Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

simulation-argument.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#51

Post by pcthrowaway »

O____________O wrote: post #49
pcthrowaway wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this same argument, wouldn't having children be unethical? (I believe it is by the way)

I suppose it would be, if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome. It's probably not a concern for anyone reading this, though.

You said it would be unethical for people to create a simulation wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering. If you have children, you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times.

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#53

Post by tiatia »

Udo wrote: post #31

The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with The Invisible Dragon in my Garage to be of profound scientific value. It's worth taking into…

> The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones

Actually, no. The question is simple: Can a universe with a least a few intelligent individuals be simulated? (Grand Auto Theft also does not simulate the whole city but only a selected "view"). The answer to this is probably "yes". But then you have another problem: If a universe can be simulated, it is mathematically FAR FAR more likely that you live in a computer simulation than not since billions of worlds with trillions of individuals are getting simulated.

> and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications

Be my guest and elaborate.

> holes which seem like they are in disagreement with > daily observation and hence should lend themselves to > falsification.

Actually, you are right and wrong here. First, I don't see "disagreement" with daily observations since there is only one known idea how to test the hypothesis. And then you are right, this thesis can be tested:"To avoid stacking (i.e. simulations within simulations), the termination of these simulations is likely to be the point in history when the technology to create them first became widely available, (estimated to be 2050)."

Actually, there is a movie preceding "The Matrix" that is much much better: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070904/

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#54

Post by O____________O »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #51
O____________O wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it would be, if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome. It's probably not a concern for anyone reading this, though.

You said it would be unethical for people to create a simulation wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering. If you have children, you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times.

wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering

you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times

Hence my statement: if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome.

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#55

Post by seba_dos1 »

O____________O wrote: post #54
pcthrowaway wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said it would be unethical for people to create a simulation wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering. If you have children, you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times.

wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times Hence my statement: if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome.

So doesn't that also apply to the whole simulated universe as well?

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#56

Post by seba_dos1 »

curiously wrote: post #5

Well I don't believe we are in a computer simulation per say but I think there are certain properties that certainly make it seem like we are. For example, I believe that conciousness can transcend to anything. We could just be some collective consciousness. When we are born we have no memory of our previous life. When we die we have no memory of our current one. So this suggest to me that it is entirely possible tha…

If you don't have memory or any other way to link your actual "live" with previous ones, how does the situation where "conciousness" travels between bodies and does not actually differ? What identifies a consciousness A that was in the body X and traveled now to the body Y? How is it different from consciousness B that used to be in the body P and now lives in the body Q? How can you actually link them like that if there's no difference between them, so swapping those two consciousnesses between bodies Y and Q won't make any difference?

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#57

Post by O____________O »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #55
O____________O wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times Hence my statement: if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome.

So doesn't that also apply to the whole simulated universe as well?

Yes? Either I'm misunderstanding your comment, or we're just running in a circle now.

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#58

Post by seba_dos1 »

O____________O wrote: post #57
seba_dos1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So doesn't that also apply to the whole simulated universe as well?

Yes? Either I'm misunderstanding your comment, or we're just running in a circle now.

You said that "it would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering", but it applies also to having children, so you clarified that the creator has to have a "reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome" for it to be unethical. So if the creator of the universe doesn't have such reason, your original assumption is not valid anymore, making it perfectly ethical to create a simulation of universe as long as you believe that the net outcome will be positive.

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#59

Post by pcthrowaway »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #58
O____________O wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Either I'm misunderstanding your comment, or we're just running in a circle now.

You said that "it would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering", but it applies also to having children, so you clarified that the creator has to have a "reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome" for it to be unethical. So if the creator of the universe doesn't have…

Thank you. That's what I was getting at. A simulated world would contain suffering just as the 'real' (presumably) world does. Bringing 'conscious life' into a simulated world would be no more unethical than bringing life into the world we inhabit.

Re: Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (2003)

#60

Post by drdeca »

frozenport wrote: post #41
logn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say there are 100 universes. Suppose each universe has 1 in 100 chance of making simulations and if they do they make 100. Your chances then of living in a simulation are ~50%. It's much different than assuming a single universe in which case the advent of simulations almost assures that you're living in one (assuming the author's line of reasoning). Edit: in summary the pace at which new universes arise could rival…

Yes, but the cardinality of the multiverse is hard to grasp. There are uncountably infinite universes, just as there are uncountably many points in time. Every breath streams endless bifurcation.

maybe measures would be more applicable than cardinalities?

If there are $\mathfrak{c}$ universes, it can still be meaningful I think to say that one in ten of them contain a simulation (though, $\mathfrak{c}$ might not be the right cardinality? Maybe $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ would be closer? I'm not sure.)

I suppose there is also the question as to whether to consider two identical simulations in two different universes to be the same simulation or not, and how to take that into account when considering the chances that one is in a simulation or not.

Post reply on HN