How would being in a simulation make my life less real to me?
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
35 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1452 readers
64 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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
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.
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.
Another way to look at it is as any civilisation gets sufficient technology they begin simulating entire universes, to better understand their own.
That means we're either the OG universe and haven't figured out how to run simulations of that size yet (so no simulated universes exist yet), or there is some chain of universes above us who are likely also simulated until you get to the OG universe.
Considering everything in our universe seems to follow a set of base rules (speed of light, attraction between masses, etc), I'm partial to thinking of those as essentially input variables prior to our sim being run.
So a virtual machine is a lower reality version of a computer?
In a sense, either "sub reality" or "para reality". The latter is how I think.
Explain that, please
Suppose I had a copy of the Sims. Inside the copy of the Sims, the characters are looking around and notice things that seem suspicious about their world. They come to the conclusion they're in a simulation, a video game. But nobody asks what they were made to simulate? Because it always implies there is something which, to them, is metaphysical, i.e. our world. And, if they were thinking about this, it would devalue the simulation theory itself, because if the basis is a higher world, that would be the point of reference of why things are the way they are anyways, thus saying "so-and-so is the way it is because we live in a simulation" would be a moot remark.
It's just new religion
"We must obey the ~~god~~ admin!"
All hail the mighty SUDO
Simulation theory is just creationism rebranded using terms that are more familiar for a world where computers are so highly used. Someone would've had to have created the simulation, and ergo the entire universe, which does sound rather familiar
Exactly, it's updating what "God" looks like from a bearded old white guy to a nerd
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.
There is no requirement for a subset of something to have the same properties as the superset. Just because everything in our universe is interconnected is no guarantee that the same applies to the hypothetical universe in which our simulation is run. This is ignoring that the idea is that we can't see out of the simulation, i.e., there is no uncontrolled information being inserted into the simulation. This doesn't preclude static from the outside impacting us in some measurable way...such as a background level of noise that is pervasive in the simulation, like the CMB.
I don't know if we're in a simulation, but a lot of people smarter than me and more knowledgeable in the field have come to the conclusion that this idea isn't falsifiable, and I doubt your proposal is a new idea for them. This leads me to believe they probably had a good reason to dismiss it, better than my points listed above.
Just because everything in our universe is interconnected is no guarantee that the same applies to the hypothetical universe in which our simulation is run
I addressed this already.
Okay, but you're glossing over the point, so let's talk about black holes. They are part of our universe, information can go in past the event horizon, but no information can come out past the event horizon. Are they connected? Yes, absolutely. Can we collect any information from them, beyond a few basic physical measurements (gravity, momentum, rotation, mass-energy)? No, that whole event horizon again. So are you proposing that causality doesn't exist in black holes, doesn't exist in our universe, or that maybe we can have an interconnected system with a one-way transfer of information?
Again, I'm sure someone with a PhD could not only come up with better reasons for the flaw in your assessment, but has probably already articulated it somewhere. Perhaps you should search that up.
Information comes out of black holes. That's the whole point of the Hawking radiation thing. And information enters, obviously. Also those few basic measurements are information. Black holes are falsifiable and detectable.
Causality inside black holes is not like causality out here, but it does exist. Once you enter, there's only one direction you can go, no matter what you do. The outcome of everything was decided the moment you touched the event horizon. That outcome is that you will eventually evaporate as hawking radiation.
I'm not glossing over the point. I've already addressed the crux of it. An environment in which systems can be totally isolated cannot function in any conceivable way as a universe. Everything inside would not be able to interact at all. It would be more like a substrate on which universes exist, if an environment can be isolated that does not allow for anything inside it to be 100% isolated.
Energy is not information. You are misinformed.
Yes it is lol I love being called misinformed by misinformed people. You should look into hawking radiation and why it was theorized.
Well, after doing some reading, you may be right. I didn't hear about the issues brought up, and Hawkings responses in 2004. It seems the consensus is that information is conveyed somehow, with some limits on practicality. That may still raise issues with determining whether you're in a simulation, if the capability to determine if you are is beyond the reach of your technology. At that point though, the only way you can falsify the hypothesis is to increase your capabilities to the point where you can test that, and I don't think we're there now.
If we aren't there yet, no point in believing it's true. It's like believing in god because we don't have the technology to prove or disprove god. We can't believe something that's not currently falsifiable, we have to disbelieve it until we see evidence of it. I don't think we are in a simulation.
I do think though that if it were true it could be detected with current capability, just that, if it is true, nobody has drawn the conclusion and investigated it yet. And information leaking in or out could be anything. The expansion rate increase of the universe could be energy leaking into the simulation. The speed of light could be a hard limit in the outside environment or something like a "clock speed" of the machine the simulation is running on. A slowly changing constant of nature, it could be anything. If it is true, there are indicators we are probably detecting, it's just that we haven't figured out what they're indicating.
You can believe or disbelieve anything you want. I don't think we're in a simulation. I dismiss the idea because we don't appear to currently be able to prove or disprove it and the outcome currently doesn't have a bearing on our options.
You presuppose that all the people in the world and scientists are actually people too. Sure the laws of the universe seem to be consistent in a Newtonian fashion as far as yourself have bothered to check. I don't think you've done much personal quantum mechanics.
The problem is more Cartesian, in the first place, maybe Trumanian. The others might be bad faith actors. Are you able to trust your senses, if so the other people?
Thereβs no way to know, so meh. Itβs not a reason to live any differently than I normally would.
Ludicrous. If we were in a simulation weβd be erased by now because they wouldβve done a factory reset and started again.
The dinosaurs π
No one knows. I just find this universe too imperfect. It's nonsense. I just want it to end.
We could make a religion out of this!
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.
I think the simulation idea is as credible as the stoner's musing, "What if air makes you high, and pot makes you straight?"
You know, whenever this theory is discussed, everybody seems to assume that this simulation that we're allegedly living in is supposed to be an approximation of the parent universe, similar rules, but probably lower fidelity (basically the sims).
I think we should forget that assumption. It's human centric. Who's to say that the entity running the simulation even meant for it to be a simulation at all? Given our universe appears so much bigger than our pale blue dot from the inside, if our universe is a program running in a parent universe, I doubt that we - homo sapiens - are the point of it, or it'd be leaner, more focused. We'd be the center of the universe. But at every step of scientific discovery, we've found that that isn't true. We're just noise, sand on the beach, dust in the wind. If we live in a program, I doubt that the person running it is even aware of us specifically as a species, let alone as individuals. I doubt that they're specifically aware of any particularly galaxy, in the same way a neural network developer isn't aware of any specific weight in their model.
Granted, you could argue that that the rest observable universe is an illusion, a wilderness mural painted on the walls, designed by the simulation operator to make us think that we weren't in a zoo. But that sounds a lot like "God put those dinosaur bones there to trick us", so personally, I doubt that's it.
Think more dwarf fortress and you have the way I look at it
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.
And at the end you get a list of statistics. Slept X days, X hours on the toilet, could have reached level 60 if only you went for job B. Spent X hours masterbating. Killed 2 people without you or anybody else even realising. Used X KG of plastic.
We might as well be. I sometimes feel like Iβm about to be disconnected from it. I can see, hear, smell and all but everything seems foreign like you canβt 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, youβre not trying to answer the questions itβs just bizarre to exist, and how we exist and why and all. Itβs so hard to explain haha Itβs a weird detachment state , an interesting experience I have a few times a year
Mathematically, itβs the only possibility
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.
Your mind is gonna conjure up anything it can to make sense of the world it lives in.
I think if you take a kind of birds-eye view (i.e. The proverbial forest) of the world around us without putting effort into understanding the granular nature of the individual things (i.e. the trees) around us, then one of the takeaways could be that we exist in an otherwise chaotic universe, which might give rise to this thought that we're living in a simulation. βThat said, the world isn't chaotic, not really. It is an incredibly complex group of relations and things, and most of it has little concern for us as individuals.
Some of us sometimes struggle to see the forest from trees. Others of us sometimes struggle to see the trees from the forest.
There's a big ol' beautiful world out there beyond our computers and the games we play. It's worth going out and studying a lot of it.
-What would be the implications if we were in a simulation? would it matter?
Life is not a game.