The Simulation Argument

Do we live inside of a computer simulation?

As our technology continues to advance, how long will it be before we can perfectly re-create the world, and how would we be able to tell the difference? Philosopher Nick Bostrom argues that it's almost certain that we are already living inside of a simulation.

Music:
"Video Dungeon Crawl"
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0

[samaelthelightbringer]

When you are living as a billionaire and then someone trips into the electrical cord

[whatisiswhatable]

I don't get how this point gets glossed over: The human brain is itself a simulation creation machine. This is where this theory comes from, after all--the desire to understand and pinpoint the basis of consciousness. It gets mirrored in our technology but what our technology is actually *doing* and what we interpret it to be doing are very different than what the Universe *is* and our place in it.

[andrewscott]

Well the graphics are okay, but I can't figure out what I'm supposed to do.

[justadude]

If you like this subject I suggest a movie titled "the thirteenth floor "

[Srikanth_st]

What if there's a 4th argument? That being that it's not possible that technology advances to a level to create such advanced simulation? Even if it does, what if there's not enough energy to fuel such a simulation? And even if there is, what if there's no plausible way to extract that energy to run the simulation, thus rendering it impossible to create?

[pianoslayer]

I think that it's unfair to present those three possibilities as equivalent, especially without considering their details. The first possibility, for example, holds one of the key problems. If we assume that any technological civilization ends before it gets to the point of creating simulations, then we have to ask why. It could be that they're prone destroying themselves, so they go extinct before that happens. Another option, which I find the key one, is that perhaps creating such detailed simulations is impossible. This would guarantee that the first option is true, because any civilization will come to a natural conclusion before it finishes an impossible task. Therefore, if such a technology is impossible, it has to be option one. Regardless, this was still a thought provoking video (though I've heard this idea before) and I hope you keep it up!

[bigjakevalley]

aye whoever pattened the world game idea which is like the sims except the worl in real time and hooked it up to synths youre a genius and i want my cut foo

[JimmyCee-cxdb]

No Simulation, but definitely controlled constructs like living a lie but believing it, like not learning anything contrasting !! It requires believing and not questioning it !! We make the simulation by stacking on concepts which seem to match and bring general comforts !! Routine, Familiarities, Comfort, 🤬😝🤗 serve to solidify this !! Imagine putting on a v r set to simulate a jail cell !!

[phatcrayonz]

This is like the movie the matrix starring Keanu Reeves about a character named Neo who realizes he was in a stimulation.

[seanthebeast]

If our world is a simulation and it is the same as our creators doesn’t that mean that it wouldn’t matter if we’re in a simulation?

[dannylukic]

Yo dawg, I heard you like simulations so I put a definition simulation inside your simulation

[mrccustoms]

All I can think of is that one Rick and Morty episode about simulations lol

[SkyBreaker]

If simulations never existed, no one would have thought of this theory. Think about it.

[aritrachakraborty]

Why would there be a simulation? What is there to get?

[dydlus]

Let's say that a civilisation makes a perfect simulation of reality. That simulation requires A LOT of computing power (obviously).
Since it's a perfect simulation, a simulated civilisation makes a perfect simulation of reality. That simulation requires A LOT of computing power (obviously).
Since it's a perfect simulation, a simulated civilisation... you get the idea.
Due to this recursiveness, being in a simulation more than a few layers deep is highly improbable, as at some point it would require some absurd amount of computing power, like 158 yottabytes^googolplex or something along those lines. Maybe not impossible, but definitely improbable.

[joehargreaves]

What about the possibility that NO other civilizations exist and that we are the only intelligent civilization in the entire universe? It''s hard to take this shit serious to be honest, when not all possibilities are accounted for.

[chrisbibat]

Divine programmers, please don't remove the ladders from my swimming pool

[tenumbriel]

But if we live in a simulation (making the 3rd argument true) that automatically makes the first two arguments true as well, because someone had to build our simulation, not going extinct befor it can happen, as we are still here, and had the interest in building one, since we are here in the first place.

It's also a bootstrap paradox. If we most likely live in a simulation (and by this logic, this can apply to any life) which simulation simulates life, then from where life originates?

[jarickc]

Would the hypothesis that we exist within a simulation necessitate testable outcomes that could be probed?

[DustinMTaylor]

I don't think the third option is in any way related to the first two. Whether or not we are currently living in a simulation has nothing to do with the fact that either we will develop our own simulations or we will not. So it really isn't a 1/3 probability that we are just sims.