I was watching a video on youtube which introduced me to this theory and realised it would make a good topic for debate. Basically Simulation theory states that if our technology advances to a stage where we can simulate the universe with beings that can think and act for themselves , thenwe are almost definately part of a similar simulation. I Haven't read too much about it yet ownly a breif description so I can't for my own opinions on it but I thought I start the debate off first and join in once I have form my own opinion. Here is a link to the original paper introducing the argument. Here is a small comic that describes a dumbed down version of the theory for those who don't want to read the scientific journal. Spoiler [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"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.[/FONT]" - authors description of the theory.
If you bring this up and say we are in a simulation then you are saying that either we are a creation of anouther civilization or that we are creators ourselves. I think that you are saying that we can get to a stage where we can basically have immense power[creator] and then create others spaces and beings. We can create basic life but we are not able to create or duplicate space like the universe we do not have that power. We may one day be very good [creators] of life and other smaller things than a universe but I do not think we will ever come to the point where we can advance our existance of create one . I think that was the point of this read correct?
You’re nearly there, but the theory really means that if we advance our computer technology to a point where we can create intelligent life within a simulation then we must also be part of a simulation created by an advanced civilisation. I'll edit in a quote from the paper into the OP that might better explain the theory.
Mmmm yeah this I feel is gonna turn into anouther creation debate just saying. If you think we are a part of a simulation than your saying we are the products from a greater creator. How do we know that we are not the creators? We could very well be creators if we had the time and obviously the knowledge. We could be the start of creators how do we know we are not the begining to a never ending cycle? We do not know our creation and thats why there are no answers to what I asked. Its all specualation and we do not know yet. We simply do not have a referance point in time of where we are because we do not know the beginning or what came before then.
OK so if I understand this correctly; once you reach a certain technological point you can simulate a universe and if universes are simulated we can note that it would be more probabilistic that we are in fact a simulation. The reason I reject this idea is that it is unfalsifiable. Assume, in this universe, that we cannot create the computational power required to simulate a universe so we therefore can assume that the universe is real and simulations don't exist. The wise follower would simply interject that the simulators altered our universe so that the conductive capacities of even our most advanced material made them unusably hot and that we are a simulation even though we cannot make one because it is probabilistically so. Or is another case we do simulate a universe. Does this necessitate that with enough computational power we create a "soul" or are these just pixelated people's in liberty city getting shot in the face? The wise follower replies, If we cannot simulate a "soul" its only because we have not yet reached that technological point. Delaying the point beyond all response. Another reason why I don't subscribe to this theory would be that "simulation" is too ambiguous. Why not dreams, hallucinations, spiritual encounters, etc.? We experience all those things in the hear and now. Since being a simulation is "necessarily" more probabilistic what prevents the others from being equally so? And why is there a necessitation of probability at all?
All good points, Nitrous. I need to read through the linked paper, it's very intriguing regardless. But just from the abstract, it doesn't seem to necessarily argue for the simulation scenario. Just thinking out loud here... The argument that we are probably in a simulation seems to hinge on an argument that life on Earth as we know it is improbable. It can certainly seem that way, but is it really? What were the chances of life forming on Earth (from before it actually happened)? 75%? 10%? I suppose it's not a straight either-or situation (either life formed as we understand it or we're in a simulation) because if we are in a simulation, it would entail the entire (possibly slim) probability of life along with it. I remember one of my professors bringing this up in class very recently. He had a deja-vu moment while he was teaching the lesson. He said he dreamed the moment the night before and it was impossible for him to know beforehand, and was "times like these when I am most sure I am living in a computer simulation". Life is so damn weird that it seems very improbable for everything has happened to have happened (from biogenesis on up). Yet, in the end I can't disagree with Nitrous (this time....lol). edit: found from this page... "The simulation-hypothesis is not testable in the sense that we have the practical capability to go out and perform an experiment that could conclusively refute the hypothesis. But most theoretical science is untestable in this sense, so this is not a very useful criterion for whether something is worth taking seriously. The simulation argument is best seen as an empirically grounded probabilistic consistency constraint, rather than as a scientific hypothesis with a concomitant program of direct experimental investigation."
Ummm..... What? This makes no sense. The condition doesn't necessitate the conclusion. in any way. it's like saying, "If we have the technology to simulate rain, then all rain in our lives is simulated by something else." Which makes no sense. Also I think someone read/watched the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy one to many times. I wish I could sit on my ass at Oxford, make **** up, and get paid for it.
Which is why I reject any and all science that has untestable predictions because it does not fulfill all scientific criterion. If a hypothesis is supported by evidence, then it's testable. If a hypothesis makes a prediction, then its testable. If it does neither of these things it is either inaccurate or nonscience, respectively. So if you are putting String theory, or some other theoretical science, in comparison with Simulation theory I have no disagreement. However, if you are not testing Simulation theory and have no way of testing simulation theory then it is not on the same grounds as String theory which leads me to reject it outright and give String theory parley, if you will.
Okay I personally do not believe in this because it seems very crazy however I do see this as a sign of something else and for nay moderator that would disagree with this topic has to do with what I have to bring read before you judge... To