No, You Are Not Living in a Computer Simulation

An argument that tries to refute a fairly dumb argument in favor of an idea does not, in fact, negate the idea.

Yeah, the correct position if you believe the argument in the article is agnosticism.

	▲	m463 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It might also be to fix the simulation and/or paper and restart

▲

unsupp0rted a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It is possible for technology to simulate consciousness and human civilization at scale

We know it is possible because consciousness, if whatever we call "consciousness" is actually a thing, is currently being generated/run "organically" in the world we occupy. There's no reason to believe it can happen in this universe but not inside a computer in this universe.

	▲	dwd 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A system is conscious if: (1) It maintains an internal model whose states are revised through interaction with constraints not fully determined by the model's own prior state. Constraints normally would mean reality (the world outside the Markov blanket), but we're talking simulation here. (2) At least one frontier is currently open within that model — active resolution (awareness) is underway. Not dead. (3) That frontier's resolutions recursively re-enter as inputs to the system's own subsequent frontier states. Friston's "embodied perception-action loop". (1) & (2) could be said to apply to an inanimate object like a thermostat. (3) is the interesting one as the driver in organic life is the entropy gradient. Our "will to live" is a fight against thermodynamic decay and disorder. Maybe that could be simulated, a fight against glitching out, who knows.
	▲	qsera 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>is currently being generated/run "organically" in the world we occupy. This is like saying there is no reason to believe that since music comes from a radio, it has everything that can generate music.

▲

echoangle 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn’t assumption 1 (“It is possible for technology to simulate consciousness and human civilization at scale”) covered by outcome 1 (“Civilizations end before they can start simulations”)? With the tiny implicit assumption that civilizations aren’t eternal.

▲

sdwr 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's a lot more interesting to look for practical markers of simulation than do a teleological thought experiment.

How would a simulated universe differ from a "real" one? How would the simulation cut corners to save resources? Maybe the laws of physics are designed not just to produce interesting results, but also to be efficient to run.

Karl Friston and Steven Wolfram are sniffing around here, with cellular automata and free energy describing ways of partitioning space so it's cheaper to update

▲

metalman a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

funny, I have this persistant kind of feeling that our computers are somehow not working acording to logic and reason just arbitrary functions designedby clowns, and fantisise about what computers would work like in the real world

▲

fallingfrog 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The real question to ask is: what is the difference between a simulated universe and a real one? Heres a hint: If the simulation substrate is unconscious or naturally occurring, is it still a "simulation"? Or just a real universe with extra steps?

I think that most people would agree that a universe only counts as "simulated" if it was created by conscious beings intentionally.

In other words, proponents of simulation theories have basically reinvented god. But they've done something even more mind bogglingly self important: by posing God as a sysadmin of a celestial server farm, they have essentially written themselves into the role.

From a certain point of view, this kind of behavior from self proclaimed rationalists is pretty hilarious. It's also deeply human. But ultimately it's also very silly.

In ancient Greece the gods were fickle, horny warlords; in medieval times God was seen as an absolute monarch. And now, he is being posed as an overworked it professional. And that is absolutely fascinating for what it says about our culture and psychology. But it says nothing useful or testable about the universe.