|
|
Bostrom's Reality Simulation Argument
#137524
06/21/07 19:26
06/21/07 19:26
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659 San Francisco
JetpackMonkey
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659
San Francisco
|
Hey! After watching Cronenberg's excellent eXistenZ, I was reading up on Nick Bostrom's theory that it is more likely that we are living in a simulated reality than not. I've pasted an excerpt here on his theory that I think might be good discussion material. What do you think?
Philosophical arguments that our reality might be simulated ===========================================================
The philosopher Nick Bostrom investigated the possibility that we may be living in a simulation.[1] A simplified version of his argument is:
1) It is possible that a civilization could create a computer simulation which contains individuals with artificial intelligence.
2) Such a civilization would likely run many – say billions – of these simulations (just for fun; for research, etc.)
3) An A.I. individual inside the simulation wouldn’t know that it’s inside a simulation – it’s just going about its daily business in what it considers the “real world”.
Then the ultimate question is – if you accept that points 1-2-3 are at least possible, which of the following is more likely?
a) We are the one civilization out there in the universe that will eventually develop the ability to run AI simulations? Or,
b) We are one of the billions of simulations that a) has run? (Remember point #3.)
In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, that:
either
1. intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality; or 2. races who do reach such a level do not tend to run such simulations; or 3. we are almost certainly living in such a simulation.
Bostrom's argument uses the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to simulate entire inhabited planets or even larger habitats or even entire universes as quantum simulations in time/space pockets, including all the people on them, on a computer, and that simulated people can be fully conscious, and are as much persons as non-simulated people.
If we then assume that the human race could reach such a technological level without destroying themselves in the process (i.e. we deny the first hypothesis); and that once we reached such a level we would still be interested in history, the past, and our ancestors, and that there would be no legal or moral strictures on running such simulations (we deny the second hypothesis) - then
* it is likely that we would run a very large number of so-called ancestor simulations; * and that, by the same line of reasoning, many of these simulations would in turn run other sub-simulations, and so on; * and that given the fact that right now it is impossible to tell whether we are living in one of the vast number of simulations or the original ancestor universe, the likelihood is that the former is true.
Assumptions as to whether the human race (or another intelligent species) could reach such a technological level without destroying themselves depend greatly on the value of the Drake equation, which gives the number of intelligent technological species communicating via radio in a galaxy at any given point in time. The expanded equation looks to the number of posthuman civilizations that ever would exist in any given universe. If the average for all universes, real or simulated, is greater than or equal to one such civilization existing in each universe's entire history, then odds are rather overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that the average civilization is in a simulation, assuming that such simulated universes are possible and such civilizations would want to run such simulations.
|
|
|
Re: Bostrom's Reality Simulation Argument
[Re: JetpackMonkey]
#137525
06/21/07 20:08
06/21/07 20:08
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,013 The Netherlands
Excessus
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,013
The Netherlands
|
IANAP (I am not a physicist), but I think statement 1 doesn't hold.
In order to simulate a universe, you need to do processing for every atom in this universe. You also have to store data for every atom (position, velocity, quantum state, whatever). Given the fact that even with the most advanced (quantum) computer you will need atleast one atom to store data for one simulated atom, you can see that in order to simulate a universe as big as ours, you'd need atleast that many atoms just for the computer.
So given these physical limits, each consecutive simulated universe would have to become smaller.
These are my thoughts after thinking about it for a few minutes, so there may be glaring errors in my reasoning. Obviously, someone has given this a lot more thought than I have.
|
|
|
Re: Bostrom's Reality Simulation Argument
[Re: Excessus]
#137526
06/21/07 20:56
06/21/07 20:56
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
With our current technology in mind I think Excessus might be right, still it might be that we haven't found the holy grail of data storage and computation just yet.  Quantum computers might not be the border of "this" technology. Are there even theories about 'what might be the technological next step after quantum computers'? Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Bostrom's Reality Simulation Argument
[Re: PHeMoX]
#137527
06/21/07 21:26
06/21/07 21:26
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,134 Netherlands
Joozey
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,134
Netherlands
|
First of all, eXistenZ kicks ass! I love that movie. Mind confudling movies are very neat. Second, the theory is funny, though I just can't imagine the entire universe is one giant simulation. A problem would be like excessus discribed, however there might be workarounds somehow, and maybe this "higher universe" which created us doesnt exist out of atoms, such instable matter, we are just a first test I donno, maybe it's true, but maybe not  it's like god, you can never prove it until our own creators show up themselves. At least something to take account of when we create such simulations... the simulated civilisation would probably appreciate it when we show up in there 
Click and join the 3dgs irc community! Room: #3dgs
|
|
|
Re: Bostrom's Reality Simulation Argument
[Re: Joozey]
#137528
06/21/07 21:35
06/21/07 21:35
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659 San Francisco
JetpackMonkey
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659
San Francisco
|
Quote:
You also have to store data for every atom (position, velocity, quantum state, whatever).
What about LOD? Couldn't such a system do LOD, and if it knew what scientists were doing and where they were looking, as it inevitably would, it could probably accomodate all kinds of scrutiny.. some kind of selective compression / lod type dealie.. with systems more complex than our primitive von neumann/zuse model of computing
|
|
|
Re: Bostrom's Reality Simulation Argument
[Re: JetpackMonkey]
#137529
06/21/07 21:51
06/21/07 21:51
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,013 The Netherlands
Excessus
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,013
The Netherlands
|
hehehe, using LOD, you are actually using more memory  (edit: this statement doesn't make much sense after you edited your post) If you do not simulate all events I wouldn't call that a true simulation of our universe but it's still an interesting thought; the only thing needed to make us "believe" in the simulation would be "input" into our senses that is consistent with the way we expect the world around us to behave. I once read about another theory which claimed that the only thing you can be sure about is that you yourself exist. The rest could be made up by your own mind, or given to you by some higher power (God, a computer simulation). Simulating "worlds" at a higher level of abstraction than atoms is something many of us here on the forum are doing. All that's left is a self concious AI (or input/output devices linked to our brain: The Matrix), larger levels, and more convincing graphics 
Last edited by Excessus; 06/21/07 22:01.
|
|
|
Re: Bostrom's Reality Simulation Argument
[Re: Excessus]
#137530
06/22/07 00:10
06/22/07 00:10
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538 WA, Australia
JibbSmart
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
|
Quote:
What about LOD? Couldn't such a system do LOD, and if it knew what scientists were doing and where they were looking, as it inevitably would, it could probably accomodate all kinds of scrutiny.. some kind of selective compression / lod type dealie.. with systems more complex than our primitive von neumann/zuse model of computing
i was thinking about that when i was reading your first post peripheral vision can be quite deceiving, and while i was on holiday recently i looked towards something and thought i'd seen it sorta "flicker" into a smoother looking object just as my eyes moved towards it! i felt like an idiot and said to myself "there's no such thing as LoD in the real world" -- not out-loud, of course.
julz
Formerly known as JulzMighty. I made KarBOOM!
|
|
|
Re: Bostrom's Reality Simulation Argument
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#137533
06/22/07 08:21
06/22/07 08:21
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538 WA, Australia
JibbSmart
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
|
Quote:
There is nothing new or interesting here.
for some of us this is new, and for some an interesting discussion, despite the fact that some of us don't believe it for a second.
Formerly known as JulzMighty. I made KarBOOM!
|
|
|
|