Are we living in a computer simulation?

[The thinker]

What do you think? I just read this paper by Nick Bostrom, a professor at Oxford University titled "Are you living in a computer simulation?"

Quite interesting I thought, if slightly worrying. If this was true it doesn't bode well for the future...or does it? It would mean that the posthuman civilization could just end us all with the flick of a switch if they so desired. But if they are a future evolution of us then I would hope that they also feel compassion. The possibilities boggle my mind! I have been interested in reincarnation recently, despite just liking the idea I think it may hold weight... but the idea of being in a computer simulation makes it much less likely to be a possible mechanism for existence.

In the words of neo "anything is possible"

...My mind is going to be hurting for a while.

Oh and for anyone who was wondering, I am trying to get my username "updated"

 

[TeddyKGB]

Daniel Dennett makes the case - in the context of the old stalwart of philosophy, the brain-in-a-jar - that any computer capable of exactly replicating an entire universe is itself effectively a universe.

 

[The Nihilist]

the correct answer is this: "no. and if yes, what difference does it make to you or me?"

 

[Solidlyhere]

R-Philosopher said my answer: the correct answer is this: "no. and if yes, what difference does it make to you or me?"

This is like people who thought (for 1000s of years) that the Sun circled around the Earth each day.
Later, scientists "proved" that --in fact -- the Earth just spins, while the Sun remains in place.
When this first came out, the Church was not happy.
One scientist said: "What's the difference, anyway? It will STILL look like the Sun circles the Earth."

Each person has the "right" to believe whatever he wants about it. No matter what we believe, the Sun will still look exactly the same.

 

[The Nihilist]

R-Philosopher said my answer: the correct answer is this: "no. and if yes, what difference does it make to you or me?"

This is like people who thought (for 1000s of years) that the Sun circled around the Earth each day.
Later, scientists "proved" that --in fact -- the Earth just spins, while the Sun remains in place.
When this first came out, the Church was not happy.
One scientist said: "What's the difference, anyway? It will STILL look like the Sun circles the Earth."

Each person has the "right" to believe whatever he wants about it. No matter what we believe, the Sun will still look exactly the same.

Not the same at all, but good try.

 

[Sojourner<><]

What do you think?

I have no idea, but it does raise some interesting questions about reality...

If we had a computer that could process enough information to simulate a complete universe, and it is run in a way to simulate a universe that is similar to our own, would that simulation be a universe?

If so, what would happen to that universe if you 'restarted' the simulation?

Would the first universe cease to exist to be replaced by a second, different universe, or are they one in the same?

If the universe is deterministic, and the simulation yields the exact same results the second time the program is run as it did the first time, wouldn't that mean that they are the same?

And if that is true, then that universe must have existed in two distinct points within our time and space, which seems impossible unless a reality is an expression of a unique set of possibilities.

And if that is true, couldn't it be said that reality could be expressed an indefinate number of times?

 

[billwald]

There is no way to test for anything outside our universe.

 

[Yekcidmij]

What do you think? I just read this paper by Nick Bostrom, a professor at Oxford University titled "Are you living in a computer simulation?"

Quite interesting I thought, if slightly worrying. If this was true it doesn't bode well for the future...or does it? It would mean that the posthuman civilization could just end us all with the flick of a switch if they so desired. But if they are a future evolution of us then I would hope that they also feel compassion. The possibilities boggle my mind! I have been interested in reincarnation recently, despite just liking the idea I think it may hold weight... but the idea of being in a computer simulation makes it much less likely to be a possible mechanism for existence.

In the words of neo "anything is possible"

...My mind is going to be hurting for a while.

Oh and for anyone who was wondering, I am trying to get my username "updated"

This idea of the "brain-in-the-vat" goes back to Rene Decartes. Decartes pretty much doubted everything until he came to formulate his famous "I think therefore I am".

Fortunately for us we do not have our brains in a vat and the world around us is real. That kind of skepticism (global) where you doubt you can know anything is unwarranted.

 

[elcapitan]

Fortunately for us we do not have our brains in a vat and the world around us is real.

But how do you know?
The whole premise of the brain-in-a-vat/computer simulation hypothesis is that you can't tell that you're a brain in a vat.

That kind of skepticism (global) where you doubt you can know anything is unwarranted.

Skepticism is warranted until you can prove otherwise.

"I think therefore I am" proves that you exist (or at least your mind exists), but says nothing about an external reality.

 

[The Nihilist]

This idea of the "brain-in-the-vat" goes back to Rene Decartes. Decartes pretty much doubted everything until he came to formulate his famous "I think therefore I am".

Fortunately for us we do not have our brains in a vat and the world around us is real. That kind of skepticism (global) where you doubt you can know anything is unwarranted.

You don't think the severe issue modern philosophy has had with this question warrants skepticism?
Heidegger actually produced an effective answer, I think

 

[quatona]

Another possibility: We ourselves are the ones creating the simulation.

 

[daniel777]

congrats. you've all just nearly proved the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.


next, you'll all be reasoning that reason is nothing.

i enjoy reading this stuff, some of it's funny if not pointless.

and i'm proud of some of you. this is what we chrisians mean when we say "the world is blind". we really are just a bunch of blind fools meandering around our self resond universes trying to discover what "is" means based on nothing more than individual perception. this is one reason why the human search for Truth is so strong. NOTHING is solid and nothing has any meaning, purpose, or actual function apart from the existance or Truth. we know it exists by the very fact that we can reason. (read the above statement about reason is nothing, i know some of you will attempt going there....) But What Is That Truth.

(now let me be a christian) Jesus said "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life and no man comes to the father except through me." he states virtually the same thing in four different ways. in Christianity, this statement is at the heart of everything.

good night, and i leave you with this:

42

 

[Yekcidmij]

But how do you know?

It's a properly basic belief. Does knowledge mean you have to have 100% proof? Not always. I know the external reality is true and real because....I just know.

The whole premise of the brain-in-a-vat/computer simulation hypothesis is that you can't tell that you're a brain in a vat.

I have no good reason to believe that this is true.

Skepticism is warranted until you can prove otherwise.

Not really. You can't live like that. You cannot prove that next time you walk out to your car your car won't turn into a T-Rex and chomp you up. But, you don't believe that for a second because of properly basic beliefs.

Then again, maybe you can prove that skepticism is warranted?

"I think therefore I am" proves that you exist (or at least your mind exists), but says nothing about an external reality.

I agree.

 

[elcapitan]

It's a properly basic belief.

Exactly. But belief is not knowledge; belief is how you fill the gaps of knowledge.

Does knowledge mean you have to have 100% proof? Not always.

Yes always. If you don't have 100% proof, it isn't knowledge.

I know the external reality is true and real because....I just know.

This is your argument? It should then be equally valid for me to say that I know the external reality is false and an illusion because...I just know.

If by this you mean that intuition is a valid means of learning about reality, then how do you prove it? For that matter, if I intuit that the external world is an illusion, how could I be proven wrong?

I have no good reason to believe that this is true.

I guess you don't understand the brain in a vat idea, then. If you were a brain in a vat, receiving sensory input from a computer simulation, how would you know?

Not really. You can't live like that. You cannot prove that next time you walk out to your car your car won't turn into a T-Rex and chomp you up. But, you don't believe that for a second because of properly basic beliefs.

Exactly. But, once again, we have to make the distinction between knowledge and beliefs. I can't know that my car won't turn into a T-Rex, but I believe it won't.

 

[quatona]

If I were not a brain in a vat, my existence would be ultimately meaningless.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Exactly. But belief is not knowledge; belief is how you fill the gaps of knowledge.
Yes always. If you don't have 100% proof, it isn't knowledge.

If you happen to be a skeptic belief cannot equal knowledge, but I take the foundational/particularist/correspondence views on things. I don't always need 100% proof to have knowledge.

This is your argument? It should then be equally valid for me to say that I know the external reality is false and an illusion because...I just know.

Except this view is incoherent. I have no reason to believe that. And if you wish to turn that statement around and say you have no good reason to believe in reality, then by all means, be my guest.

I guess you don't understand the brain in a vat idea, then. If you were a brain in a vat, receiving sensory input from a computer simulation, how would you know?

Well, I know I'm not. I have no reason whatsoever to beleive that I am living out Decartes problem. And maybe you have no reason to believe in the external world. That's your problem though. Good luck to you.

Exactly. But, once again, we have to make the distinction between knowledge and beliefs. I can't know that my car won't turn into a T-Rex, but I believe it won't.

First, in your view, you cannot have knowledge. What does that leave you with? Just beliefs. That leads to my next point

Second, it seems your beliefs are arbitrary and baseless. You don't know the future will be somewhat similiar to the past or that nature behaves in a predictible fashion. You just assume those things all day every day. But you have no reason to assume that becuase you don't know and cannot prove that the future will be similar to the past or that nature behaves in a predictible fashion; you must assume those things in order to to try prove them and even then you will not reach 100% proof. Your beliefs are totally arbitrary and baseless.


Besides, how do you know you should make distinctions between knowledge and beliefs? Maybe you could prove that.


Maybe you should consider Christian Theism for a coherent view of knowledge and reality.

 

[NavyGuy7]

R-Philosopher said my answer: the correct answer is this: "no. and if yes, what difference does it make to you or me?"

This is like people who thought (for 1000s of years) that the Sun circled around the Earth each day.
Later, scientists "proved" that --in fact -- the Earth just spins, while the Sun remains in place.
When this first came out, the Church was not happy.
One scientist said: "What's the difference, anyway? It will STILL look like the Sun circles the Earth."

Each person has the "right" to believe whatever he wants about it. No matter what we believe, the Sun will still look exactly the same.

What Church, specifically? I suppose you mean teh Catholic Church?

 

[NavyGuy7]

Well... without belief, how can we acquire knowledge? You obviously must BELIEVE that the information you receive is TRUE. So belief is involved in knowledge somewhat.

 

[""]

Aside from the typical Christian response to this question, which most of us (Christians) are prone to give, I'll try to give a more analyitcal one. In doing so, however, I cannot leave out my spiritual nature, because that is who I believe myself to be.

No I do not believe we could be living in a computer simulation, for these specific reasons:

1. Not every action and response in my lifetime has been predictable, nor has it been repeatable.

2. When facts have dictated the outcome of events in my life, prayer has changed not only the outcome, but the circumstances.

Still, being a lover of Sci-Fi (shhhhh... let's just keep this our secret ) I do find this whole subject line intriguing!