Is the Universe a computer simulation?

[Audley Strange]

That doesn't follow. It is not unreasonable to suppose that everything that occurs in the simulation is a consequence of how the simulator was built, but how the simulation turns out could be well beyond the expectations of the designers. What human design entirely anticipates all outcomes of the realised design? I suggest that never happens.

Fair enough, but taking the anthropocentric view (Which I'll address in further depth further down) It would seem unreasonable to that a simulation of such incredible design, which is remember a simulation of a reality, would neglect coding something as fundamentally important for survival as translation of data into sense perception.

We can also consider that the simulator is not entirely self-contained. Something as simple as physical random number generator can drastically affect the outcome of a simulation due to small influences from the real world.

We can consider many things about it, which is why I think it is tenuous at best to assume it's probable as he does.

Why not assume 'the programmers' designed a system of physics that could generate complexity and left it to do its thing? Bostrom assumes people like us investigating their own evolution through simulation, but that basic concept could apply to any stage of the universe. It is stongly anthropocentric to presume it is all about us as conscious human beings.

We are only considering the idea as an extrapolation of our own current technological advances, if we take a non-anthropic view, we can really make up any old shit about it. Considering we have yet to discover any others with any technological aptitude even similar to ours let alone advanced enough to generate such a thing. Granted, I never took into consideration that we could actually be an emergent property of the coding. However this may well lead to a bottomless pit of recursive simulations within simulations where it is entirely possible that any civilisation making these simulations are also subject to the hypothesis. I'll consider that a bit more before I address it fully.

Bostrom's 'Programmers' would have set things up to have people like them, in a world like theirs, operating on cognitive processes derived from theirs. That passes a lot of information about the real world into the simulation. Why should that not produce fractal echoes of reality within the simulation?

As I said, I don't think it is possible to put probabilities on such an idea.

Then if it cannot be quantified probabilistically, we may as well be taking about Jehovah Industries USim V2.0.

'Not real' is pretty meaningless. If we exist as patterns of energy in a 'real' computer running a simulation, and as such we have thoughts and find 'meaning' in our world, then we do exist. You might prefer to say we a patterns of energy in the form of flesh bodies. Some prefer to think that, in essence, they are patterns of spirit maintained by a divine being. Are any of these non-existence or unreal in a sense that should make us stop valuing our collective existence? Why?

Should? No. Do? Yes. It would seem to me that if one considers this not a prime reality but a simulation or a dress rehearsal then one could easily be prone to devalue ones own existence and the existence of others. I'm not saying that a belief in such would cause global chaos overnight, but I think if it were widely held it would be problematic for us.

[MiM]

However this may well lead to a bottomless pit of recursive simulations within simulations where it is entirely possible that any civilisation making these simulations are also subject to the hypothesis. I'll consider that a bit more before I address it fully.

But of course it would be like that. The day we should really start believing that we live in a simulation is the day when we start making them ourselves. Then there would be no logic in not believing there are "simulations all the way down".

[Coito ergo sum]

If they succeed in creating artificial consciousness, as some folks are trying to do these days, then this question will become that much more interesting.

Perhaps, just perhaps, humans created the universe, and thereby created themselves. If space-time is as Einstein says, aspects of the same thing and relative to each other, then it seems at least theoretically possible that this universe is a "simulation" or perhaps was merely just created in a lab by a guy in a white coat.

[Mysturji]

Is the Universe a computer simulation?
Only if you take the red pill.

Or is it the blue one?

[Audley Strange]

Perhaps, just perhaps, humans created the universe, and thereby created themselves. If space-time is as Einstein says, aspects of the same thing and relative to each other, then it seems at least theoretically possible that this universe is a "simulation" or perhaps was merely just created in a lab by a guy in a white coat.

This may be a slight derail but I've heard people speak about the concept of humans not so much creating the universe as altering it in order that it gives rise to them. The idea is that if the big bang is a quantum process and we can somehow observe it then evidently we affect that process and by affecting it we change the start conditions in order to give rise to us.

Like Bostrom's claim, while it sounds interesting, both seem to me to be more an intellectual ruse akin to protracted absurdist babble of the "Deconstructionists."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If the entire universe that we know is a simulation, then there exists (somewhere) a computer that contains every fact about every particle in this universe. Even assuming enormous advances in computer storage and processor speeds, each particle in our world would require many particles in the world of the computer to map its position, motion, energy states, etc. accurately. The containing world must therefore be several orders of magnitude larger than the one that we (appear to) inhabit.

[MiM]

If the entire universe that we know is a simulation, then there exists (somewhere) a computer that contains every fact about every particle in this universe.

Nope, read the paper: http://www.simulation-argument.com/.

[GrahamH]

Granted, I never took into consideration that we could actually be an emergent property of the coding. However this may well lead to a bottomless pit of recursive simulations within simulations where it is entirely possible that any civilisation making these simulations are also subject to the hypothesis. I'll consider that a bit more before I address it fully.

I don't thin we could have an infinite regression of simulations, because any simulation is simpler than the simulator. I think that is probably a general rule because of the nature of simulation. It is a form of data compression, which gives diminishing returns as data redundancy is reduced.

It would seem to me that if one considers this not a prime reality but a simulation or a dress rehearsal then one could easily be prone to devalue ones own existence and the existence of others.

There is nothing of 'dress rehearsal' about it. If you exist as a simulated person, from birth to death, and thereafter are not simulated any more, that is the sum of you. That is a real as it gets and that finite existence is reasonably of great value to you.

Someone could come at this from an imagined perspective of a supposed 'progammer' and conclude that sim humans are of little value to that programmer. Why should that devalue our own subjective view of the value of our own, and our fellow sims? You have spent a lifetime building a system of values through interactions with other people. Nothing about that changes if we are in a simulation.

I'm not saying that a belief in such would cause global chaos overnight, but I think if it were widely held it would be problematic for us.

You may be right, because you hold this view that it devalues life, so it does. It doesn't require any rigorous justification or a 'right answer'. Devaluing an idea only takes a common view to spread.

Of course, the same argument should apply to any other belief system the contradiction of which is commonly seen as devaluing life.

[Mysturji]

If the entire universe that we know is a simulation, then there exists (somewhere) a computer that contains every fact about every particle in this universe. Even assuming enormous advances in computer storage and processor speeds, each particle in our world would require many particles in the world of the computer to map its position, motion, energy states, etc. accurately. The containing world must therefore be several orders of magnitude larger than the one that we (appear to) inhabit.

Not only that, but that means there's a whole other universe out there with a ginormously humongous hyper-super computer in it, running the simulation!
(Unless that one's just a simulation, of course. )

[GrahamH]

If the entire universe that we know is a simulation, then there exists (somewhere) a computer that contains every fact about every particle in this universe. Even assuming enormous advances in computer storage and processor speeds, each particle in our world would require many particles in the world of the computer to map its position, motion, energy states, etc. accurately. The containing world must therefore be several orders of magnitude larger than the one that we (appear to) inhabit.

Not only that, but that means there's a whole other universe out there with a ginormously humongous hyper-super computer in it, running the simulation!
(Unless that one's just a simulation, of course. )

Yes, but the simulator can be simpler than this universe appears to be. The simulator is more complex than the level of detail actually modelled, but multi-scale techniques can bake the simulation seem detailed when it only tracks small volumes of data at each level.
A 3D game world might display vast numbers of individual blades of grass without holding any data about each individual blade. The same could apply for stars, atoms, clouds etc in a simulated universe. Arbitrary levels of detail can be generated when needed. Only specifics actually observed and remebered need be stored. The memory would be sufficient basis for reconstruction of phenomena if someone went looking for some detail seen in the past. (The simulator holds all the personal memory data.)

[GrahamH]

If there were a real universe as vast as our universe seems to be it would have ample potential for data storage and processing of all of humanities observations of our universe, many times over.

[MiM]

Not only that, but that means there's a whole other universe out there with a ginormously humongous hyper-super computer in it, running the simulation!

No, no and NO! RTFP (read the f. paper)!

There is no need at all to simulate the full universe in detail, to create the illusion for us that we are living in a complete physical universe. That's just not the way simulations are done. In simulations, you "always" use more computing power to get at the details of the really important parts, while letting the computer make gross approximations of things more peripheral. So in this case all that is needed is to simulate the parts of the universe under human scrutiny, at the level of detail we are watching it. Add some fault resistance (memory eradication) and you're done.

And if that sounds insufficient read some of Dennetts writings on conciousness and human perception. We are not at all as concious of our surroundings as we like to think.

edit: GrahamH beat me to it.