83,307
edits
Simulation hypothesis: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:—Nick Bostrom, ''Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?'' (2003)<ref>https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html</ref>}} | :—Nick Bostrom, ''Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?'' (2003)<ref>https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html</ref>}} | ||
{{quote| | {{quote|''I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find none. '' | ||
:— Neil Degrasse Tyson}} | |||
{{Quote|''I speak of none but the computer that is to come after me,” intoned Deep Thought, his voice regaining its accustomed declamatory tones. “A computer whose merest operational parameters I am not worthy to calculate—and yet I will design it for you. A computer that can calculate the Question to the Ultimate Answer, a computer of such infinite and subtle complexity that organic life itself shall form part of its operational matrix.'' | |||
:— Douglas Adams, {{hhgg}}}} | |||
An amusing, but fundamentally preposterous ''[[a priori]]'' argument which purports to prove by deduction, in the same way that [[Rene Descartes]] deduced the existence of [[Cogito, ergo sum|rice pudding and income tax]], that either we are as good as dead, or we live in a Matrix. | |||
But, problem: unless intelligent life becomes capable of simulating itself — that is, creating a Matrix — ''there | Spoiler: ''[[a priori]]'' arguments are conjuring tricks. They are fun and entertaining. but don't try them at home. This one is practically impossible to try at home, of course, which is, perhaps, why apparently intelligent people who ought to know better, like Nail Degrasse-Tyson, are sucked in by it. | ||
To help Professor Degrasse-Tyson, here are some strong arguments against it: | |||
===We are the dead=== | |||
To take the simulation hypothesis to its logical conclusion — a ''[[reductio as absurdam]]'' — you don't need to travel very far, and you conclude ''intelligent life capable of creating a Matrix is logically impossible'', and we are, therefore, dead. Then again, if you can do it, then you are a simulation, and you aren’t actually alive either. If you can’t do it, then — clearly — you can’t be a simulation, but you must also be incapable of developing a difference engine that could create a Matrix, so you wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place. We know we aren’t dead, so we must therefore be in a Matrix. | |||
===Deep Thought successor redux=== | |||
But, problem: unless intelligent life becomes capable of simulating itself — that is, creating a Matrix — ''there can be no Matrix''. The definition of a Matrix is that it is a simulation of intelligent life. If there is no intelligent life to simulate, then, whatever a Matrix is, it can’t be a simulation. Could it be — ''the real thing''? | |||
We call this the Douglas Adams objection: once we get hip to [[substate neutral]]ity, isn't the universe ''itself'' a giant computer? If so, what need of a simulation? Doesn't a copy of the computer fall foul of [[Occam’s razor]]? Have we just proved that life exists? If so, them news, fellows: someone near you to it by 400 years. [[Rene Descartes]]. Is not the simulation hypothesis another way of saying [[Cogito, ergo sum]]? | |||
===Definitional problem: real life meets the definition of “a computer simulation”, especially if you go [[substrate neutral]]=== | ===Definitional problem: real life meets the definition of “a computer simulation”, especially if you go [[substrate neutral]]=== | ||
For this to work, the simulation would not just have to be very good: it would need to be identical to real human sentience, in every respect. This would involve not just a perfectly accurate — that is to say transcendently ''[[true]]'' — theory of human cognitive activity, but a perfectly accurate — that is to say transcendently ''[[true]]'' — theory of all events in the universe. These theories would not be [[model]]s as any sense of the word, but actual replications of the actual world, that is to say, the territory itself, not a mere map. | For this to work, the simulation would not just have to be very good: it would need to be identical to real human sentience, in every respect. This would involve not just a perfectly accurate — that is to say transcendently ''[[true]]'' — theory of human cognitive activity, but a perfectly accurate — that is to say transcendently ''[[true]]'' — theory of all events in the universe. These theories would not be [[model]]s as any sense of the word, but actual replications of the actual world, that is to say, the territory itself, not a mere map. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 31: | ||
And about those laws of thermodynamics: in order to draw a complete, functioning, comprehensive theory of the universe, one must first have comprehensive, true, knowledge of the total canon of all laws of science. But science being an inductive process, and quite incapable of establishing anything by way of proof, this is again theoretically impossible. Our present state of knowledge of the laws of the universe is contingent and incomplete. | And about those laws of thermodynamics: in order to draw a complete, functioning, comprehensive theory of the universe, one must first have comprehensive, true, knowledge of the total canon of all laws of science. But science being an inductive process, and quite incapable of establishing anything by way of proof, this is again theoretically impossible. Our present state of knowledge of the laws of the universe is contingent and incomplete. | ||
{{Sa}} | |||
*{{Hhgg}} | |||
*[[Substrate]] | |||
*[[A priori]] | |||
*[[Rene Descartes]] | |||
{{Ref}} | |||