Nick Bostrom put forth the following trilemma. One of the following 3 statements must be true:

1. Almost no civilization will reach a technological level capable of producing simulated realities.

2. Almost no civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will produce a simulated reality, for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.

3. Almost all entities with our general set of experiences are living in a simulation

In a nutshell if its possible to simulate our reality then in all likelyhood we are living in a simulated reality. While there would exist a "real" reality, there would be many more "simulated" ones. For any given being, chances are they are a simulated one.

I ask the atheists, what is the precentage you would assign to your existence that it is merely a creation of a simulator? Why do you assign the probability that you do?

99.8% I mean, if this weren't a simulation, how likely is it that I would be so cool? I'm obviously the star of a simulated action movie, people as awesome as me don't just happen.

Obviously Scott Adams of Dilbert fame is living in a simulated reality.

Edit: Well he's been thinking about it. Check out his 2-10-09 blog entry

"Eventually, as I have written before, and futurists predict, you will be able to scan your brain with such precision you can port your personality into a computer. The obvious place to store that personality will be in the avatar you used while you were alive. So over time the online world will be populated with a combination of avatars controlled by the living plus online "ghosts" that are the personalities of the deceased, operating independent of any living human.

Eventually humanity will die from some mutant strain of virus, but the online world will live on, maintained by robots. Inside the simulation you will live a full life, die, and reincarnate into a new avatar to experience the breadth of life all over again.

You're way ahead of me and you know the punch line here is that the future already happened and you are already an avatar. And god is the robot that maintains the system."

besides my head exploding, this is a pretty interesting question/point...

i cant even formulate the 100 questions i have to ask because its so crazy

0%. Tomorrow I'll wake up and it'll be another day. And I'll be the star of my own movie. And you'll be the star of yours. I'll see the world through my eyes (figuratively and literally) and you through yours. What it all means, where we go when it's over, whether it's somebody's simulation--who cares?

100%

Differentiating between simulation and reality is a meaningless distinction in these types of questions.

Let's just stick to saying that if everything we know is simulated, then it is still everything we know and it is not pong. And I'll even make the bold claim that if anyone does not understand why that sentence is important - then they should reread untill they do.

Furthermore: "What if A which you can not at this time know if you observe or measure correctly has the property Z which you do not at this time know what is or how to measure?" is not a good question, and it is certainly not one which anyone should go around making 3-case absolute statements about - and I really don't care if that "anyone" is a famous philosopher.

If it is a simulation, its likely you and I are co-stars in the same movie.

Simulation hypothesis may explain a lot of quantum wierdness we observe. On the quantum level, little bits of matter really don't occuppy a particular place. The electron orbiting an atom doesn't exist as a point particle until someone observes it. Until its observed an electron exists as a probability cloud.

Perhaps spooky observations like the double slit experiment are artifacts of a simulated universe. Why compute the exact position and velocity of every subatomic particle when probability cloud will accomplish the same thing with less computational power? Save that computational power and only use it when someone is looking.

Should we care if we live in a simulation? Yes.

If we live in a simulation then we can assume the simulation has a purpose. If the simulation has a purpose, its in our best interest to see that the purpose is being fulfilled(lest the plug be pulled on the computer running the simulation).

Second, If we live in a simulation, then it may be possible to take advantage of certain quirks or artifacts of the simulated universe. We were more likely to look for and find those advantageous quirks if we already know the universe is simulated.

Define simulated reality please stu

I wish at least one of those paragraphs made a claim that had enough teeth to bother arguing against. sigh.

A reality that is simulated(probably with a computer) that is for the most part indistinguishable from "true reality" from the perspective of the conscious minds which inhabit it.

Translation: "What you wrote Stu is pure poppycock but I'm too lazy to explain why"

Why did you even bother to respond in this thread Luckyme?

There isn't much to argue against.

1. Either reality is simulated or reality is not simulated.
2. If reality is simulated that also means reality can exist without being simulated.
3. If reality is not simulated that means one in a reality can simulate things.

Which in conclusion makes:

It doesn't matter what you believe as long as there is no evidence.

Why would it matter? Whether you live in a "real" universe or a simulated one, your perception of it is the same. From any individual's perspective, their is no difference in either reality. Even with knowledge that you are in a simulated universe would change nothing as you are still confined to exist within it.

What a completely pointless thought experiment.

on your 2nd point, if we are living in a stimulated universe, and assuming that the beings responsible have no real problems with simulating realities then you would assume that our own simulation is not of special importance. if the simulations are designed to hide the fact that its a simulation from those IN the simulation when appropriate can we assume the 'real' beings don't want us dicking around with our own simulated reality? unless the simulation's purpose is to find out if simulated beings can understand their reality

you think its dangerous to question/test the fundamental structure of our reality lest we compromise our ultimate purpose? and if the ultimate purpose isn't to solve our own reality then what is it, what clues are worth looking at? maybe the faith types have got it right about shutting up and not asking questions lol

I don't buy it. People have, for as long as there have been myths, legends, and stories, postulated the possibility. This is just an updated version of an African Witch Doctor trying to make golems out of mud. In 1000 years, people are going to look back and say, "haha, those primitive folks thought you could make a simulated reality with all those primitive gizmos?"

I also don't buy the "if it's possible, it must happen" argument any further than I can throw it.

But, in the spirit of the thread:

1) If we live in a simulated reality, it is either a mirror of the real reality, or it is not.

2) If our simulated reality is not reflective of the real reality, it is impossible to grasp anything about the real reality, since we can only operate within the constraints of our simulation.

3) If our simulated reality is indeed a reflection of the real reality, we also would have created simulated realities of our own.

4) We have not created simulated realities, so

5) Either we do not live in a simulated reality, OR, if we do, it is impossible to know anything about the real reality at all while operating within the simulation.

According to 2, if God created the universe (aka simulation) and us - the entities - in this universe, then does that not make Him an unethical captor? Shouldn't we be set free from this universe and not be bound by its annoying rules like gravity? Flying or teleporting to the other end of town is much better than taking the car there.

If 3 is true, then both 1 and 2 are also true. You cannot create a simulation that creates a simulation of itself, because that would mean that the simulation itself knows it's a simulation. If you think about it, our reality is the (a?) simulation. We are confined by the rules set therein and the most important rule is that existing outside of our reality (i.e., not real) would mean we cease to exist, to put it succinctly. Natural laws and forces are the programming of this universe, and if you subscribe to theism/deism, God is the programmer. Like one big computer game...

I assert that the very fact that we have universal rules in place, rules that we discovered and are now well aware of, must imply that there is a rule-maker.

That's funny. A 1000 years ago people didn't think that we would be laughing at them now (if they did they wouldn't have written oceans of words about their laughable ideas), so how and why is it that you're thinking that in a 1000 years people would be laughing at our ideas now - ideas such as this trilemma?

We're learning the lessons from their mistakes and building upon their ideas, instead of laughing at them. I mean, wow, people of all walks of life know about and are STILL talking about ancient Greek philosophy to this very day! People have written doctorate dissertations on Greek philosophy, FGS! Take democracy, for example. This system of government was an archaic idea borne in an era of tyranny and imperialism, yet it is currently functioning as the primary state system all over the globe. Further still, this archaic idea is promulgated by leaders worldwide as the primary system to be embraced. Little do the people know..... Anyway, let's not shoot off in a wild tangent.

So, no, I highly doubt that our descendants 1000 years from now - assuming we haven't nuked ourselves into oblivion, or have been victim to numerous other doomsday scenarios - will be laughing and mocking our current ideas and technology. In fact I think they'll be far more humble than we are now.

Um, what? So, if we can simulate a relatity, it proves we are, ourselves, not a simulation? Also, assuming we could make a simulation, it would be impossible to make that simulation self replicating?

Why, Again?

Just because you can substitute definitions from programming to loosely match reality doesn't make us a program. That's called analogy. Saying that life is like a box of chocolates does not, in fact, make life stuffed with individually wrapped chocolatey goodness.

Neat. You're welcome to assert it. Not provable, though. Yes, you can say, "How does gravity work?" and someone can answer you, and you can say, "How do the principles in your answer work?" and they can answer you, and you can ask the same question, and they can answer you, and so on, until their answer is, "I don't know."

But, simply not knowing the cause of something, does not in and of itself imply supernatural origin.

I'm going to go with, "probably because I have a more detailed view of world history than your average African Golem Crafting Witch Doctor."

Also, you have no idea if, having shown them the traditions that their people 1000 years before their time, they wouldn't have laughed, and upon this realization, realized that they too, would be seen as silly in the future.

One sec. I'll reread the OP, and if this post is in fact about democracy rather than the 21st century equivalent of building a mud golem, then yes, you are absolutely right.

Yes. If we can create a simulation of reality, it would be our and only our reality is that is being simulated, therefore it means that it is something real that is being simulated. That's straightforward.

Because self-replication is one of the limitations of simulation. Another limitation is that it cannot change its own rules.

I'm glad you realized that I was using analogy.

Such is a limit of induction.

Supernatural or not, we know already that there's some cause, which then implies some origin of that cause. What that origin actually is we can speculate freely.

Then according to you it would mean that this average African witch doctor probably thought he had a more detailed view of the world and its history than some indigenous spirit shaman or whatnot 1000 years before him.

You're right, I don't know for sure, as currently I cannot possibly know any individuals personally from 1000 years prior. Perhaps with the advent of linear time travel I could learn and be sure of it.

Please, don't be asinine. Being a smart ass is good in casual conversation, but it puts a discussion's modicum of civility at risk. You are well aware, I'm hoping, that I used democracy as nothing more than an example of an idea that has weathered the storms of time (more than a couple of millennia), progressed with the ages, and is now implemented as a standard of governance. How effective it is and who should govern is the subject of politics - that is not the focus here.

What kind of consciousness? Would it not be the living dead without a soul? You give us Zombies.

Yes you can and no it would not necessarily know anything. I can code a simulation right now with code too simulate itself.

With the use of virtual machines this is even a fairly straightforward and common technique these days.

Interesting. I guess I have to re-evaluate that statement.

Its been argued that simulated realities can simulate their own realities which in turn can simulate realities themselves and so on and so forth. There could be many many simulated realities and only one "real" reality. This is the foundation of the statement that if it's possible to simulate realities, you're likely living in a simulated one.

Obviously there is a limit to how many realities could be simulated. That limit is equal to the computing power in the one real "root reality".

Suppose we were to simulate a reality. Would we simulate it in all three spatial deminsions? Maybe, but maybe not. We might simulate a reality of flatlanders in order to conserve available computing power. That third up down deminsion we might just curl up into a tiny tiny space much like string theory posits 7 other spatial deminsions of our own reality curled up into super tiny spaces. I think other "tricks" could be employed to maximize the number of realities its possible to simulate.

Points 1 and 2 of the trilemma do not take into account the possibility that they may be simulated realities where its coded parameters prevent further simulations from being created. In other words if 1 and 2 really are simulations that cannot simulate, they would be indistinguishable from the reality under its initial conditions in the OP. As well, if 3 is the case we may not know if further simulation is indeed possible, thus making it impossible to determine if its reality or not.

Rene Descartes' deceiving demon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditat...rst_Philosophy

Even if you assume that a simulation is limited by the computing power of its parent, there is no need to assume it will face the limitations or be a simplified version of the properties of its parent.

Actually a simulation can for various reasons (simplifications, desired effects or w/e) contain a ton of abilities/functions that in its parent would be complete impossibilities.

But other than the whole concept of computing becomes rather meaningless because like the term "simulation" in this context it is an ill-defined term. All you need for computing power is the ability to switch a variable.

In broad terms your sense of vision is a "simulaton" limited by "computing power".

Simulations we create are part of reality. In fact for us simulations are reality, or maybe even better...reality is a real simulation. In this debate it is pointless to treat simulations as "alternate dimensions".

What you logically end up with if you look at "reality" is that it is an "seamless" series of nested simulations.