Tap to unmute
Nick Bostrom - The Simulation Argument (Full)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2023
- Interview with Nick Bostrom at the Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University - www.simulation-argument.com/ - The simulation argument is continuing to attract a great deal of attention. I regret that I cannot usually respond to individual queries about the argument.
www.simulation-argument.com/si...
ABSTRACT. 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.
Many thanks for watching!
- Support me via Patreon: www.patreon.com/scifuture
- Please Subscribe to this Channel: uaclips.com/user/subscription_cente...
- Science, Technology & the Future website: scifuture.org 
Наука та технологія
Regarding the second proposition, i think another motive to run such simulations despite ethical concerns would just be to test the nature of reality. Meaning once a civilization gets to the point where they can run such simulations, they can no longer know if their reality is simulated or not. So simulations would be a science if you will.
There's a theory out there called the Transcension Hypothesis. It basically states that the reason we haven't found extra terrestrial life is because they create virtual worlds in which they live in, so they don't bother to explore space...pretty interesting!
OMG your comment is about 6 years old and nowadays reminds me of Meta.
Great point! We hosted John Smart, the author of the Transcenscion Hypothesis (aka STEM hypothesis) number of times: www.youtube.com/@scfu/search?query=John%20Smart
I followed fragments of this interview and found it very interesting. Thanks Adam for posting the full length of the interview and good job on the editing.
That's true. You make good points and yes it is definitely something to ponder on. I actually just re-watched The Matrix movie and it kind of relates to this except for the part that instead of gaining information on running the simulation the movies makes the point that the humans are connected to the matrix to give power to the machines. But yea in the end who knows what we are or what is out there. I guess we wont have concrete answers in our lifetimes.
"We are all in the same boat when it comes to existential risk" - Boström, 2013
Nick, you are killing me with your humour! xD
I've always found this to be by far the most profound and difficult to counter form of solipsism. Every other version seems to be subject to the idea that it is unbelievable because it runs counter to evidence and thus while it can't be disproved, it should not be believed. This version gives affirmative reasons to believe in a solipsistic world view based on evidence that we see in the world. That is MUCH harder to dispute. I must admit that while I don't believe this conclusion, I have no good reason to doubt it in spite of having thought about it a great deal. There are good arguments not to believe it in practice, but none that I can see why it is not likely to be true even if we should not believe it. And since you can't really choose your beliefs, this is of little value as a solution.
After a mushroom trip, I was touched by a divine being's energy tentacle which seemed to transfer loads of information into my brain. Afterwards, when I looked around my room, it was as if I had an Iron Man user interface of the world. I could see calculations, lines, formulas, the periodic table, quantum changes in particles, time fluctuations, and words everywhere I looked in mid-air. I felt like I had gained some kind of superpower or access to the administrative interface of reality. Unfortunately, it eventually went away after a few hours. However, this made me really believe in the simulation hypothesis. I wish I had took out any audio recorder and read out all the words I saw, but I was too excited in the moment thinking I had become a mini-god.
same thing on a mushroom trip i was looking at my phone & my mind said to me you are the most advanced technology on earth that’s why we create technology because we are a technology race ...
none of this is true
next time try starting a scientific discussion with ,,so once I was high" lmfao. Look how people will react lmao
@Michele Siciliano The chemical action is very different, so I wouldn't be so quick to write it off if I were you. In many ways, these act as sensory enhancers. I would say it allows us to tap into abilities and senses that we already have within us, but lie dormant during our normal everyday lives. It shows the capabilities of the brain way more than anything out there.
I think the bigger problem with the "Inception" layout is that the cost of simulation grows with each stage. I'm saying that even a single stage simulation is extremely costly. It would be much cheaper for future intelligent life to spend their time dabbling in their own universe. That waters down the simulation argument, and argues toward the Doomsday Argument. There's no physical argument that we can ever have infinite capability for such simulation.
If this could be possible I think a "suffering" argument would be rejected by potential creators of simulations because what we perceive as an inconceivable drama of human evolution would be treated on the level similar to our perception of movies: so even when something is horrifying on the screen, we still know it's only done for our amusement, reflection etc.
Errors in the sim are subject to 1) discovery 2) willingness to correct 3) resources to correct. Like many products today, small bugs, irregularities, non-fatal errors need never be corrected unless prioritized to do so. Also, discovery of flaws/errors is an excellent metric to guage the sim's maturity.
Cool, Bostrom, I love this guy. One idea, if we've transferred our minds into these machines, the astronomical numbers of simulations could be run in our own heads. And, of course, we could live, subjectively, billions and trillions of entire lifetimes of thought every second. Is there really THAT much to think about? Maybe such mental abilities leads one to an inevitable and profoundly thorough 'been there, done that', and all one is left with a desire for the off switch.
to mechtheist - you really took it to the next level when you said we could live billions of lifetimes every second if we downloaded ourselves to puters. There are many unimaginative people who would run out of lives to simulate before one nanosecond elapsed. I like to think I could last a whole second. Of course, I've hit the "replay" button on simulations I liked!
I think it is interesting that to find the answers to these questions that one must mix science with philosophy and really be able to think outside the box.
the problem is that they are unanswerable questions, mixing science with philosophy allows one to think outside the box and come up with many theories, but does not in turn lead to any answers
I think I found a workaround for the simulation hypothesis (not the argument): If you build a matrioshka brain, and you create a simulation that creates a matrioshka brain, that simulation can't have the same processing power as the original. Therefore, once you get to that point, and the numbers don't add up, you'll know you're in a simulation.
As a software developer I can say that the 'architects' (I like that word) of this simulation wouldn't retroactively erase people's memories. Even for a super intelligent being, it would take far less energy to simply rewind the simulation and change the parameters to fix any glitches. To us humans, our linear experience of time would remain unchanged without having a Men In Black memory erasure moment.
The most interesting idea regarding the simulation hypothesis is general relativity itself. When I write software that gets stressed out, like a video game running on an old computer, it tends to slow down and become 'choppy'. The same thing happens to matter in the universe when it attains a high speed, time itself slows down. It's as if the universe is a computer that slows down parts of the simulation so that the energy required to run the simulation stays low.
+Brad Hesse That's something that I had thought about recently! Thank you for bringing it back up to me. It makes total sense.
+Brad Hesse Hahah, that truly is a mindboggling thought. Hats off, sir.
+Brad Hesse Nice interpretation, but just a small correction, time dilation and length contraction are phenomena predicted (and experimentally verified) by special relativity, not general.
Perhaps the simulation started at the level of technological maturity of a civilization capable of running such simulations but the clock is running backwards to simulate past events. In which case, our future has in a sense already happened, yet the simulation that we are in may have parameters yet to be fully established to simulate our past.
Our memories would therefore be incomplete pictures of the simulation's potential future. It would not be at all strange to us if our memories turned out to be false since the point at which we can resolve the accuracy of a memory would immediately become our future, which we have no way of remembering.
This would make any perceived accuracy of a memory an illusion.
So god needs a new computer?
I can imagine a future where the Simulation Hypothesis becomes a form of religion... fascinating
Say more?
Yeh pretty sure it will. Teaching religions will be ditched and simulation theory will be taught instead.
Too much controversy and contradictions in religion. None of this with the simulation hypothesis
I think if we are in a simulation it would prove religions to be true because someone would have create it and we most likely made in their image.
If we are simulated, the creator of the simulation would be be god nog quite the one in classic religions though.
Would there be simulated heaven and hell too?
We create simulated worlds (in gaming, etc.) and live vicariously through heroic, powerful, superhuman characters; a world much different than our "reality". If you imagine a civilization that was advanced enough to create a simulated world (that we could be the subjects in) and we assume they are advanced enough to have eliminated struggle, suffering, strife, insecurity, distress, conflict, worry, and despair...What kind of simulation do you think they would create? Maybe our struggles are their entertainment.
Meanwhile outside the simulation:
"Hey look, one of the sims figured it out! Should we pause the simulation, scrub his program, and reboot him?"
"Nah, let him run, none of the other sims will believe him." ^_^
nfinn42: I mean in some sense that could be true, but if our universe really is a copy of the original universe, then is it possible that the original universe isn’t real? I mean to you it wouldn’t make sense, that we are living in one simulation or in a dozen put the theory does sound like an endless rabbit hole and I don’t think there’s any chance that we could know if the original universe had its original Big Bang, as a matter fact I don’t think that there could be any original universe because the original universe could be another simulation, even if it’s being run by aliens or humans I wouldn’t think that this is possible, there’s no way to deny it because it could be true any original universe could be another simulation, I don’t think there is an original universe so the simulation theory kind of sounds impossible Or if you do believe in it then that means that we came into existence from a endless rabbit hole, Did you hear any scientist or physicist ever say anything about that? I want to hear it from you if you think I’m wrong or right I just want to hear your opinion
Figuring it out is part of the ancestral simulation process. They would be discovering how they got to the point of creating simulations, which would require coming up with this idea first, so that would actually be expected.
I don't get why it should be "ancestral" at all.
If there is 1 simulation, there is (maybe almost) an endless number of different simulations. Some may be only slightly different, some may be completely different. Anyways I could imagine a (or more) simulations, where the simulators went like: Well, we have 4 arms and hands, lets make a simulation where we only have 2 arms and two hands and let's figure out how life like this would be (or would have been). One could imagine this with endless options in differences.
I think of genetic manipulations. Before we will genetically engineer the human race, we might be running simulations first, to figure out wich modifications would make the "most sense" to actually realize.
Damn!!! ☮️💚
BandikidMadness could be where string theory fits into the puzzle of reality
I also find this a compelling idea. The first proposition that advanced civilizations do not run ancestor simulations I find least likely. Many people today run many forms of ancestor simulations. People who play war strategy games are essentially running an ancestor simulation. And when one runs such a game, he is in control of potentially thousands of A.I. simulated beings. Scale that up to the number of people who are running ancestor simulations at any given time and the current population of simulated beings on Earth may already be higher than actual humans. Of course at our current state, the A.I. in games is not really close to real intelligence but soon they could be.
"There would be conversely many ways in which they could let us know that we were in a simulation if they wanted to do that. There could be a big window popping up in front of you like informing you "
Some of these "window popups" include:
1 - Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"
2 - Movies such as Thirteen's Floor, The Matrix, Dark City, The Nines. Inception.
I'm sure you guys can find more examples.
The platonic concept of the demiurge linked with the contemporary theory of a simulated reality has me wondering if Plato could have it right so long ago.
The simulation could also make us perceive a filter or make it so that our civilization can't interact with others or put wrong ideas in our heads about what simulation means so that we think we're in a computer
One other thought: it's not possible to know with complete certainty that anyone other than oneself is conscious. In theory, someone could build a perfect replica of a person that responds to external stimuli in the same ways but lacks a subjective experience. To illustrate this, an automatic door opens when I step in front of it, but does it know it's opening? A program can only do what the programmer tells it and the only evidence we have of the existence of consciousness is our own.
What I never understand is, the first civilisation at Base Reality would have also had this thought. They too would not have known if they were a in a simulation, despite going on to create it (or not).
so we could acutally be at Base Reality or we could be thousands of levels of simulation down
That is Part of the 3rd hypothesis, it's just framed as "we're in a simulation" because of the incredibly high probability that it we are not in base reality (1 real one vs. Millions of simulations)
Here, in our reality, it's science that drives us towards the simulation hypothesis, not thought experiments. At a quantum level, the universe works almost exactly how we would expect a computer simulation to work. Particles don't exist unless they are being observed, just like in a game environment where the simulated game world only renders what you're currently interacting with. There's a lot of other aspects of our universe that work like we would expect it to if it were a simulation.
I would expect that the 'base reality' people would have lived (or are living) in a universe that likely didn't have these properties. They may have asked the 'brain in a vat' question, but that's not what the simulation hypothesis is suggesting. In this case, we know the universe works like a simulation regardless of our thought experiments. For the people in the base reality, it seems plausible to me that through science, they'd likely easily be able to prove that they are indeed not being simulated.
Not neccesarily, the laws of the "base reality" might be self-evidently "real" unlike our universe. We can't know, since a simulation can simulate whatever you want and we can easily imagine universes and laws within those universes vastly different to what we understand about our own. A simulated universe, however perfectly structured would likely have some sort of signature of mind due to the flawed nature of natural minds - unless you believe hyper-advanced AI's simulate the universe, which is also possible (although, motivationally questionable).
poidial I agree.
As to the argument, I would go for option two: Most generally losing interest. Still, if once every year a simulation is created for some future being. That is a trillion ancestor simulations in the lifetime of a planet around a red dwarf star. So by chance, the loss of interest for life on earth (where it all started before the machines took over) would have to be almost total, for this life (or the significant part of it: me now typing this, the part that may have been miraculously preserved in the far future ;-) NOT to be a simulation.
As some other videos have suggested about simulation that virtual reality is a possible cause of this then we are basically doing this to ourselves with those vr video game headsets. There’s a video of a guy playing vr for quite a long time and seemed to forget that he was using a vr headset and so a couple people had take it off him and he was acting like he was having a seizure or something for like 10 seconds probably cuz he was slowly coming back to his reality. Anywho I plan on buying a vr headset so I can test this shit out, wish me luck and hope I don’t forget I’m using a vr headset and get trapped in another reality
Nick Bostrom is definitely one of the simulated. I'd put money on it.
Up to the simulation cascade I had the same ideas. No kidding! But I am not too happy about it. In principle I would prefer to experience the real world, if that is not too convoluted. Of course an "ancestor simulation" does not mean this should be only a personal experience and that the reader doesn't exist.
I do think such a simulation for a future being must serve a certain purpose. I don't think it's for enjoyment, like a movie. Even education would not be enough, because of all the lost time in my life (e.g. sickness, stupid relationships ;-)
So what would be the purpose of the program? It could be a "court simulation", where a question of guilt for some existential disaster must be worked out. I could be the instigator of that (no kidding, I could, have you seen my new Alexa & Blixa math algorithms?) or I could be partly responsible (spreading the knowledge how dangerous Ron Fouchier's ferret method is to terrorist groups). That is my best guess.
Maybe you can come up with a better reason for such a simulation?
The anomalies have been there, specially when I am offline for a while (away from technology, living a religious life in nature). But I am not allowed to say that.
It is the problem of pain which makes me think that simulations will be quite different from what Nick Bostrom describes. In his hypothesis the structure of the simulation is analogous to the initial timeline.
But why should we have to live through the kind of horrible experiences that we see in this timeline. If it is to recreate a timeline (as in Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory) we could simply simulate every possible sets of MEMORIES and thereby skip the actual events altogether.
Im sure if she were given the choice a VR simulation of Ann Frank would be willing to relive the horrors of the Holocaust….if it meant being reunited with her family and her loved ones, she would presumably do it in a heartbeat. But why would she have to relive those horrible experiences all over again when we could simply simulate every possible sets of MEMORIES and thereby skip the actual events altogether. Ann Frank would simply be recreated in a virtual timeline with her memories PRE-PROGRAMMED. Everything that comprised her personality would be back without actually having to experience the suffering….And once she is in the virtual timeline (which would presumably be a virtual "Heaven" with all the pain and horror of the real world edited out) she can then resume experiencing life in the minute-to minute second -to -second fashion that we are all familiar with….
So I believe that Bostroms simulation hypothesis may flawed in that sense. I cant see why there would be so much pain and suffering in a virtual reality timeline. But of course I could be wrong…maybe there is some reason why the entire timeline has to be replayed. Please check out my interview with Frank Tipler for more on artificial intelligence how it could theoretically facilitate the resurrection of the dead (type Frank Tipler/ Richard Dawkins and it should be your first search result...)
We don't know we *didn't* skip the Holocaust. Perhaps the simulation started right after Frank's death. Though even if we didn't, you're making a lot of assumptions about the natures of the simulation-runners and their ethics, not to mention the motivations and nature of the simulation. But even if subjective reality is exactly as we intuit and the past is not illusory, they may well just not care about our suffering. It's hardly a flaw in the hypothesis, or the argument.
I do envy you your inability to see why there would be so much pain and suffering in a simulation, though. It speaks of a much brighter view of humanity (and post-humanity) than my own.
And I do find some comfort in the simulation argument from each point but the first.
1) Everything ends; no sentient species will ever get very far. Bad.
2) Humanity sorta sucks at present, so them changing sufficiently to perhaps decide it's unethical to run a simulation with conscious people might be quite cheering. Though there's also much darker possibilities like mind control to prevent people from being able to run one.
3) Okay, we're in a simulation, but A) Why's it matter? B) At least *someone* survived past every Great Filter we can currently envision. C) Yeah, maybe there's a Heaven as you say. I can't conceive of the Christian God or any kind of eternal reward if we're in base reality, but in a simulation, anything goes. Eternal life, here I come (maybe)!
@Bismuth Crystal Heh...you make a great point when you say " We don't know we didn't skip the Holocaust. Perhaps the simulation started right after Frank's death." In fact, following up on that, its possible that the simulation ( ie a minute-to minute second -to -second style simulation) just started ten seconds ago...and all of the painful things i remember living through are all programmed memories (ie maybe I , didnt live through them at all)
As far as the idea that I have a much brighter view of humanity (and post-humanity)...Its funny cuz I consider myself to be more of a pessimist, but the arc of human history seems to moving in the right direction...Judging by what we have seen so far...the human race seems to be getting better and better...both in terms of ethics and in terms of technology. Although we do see some minor setbacks (and weve seen many of them recently) if we look at the big picture, the human race is still more or less on the right track. And just as the human race has created multiple sets of checks and balances to prevent, for instance, the abuse of large scale nuclear weapons...similarly, the post human civilization would presumably have multiple sets of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of VR and simulation technology.
@White Gardenia / Daniel Valient Yep, entirely possible our pasts are illusory - but when our entire existences are, what's the difference. I like the idea of being able to separate myself from trauma and tragedy through that lens, though, even if i accept that, played out in full or filled in 'in post,' the difference doesn't really matter if we're simulated anyway.
And it's very true that humanity's getting better. I rely on Marxist Dialectics and the notion of our current global wave of misguided populism as a reaction of those with power fearing losing it, to cheer me when i look at Trump and Boris and Bolsonaro and such. But yes, we're still winning, even despite them. The harm Trump has done to trans rights is only partially offsetting the astounding progress, the scale of which i'd never have predicted on such a timescale when i was young. For example.
Oh, and the one-to-one assumption is one i've dwelled on a lot. As a lot of my subjective feeling involves compromises made in the simulation, due to bandwidth requirements. There is some data to suggest this could be the case, but nothing conclusive. But essentially, simulating the universe 1:1, in every way, would likely be impossible. Size, detail, or time would have to be compromised, likely. So we could be running at a slower 'clock speed,' with less granularity, or in limited scope, with invisible walls set up. Or any/all of these. Bostrom addresses this, of course, but i find it one of the more interesting things to ponder.
As to checks and balances on technology... i dunno. They would seem to get exponentially harder as technology gets exponentially more advanced. Much of my more optimistic hopes for the future are an anarcho-communism which revolves around 3D printers and the copyleft movement and the inability for states and corporations to control that information. So it would be incredibly hypocritical for me to then hope that states are able to limit the use of technology in the form of simulations, even if that's a bit further down the line.
I've sorta made my peace with the possibility. Also i weight things differently. The second option; humanity losing interest in running an ancestor simulation; seems far-fetched to me, just on a visceral level. A state might, but at a sufficient level of advancement, it's hard for me, personally, to envision a technological future in which, eventually, some script kiddie-equivalent doesn't have the computing power to run an ancestor simulation. And so i just can't see that happening, even if a state might be opposed to it; we're too curious. So i'd weight the likelihood of us being in a simulation at about 66%.
And also there are other frameworks. Bostrom's is limited by design, but what if base reality is incomprehensibly different than ours? What if an alien species in a reality of dense dimensions we cannot comprehend turned us on, through some form of a computer as we'd recognize it, or something entirely different?
These questions are interesting and i do allow them to influence my beliefs, but not so much how i live my life. They are not terribly instructive. They will affect us in some way, but the one real danger of believing there's a good chance we're in a simulation is not treating other people as real. Is the right wing 'NPC' bullshit. This is contraindicated by some basic logic, of course, and it's if anything the most-illogical variant of solipsism (as, if you have worth, 'real' or not, why shouldn't you assume everyone else is equally real; assuming they're an 'NPC' is illogical). But then, these people tend not to be... the most thoughtful anyway.
So the best thing to do, as i see it, is... accept the possibility and move on.
@Bismuth Crystal Hmmm interesting analysis....I actually believe that you are much more optimistic than me. Im intrigued by this statement- "...it would be incredibly hypocritical for me to then hope that states are able to limit the use of technology in the form of simulations, even if that's a bit further down the line."
I suppose this gets into the basic question of whether humanity can police itself. But when I see my cat playing with a mouse, I have some serious questions about whether nature is basically good or basically evil (or some mixture of the two)...I grew up reading the Marquis de Sade, so I'm very suspicious of what really motivates humans beneath the false veneers. As far as politics I agree that the current state of world is disastrous...but ironically, I think it is because people are rejecting institutional checks and balances. (The Right in particular, seems bent on attacking the FBI, CIA, CDC, WHO and any other organizations that have sufficiently complex internal checks and guardrails...right now, the Right seems just as "anti-Establishment" as the Left)
But anyways, I agree with you that this kind of technology has to be embraced. Artificial intelligence and simulation technology will be developed one way or the other….so it would be in our own interests to embrace these technologies now and make sure that they are developed in a way that reflects our culture and our values. If you have some time, I actually wrote an incredibly long essay about death that addresses this very topic (originally published in a magazine...but Ive reposted it here -whitegardeniamusic.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/the-new-nihilism-an-autobiographical-essay-by-daniel-valiant/
Anyways, if you get a chance, check it out...thanks for the interesting conversation
There might be glitches. The most probable has happened to me and to other people: when you're looking for an object which is generally placed on a table but you can't see it; some seconds later, the program starts running correctly and there it is, placed exactly where it should be! You tell yourself: "I'm sure it wasn't there! I looked at where it usually is several times!"
Very interesting! however this hypothesis still leaves unanswered questions. What was the first civilization to run a simulation? and why was that civilization the first one to originate in the real world?
+Scientist Albert Einstein I think these questions are relevant regardless of whether our world is a simulation or not, and conditioned on having such answers and us making a simulation, the answers of your case are answered as well. Meaning, they are interesting questions but I do not see how they could be counterarguments to the simulation argument.
There was no begining ... everything runs in an endless loop !
There's obviously a civilization that would have been the first one to originate in the real world. although most certainly many many civilizations originated at the same time across the universe.
@Speedo Flight lol cringe. Explain?
I think a really interesting question would be how that outcome is influenced by evolution. What if every evolutionary development results in a civilization creating a simulation?
Nick talks about the 4th possibility, i.e. nested simulation, but then dismisses that as not being too relevant to the theory as a whole - he calls it an "optional extra". I think that the nested simulation is fundamental to the whole hypothesis.
Once you have disproved parts 1 & 2 by creating a simulation, it must follow that the capability exists to create a simulation and therefore it has already been done and therefore one is already in a simuation.
Then you can start to wonder how many layers of nesting you have above yourself ..
It may not be all that difficult after all, especially if we ever get around to building General purpose Quantum Computers. A 200 qubit quantum computer would perform more calculations per second than there are particles in the universe. Another interesting property of G.Q.C.'s are that when it's simulating the behavior of other quantum systems, it's doing so with perfect fidelity. If we can create just 200 entangled particles (in a GQC) we can recreate our entire universe.
There was a movie based on this called "The Thirteenth floor". Super good Sci-fi movie that came out in 1999. I have watched it twice. You all should check it out.
Think about this. (assuming we're the simulation) we can try and predict a lot of information about the person(s) watching us. If we're clever enough, we can predict HOW they'll respond to certain results, and then give the results that make them behave the way WE want. It'd be the same principle behind the media tweaking stories to get a desired response from the readers. an entity's experiences alter its behavior.
What I still do not understand is this: If the 'real' universe or 'original' universe would create a simulation that eventually contains sentient life, will that simulated universe not always be less complex than their own? Diminishing returns and that? If yes this would mean that each child simulation would have to be less complex so that eventually the universes would be extremely simple...
Hell, even if we lived in the "real" universe instead of one of the computer simulations someone is running, the "real" one consisting of matter-energy space-time is still a simulation.
I don't think its ,,runned,, no one runs life itself we do the reality makes any gowerns reality
I have one question :
In the case where the two first propositions are wrong and we are in a simulation. It is likely that the ppl who are simulating us do it for there own entertainment, like a video game or something (I'm thinking about a Westworld equivalent). Then the reason they simulate us is likely to be that their own state of civilisation is boring them, they prefer recreating the past rather than living their present. In this case, if one day we reach the technological level to simulate our own worlds, it is likely that our world has become similar to theirs. Then what is left in our world to keep them from switching it off ?
The one thing that puzzles me about this idea is, if future us have run an ancestor program, then future us would still be in this simulation we are in now. Does the simulator not have to be outside of the simulation? Am i missing something?
Since I watched this vid a year ago, I often think about the simulation argument. Knowing humans they certainly are not going to loose interest in running simulations in my opinion. I even think it's quite the opposite. Once computer power is strong enough and if they didn't destroy themselves before reaching that point, I think they will experiment at will. Even if after a while they decide to not do it anymore out of ethical reasons or whatever, they would have created at least one simulation, the first one they created when discovering and optimising the technology. One is in theory enough to get the ball rolling, a simulation within a simulation within a simulation etc. Unless humans themselves evolve that fast to become intellectually mature, which is unlikely as it would take thousands and thousands of years of evolution. Computer power will be first to reach the potential to run simulations with conscious humanoids. In the case of our reality, we would still behave like we do today and look at the world, we're not exactly doing great are we?
So personally I think it's between option 1 and 3. I do think there's a good chance that we destroy ourselves first though.
Basically we live in a video game like virtual reality which we call "reality". I love the idea of a fun house reality and teleportation. We teleport anyway but the increments are so small that we do not perceive it. Interesting idea but it leaves me empty. You are simply a very advanced simulation like Mr. Morgan Freeman said. It seems that everything is unreal dreamlike reality and constructed or generated by consciousness. Seems diluted.
I sometimes wonder if this is why we can't find other star faring civilizations...that maybe a civ gets to the point where it can simulate ANYTHING and at that point, what is the reason to explore space if you can generate as much wonder and adventure right at home?
QUESTION: If the simulation argument is true, wouldn’t the ethics developed in the “simulation” be just that as well? If the ethics are just part of the natural progression of the simulation, why should they matter or be a restraining force if they are not true reality?
Nice question
By the time we are acutally able to do this a lot of evidence should be available if that is the case. And then again, if we can do it, others in our universe also could do it. That means there is a high chance that we are in a simulation aswell. And that is what nick bostrom is saying.
The graining of our universe (quantum length, quantum time etc.) could also be an indicator.
i often think about stuff like this....including things like reincarnation as it kind of falls along the same line of thought. for example, the fact that I find myself living in this technologically advanced modern age instead of the stone age or ancient Rome/Egypt is because reincarnation is real and I'm infinitely more likely to find myself alive and conscious during later period in humanitys evolution. same argument as Bostroms IMO
I was thinking something along the same lines in that, if this was just a sim, under the control of some future director, or computer, then how can you not suppose when coming to this theory, that it might just be some sort of inserted stimuli or variable, to see how the simulation would react or chew over the hypothetical...but then again if that were the case, then it is still arguably a simulation
This was fantastically articulated! Sorry to be judgy but this was super interesting ! Hugs! 🎈🌀
fascinating! this actually makes sense for our civilization.
No. It's science fiction. Don't waste time on it.
For years I have admired Bostrom's Simulation Argument, it's a wonderful thing to ponder about as it throws up all sorts of intriguing and bizarre situations. It is fertile ground for fiction, for instance imagine a situation where humanity has progressed into the early postshuman stages, we have an enormous amount of processing power at our disposal and the necessary infrastructure upon which to run it, many interconnected groups have been working on simulation technology and we're getting closer and closer to the day of the big 'switch on', we're able to simultaneously run an exceptionally large number of sims, so many that even 'time travel' may be possible. The likelihood of producing genuine simulations of our past is causing massive unrest amongst the world's religions, there are extremely powerful forces who have vested interests in stopping the simulation from getting switched on, be these both from religious groups whose existence relies upon historical doubt, and also perhaps from a greater number of people who realise that we are now in a most bizarre situation where if the 'machine' is switched on, then we can be pretty certain we are simulated beings, whereas if it's switch on is prevented, suddenly we're all real again! What a crazy situation and a perfect prelude to society destroying itself thus obeying a version of the first proposition, or we come to an uneasy agreement to avoid mutually assured destruction by never running the simulation, thus obtaining the second proposition. Cannot wait for Superintelligence!
***** Hey there, with kind regards when I mentioned 'Superintelligence' I was actually referring to Nick Bostrom's book 'Superintelligence' that I believe is due out this summer, in respect I did actually see how that read after I'd wrote it and felt a little silly, as it looks like I'm saying I can't wait for my own posthumanism! Sorry that is my fault I should have clarified better. Nonetheless thanks for your kind comments, Bostrom's argument is a wonderful multifaceted thing that I think will provide you with a great deal of healthy and enlightening debates with your buddies! Kind regards--T
***** Well I think that for as long as there are humans, there will be religions, the existence of them today despite the ridiculous amount of time humans have been around is testament to that, so naturally if we begin to move into a 'posthuman' existence this will surely cause 'massive unrest amongst the world's religions', but this is part and parcel of the birth pains of posthumanism.
the simulation argument has a very very big flaw in it and i really dont understand why most people(even nick ) didnt notice it. even if our universe is a computer simulation, that simulation is based on the universe which is running the simulation so this means that the universe which is running the simulation is very similar to our own and even if THAT universe is a simulation logically there must be a universe that is absolutely REAL(the real world) which everything and every simulation is based on so this argument by itself proves nothing.
Karlo Kupres Nick does touch upon the idea of nested simulations in some of his writings, I think I get what you're saying, since the simulation argument naturally follows from our present situation (our reality), then the 'REAL' reality must be extremely similar if not identical to our own, hence the likelihood that ours is REAL and not a simulation would be significant. OR at least you are saying that since the ultimate real reality must be very similar to our own, then our own might as well be it. I don't really see how this would invalidate the argument since the argument isn't saying, 'we live in a simulated reality' (that would be the simulation hypothesis); it's saying that if we do not live in a simulated reality, then we are almost certainly going to destroy ourselves before we run advanced ancestor simulations, or we're almost certainly never going to run ancestor simulations. So the argument in itself does not attempt to 'prove' anything, it is a tripartite disjunction; it's basically saying that at least one of these three possibilities must be true.
why are you so excited bout superintelligence... you ll be prolly first victim of it xD
This guy at Oxford gives a good brief description how an virtual Artificial Hologram works as simulations within simulations within simulations that circulating through the consciousness field of connected software operating systems connected with AI mirror
I am convinced the Programmer has an incentive to make a simulation. If not the programmer is a superintelligence either malevolent or benevolent. I am convinced many varations are sequenced.
Very interesting and worthwhile video.
I like the idea although I think it is worth noting that it wouldn't be possible to accurately simulate history without knowing incredible details about it already. It only takes one tiny event and everything a thousand years later is completely different. So using it as a tool to study history wouldn't be viable only merely as an entertaining 'rough look' at it.
Starting the simulation from the big bang or creation of the solar system would probably result in a more accurate outcome than starting it at any point where life already exists but unless you had the right amount of energy and matter in those events then the odds of life starting when it did, humanity evolving when it did and going on to create the same civilisations, invent the same things, fight the same wars, etc when they did is astronomical. Even if you just wanted to focus on one event and create a simulated world that organically evolved from scratch where World War II starts in 1939 and ends in 1945 you'd probably have to run trillions of simulations... and I only say 'trillions' because any number higher sounds made up.
What I think is a more interesting potential use and reason for such a thing to be created is future exploration and speculation. If you're able to have a simulation run to the point where an intelligent species has evolved and got to an advanced technological stage you could allow it to run until they supersede you in regards to technology and civilisation. If you have computers powerful enough to run such a thing then logically thousands or millions of years within the simulation could just be seconds and you could use this simulated species to invent technology thousands of years ahead of what you have. That potential right there would erase any ethical considerations in the minds of the creators. Hell even if you just looked at the idea of scraping great works of fiction or blockbuster films from the simulation you'd be rich overnight.
The question then however is what happens if they start running their own simulation too? Computing power has to be finite so even with something powerful enough to run one whole simulated universe how many nested simulations is it going to take before the whole thing crashes? Perhaps the strongest argument for being in a simulation would be if something prevents us from making our own equally complicated simulations to stop such a crash from happening.
If you were somehow able to find exactly the right starting conditions and create history 100% as it has been recorded and the universe exactly as observed then that would essentially confirm fate and pre-destination exist and the future of your own reality would only differ from the one in the simulation by virtue of you discovering fate and it changing how everyone thinks and acts... unless they also make the same discovery through their own simulation... which logically they would unless you stop them.
This was the perfect blend of paranormal and scientific statements. This is how science and paranormal studies need to work together. It all makes extremely good sense. LSD, OBE,S, quantum mechanics, meditation, vibrations, and Frequencies.
Humans tend to have a very creative imagination and that is great.
And that's all this is.
Hello. First that all thank you very much for your videos. They're very interesting and accurate. May I ask you a question? May I use one of your videos (Nick Bostrom - The Simulation Argument) for put it translated into my spanish channel? I think it will be very informative por the spanish speakers.
Thank you very much again.
Fabio.
Hi, I'd prefer to keep my interviews unique to my channel - a sincere thanks for asking! Others just take my material without asking or even providing a reference.
It would be good to get the interview translated into Spanish - though I would like to have the video uploaded to my youtube channel.
UAclips supports subtitle files, so there's no need to upload a separate video just to add a translation.
Seems like the strange way brains work sometimes leads me to really believe. People suddenly having head injuries and speaking new languages seems like a glitch. I don't understand how it's possible unless somehow the brain is really an illusion or scam in terms of function. In other words, like a car in a video game which really doesn't have a motor. Almost as if the brain is just a magic box which is a trick as to how it really functions.
The problem with the idea of us simulating our own universe in real time (or any time even close to it) is that we would either need a computer with infinite processing power and memory, a computer capable of emulating a more powerful form of itself, or we would only be able to simulate a very small portion of our universe.
True, but just like video games all the things that we cannot see in detail are simulated at a much, much lower definition than the reality that is close to us e.g. Earth.
Yeah glad you enjoyed it! I still have a couple of more interviews with people from FHI that I will upload soon.
It always amazes me how you can talk about existential risks for so many years and never actually mention our competitive socioeconomic framework ...
You mean- how can you go on for so long about something so fictional, and not be at all in touch with reality?
A 4th possibility is that there is some yet unknown physical limitation that would make such a simulation impossible.
If I had to guess, it would be that options 1 or 4 will be the case.
I believe Nick would call that a subset of the 2nd possibility
Good info!!! We can have the holographic principle with the Universe being real 3D process! This is an invitation to see a theory on 'time' with an emergent uncertain future that gives us a new understanding of quantum mechanics.
It seems to me that we simply don’t know enough yet to make the underlying assumption credible: that it is possible to simulate a collectively conscious experience and universe/multiverse using some form of technology (be it computers or something else). Until the underlying assumption can actually be proved viable it’s far too speculative for me to take probabilities seriously, but its a fun thing to think about.
If we can simulate consciousness, is it a MUST for each of the 3 premise to be true? is there a chance that all is false or all is true?
I think the point is that if all matter in our universe is dependent on consciousness and only exists as a result. If consciousness grows the amount of matter expands accordingly (as needed) Growth could stall out and become stagnant. Another thought, like entropy, as consciousness dies off, matter would revert back to dark matter or dark energy. Each galaxy has a black hole at it's center, matter is being sucked in as consciousness dies off and the black hole either redistributes matter to another system where consciousness is growing, or dark matter/ energy gets expelled from it and dark matter in our increases and expands. So as matter in the universe shrinks, and dark matter increases it creates an illusion that the universe is expanding. This is my theory. Yes I could have explained it better, but we're commenting on UAclips...
Just about everyone would want to create a simulation and control their experience within it.
While thinking about this, I came upon the idea that LIFE wasn't the simulation. What if the "project" was a Big Bang simulation?
We already have the ability to "create worlds", we can set time and gravity values inside these worlds.
What if an architect just put in values for elements x infinite gravity that created the singularity that erupted in the Big Bang?
As the data compiled after the "explosion", certain things would happen based on gravity values, speed of light limits etc.
Information INSIDE the simulation would combine and progress "organically"(for lack of a better term). Elements would change through heat, masses would form, set into systems etc.
To program what we live in may be beyond ANY for of technical maturity BUT, trying to figure out what would happen if certain things were subjected to some amount of infinite gravity is something WE might attempt ourselves.
+Timothy Reinerman This is a great idea.
That could definitely be possible. However, such a simulation would require some kind of advanced life form to create the computer to carry out the simulation. And when you pair that with the fact that we, too, are life forms capable of creating our own simulations, then would it not be more probable that life is at least the most important part of the simulation, and that the big bang was just the creation of the medium for those life forms to evolve in?
Just to repeat for the sake of clarification, the two most important factors are:
1. It would have to take some kind of life form to create the simulation.
2. We are ALSO conscious lifeforms that can ALSO create simulations.
This means that the simulation we are living in probably wasn't just a simulation just merely testing physics equations.
I hope that made sense lol. I can try to clarify if it doesn't.
You could be right dude. The base reality simulation might have just been a physics experiment, i.e give it physical laws to abide by, give it a beginning, give it a trigger, and watch it unfold. Life could just be a biproduct of that experiment.
Bri 1
You're a glass is half empty kind of guy, yeah?
We see unintended byproducts all the time.
Saccharine is a byproduct of the oil industry. No one could have sat down and figured that would happen.
And, one of the great/terrible things about science is that often, the answer to one question is another series of questions.
No, we may not know the data compiler or what made the data compiler or why it decided to do this experiment. But, we have the ability to even wonder if such a compiler is even possible.
maybe, we are simulation made by higher dimensional beings (just like its easy for us to create 1d or 2d games), and our purpose is finding a concept that would allow us to break out of our reality, our simulators could then take this concept and apply it to their reality
Somehow I'm not impressed....(and I came in sort of wanting to be convinced) --- but I do appreciate this guys open minded and relatively humble (for a smart scientist) attitude
im totally convince I live in a simulated microchip reality generated by a
super computer.
I absolutely believe we are living in a computer simulation. I come from a computer networking background and in networking the different protocols have error correction built into them. At the frame level there are whats called frame check sequences. The are there to ensure that digital data is not corrupted or changed when transmitted. Dr James Gates a theoretical physicist has discovered error correction within the equations of string theory. I find it highly intriguing that the equations that govern the laws of the universe have error correction built into them.
When i take allot (ALLOT) of hallucinogenics I see the fabric of light waves and things including human faces become pix -elated and I can see the RGB colours , it really does feel like a first person computer game.
I love how people keep talking about an advanced civilization capable of simulating our universe yet still talk about them as if they use the same technology as us.
If they can create our entire reality odds are we cant even begin to grasp their technology. I have seen numerous comments talking about loading your consciousness into RAM........
What makes you think that their computer tech uses ram? If they can create a universe....Think about the scale of that, hell think about scale in general. There are layers of existence that go from microscopic to interstellar, so if that can be simulated by beings then they sure as fuck don't use RAM.
Joey5ama right. That what i think to. Find it funny how people talk about "Computer Simulation" or "a Game" as they where using same tech as us...
Maybe their bits and bytes are what we call our "Atoms" but maybe its something diffrent.
RAM does not mean the implementation we use for it now. it's a general concept. we use transistor based ram chips. theirs could be atomic based in which case you could fit all the memory of all the computers into a "chip" the size of perhaps a grain of sand or something you won't even be able to see without a microscope.
@zarni000 RAM means random access memory (which means that you can access any part of it at about the same speed) so it's pretty vague and if you really use it to mean that, you can just say "memory" nowadays.
Though what people generally mean by RAM is:
1) fast memory close to the CPU (like cache)
2) volatile memory, which means that the state (information in the RAM) isn't saved when the power is shut down.
That's really specific and it's a wild assumption to talk specifically of RAM instead of memory as a general concept we we're talking about "advanced civilization simulations", It's making a lot of irrelevant pre supositions on their hardware and architecture. Especially since computer science theory avoids talking specifics about hardware and is often based on abstract ideas of computers.
It's like saying "They can't run a simulation because it's too difficult to fit in in a CD-ROM". That or to say "CD-ROM is a general concept" doesn't make sense.
@청산 i am quite aware what RAM means. Maybe you should reread what i posted.
Could simulated programs in simulations that are in the simulations also be self aware since they were created in a simulation were the programs obtained self awareness.
We may fail to reach technological maturity, but he tragically failed to reach intellectual maturity
I think this simulation hypothesis is real. I really felt a bug and i am not joking. If i can contact him i would really want to tell this
What about those paradigmas:
What if a simulated civilization develop a computer with more processor power than the one that is simulating it? Is it physically possible?
About the possibility of a universe having civilizations that can simulate other universes inside of it. The first computer would have infinite lawers of universes and infinite computing power!
I haven't found some discussion about that yet.
If the universe is simulated, and it is simulating all of the universe (not just that which is observed by conscious agents), then we may be able to create a computer that simulates the earth in a more interesting way than earth - though it would be difficult to know if our computer focused on simulating local events was more powerful than the simulating computer unless we stand outside the simulation and observe the simulating computer.
So since the probability of an advanced civilization reaching a post-human stage is so small, we would technically have to be already living in a simulation for our future descendants to even be able to run ancestor simulations with the probability of them even desiring to do so. Meaning that we (if we are simulated) will go on and on, only to, in the future, when computer processing is capable enough, create an another ancestor simulation which will do the same as we did and create and endless loop of simulated universes. I AM TOTALLY MIND FUCKED RIGHT NOW
true
but maybe there is a cause like in the simulation before our simulation there had been bugs, so in every new looped simulation humans have the possibility to change the next simulation for a greater good.
Maybe in the last simulation we were vampires and at the end of the simulation we did get the point that being a vampire sucks, when all living, blood containing lifeforms are gone, so we changed the next simulation to be not being vampire anymore...
Brian ??? ehhh your comment makes even less sense, then the whole simulation hypothesis...
In your view, what doesn't make sense in the simulation argument? (this is about simulation argument not hypothesis. Simulation hypothesis is just one of the 3 options of this hypothesis)
Yes and no. This could be base reality now. We might create the first simulation. We might do this by exactly understanding the Big Bang and recreating that simulation in a computer, at which point our entire reality gets played out for us for the first time. We could sit back and watch our own ancestor sim play in full. That would be the first. You wouldn't need to be in a sim to replay a sim, you'd just need to understand and be able to recreate the exact circumstances of your own reality. From there, the sim would definitely create its own sim (because it's a replica of our existence), at which point, you'd have an endless simulation replica running.
It's possible aliens from another multiverse or time are simulating all the possible permutations of life in the multiverse throughout time rather than searching a mostly empty universe looking for it (or remnants).
Even if we aren't living in a simulation universe perhaps we should figure out how to create one. Think about it, the best way to seed other planets would be to ship a "universal simulation" with dna and other source materials in a slower than light probe. By the time the probe reaches your destination planet. The passengers would have experienced all the truths needed in order to achieve the necessary technology to "seed the planet" and the wisdom to understand how to use it. To that point perhaps our fascination with and certainty regarding Alien's and explaining reality is baked into the program to help the passengers reach these conclusions. Yea its crazy but so is reality...
The theory rests in part on the assumption that to simulate a human in all its complexity is to make it conscious, which I think is questionable. It should be quite possible to simulate humans without them being conscious (but still having readable internal states, just no subjective experience), in which case both (a) ”we are in base reality” and (b) ”there are a huge number of realistic ancestor simulations” can be both true and plausible.
Is this argument also considering the possibility that we are simply intellectually bound and unable to create a simulation of such high fidelity? It's one thing to create video games sims but there is a quantum leap in creating conscious beings.
I disagree with the point about them being able to cover glitches; one thing is to have the power to run this simulation, a simulation where our lives are random; another very different thing would be to control separately the brains of each one of us, to prevent us ever seeing glitches. It may well be a very different technology/skill. I don’t see how one thing presuposes the other. I can think of plenty of examples where humanity has advanced so much in some areas, and surprisingly is still having dumb issues in others
"It could be a big window popping up saying: 'You are in a simulation.' "
LOL
Made me think of the show reboot. It was a show about beings living in a computer.
Bostrom's argument seems to exclude the possibility that physical laws may indeed put a limit on the level of "technological maturity" that intelligent beings can achieve. It may be impossible to reach a state of knowledge where we can create simulations which are as real as our own universe and the physical laws in it.
does bostrom consider the possibility that it is not possible to run such a simulation? that the complexity of our experience is too much for any computer smaller than the universe itself to simulate?
This guy is what you'd call a Jedi Geek.
To me, the interesting part is that this conversation starts to challenge the very definition of the concepts of what we’re talking about. Ie defining the words we are using in such discussion.
I’m super surprised to not see this discussion immediately going In that direction first.
And a critical part of the scientific process is to define the parameters of what we are testing in out hypothesis.
The argument’s/hypothesis’ concepts here seem more “conceptual” than actually material. Although I understand The deeper you look into the lie the more blurred it gets.
And the very act of constructing such concepts brings up questions that challenge the very same concepts.
Just like Morpheus’ answer when Neo asks him “is this not real?”
Morpheus: “ what is real? How you define real?”
Conhecimento é poder.
Philosophy meets science in the best way..... Fascinating argument, actually has many possible implications
The first problem I detect is that "the simulation argument" is an "assumption" (that one of the three possibilities is true) rather than a hypothesis. So it can never be proven one way or another anyway, so what is the point of "distributing our credence more or less evenly between them"? I correct myself here: later in the video Mr. Bostrom also speaks about "the Simulation Hypothesis". I guess my next step is to learn the purpose of "an argument" in science as opposed to a hypothesis. Interesting. The second problem I detect is that we have yet to, technologically, produce/create 'consciousness' in ANY simulation. All we have done is extended our own consciousness into our "game pieces/avatars' or whatever they are called. I don't see how it would be possible to simulate neurons to the complexity of the human brain, however, as he suggests may be possible at some point. This is all fascinating, to contemplate, and yet scary as well. The unknown. I hate to think that I might be a simulation and someone is just effing with me on this constant basis...especially physical pain...and will they recreate me at their whim upon my physical death? With more pain? Also, do ppl who speak about simulation mean that the earth and the people on it are simulations? Or, we, as humans, were first simulated, and then placed on an earth already in existence? I will be researching simulation theories for days now.
I think it's really interesting how the simulation hypothesis can be seen in a very similar way as another religion. The key difference being that common religions are based on faith of past events, while the simulation hypothesis can be looked at as something that is highly likely to happen
Life is a game. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
I propose that if this is a simulated universe, the difficulty in running it would only be storage size. It starts with the release of simple, tiny packets of quanta which congeal and interact to build the universe and everything in it. No intervention is needed, you just wind it up and let it go. As it goes, it only needs a deep enough storage capacity to receive it.
I believe that post-humans would have a very, very great interest in making this. After all, why would you make something like this unless you could play in it?
Because you are so advanced you can make something much more interesting and intellectually challenging than a bunch of navel gazing creatures wondering if they are in a simulation or not.
-Holy shit, they are finding us out, Blob! I knew we shouldn't have set sail to the industrialization patch.
-Belb, this goes back all the way to the agricultural revolution patch. The industrialization patch only accelerated the process of them reaching the truth of their existence. However, we should update our anti-break-out software to be on the safe side.
Everytime when he says "simulation" you have to drink one shot
Bombed by minute 3.
This was dangerous, I almost died
Our experiences are what our brain creates for us. What we see , feel , perceive is just what our brain interprets. So all we need to simulate reality is creating that perception. We do not even need a Body or for that matter brain but a simulated perception of having one. If that is the case then it is our brain that stops us from seeing the base reality.
Would a civilization with the technical capability to run a simulation as complex as our universe be malign enough to allow pain and suffering to exist within the simulation? And, this also assumes that consciousness can be re-creatable.
I'm not educated enough to be able to explain why I think the argument is ridiculous. It makes a friend and I argue every time it comes up and I wish it didn't exist