The Simulation Argument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- 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"
Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons...
Website: www.smartbydesi...
Facebook: goo.gl/cBvvZj
When you are living as a billionaire and then someone trips into the electrical cord
And you find yourself in an alley all dirty with a cardboard box
Thanks, Luci
Well the graphics are okay, but I can't figure out what I'm supposed to do.
Life sim. Highly inaccurate. Not very fun. 0/5 stars. Do not recommend.
@@NikoleClayton you have to get to the chopper
Are you kidding me? My user’s interface must’ve come with a bug called ‘shortsightedness’ which requires the paid ‘glasses’ DLC
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.
I want to hear more of what you have to say.
That leaves the question if something can even exist objectively. Who measures what/how something really is if their respective means of measurement are still based on something subjective
Speak English please 🤔
Exactly what I expected in the video before watching
The statement of the video is just about other sentient beings writing code so complex that it simulates other sentient beings who can write code that creates more sentient beings and so on, it was in no way meant to compare ourselves with the way the universe creates. No need to over complicate or use philosophy.
If you like this subject I suggest a movie titled "the thirteenth floor "
I like that movie.😍
Most people think of The matrix when they think of movies based on this subject but the thirteenth floor is a true mind blower, and more closely relates to the subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_on_a_Wire to me it is the best ua-cam.com/video/Kob-oywkvBk/v-deo.html
@@car103d Account terminated.
@@AppleOfThineEye It was just an episode of I dream of Jennie in which she blinked a thirteenth hotel floor…
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?
@John Like procedural generation, I'd imagine this is an AI thing
@John Exactly, just let an AI do it after we all die off, lol
In what other way do you think we'll go extinct, John?
That would fall under the first category, as we would die off before we reach that state (because the state is unachievable).
Just accept your fate, man...
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!
the first possibility remains true until it isn't. building a simulation isn't possible until one day we are capable of doing so. then we have two choices, build one or not.
Paul I think in this case, he means actually impossible, like no matter how advanced we get we will never be able to create a fully operational simulation that feels entirely life like. If the feat is truly impossible, then option 1 would make the most logical sense because we would have to be extinct before creating something that can’t be created. In this scenario, you have to understand that it’s not “impossible today”, it’s “impossible forever”.
kammerer396 Yeah, that's exactly it. I'm sure that our technological abilities will continue to grow in the near future, but that doesn't mean they're limitless. We have no proof that such a technology is possible.
Why would you think it is impossible?
We can already simulate parts of our brains to the atom level. Not even close to all of it and not in real time, but just imagine yourself in a thousand years, which is nothing compared to the age of the earth. Just think about the past 50 years of technological advance in computers... Right, there barely were any computers at that time. And that's less than the average human life span.
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
Divine programmers, please don't remove the ladders from my swimming pool
If simulations never existed, no one would have thought of this theory. Think about it.
Yo dawg, I heard you like simulations so I put a definition simulation inside your simulation
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?
=NOPE,IT'S ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION...IN REALITY IT'S LIKE IT'S BASICALLY OKAY AND NO SIMULATION WHATSOEVER
=BECAUSE OF YOU STOPPED YOUR MENTAL DEVELOPMENT WHEN YOU'VE HIT YOUR "CRITERIA OF HUMANITY OF YOUR WORLD OF HUMANS" WHICH MAKES YOU LIKE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE USE FROM "OUTER WORLD" BY THE "RIGHT OF HUMAN"........
=LIKE AS CHILD YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO.......LIKE,,UMMM..WELL......USE HELPING GADGETS LIKE CALCULATOR!!......SO YOU TO MEMORIZE EVERYTHING AND ABOUT TO BE ABLE TO DO COUNTING ON PAPER......AND IF YOU'RE ABOUT TO TRY TO USE CALCULATOR OR LIKE TO WATCH SOMETHING SOMEWHERE ON SOME SITUATIONS,YOU'LL ULTIMATELY WILL GET BANNED ...........BUT "RIGHTFUL HUMANS" ALWAYS USE EVERY SORT OF GADGETS...........AND DO NOT KEEP EVERYTHING IN MEMORY.......... *BECAUSE OF THEY DO HAVE RIGHT TO DO SO* =......AND THEY'RE LIKE ABOUT TO HAVE RIGHT TO DEMAND USE FROM EVERYONE HUMANS WILL WANT,LIKE CHILDREN........YEAH.......................IT'S ABOUT CRITERIA OF HUMANITY OF "WORLD OF THOSE WHO DIDNT ARRIVE AND ALREADY WAS"..........
=OR WHY BLACK PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO USE THE N WORD AND WHITE PEOPLE DONT......BECAUSE OF IT'S LIKE THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT "HUMANS OF WORLD OF AMERICAN BLACK PEOPLE" DO HAVE.............OR THE OPPOSITE.....IN CASE OF HISTORIC SLAVERY.......
=EVERYTHING'S THE SAME=...........SO IT'S ALL ABOUT TRAINING,LIKE ANIMAL TRAINING......AS MORE AS PERSON IS BEING TRAINED,AS MORE PERSON'S IMAGINATION DO START BUILD "MATRIX"=...................BUT IN REALITY......EVERYTHING'S MUCH SIMPLIER=................
@@robotnikkkk001
Why do you have to start your comment with "="
Why do you WRITE ONLY IN CAPSLOCK?
And lastly why do I give a shit?
just a tip try to articulate yourself before writing.
@@NoSTs123 hes being sarcastic
@@robotnikkkk001 thnak u for saying to thrm that matrix isnt real they Just dont know what is PHYSICS and art
Why would there be a simulation? What is there to get?
Exactly it isn’t useful at all
This is like the movie the matrix starring Keanu Reeves about a character named Neo who realizes he was in a stimulation.
PhatCrayonz please tell me more about this movie the matrix starring Keanu Reeves about a character named Neo who realizes he was in a simulation.
Keanu reeves beeing in a STIMULATION... title of his sextape prob... xD
@@Katana2097 hahahahhahahaha
@@Katana2097 yes I need to know more about this movie starring keanu reeves where he's in a simulation and red pill blue pill. sounds like it'd be a very popular movie
Mind blowing
Just because we COULD run real simulations in the future where the subjects don't know it's a simulation, doesn't mean we would, especially not to this extent. It makes no sense at all to believe we live in a simulation, but it's something to think about for sure
Exactly
we have already created simulations that are smarter than us, and they will know they are simulations. It can be argued we are less smart simulations than what we have created as we haven't fully figured that out yet exactly how we are coded(DNA).
maybe we are a simulation designed to create. there are levels to computer games, first levels in our simulation is biological, we are the final level before the technological levels.
then come nano levels, but as things progress things become less and less tangible and existence becomes mere signals until there's not even a receiver and entropy is complete. so maybe the point is to run simulations until long term growth and meaning is found, but it never will be.
@@davenixon456 What would be some examples of simulations that are smarter than us?
I want what he's on.
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.
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.
We will be able to run simulations if the technology advancing, and it does. It would be selfish to think that we are the first ones who could creat millions of universes.
Whoa hold on dude, we live in the universe. Other planets and shit we don't know about exists in the universe. We've been able to analyze, what, potentially the smallest fraction of a potentially infinite sample size? If you are accounting for possibilities, your argument is a deux ex machina and buying into that is pretty base.
All I can think of is that one Rick and Morty episode about simulations lol
I think people need to take 2 steps back. Our bodies and our consciousness is real, but we spend so little time interacting with the real world around us, that we might as well already be wired into simulated reality through our phones, social media and video games. Think how much time we live just sitting in one place, looking at a liquid crystal monitor or phone screen.
The use of technology IS interacting with the real world.
I think the argument is better put this way: if we have millions of living cells inside of us, then we are most likely the cells of a much larger organism. That cuts the whole technology aspect out as well as assumptions that other universes must be like our own or that we are just avatars of hyperdimensional beings.
like in horton hears a who?
Just recently discovered this video on shared post on X.
My thoughts and doubts:
Very interesting. My question is, how long will it take our humanity to fully develop a simulated world? counting from the moment we were created. With that variable we can assume how many simulations exist.
One more thing, could it be that simulations are created to try to understand the simulators? Simulators technology is so advanced that we are not able to break out of the simulation. hmm
We are not in a simulation. I figured out why we were not the other day and was going to write it down, but I forgot to. Now I'm seeing this video and totally forgot the explanation for why we're not. I'll think about it again.
Tell us
@@albaniansausage4556 I remembered some of it, but haven't given it another "in-depth" thought. Part of it was using both deductive and inductive reasoning to determine if we were in a simulation, then who created it. I can't remember how I determined it, but it was basically the same as how Rich Sanchez did. If Aliens made the simulation, then they would make mistakes enough for use to realize it.
rick and morty
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.
If we assume, that each layer of reality builds one and only one simulation, there is only a 50/50% chance, that we live in a simulation. Why? Because we haven't created a simulation yet. That means that either we are real (the first, real, reality), or that we are the last in a string of simulations (we don't know how many), and haven't created our own simulation within simulation yet.
That said, why would anyone want to perfectly recreate their own world? We have games, but they are far from even attempting to simulate reality exactly. And why would anyone create a simulation where the playable characters and NPCs are self-aware?
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 !!
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?
Yeah that's how valid arguments work. The conclusion can only be true when the first two statements are true.
The premise is based on only those three options exist. There could be a 4th option, where civilizations are not simulations, but build simulations.
Would the hypothesis that we exist within a simulation necessitate testable outcomes that could be probed?
Bostrom says that if we are living in a simulation, our simulators would be technologically advanced enough to make it so we wouldn't be able to find out. Which is convenient...
+jarick cammarato On Testing the Simulation Theory: www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IJQF2017v3n3p2.pdf
The idea of accepting a possibility does not mean that that possibility is true. As long as we accept that technology may eventually reach the point where this is possible, which can be done by redefining our vision of technology, there is always a non-zero chance that this is a possible truth. However, no argument put forth mandates that that chance be 100%
you can't question if you are in a simulation if you are in a simulation
I would argue that it's not possible to have an infinite number of universes simulated within a universe as it would require an infinite amount of energy/data storage in the top level universe. I think it'd only work if you ended up with simulated universes with infinitesimal amounts of data/energy, but we know this isn't the case for our own observable universe. It's more plausible to argue that you could have a finite number of simulated universes, where the energy and data storage at each level of simulation decreases until there is no longer the energy required to simulate something we would recognise as a universe. Personally can't see a reason to believe this though, much less a reason we should care if it was true
Ah, philosophers. Forever positing the current conditions and logically extending them with no real basis in reality. Is the thought of a unicorn a real thought? Yes, it is.
I don't mind if we are living in a simulation but please, can someone give me the cheatcode for unlimited money?
This one is just silly. It seems like it excludes the possibility of a first civilization to kickstart the process.
4d creatures are just fucking with us
I just wish the simulation I live in had a rewind button.
I think if a civilization was intelligent & advanced enough to create an impervious simulation, they would build it so that it could not create such a simulation of it's own. Unless they were advanced enough to have a formulated rationale for doing so (e.g. the perpetuity of "mankind")
How come birth, death, disease, pain, cruelty etc and not perpetual bliss crept into the mega simulation? Or do we each have our own simulation....some with permanent Nirvana?
I found this discussion very simulation.
Well read
The Bhagwat Gita
In english or watch video of it.
To know about it or to know about life irrespective of your religion or believe.
This will definitely help all even for a theist.
If we are in a simulation, we would be highlighted on "worst MMO ever" channel by the equivalent of JSH.
It simply isn’t a falsifiable claim, which is why I’m not convinced it is true.
The third possibilty should be “you COULD be living in a simulation” it shouldnt be an axiom. The fact that humanity can create simulations does not mean you are in one. It means you could be in one and there will be no way of knowing it (maybe only if you are outside the simulation?)
I don’t care if it’s a simulation as long as it’s multiplayer, because it would suck if everyone else is fake.
So there is a creator?
I feel like this is an example of troll statistics.
Ah simulation theory. The religion for those who don't want to believe in God!
=NOPE,THAT'S JUST A *HUMANITY CRITERIA* IN TYPE OF "HUMAN WORLDS" AS "WORLD OF BELIEFS"
....IT'S LIKE "OR YOU DO BELIEVE AND YOU'RE HUMAN AND YOU HAVE RIGHTS,OR YOU DO NOT BELIEVE AND NOT HUMAN AND DONT HAVE RIGHTS AND DESTINED TO SERVE AS SLAVE TO HUMANS FOR ETERNITY OR DIE RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW!!".....
=BUT ACTUALLY ANOTHER HUMANITY CRITERIAS WONT DISAPPEAR,SO IT'S LIKE IF YOU EVEN TO ENTER "WORLD OF SOME RELIGION YOU WANTED TO BECOME PART OF".............YOU'LL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HUMAN ANYWAYS,BECAUSE OF YOU'LL NOT UNDERGO BY CRITERIAS OF:RACE,NATION,OCCUPATION,OR EVEN ABOUT YOU TO ALREADY BE THERE TO NOT BECOME A NEWBIE BECAUSE OF EVERY HUMAN DO KNOW THAT NEWBIES ARENT HUMANS.......................OR OPPOSITE ABOUT THAT CERTAIN ONE,ABOUT "ONLY NEWBIES ARE HUMANS SO OLD ONES MUST GO TO GIVE LIVESPACE TO NEWER ONES!!"........................YEAH
...........BASIC STRUCTURE OF ALL "WORLDS OF BELIEFS":
-HUMANS WHO DO BELIEVE TO BE HUMANS(HUMAN WORLD)
-THOSE WHO PROVE THAT HUMANS DO RIGHT THING ABOUT DO BELIEVE(FRIENDS OF HUMANS)
-ENEMIES OF BELIEF{HOSTILE OUTER WORLD)
=CAN BE APPLIED TO EVERY RELIGION OR WHATSOEVER,LIKE CREATIONISM OR FLAT EARTH OR EVERY NONSENSE CAN BE MET AND HAVE FOLLOWERS=........................
=I THINK THAT WAS A DETAILED ENOUGH EXPLANATION=.................
Step 1, define God so we know which one you are talking about
Step 2, prove your God exists
Step 3, there is no step 3 because we have yet to get past step 2.
@@emptyhand777
God = creator of the universe
Simulation theory = believing in a God but doing it in a way that you don't have to call it God
Matrix confirmed.
Shut up
This argument actually falls apart or at least the high probability that we are living in a simulation part of it does when you account for the fact that because we haven’t made this technology yet, we would have to be either the last world in the chain of simulated worlds or we are the real world. Meaning it’s really 50/50. There you go now you know :)
The human mind when cut off from symbiosis with nature may create similar aberrations.
You mean paradox. You can neither prove nor disprove that you are living in a simulation. In addition, you can both prove and disprove this simultaneously. Neo in the Matrix thought what he was experiencing was reality; however, someone OUTSIDE the Matrix had to pull him out for him discover this falsehood of reality.
I don't know. I chose the blue pill.
Even if we were why would they tell us?
I don't know this sounds very similar to Numberphile's almost every number has a three in it: ua-cam.com/video/UfEiJJGv4CE/v-deo.html
so is got also simulated? witch means god is real put also just part on the program
Google this short story: "I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility". Quite fun.
With 6G,its possible to live in a computer simulation
nonsense. These silopsists idealists had a good rebuttal when they were asked to experience pain. (Ah it is a simulation)
Oh mister intelligent, I see your point. Pain aka suffering very specifically. But can u explain these :
1.what am i? Why am i? Why am i here? Where is it? Abd why where ( space) and time( when) exist? IT DOES EXIST THO BUT AS IF IT DOESN'T.
2. How the universe can begin from nothing. It just can't. Something has to be their fir it to spawn up. Ya? But there was no "Time" before big bang. So something "existed" would be wrong way to describe it...
@@abohariomolla8171 who is Mickey mouse? Why does he exist? Where does he live? Why cany neutrino not speak to humans in their language? Why do atoms have to make signs? These are more relevant questions. And need pressing resolution. You see all these questions are either irrelevant or meaningless. And why do we need explantion for all such things. Be a Buddhist and eschew metaphysics and theology of all sort. It only confused the mind.
@@suvirmisra2730...
simulation inception... simulinception...
Simception nerd
I choose number fifty six.
Who says that there are only three possible choices?
I serious doubt we are a simulation, great claims requires great proofs.
If you have a fourth possibility - it's not a "choice" by the way - by all means, articulate it.
I'm not watching this whole video because whoever came up with those three points is an idiot. If one had to choose just between those three, then our current reality would be number two. Not because we are uninterested in simulations, but because the kinds of simulations that are matrix-level (meaning, the kind we would be living in if we were living in one) do not exist and no one is trying to create them. A simple fourth point, our civilization is the first and only technologically advanced civilization, would preclude any possibility of us living in a simulation and is the one most likely to be true.
People are indeed trying to create them or at least explore the possibility of doing it
www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/researchers-studying-can-achieve-matrix-level-immersion-virtual-reality/amp
It is weird
Some things happen to me and me alone, things that I know are designed to test me personally and I'm 100% convinced of this.
We kinda are but probably not in a computer but the universe it the universe can simulate it's self and heaven is the real world
nah bollocks mate life’s a fucking miracle enjoy urself
Totally Simception
Thwaskph
TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you propose, and this is what I am proclaiming to you. The God who made the world and everything in it Acts 17 vs 22 to 27... For in him we live and move and have our being vs 28 Bible
We are living in a simulation where déjà vu is a glitch.
I was the 1000th like! Yay for me!
7univers ans one God.
Did you have a stoke there buddy
I don't know about you, But I'm living in a simulation 😪😪😪
Dont listen to him hes stupid ur not in simulation lol
@@Enigmatic220 Yes, instead we should listen to someone like you, who can't even be bothered to write "you're"
Sure. Right away, Captain.
@@AppleOfThineEye i Just wanted to Say we are not living in simulation its real life
@@AppleOfThineEye then i Got the vid wrong :/ So dont start arguing about it
@@Enigmatic220 Don't tell ME not to argue about something after you put the creator on blast for something he didn't do. Coward. Own your mistake.
Creationism for atheists
really bad math and logic by you for uploading this information