mootcat t1_j1w7hbk wrote
Reply to comment by gantork in Considering the recent advancements in AI, is it possible to achieve full-dive in the next 5-10 years? by Burlito2
Mmhmm. Then we face some existential questions. It would mean this reality is almost certainly simulated and all the implications that accompany that realization.
khanto0 t1_j1wd8jw wrote
>It would mean this reality is almost certainly simulated
I disagree. Just because we can similate a full reality, it doesn't mean this reality is simulated. Just because its possible, it doesn't mean it is.
I do think we face a lot of existential questions regardless though!
berdiekin t1_j1x41fr wrote
It's actually a supported theory.
If we can manage to simulate a full universe down to the same level of precision as our own then the chances of our own universe being simulated practically become 1.
Because for every civilization capable and willing to create these simulations in the "root" universe there is a theoretically infinite amount of simulated sub-universes.
Ergo: the number of simulated universes will always massively outnumber the real ones.
Even in the case of "infinite real universes" in a multi verse; if in every one of these "real universes" there is only 1 civilization running these simulations then the number of simulations will always outnumber the real ones.
AT BEST our odds would be 50/50 (in the case that in every universe only 1 civilization reaches the need/want/can stage of simulations while it still being so resource intensive that they can only ever manage to run 1).
Wikipedia:
>The simulation argument
>
>In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument". Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that humans live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is almost certainly true:
>
>"The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
>
>"The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or
>
>"The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one."
>
>The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors.
turnip_burrito t1_j1yftft wrote
It's actually just a fun hypothesis, but too many people believe it's likelier than it actually is. The probability of it being true is not high, or low. It is unknown. There are a couple problems with it:
-
it assumes you can artifically simulate a consciousness (qualia). Sure, you can simulate a brain on a chip, but does it have qualia? Who knows. Imagine for example that it's not possible to simulate a consciousness (qualia). No matter how many simulations there are, or how many layers deep, all conscious beings will only exist as brains in base reality. In Bostrom's case, he assumes you can artifically simulate a consciousness. Can you? Is it reasonable to assume this? Maybe. But if it's not, then the simulation hypothesis crumbles completely into dust. One feasible solution is to hook up biological brains to a full dive VR thing, in which case the person is a brain in base reality, but experiences only virtual reality. It's not known whether a non-brain entity can have consciousness (qualia), which would exclude any tier 1 or higher simulations from having consciousness.
-
this second reason is more restrictive: if a universe has a time limit in base reality (finite amount of energy, entropy increases until max or big crunch), then the civilization will last a finite amount of time. So there is a limit to how many simulations one can run. The limit on the number of simulations run by a second tier (simulated in base reality) universe is even smaller. Also, the higher the fidelity of the simulated universe the smaller this number gets.
Since the status of both these things is unknown, we can confidently conclude that the simulation hypothesis is not known to be probable or improbable, and anyone who claims that it is likely, or unlikely, is completely full of shit.
khanto0 t1_j1yhr2g wrote
It's a compelling theory, but I think we should assume this is the base reality until we can prove otherwise.
Clarkeprops t1_j1wpyzj wrote
Nope
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments