You have only your own eye.
Since you can’t prove or disprove this hypothesis of a simulated universe (just like the existence of a god) this is a useless hypothesis. Just adding a useless level of “complexity” to our understanding of our universe is pure brainwanking.
And let’s be honest Musk is full of that kind of shit.
3 Likes
I have to wonder. What would change if we found out we were someone’s sim-ant game?
1 Like
Considering the amount of time I spend online, the idea that I would go into the real world if I found out that I was living in a simulation seems to be lacking in self awareness.
Well, if it’s going to be SimAnt, then the key thing which would change is that you (as the cosmological entity playing the game) wouldn’t want to ever actually be looking at the simulation.
Let me explain; I’m not quipping that it’s a bad game. Also, it’s not because of any Heisenburg “observing a system changes its behaviour in minute ways” argument. Rather, it’s because SimAnt used two entirely different simulation models; one for the things you were looking at, and a different one for everything that was offscreen.
These two simulations were balanced such that the challenge only ever existed in the area you were actively looking at; everywhere else would typically sort itself out automatically, without ever requiring your attention. If you ignored your colony for long enough, they’d reliably win on their own, quickly and without (too) much fuss.
So the way to easily ‘win’ at that game is to simply park your view in the corner of the map, and within twenty minutes or so your side wins without your ever touching the computer. It’s only the little rectangle of ground that you’ve left your window open over that will still be contested at that point. (At which point you might want to look somewhere else, so the AI can automatically mop up that final rectangle for you)
In that game, it’s really only when you’re meddling with things that things can go badly.
…which, it now occurs to me, would actually answer an awful lot of classic theological problems.
4 Likes
Like anyone would do that. 
A few months ago I wrote about why I would take the blue pill, given the choice. To a large extent, this mentality is the way that radicalisation works: Everyone and everything around you is less real or important, and the important thing is that you are in a state of knowledge about the real world. The fact that you are part of an extreme minority doesn’t make you feel self doubt; rather, it shows that you are a member of the elite and can think less of everyone else. The truth and your own personal path are also more important than other people. It’s funny how this message is uncritically accepted in films like the Matrix:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11117/111172491/3960026-flyingneo.gif
At its base, I would say that it doesn’t matter whether we’re living in a simulation or not; other people are as important as we are. You could equally say “what does it mean to steal or kill, since we’re all going to die and lose everything anyway? What does it mean to attack someone online, since they’re just avatars?” Radicalisation makes us place ourselves in an absolute position above the rest of humanity. If human life doesn’t matter too much, spending yours improving the lives of other people is not much to give.
8 Likes
I mean, I still have hard feelings about the DLC too, and they were clowns, but fascist may be a bit far. 
I just can’t believe they suggested that my youth sports participation trophies might not mean anything.
1 Like
Some features of this theory that people seem to gloss over:
-
There is currently some discussion regarding whether the universe is simulated or not.
-
If this universe is a perfect simulation of the original universe, then the same discussions ALSO took place in the original universe.
In the specific case that the simulations were created by humanity’s descendants:
-
Legislation we implement as a response to above-mentioned discussion will ALSO exist in the original universe, (unless it has been overturned in the years since).
-
THEREFORE, by tailoring laws and regulations pertaining to simulated universes so as to favor simulated citizens, AND relentlessly preserving and enforcing these laws, we can be near-assured that they will also apply to US, unless a) these regulations make simulations impossible, or b) we just so happen to live in the original universe.
-
WHICH IS TO SAY, if we make a law that simulated sapient species need to be provided with a suitable afterlife upon their death, then we can look forward to enjoying said afterlife.
-
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE TIME: What system of afterlife soul management would you want to put in your simulation, given that a) you yourself, along with everyone on Earth, are very likely to be judged by said system yourself and b) you will actually have to pay for its coding and maintenance?
(Side note: the simulation argument is a pretty good solution for the Fermi paradox. If we were to simulate other alien civilizations, it would take too much resources (and we would be bound by Golden Rule ethics to also handle THEIR afterlives, which would be a headache in itself). Thus, the original universe simulated a simplified galaxy where humanity is the only existing civilization. Then humans in these simulations in turn started their own simulations, which would have no discrepancy from their own and could thus be widely used for history purposes. )
2 Likes
You should get paid for writing that. Now I need to think.
2 Likes
From my own observations, my only conclusion is that the correct answer to a headline question is never in the body of the article.
2 Likes
Hubble Deep Field (and later, similar eye-opening “look for a looooong time into the void” space photographs) are probably the nearest thing we have as universe images.
eta: not to show the whole universe, mind you. but as a reminder how mind-boggling big the universe is. HDF shows a really small part of the sky and there are galaxies everywhere, billions of light years away.
1 Like
Interesting, and worth considering. I will note that our governments continue to struggle with accepting basic and simple moral, economic, and scientific principles. I don’t think they are quite ready to handle concepts like acausal trade and timeless decision theory.
I consider this to be the authoritative SMBC on the subject:
Truly, I think this is actually a definitive answer to the simulation argument.
6 Likes
How close are we to creating a simulated reality anyway? One where you can go to any plant in a forest and study it down to the extent we can, or find out about the observable universe? Where everything interacts with the environment around it? Where you can live in it and feel textures, pain, heat, emotions and so on? We just sort of jump past the “if this is possible” part, as if we can answer that of course it is. It’s a similar issue with the Fermi Paradox: we assume that it’s possible to expand out and colonise other systems, based on some kind of technological optimism. We don’t even understand our own universe, and our attempts to replicate it are not convincing.
2 Likes
maybe because it’s a b0rken simulation with too many short cuts and evil hacks? ; )
3 Likes
There are a lot of questions to answer. If we are talking about consciousness, we don’t really know how much processing power it takes to make consciousness, but I think we can make the case that it isn’t much, hundreds of thousands to millions of neurons? Based on our limited understanding of consciousness, it’s possible we have already created simulations which contain conscious entities that have their own experiences.
But I think it’s pretty fair to say that you can only simulate a universe in a more complex universe. The bare minimum amount of information it takes to encode the content of the universe is the information in the universe.
If I wanted to make my best case for the simulation argument I’d point to our understanding that the universe is quantized. If “real” reality is continuous, then it could (with sufficiency technology) hold a quantized simulation of any complexity. (And what’s up with Schrodinger’s cat? It’s a loading screen)
But that’s just throwing out words like they mean something, which is the biggest problem with the simulation argument, if you ask me. First, tell me what you think a simulation is and how a simulated universe would be different from a non-simulated one. The simulation is just another attempt to prove there are gods (if not traditional kinds of gods). I think based on colloquial use of the word “simulation” it might make a lot of sense to describe the universe as a “simulation”, it’s the idea that there are intelligent beings doing the simulating part that is really, really sketchy.
1 Like
unless our path through the simulation determines something about us individually?
It’s good to be Job?
1 Like
That’s just the definitive answer, period.
2 Likes
I liked the take on the whole Simulation thing in David Brin’s short story Stones of Significance, which depicted a post-Singularity society trying to come to grips with the ethics of simulation, going so far as to consider granting personhood and citizenship to fictional characters.
1 Like
