, you mean by both 'reality' and 'illusion'.

 

[atanu]

We cannot *know* we are not brains in a vat. We cannot *know* that everything we experience isn't an illusion. We cannot *know* that we are not living in a simulation.

But, we *define* our concepts in such a way that this is irrelevant to doing science, being a good person, etc.

It all depends on what, precisely, you mean by both 'reality' and 'illusion'.

My question was in reference to the first post shown above. Let me rephrase it. If one is not able to ascertain truth of one’s existence, ie. whether one is mere simulation in a simulated world, or not, how does one define concepts in relevant way?

IOW, in dream, we are not able to know that we are in dream. Can we define relevant concepts while in dream?
...

 

[Polymath257]

My question was in reference to the first post shown above. Let me rephrase it. If one is not able to ascertain truth of one’s existence, ie. whether one is mere simulation in a simulated world, or not, how does one define concepts in relevant way?

IOW, in dream, we are not able to know that we are in dream. Can we define relevant concepts while in dream?
...

Side note: I almost never remember dreaming. Whenever I have been in a dream that I can remember, I knew I was dreaming.

To answer your question, we do science. We look for regularities, make hypotheses, test those hypotheses, etc.

So, if we are in a simulation, and there are 'laws of physics' in that simulation, then by repeated observation and testing we can find approximations to those laws. We can still 'live our lives', 'drive our cars', etc.

And until there is some observation that requires something more, there is no reason to model something more. And that is perfectly good.

And then some dude offers you a red or blue pill and the observational evidence changes significantly.

One aspect of all of this is that observational equivalence is, for me, the same as equivalent.

So, if we are in a perfect simulation of the 'real world' and ALL observations are the same between the simulation and the 'real world', then what we see *is* the 'real world'.

 

[atanu]

The idea that we could be virtual beings living in a computer simulation has gained ground amongst scientists. The simulation according to them would most likely create perceptions of reality on demand rather than simulate all of reality all the time—much like a video game optimized to render only the parts of a scene visible to a player.

A new study demonstrates that the odds that we are living in base reality—meaning an existence that is not simulated—are pretty much even. But the study also shows that if humans were to ever develop the ability to simulate conscious beings, the chances would overwhelmingly tilt in favor of us, too, being virtual denizens inside someone else’s computer.

(A caveat to that conclusion is that there is little agreement about what the term “consciousness” means, let alone how one might go about simulating it.)

I THINK THAT A COROLLARY IS THAT ONE WHO KNOWS CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE CREATOR GOD.

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

 

[atanu]

This whole idea of the universe being a simulation is not much different from Advaita Vedanta concept of the universe being a ‘vivarta’ of Brahman that essentially is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

If the consciousness is the ontological primitive (instead of matter with mass being the primitive), the simulation idea gels well with Advaita Vedanta.

...