Hacker News Reader

Comment by okket | Hacker News Reader

The "Simulation Argument" by Nick Bostrom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs

Even if it is true, it changes nothing. Since this is the world we have to deal with and there is no indication we can influence the (supposed) simulation. If our world/universe is a simulation, it is simply too good.

I also recommend to read "The Big Picture" by Sean Carrol, chapter 11 "Is It Okay to Doubt Everything?" deals with these kinds of thought experiments (including Bostrom).

The 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate was about "Is the Universe a Simulation?":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs

View on HN

It's essentially the question of God, only in disguise. It's absolutely untestable (just like the existence of God), so it's a matter of faith and nothing else.

If God - as understood by major human religions - does exist, then the world IS a simulation. I mean, all atoms and particles are "real", but ultimately they form a simulation device, one that invokes the sense of existence in sentient beings.

I'd say God is a different question: Even if this entity can't help you while you live, you still can gain points for the supposed afterlife (I guess that is the mayor selling point of religions these days?). There is no such concept in the Simulation Argument.

The difference between God and simulation, is there is no particular reason to believe in God. Religions have traditionally argued that the universe needs a creator, therefore there must be a God. But then who created God?

There is a reason to believe in the simulation hypothesis. We already have a massive industry devoted to making world simulations, video games. We know our computing technology advances steadily every year. So it's not unreasonable to suppose it's likely we will someday create such simulations.

The second belief is also untestable, it's a prediction about the future. But a prediction about the future seems much more grounded than religion. It's taking into account our observations of the world, and what future outcomes seem probable. Not just making stuff up.

There were reasons to believe in a God some two thousand years ago. Those might have been wrong reasons, but still the belief in gods reflected people's understanding of the world at the time (i.e. pretty much none at all).

I personally don't see much difference in the two. Before modern astronomy, people looked at the frequency of the revolution of visible planets and thought their ratios resembled musical ratios, and that this had to be the work of someone (such was the belief of Pythagoreans, Stoics and Neoplatonists). Nowadays people look at some other physical quantity and think that this has to be the work of someone. In this sense, they're pretty similar. And if the error of those ancient philosophers lies in that supposition, I don't see how the degree of reality of our idea of who's doing it (e.g. aliens vs. a hazy concept of a "Demiurge") makes it any better.

Well people believed in wrong things a thousand years ago. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying we probably shouldn't have any beliefs at all, because they might be wrong a thousand years from now? That's just silly.

Clearly we know a lot more than the ancients do. E.g. the concept of a "simulation". And so we can make more accurate predictions than they would have been able to.

I wasn't really pushing a point. I was trying to add some perspective on the issue. But if I were to push one, I'd say that the question of whether or not our experience is "real" should really be considered a pseudo-problem, because it's a question that can't be really answered.

I don't see an issue with believing things that might be considered incorrect in the future, but I do see an issue with asking the wrong questions over and over again.

I see no particular reason why someone ought to be responsible for the patterns of experience. Thinking it so is the crucial mistake here.

Well, it's based on some totally arbitrary assumptions, such as that people in VR wouldn't typically be aware that they are in VR.

This is certainly not the case nor the intention with video games (from which the whole argument is extrapolated), no matter how realistic they can get

> Even if it is true, it changes nothing.

I haven't watched the videos yet, so apologies if this is covered. Looking forward to seeing them.

If it is true, it changes everything. If you're simply a character in my simulation and not a real human, then there's no reason why I shouldn't screw "you" over to maximize my personal enjoyment.

That's the most actionable point of the thought experiment, to illustrate the importance ethics.

To clarify, there's no "my simulation" and "your simulation" in the present discussion. What's potentially being simulated is the entire universe, with no privileged viewpoint. That the universe is being simulated simply means that the laws of physics of "the universe" have been implemented on a computing device that exists outside of "the universe" (and which therefore does not itself necessarily obey those same laws of physics).

> To clarify, there's no "my simulation" and "your simulation" in the present discussion. What's potentially being simulated is the entire universe

The Simulation Argument (to the extent it applies to anything at all) applies at least as well to solipsistic simulations where all that is simulated is one observer and their personal observable universe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com