Why The Simulation Hypothesis is Wrong

A philosophical analysis of the simulation hypothesis argument.

[maximilian.buelowius]

The biggest problem with the simulation hypothesis in my mind is how it assumes that the outside of the simulation follows the same rules our reality has. This means it's never falsifiable thus can't ever be right or wrong.

[spacevspitch]

It's really odd that people who bring up the idea of uploading their minds to a computer never consider the fact that they're not uploading _themselves_ onto the computer. It's just information. _They_ remain as finite and subject to death as ever before.

It also reminds me of how every time someone "beams" up in Star Trek, they effectively die to themselves and are reborn as a new, replicated version of themselves. It's not the same _experiencer_ .

[crazycool]

during the industrial revolution, people started to think of human beings as merely "biological machines". now during the information revolution, people started to think of humans as merely "biological computers".

[stephenwilliams]

I used to explore many thoughts along the line of "What if none of my subjective experience is real? What if in objective reality I am simply one single blip of consciousness imagining this entire experience including the universe it takes place inside of?"

I eventually landed on the idea that it doesn't matter. Even if my subjective experience isn't objectively real outside of my consciousness, my consciousness is still trapped inside of this experience in a way that presents itself to me as consistent and real.

The question of whether or not the universe is objectively real doesn't change one single bit of my subjective experience. Fire is still hot and sushi is still delicious.

When people bring up the simulation hypothesis I feel the same way. So what? Would the knowledge that your universe exists inside a computer simulation change any part of your subjective experience? No? Cool, can I buy some vape liquid now?

[ScottyPippen]

You're just apart of the simulation trying to convince me that the simulation is not real.

[ryandowney]

The problem here is that we still have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, so the notion that simulating consciousness is farfetched is itself baseless. The Holographic Principle in particular lends rigorous scientific credence to the perfectly possible, if superficially unpalatable, simulation hypothesis. Always remember to rein in the dogma when we’re in uncharted territories regardless of which way you find yourself leaning at any given moment.

[TheLobsterCopter]

I'm sorry but it really seems like your main argument about consciousness not being simulatable comes from incredulity. You don't understand how something as seemingly complicated as consciousness can be simulated, therefore it can't be. Consciousness is the consequence of physical processes in the brain, mainly electrical signals and chemical reactions. There's no reason that a powerful enough computer couldn't simulate it.

[eefaaf]

The problem I have with the Chinese room analogy is that it isn't the guy in there that would be the 'artificial consciousness', but the book he uses. The guy is the cpu, the book the program.
Having a conscious book does sounds ridiculous, but that's primarily because a book that would be able to function as in the analogy is not likely to be ever created. But maybe a program could. Which turns the whole thought experiment back into a form of the Turing test.
Now, given a program that would pass the Turing test on every attempt, would that mean the program/computer system is conscious? And even then, would that transfer to all the simulated beings in the hypothesis?
From the outside of such a simulation, the actions of all the sims inside it may look like acting consciously, because that is the intention of the program, but of course that isn't real.

And what could be the intention of simulating our universe in the detail that none of us inside it will be able to find proof that it is a simulation? Is all generated the moment we look at it? And that for every single one of us, without contradictions. Or are the experiences of the others we interact we generated on the fly as well.

That becomes far too solipsistic for my taste.

OK, enough rambling :)

[remmitingfall]

I know there's little chance you'll see this comment, but I have some questions about how you reason against the idea that the Human brain can be digitised.


You seem to have a firm belief that the brain cannot be put into a computer, suggesting that if the brain is just information processing, then that would suggest that Humans are just "NPCs" following basic programming, reacting to their environment, but what evidence is there against this? We do not know what consciousness is, for we know, a computer could be conscious in the same way we are, why do you assume there needs to be some higher component to the Human mind?


The way you present your ideas on how the brain cannot be digitised seem to suggest that you believe that the brain to have some unknown component to it that "creates" consciousness that can't be duplicated, which suggests a faith in something that science hasn't proved. This I feel is a little ironic since this video seems "debunk" the simulation hypothesis as a faith spawned from the fear of death, but a belief that the brain can't be digitised seems (in your case) to be a faith spawned from the fear that life is predetermined, and that Humans are not truly in control of their own actions.

[isrankamal]

it is called "hypothesis"for a reason. at this moment, simulation hypothesis can't be proven either right nor wrong. we simply don't possess enough knowledge and technological capacity to draw a reliable conclusion.

[ShipOfFreaks]

Huh, that's funny, I always found substrate independence to be one of the easier premises to swallow. And I don't think the idea of qualia really weighs against it either. But, even though I think it *is* possible in theory to emulate a mind artificially, of course I think it is also possible to create a simulation that is not truly conscious even though it really resembles consciousness. And I don't know if we'll ever be able to tell the difference.

[danielrodio]

It’s like saying there are more dead people than alive; therefore, there is more than a 50% chance that you are dead and just don’t know it, and therefore, ghosts exist

[lunarAureola]

"We live in the simulation" is the equivalent of those childhood cartoon conspiracy theories about how "they're actually in purgatory" or "it's all an imagination of some kid in coma"

[morrisbratt]

I am in no way, shape or form convinced that we are living in a simulation, but no arguments here convinced me of the opposite either. Considering how most of our desicions are made subconsciously the moment before we conciously make them I don't see why we couldn't simply be information-processors that are in fact going about things automatically, only that we're so advanced in our experiencing of everything that we believe we somehow influence choices ourselves. I don't think anyone thinks that it's straightforward to simulate conciousness, but seeing as we don't even understand ourselves what consciousness actually is, who are we to say it cannot be done? Personally I also sit in the "we're probably not being simulated" camp, just as I'm a believer in that "there probably isn't a god", but those are two unfalsifiable claims anyways so it doesn't matter. I'd say that's the only flaw in the "theory", that we cannot with 100% certainty say if it's true or not, but the arguments for it themselves hold up in my book, however unlikely I think it is that they're true.

[Jordannn_nope]

Simulation is just religion for AI finatics

[asgerllgaard]

There is a problem here though: declaring the simulation hypothesis is invalid because it is non-scientific is unvarnished.
By saying this, you automatically reduce the idea to being something that only exists on our level of reality and something that should follow our rule of measure. Maybe if we broadened the idea further, we would see that the laws in our existence likely wouldn’t be applicable in the “higher states of reality”, and that traditional scientific theory probably isn’t the best way to deal with such an abstract idea. Wether it is falsifiable or not.

Fundamentally, it is very hard to discuss wether the argument is valid or not because we know so little about consciousness and how the mind works.
Just a little something to reflect upon.

[danielrhouck]

1. Bostrom’s paper is specifically about *ancestor simulations*. I don’t know anything about alien psychology but I can make semi-informed guesses about psychology of future humans.

2. Yes, this depends on substrate independence, which not all philosophers accept but seems to have a lot of support.

As for the bulverism portion of the video, I have *never* heard anyone imply simulation hypothesis gave you an afterlife, outside a few specific weird edge cases (weird edge cases even relative to the general idea, that is).

[aszfalt]

I know I'm pretty late, but you argued that we shoulden't assume that we can simulate the mind, and then you gave your oppinion on the matter. My question is that isn't it antropo centric (was it the word you used?) to think that our form of subjective experience can't be created in a diferent method?

[GreatOmen]

The funny thing about all this is that how people are afraid that this is true and so afraid to say "I don't agree with the theory". I mean not afraid to accept that all this is a simulation but more afraid that you are wrong. like most people would prefer to say "this theory is not true and not wrong" to look wise or something like that I'm pretty sure most would prefer to say something neutral rather than confidently express their disagreement and agreement. if someone says "this world is a simulation" they will be faced with "true" or "false" if wrong then they rejoice because i know everyone would be happier if all this is real but if it is true (that all this is a simulation) then they will also be happy that they have confidently said all this is a simulation and they will say to people in disbelief "I told you this whole thing was a simulation haha" but it would be different from people saying confidently they would disagree if they confidently said disapproval and it turns out that all of this is a simulation (somehow suddenly knowing all this is a simulation) they will bear the shame that it turns out that they are wrong and this world is a simulation.

for myself upright I would be very confident that I do not and never believe this theory! "But what if you're wrong?" it doesn't matter i will keep doing the same thing over and over. maybe being neutral or believing will be more profitable but i don't care and for the rest of my life i will prefer to say this world is absurd.

[Snarkbutt]

I agree completely that the simulation argument makes no sense, but I wouldn't conclude that its proponents are motivated by a fear of death. I favor the simpler explanation that they think sci-fi is cool.