The flaw in Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument

quad · Jan 5, 2022

The Simulation Argument

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

He leaves no room for a civilization that will one day be able to run high-fidelity simulations but have not yet advanced enough to run such simulations. We could be in base reality but one day have the capability to run high-fidelity ancestor simulations. This is the flaw in his argument.

The Simulation Argument

Are you living in a computer simulation? Here you can peruse the debate that followed the paper presenting the simulation argument.

www.simulation-argument.com

Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

KilledbyKenne · Jan 5, 2022

What do you mean "He leaves no room for a civilization that will one day be able to run high-fidelity simulations but have not yet advanced enough to run such simulations"?

That possibility is indeed included in the 3rd option. It's just that once you eliminate the first 2 options it becomes a probability game for the 3rd option. Once simulations are a technological possibility, there could be millions upon millions created and run. Once you consider that, the probability of us actually being in the original history, not in one of those simulations, is astronomically low.

black4vcobra · Jan 5, 2022

25 years ago I played Sim City 2000 a bunch. In that game sometimes I would save a copy of my city and for fun, trigger an earthquake to watch the city burn.

If we are in a simulation, the game developers are much more evil and imaginative than the Sim City 2000 developers (who themselves are in a simulation) because they give us natural disasters and they give us the retards known as democrats.

MFE · Jan 5, 2022

The whole thing stinks of high-concept conspiracy theory. What about, we're just another species who eventually goes extinct like dinosaurs did, kaput, the end.

KilledbyKenne · Jan 5, 2022

MFE said:
The whole thing stinks of high-concept conspiracy theory. What about, we're just another species who eventually goes extinct like dinosaurs did, kaput, the end.

That's option 1 in the original post. Lol

quad · Jan 5, 2022

KilledbyKenne said:
What do you mean "He leaves no room for a civilization that will one day be able to run high-fidelity simulations but have not yet advanced enough to run such simulations"?

That possibility is indeed included in the 3rd option. It's just that once you eliminate the first 2 options it becomes a probability game for the 3rd option. Once simulations are a technological possibility, there could be millions upon millions created and run. Once you consider that, the probability of us actually being in the original history, not in one of those simulations, is astronomically low.

The 3rd option jumps straight to: we are in a simulation. It skips the part about us potentially living in a real world with the potential to one day run lifelike simulations.

There should be a fourth option that allows for us living in base reality but does not exclude the possibility that we could eventually develop Matrix-like simulations in the future.

Bostrom's argument does not allow for a scenario where we could be at a point in time in our physical real world history where we don't yet have the technology to create lifelike simulations but will one day have that capability and choose to run them thereby making our future not include option 1 and 2.

Base reality = the real, physical world

q6543 · Jan 5, 2022

After watching this meta/omniverse reality unfolding at lightspeed, Sim theory is accurate.

And to the point of why the simulation would have natural disasters and democrats.

We're likely running ALL simulations.... not just the ones with rainbow skies.

KilledbyKenne · Jan 5, 2022

quad said:
The 3rd option jumps straight to: we are in a simulation. It skips the part about us potentially living in a real world with the potential to one day run lifelike simulations.

There should be a fourth option that allows for us living in base reality but does not exclude the possibility that we could eventually develop Matrix-like simulations in the future.

Bostrom's argument does not allow for a scenario where we could be at a point in time in our physical real world history where we don't yet have the technology to create lifelike simulations but will one day have that capability and choose to run them thereby making our future not include option 1 and 2.

Base reality = the real, physical world

Bostrom is speaking solely in probabilities. What is more likely. He doesn't eliminatethe possibility that we are in the original history, he is just assuming a probability to it which happens to be a very small number.

Here he is trying to explain it to Rogan who just can't get past what you seem to be hung up on.

It doesn't really matter though since you can't prove or disprove that we are in a simulation. It is just an interesting thought exercise.

quad · Jan 5, 2022

KilledbyKenne said:
Bostrom is speaking solely in probabilities. What is more likely. He doesn't eliminatethe possibility that we are in the original history, he is just assuming a probability to it which happens to be a very small number.

Here he is trying to explain it to Rogan who just can't get past what you seem to be hung up on.

It doesn't really matter though since you can't prove or disprove that we are in a simulation. It is just an interesting thought exercise.

Good interview - thanks for posting. Bergstrom admits in this interview that yes it is possible that we could be in base reality but could one day simulate a universe - starts around 3:36-3:38 in the video.

The problem Joe Rogan and I have with his argument is that Option 3 does not leave the door open for that alternative option. Option 3 states that if 1 and 2 is incorrect then we are living in a simulation. It does not say it could be more probable that we live in a simulation. It says then we are in a simulation. I interpret this as 100% certainty that we are in a simulation if 1 and 2 is false - according to Bostrom. So in this interview he is contradicting his own argument.

quad · Jan 5, 2022

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

www.scientificamerican.com

KilledbyKenne · Jan 5, 2022

quad said:
Good interview - thanks for posting. Bergstrom admits in this interview that yes it is possible that we could be in base reality but could one day simulate a universe - starts around 3:36-3:38 in the video.

The problem Joe Rogan and I have with his argument is that Option 3 does not leave the door open for that alternative option. Option 3 states that if 1 and 2 is incorrect then we are living in a simulation. It does not say it could be more probable that we live in a simulation. It says then we are in a simulation. I interpret this as 100% certainty that we are in a simulation if 1 and 2 is false - according to Bostrom. So in this interview he is contradicting his own argument.

From your first post:

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

"Almost" implies it is not 100%.

quad · Jan 6, 2022

KilledbyKenne said:
From your first post:

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

"Almost" implies it is not 100%.

Fair enough. There's a bit of finality in that choice of words.

One dilemma of a simulation inside a simulation is the loss of computing power in each iteration.

For example if you run a virtualized operating system inside another virtual machine your performance will be less in the second virtualized instance. The host OS would have access to more processing power than either of the virtual operating systems. Eventually all resources available for subsequent simulations inside of simulations inside of simulations etc. are exhausted.

Some have theorized that the simulation is limited to a person's point of view and that all the extra details of the universe does not have to be "rendered" simultaneously - kind of the way 3D games are rendered. For example all the rocks and sand pebbles on Mars does not have to be presented to the same level of detail as a beach you're walking on. That would help reduce the processing burden of a simulated reality.

I am also wondering if we are in a simulation could the machine be rebooted or updated while you're sleeping? Your memory state could be saved and you only wake up after the reboot or update is complete? What if an update requires more time than sleep will allow, is the clock just tweaked as required? What if there is a major system crash or backup failure? Is that the end of the simulated universe?

Could We Force the Universe to Crash?

If we’re all living in a simulation, as some have suggested, it would be a good, albeit risky, way to find out for sure

www.scientificamerican.com

KilledbyKenne · Jan 6, 2022

quad said:
Fair enough. There's a bit of finality in that choice of words.

One dilemma of a simulation inside a simulation is the loss of computing power in each iteration.

For example if you run a virtualized operating system inside another virtual machine your performance will be less in the second virtualized instance. The host OS would have access to more processing power than either of the virtual operating systems. Eventually all resources available for subsequent simulations inside of simulations inside of simulations etc. are exhausted.

Some have theorized that the simulation is limited to a person's point of view and that all the extra details of the universe does not have to be "rendered" simultaneously - kind of the way 3D games are rendered. For example all the rocks and sand pebbles on Mars does not have to be presented to the same level of detail as a beach you're walking on. That would help reduce the processing burden of a simulated reality.

I am also wondering if we are in a simulation could the machine be rebooted or updated while you're sleeping? Your memory state could be saved and you only wake up after the reboot or update is complete? What if an update requires more time than sleep will allow, is the clock just tweaked as required? What if there is a major system crash or backup failure? Is that the end of the simulated universe?

Could We Force the Universe to Crash?

If we’re all living in a simulation, as some have suggested, it would be a good, albeit risky, way to find out for sure

www.scientificamerican.com

I have heard/read similar things regarding even places on earth that wouldn't need to be "presented" until a member of the simulation is in the general area, similar to a video game. Consider some of the remote places on the earth. There wouldn't need to be much detail at all in places like Antarctica, parts of the Sahara desert as well as some of the most dense areas of rain forests where there is no regular habitation. Not to mention the ridiculously high percentage of our planet that has not even been explored by mankind...the ocean. That would also cut down on needed processing burden.

I find this all fascinating to think about. It can really be a mind **** sometimes. Lol

kazman · Jan 6, 2022

I just want to know when we're going to reach the "Mad Max" stage?
That'll be great!

quad · Jan 6, 2022

KilledbyKenne said:
I have heard/read similar things regarding even places on earth that wouldn't need to be "presented" until a member of the simulation is in the general area, similar to a video game. Consider some of the remote places on the earth. There wouldn't need to be much detail at all in places like Antarctica, parts of the Sahara desert as well as some of the most dense areas of rain forests where there is no regular habitation. Not to mention the ridiculously high percentage of our planet that has not even been explored by mankind...the ocean. That would also cut down on needed processing burden.

I find this all fascinating to think about. It can really be a mind **** sometimes. Lol

However keep in mind 7 billion + people would need to have the simulation run simultaneously. While you're in the USA some scientist in Antarctica would require a high-fidelity simulation. Perhaps the simulation machine has a finite cap of simulations that can be run, hence the push for depopulation to reduce the burden - lol!

black4vcobra · Jan 6, 2022

quad said:
However keep in mind 7 billion + people would need to have the simulation run simultaneously. While you're in the USA some scientist in Antarctica would require a high-fidelity simulation. Perhaps the simulation machine has a finite cap of simulations that can be run, hence the push for depopulation to reduce the burden - lol!

While the required computing power would be far less than the "humans" in the simulation, wouldn't a varying degree of processing power be required for every sentient being?

q6543 · Jan 6, 2022

The other thing I've noticed is there's seriously less than maybe 100 personality types... they can have different faces but I'm always able to categorize people into a group of others I've met with similar traits.

KilledbyKenne · Jan 6, 2022

black4vcobra said:
While the required computing power would be far less than the "humans" in the simulation, wouldn't a varying degree of processing power be required for every sentient being?

Unless any living thing outside of humans is also part of the simulation.

03Sssnake · Jan 6, 2022

Lol… wish they’d pull the ****ing plug on this simulation…

KilledbyKenne · Jan 6, 2022

quad said:
However keep in mind 7 billion + people would need to have the simulation run simultaneously. While you're in the USA some scientist in Antarctica would require a high-fidelity simulation. Perhaps the simulation machine has a finite cap of simulations that can be run, hence the push for depopulation to reduce the burden - lol!

Well I'm not so sure how much would actually be required at any given moment in Antarctica to satisfy the scientists considering there are at most ever 5k people there at a given time, on a continent larger than the United States. Lol

The flaw in Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument

Well-Known Member

The Simulation Argument​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

King of Kazmania

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

TK-421

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

The Simulation Argument