The Simulation Hypothesis is Pseudoscience

Is it possible that you, I, and everything we experience is a computer simulation? Why do people like Elon Must and Neil DeGrasse Tyson think this is possible? In this video I will explain how Nick Bostrom's argument for the simulation hypothesis goes, and what the problems with it are.

The reference I mention at around 6 minutes is eg

Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
EPJ A, 50, 148 (2014)

#science #physics #philosophy

0:00 Intro
0:25 What is the Simulation Hypothesis?
3:52 Can we simulate consciousness?
4:38 Can a computer replace the laws of nature?
6:18 Can we avoid calculating details?
8:14 Conclusion
8:52 Sponsor Message

[BartJBols]

This is... Exactly what the simulation would WANT us to believe.

[kosatochca]

I absolutely love your strict sense of epistemological truths by saying that illogical things are not necessarily wrong. We just can't verify them scientifically

[vegn_brit]

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."

[motlatsimoea]

I really appreciate how she just basically told us the conclusion of the video in the title. No misleading or baiting title.

[AndrejPodzimek]

Sadly, from 4:50 on, this video demonstrates a misunderstanding of how virtual clocks work and how virtualization in general works, even on our current “primitive” computer level. Sorry to say that.

I don’t mean to say we live in a simulation, because I don’t think it matters and I don’t think we have a way to find out. I don’t believe in the simulation argument. I’m just explaining why one specific counter-argument presented here is wrong.

The assumptions at 7:05 and afterwards are flat out wrong. Here’s an oversimplified summary of a way to avoid an “observable inconsistency” perceived by the simulation’s guest environment.

— Stating the obvious: When you simulate a universe with civilizations, you observe, in real time, whatever they “observe”.

— Each time they “observe” something you don’t like, you stop the simulation, fix your virtualized environment, rewind the simulation to a snapshot before their “observation”, restart the simulation. Rinse and repeat.

— Understanding the step above goes back to my introductory gripe about (mis)understanding of virtual clocks.

— On the next level, to make the simulation progress faster with fewer stops and rewinds, the simulation can be forked a massive number of times with slight variations introduced to each replica. The most “promising” branches (think of them as UNIX processes with fork() if it helps your intuition) are allowed to develop further whereas the ones that malfunction, “collapse” or perhaps expose virtualization to the guest environment are stopped (what an euphemism) to free up computing resources for the more promising ones.

That’s all, that’s it. There goes the “observable inconsistency” argument.

Notice that there’s nothing that would require this ”simulation development model” to cover the size spectrum in its entirety, all sizes at once.

This is (again) because there is no need to avoid an “observable inconsistency” at all cost. When you spot an inconsistency — next branch, please / last snapshot, please! No big deal.

[kartikkalia]

Yo whoever is controlling my character, there's no need to choose hardest level everytime.

[argosfe]

My understanding of the "simulation hypothesis" was that it was a thought experiment and much more philosophical than scientific.

[cheogt]

I'm a software developer and had this idea we could be a simulation for many years already, I didn't know someone would say some day that believe it almost like a religion, that's crazy.
A possibility, it's just that.
And please stop trying to understand it from our technology point of view, quantum processing don't have to even be mentioned, it wouldn't exists outside our "reality" if we are a simulation, it could be something totally unexpected for us.
Imagine an AI NPC from a virtual world without own access to internet in any how, trying to figure out how we the creators are, and then arguing that for them to be simulated, we (the creators) need to have an insane amount of chaos and soul stones at least level 12, so he concludes it's not possible.

[Sarsanoa]

I think smbc's take is funniest: if there are many arguments and most arguments are wrong, then the simulation hypothesis is likely to be wrong.

[nilsqvis]

The main concern I have about the simulation hypothesis, other than being unfalsifiable, is its recursive nature. If we would indeed be living inside a simulation, there's no reason whatever is running the simulation isn't inside a simulation itself. It's turtles all the way up.

[scribblescrabble]

I think the simulation hypothesis is one of those cases where we can quote Carl Sagan:
"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

[majorthsmcgee]

Thanks Sabine - I did think that when Tyson brought out the 50-50 odds about simulation, it sounded like something being thrown in from nowhere rather than actual science. I expected better than that from an astrophysicist

[tinega]

This channel should be called, "um actually"

[Bipolar_Expedition]

Keep in mind. In the end it doesn't matter if our experience is real or simulated; It's real to us, and affects us just the same.

[andsalomoni]

"I had a dream: I was a butterfly. But now I have a problem: did I dream about being a butterfly, or am I the dream of that butterfly?"
[Chuang Tzu]

[arslanrasit]

This is not what Neil D. Tyson says at all. So I don't understand why you mentioned him in this video as if he is supporter of what you criticize.

He says:
- We create video games now and AI is getting better and better. At some point, we gonna be able to simulate consciousness ass well(iirc, you also agree on this)

-Those conscious being in our simulations can get smarter to a point that they too create simulations.

- This will create a chain of simulations.

- So if you'd randomly pick a conscious being in any of those, it's likely it will be simulated rather than real, since there will be only 1 real universe. So probability of us being in a simulation is more than not.

[a.randomjack]

"It's just normal paranoia, everyone in the universe has that"
Douglas Adams

[LemonArsonist]

I've always viewed the simulation hypothesis in the same category as Boltzmann Brains, Brane theory, and even string theory as "fun thought experiments that shouldn't be taken too seriously until there's any actual evidence"

[Tallenn]

If we are living in a simulation, then the laws of physics as we know them are really just the rules of the simulation. Therefore, we wouldn't actually know the real laws of physics in the "real" world, so how can we say it wouldn't be possible to simulate?

In the end though, it really doesn't matter. Even if we are in a simulation, that has exactly zero implications for how you live your life. You can't get out of the simulation, and you can't break the rules of the simulation (i.e. break the laws of physics). If the designers decide one day to just shut it all down, not only is there nothing you could do about it, you also wouldn't even be aware it had happened. You would simply cease to exist. This is what happens to everyone eventually, anyway. Whether by the simulation ending or you dying, you aren't going to be aware that it's over. What I'm getting at is that this reality or simulation we live in is what we have, and it makes no difference which it is.

So, my take on the simulation theory is that I don't really care, because it doesn't matter either way.

[TheLukejitsu]

I think you're missing the crux of Bostrom's Hypothesis, it was that you **cannot** out rule that we are living in a simulation, not that he proves we are.