Is THE MATRIX partly the truth?

[Ripheus27]

Nick Bostrom's the guy I'm thinking of, I think, and he has an argument that goes something like this (note, the argument below is not structured in quite the valid way or whatever; I'm paraphrasing from kinda bad memory, so fill in the logic gaps at your discretion, if you please):

1. In the real world (whatever it is), civilization will develop enough to either self-destruct (or otherwise come to an end), to endure without developing world-simulation technology (or without using such technology), or it will develop and use world-simulators.
2. For any given world, the chances that it is a simulation are vastly higher than the chances that it is not.
C. Therefore, for our world, the chances that it is the real one are vastly lower than the chances that it is a world being simulated by civilization in the real one.​

Now my basic objection would be: we only have evidence that world-simulation is possible based on experiences in our world. If our world is itself being simulated, though, then none of our evidence in favor of such a possibility would be real evidence. So unless we assume that our world is real, we have no reason (unless we appeal to a priori arguments) to believe that it is possible for it to be a simulation.

 

[Tinker Grey]

#2 is an unsupported assumption. Indeed, I find it improbable that any intelligence could simulate the level of complexity that we see in the universe before it self-destructs or otherwise ceases to exist.

 

[Gadarene]

I agree, 1 is completely preposterous. Why assume the real world is anything like the world we perceive? There may not be civilisation or computers in it.

 

[yasic]

Can I have a go at refining this position so as to make 1 not preposterous:

There are 2 possibilities, either the real world is similar to the world we perceive, or it is not. If the real world is not similar to what we perceive then this means the world we perceive is thus not the real one.

If on the other hand the real world is like the world we perceive then (insert OP argument here)

 

[Gottservant]

The problem is not that simulation is possible and therefore a reality, the problem is that for some people simulation is enough and therefore an inevitability.

 

[Gottservant]

I have thought about this some more and I find that there is indeed a lot of truth to it. What is interesting is not that the argument wins out, as a function of logic, but that it shifts one's whole perspective. It shifts one's whole perspective, by sheer force of inference. So one is left with concern that has no basis in reality.

I hazard from this that there is a part of the mind that holistically speaking, is simply there to manage concerns. It can only be that shifting opinion is a biological function of the human body and this area of the mind, how ever it is governed physically, in turn governs whether we perceive something to be the case or not, or equally whether it is relevant. Thus when faced with the question of the matrix, a life lived by evidence only, begins to fail in the face of doubt, that it can live without relevance and accepts that the matrix may be true.

This acceptance of the matrix temporarily alleviates the need for logic, which comes as a relief, since the implications of the problem are far-reaching and worry has already begun to shift opinion in a given direction concerning the possibility. It only remains for someone to coin the concept "matrication" and you have a visceral commitment to a philosophy that begs the question of whether this shift of opinion and abandonment of logic is a good idea. If one invests one's whole being in a shift of opinion, the result is greater concern, but irrespective, this is a small price to pay for the bliss of ignorance.

 

[Gottservant]

Perhaps part of the matrix is partly the truth?

For example, pain is the matrix, pleasure is reality?

 

[quatona]

Nick Bostrom's the guy I'm thinking of, I think, and he has an argument that goes something like this (note, the argument below is not structured in quite the valid way or whatever; I'm paraphrasing from kinda bad memory, so fill in the logic gaps at your discretion, if you please):

That´s a funny request. Why would it be up to me to fill in the logic gaps in a supposedly logical deduction?

1. In the real world (whatever it is), civilization will develop enough to either self-destruct (or otherwise come to an end), to endure without developing world-simulation technology (or without using such technology), or it will develop and use world-simulators.

I don´t understand what self-destruction and the development of world-simulations have to do with one another.

2. For any given world, the chances that it is a simulation are vastly higher than the chances that it is not.

Unsupported, unsubstantiated.
And even if this were a solid premise: What does it tell us? The chances that this very raindrop would hit my nose at this very point in time are incredibly low. Yet, it does.
​

 

[quatona]

2. For any given world, the chances that it is a simulation are vastly higher than the chances that it is not.​

A simulation of what? A simulation of a world that itself has a vastly higher chance of being a simulation? Of what? Of a world that itself has a vastly higher chance of being a simulation? Of what?....
​

 

[Gottservant]

Here is the most convincing argument that I can think of for the matrix:

1) Men do not know everything

2) If there was no matrix men would not defend the status quo even though they do not know everything

ergo C) Men who do not know everything still defend the status quo, therefore there is a matrix

The cleverness of this argument is to simply occlude that people with more authority might actually believe something that is original and not given to them by an outside power. The temptation is to begin insulting men's intelligence this way, and lean on their forgiveness as evidence of complicity with the matrix. A rebellious person would find this very persuasive.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here is the most convincing argument that I can think of for the matrix:

1) Men do not know everything

2) If there was no matrix men would not defend the status quo even though they do not know everything

ergo C) Men who do not know everything still defend the status quo, therefore there is a matrix

(2) is very unpersuasive to me. I can think of no reason why it would be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

(2) is very unpersuasive to me. I can think of no reason why it would be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The point I believe is that it is only necessary to raise reasonable suspicion for doubt to creep in, once doubt is in place the matrix is an easy solution. It's called bait and switch.

I see you offered no argument of your own though, I can only assume it is the second best argument you have ever heard.

 

[contango]

And even if this were a solid premise: What does it tell us? The chances that this very raindrop would hit my nose at this very point in time are incredibly low. Yet, it does.

This part reminds me of what a friend of mine who knows more about maths than I can comprehend once explained to me about probabilities, and the difference between "the probability of A and B" versus "the probability of B given A", and the difference between probabilities of one of many functionally identical scenarios happening and one specific such scenario happening.

With your raindrop example if you walk in a rainstorm the chances that a raindrop will hit your nose at some point is almost 1. If before you went out you'd somehow managed to identify individual raindrops and calculated the probability that a specific drop would hit your nose at a specific time, that number would be miniscule. Yet from a functionality perspective it makes no difference which specific raindrop lands on your nose or the specific time it happens - the end result is that your nose goes from being dry to being wet.

The odds of someone winning the lottery are quite high - it seems most weeks somebody in the UK wins the jackpot on our lottery. The odds of it being me are very small.

 

[Gottservant]

on topic that would be like saying the chances are there is at least one world that has developed the matrix, but the chances that it is this world is very small

 

[Solitary Refinement]

Nick Bostrom's the guy I'm thinking of, I think, and he has an argument that goes something like this (note, the argument below is not structured in quite the valid way or whatever; I'm paraphrasing from kinda bad memory, so fill in the logic gaps at your discretion, if you please):

1. In the real world (whatever it is), civilization will develop enough to either self-destruct (or otherwise come to an end), to endure without developing world-simulation technology (or without using such technology), or it will develop and use world-simulators.
2. For any given world, the chances that it is a simulation are vastly higher than the chances that it is not.
C. Therefore, for our world, the chances that it is the real one are vastly lower than the chances that it is a world being simulated by civilization in the real one.​

Now my basic objection would be: we only have evidence that world-simulation is possible based on experiences in our world. If our world is itself being simulated, though, then none of our evidence in favor of such a possibility would be real evidence. So unless we assume that our world is real, we have no reason (unless we appeal to a priori arguments) to believe that it is possible for it to be a simulation.

Funny. I just referenced the Matrix a minute ago in my own thread, and I didn't even notice this one here until now.

This is an interesting philosophical topic. It's one reason why I love the movies so much. Unfortunately, unless we happen to find any glitches in the Matrix, or some men in suits and black glasses shifting bodies, there's no way we could ever really know if we were in a simulated world.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The point I believe is that it is only necessary to raise reasonable suspicion for doubt to creep in, once doubt is in place the matrix is an easy solution. It's called bait and switch.

I have no clue what you are saying.

I see you offered no argument of your own though

Argument for what? What would you like me to argue for?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ripheus27]

That´s a funny request. Why would it be up to me to fill in the logic gaps in a supposedly logical deduction?

Because it's better to be charitable when it comes to intellectual matters than unforgiving (this is known, in fact, as the principle of charity). Bostrom's own argument appeared perfectly valid to me when I read it; since I pointed out that I was paraphrasing Bostrom, and without a clear recollection of his precise wording, I was implicitly suggesting that respondents to the thread either go read Bostrom's own essay (the best idea) or evaluate my paraphrase of his argument while keeping in mind that though my paraphrase is clearly invalid as it stands, the original was not so deficient.

 

[nebulaJP]

Is THE MATRIX partly the truth?

I am responding to the title, not to the OP. So if you wanted this to only be about Nick Bostrom's argument I guess this is off topic, sorry.

Anyway, as far as the question in the title, I would say yes. My belief is that our reality is digital (made of discrete units) and virtual but this is based on Brian Whitworth's work in this area. Here is a summary of his take (pdf).

A lot of other people have written about this. If you go to the articles section in this wiki there is a lot of stuff.