Hacker News Reader

> It could also allow us to increasingly choose to build fully artificial realities.

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.

    — Nick Bostrom, Are you living in a computer simulation?, 2003

> [...] predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct.

This bit is seems little bit strange to me in that it's actually not necessary at all[1]... a simulation runs on its "own timescale", i.e. it doesn't actually matter how fast/slowly the simulator runs -- the simulation still experiences time advancing at the proverbial dt/dt. This paragraph just seems to be scaremongering to the effect of "it'll happen soon because new processors!"

Regardless: If we're living in a simulation of such fidelity it doesn't really matter if it's "really real" or a simulation; our lives will still start and end inside the simulation. (And I daresay this whole thing is just a trivial rehashing of solipsism with an added tinge of technophilia. I really wish physicists had more interaction with philosophers.)

[1] I could imagine an argument for positing that e.g. Quantum Computing would be necessary, but the "enormous amounts of computing power" phrasing is incredibly vague, so who knows what the actual premise is?

EDIT: Trim pointless "who said what" bit.

The argument is that you are likely to be in a simulation, because most minds will be simulated minds. The precondition of most minds being simulated is massive computing power. If we can run a simulation but it requires half the world's computational resources and simulates one second per century of real time, then obviously most minds (and most moments of lived experience) would not be simulated.

> The precondition of most minds being simulated is massive computing power.

How so? I'm still not following the logic here. AFACS it does not matter how fast anything runs -- a simulation always proceeds a tick at a time. The simulated reality cannot (almost by definition) observe time at a smaller time scale.

The key point is most minds.

The argument is that as a conscious being, your prior expectation of "where you are" should be a uniform distribution over all conscious beings. So the idea that you are "probably" in a simulation relies on the assumption that there will be more conscious beings inside simulations than in the top-level "real" universe.

> So the idea that you are "probably" in a simulation relies on the assumption that there will be more conscious beings inside simulations than in the top-level "real" universe.

I mean I can sort-of-see-it if this is the assumption, but the assumption itself seems quite circular to me.

EDIT: I also don't understand how this is connected to my point about speed-of-simulation, but...

> a trivial rehashing of solipsism

Solipsism doesn't seem to quite fit. Like, sure, you're a brain in a jar in this scenario... but there are a lot of other brains sharing the jar with you, too. Solipsism inherently requires a singular existence rather than a communal one.

Ah, but as a brain-in-a-vat how could you distinguish other brains telling you things from the simulation just telling you what you want (or don't want) to hear? As long as we posit the "simulation" it doesn't really matter.

EDIT: Pithyness. Solipsism is fun, isn't it? :)

EDIT#2: I didn't mean to dismiss your point preemptively. I actually think it might be interesting to explore whether there could be (in principle) such a thing a shared-yet-simulated reality without succumbing to the solipsism argument. I don't think it's possible, but I'm not a philosopher. Incidentally physics has a similar problem. If you're interested, look up Boltzmann Brains and the "Arrow of Time".

> This means people get to amazing places but are disappointed when reality doesn't match the photo

Photographs with modern digital technology have many advantages over what our eyes can do, but I find it's typical the opposite problem of trying to make an image that adequately captures reality.

The advantage is that our brain can interpret the information from our eyes in real-time, meaning we can extract much more from a scene in real life. A photograph is just a snapshot with a pre-selected focal point, exposure, and view angle, and it can never reproduce the sensation of viewing something for real.

"Interestingly, I find this somewhat similar to looking at landscape photography that people enjoy - especially from vacation destinations. Almost every picture now has more dynamic range, edge contrast, contrast, and saturation than the human eye experiences. This means people get to amazing places but are disappointed when reality doesn't match the photo."

Strange, I always assume it's the other way round -- photos can't capture these amazing views. That's especially true in the mountains, where in photos it's usually "meh, just some rocks" while standing on the top of a mountain irl has all these amazing views and feelings that cannot be expressed easily otherwise. Though in a crowded, popular tourist destinations[0] your argument is closer to truth.

0. http://www.boredpanda.com/travel-expectations-vs-reality/