Simulation Hypothesis and Argument Explained
The Podcast between Joe Rogan and Nick Bostrom was my introduction to the simulation hypothesis and argument. And, yes! Those are two different ideas. Since their podcast an article has been cooking in my mind. I think that there’s an issue which makes these ideas sound more complicated than they actually are, especially the simulation argument. I will try to simplify it and with some luck, you will see how simple it really is. At the end, once you truly understand these ideas a different level of analysis opens up which gives simulation hypothesis it’s proper place.
Simulation Hypothesis Explained
Simulation hypothesis is a rather simple claim, motivated by advancements in our own ability to create artificial virtual environments. It proposes that we’re living in a computer generated simulation. Sort of like in the Matrix. It claims that besides the real world there’s also a world or worlds that are simulated by a computer or something analogous. The Matrix movies creates a good image though unlike in the Matrix, if you we’re to simulate the brain then there would be no reason to have bodies in the real world. The simulated people could exist only in the simulation.
Simulation Argument Explained
There are plenty of problems with the simulation hypothesis. One of the big ones is the fact that it’s unfalsifiable — there’s no way to prove it wrong. There are no conditions under which you could say that it’s false and that’s not a good thing. A philosopher, Nick Bostrom noticed the unconstrained nature of the simulation hypothesis and wanted to constrain it to fewer coherent possibilities. That’s where the simulation argument comes in play. It’s an attempt to constrain the hypothesis to 3 possible scenarios. Additionally Bostrom created a mathematical model to attribute probabilities to each scenario. Where in lies the problem of complexity in his argument. Mathematics require precise and nuanced definition of the problem, variables and their interplay. If you straight up “translate“ a mathematical equation into spoken language then you get one needlessly complicated explanation. That’s precisely the case with the simulation argument and that’s what I will try to remedy.
His argument consists of 3 possible scenarios, at least one of them is true. His first scenario is that,
“The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero.”
By high-fidelity ancestor simulation he means a simulation where you have conscious humans interacting in a way that’s indistinguishable from reality. If we put the first scenario in simpler terms then it means that ,it is impossible to create simulations with conscious humans in it. This statement can ether be true or false. If it’s false then you know that you’re not living in a simulation. If not, then the second scenario comes in play,
“The fraction of post human civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero.”
Meaning that anyone who would get the capability to create simulation would chose not do it. The implication here is that the ability to make a simulation doesn’t automatically lead to one being made. There has to be a will to make it, if it doesn’t exist then you’re not living in a simulation. If however, it is possible to make simulations and there’s will to make them then the third scenario has to be true,
“The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.”
Meaning that given the ability and motivation to create simulations, they are made and your living in one. The reasoning here is rather simple as well — simulations will breed more simulations which will lead to a state where the amount of simulated worlds substantially outweigh the originated realities. It’s a positive feedback loop. If you can and do create simulations then people in the simulations will also be able to create and would create simulations and on and on it would go. If for example there is one real world and 100 billion simulated words then I’d bet my money on the probability that I am living in a simulated world.
Problems With Simulation Hypothesis and Argument
The simulation argument is fairly sound though I have a problem with it. I will illustrate it with my own argument which I call the 2+2 argument. My first point is that if 2+2 is not larger than four and that if 2+2 is not smaller than 4 then the probability that 2+2 is 4 is 100%. I can put it in a similar language to the simulation argument,
“The fraction of results that reach a number above 4 after adding 2+2 is very close to zero.”
“The fraction of results that reach a number below 4 after adding 2 + 2 is very close to zero.”
“The fraction of results that reach 4 after adding 2 + 2 is very close to one.”
The 2+2 argument is an overly complicated way of showing that 2+2 is 4 and that’s the problem I have with the simulation argument. It adds additional complexity without giving much in return. The simulation hypothesis has bigger problems…
If you for some reason worried about the fact that you’re living in a simulation, there’s an obvious question that has to be solved first. Is it even possible at all to simulate reality to such a degree that it becomes reality of it’s own? That’s where the puck should stop. That question is immensely complicated and as with every big problem if you’re interested in solving it you have to split it into smaller problems. One of the “smaller” problems, is whether it’s possible to simulate consciousness? We don’t even know how consciousness comes about, we don’t know which part of the brain is responsible for generating it, we don’t know the mechanisms of consciousness. The next “smaller“ problem is, how on earth could you simulate the unconscious part of the mind? The funny thing about unconscious is that we’re unconscious of it’s mechanisms, that’s why it’s called the unconscious… How are you going to simulate something of which you’re unconscious of?
Let’s assume that simulating the whole human body, I mean every atom in the body and every interaction of every atom (that equals to 10 to the power of 28 atoms, that’s 10000 times more atoms than there are stars in the Universe). Let’s assume that by simulating it, we would create the conscious and the unconscious and everything you would expect to see in a normal human being. Then there’s the little problem of needing pretty much infinite computing power to generate a single human being without any environment. Why would you assume that there are no hard limits to computing power?
These were first 3 problems that came to my mind. I bet if you actually tried creating a simulated world the you would run into plenty more. The practical problems to actually simulate anything that would even resemble reality are immense beyond imagination. The only thing that’s powerful enough to get beyond these problems and then open the door to the contemplation of the fact that we’re in a simulation is a belief in a computer as a God.
What Simulation Hypothesis is Really About
Everything I pointed to previously has been already pointed out by somebody else. The reason I made this essay is because I think that this problem has to be solved on a different level. People since time immemorial have been projecting their own fantasies onto the unknown. The potential of technology is the epitome of the unknown. And the potential of computers is the epitome of the epitome of the unknown. You can project anything you like and then find a possible reason to justify your fantasy and if it’s unfalsifiable — well, that’s even better.
It’s a similar story with pretty much every fundamentally new technology. It’s easier to get a detached view of large trends by looking at something that’s farther from us. Nuclear technology is the perfect subject — not too far, not too close. People fantasied and spend good amount of money on researching nuclear cars, planes, trains and who knows what else… Back in those times people worried that they won’t work, first of all because you couldn’t make nuclear technology safe enough to put on fast moving, easily colliding objects such as planes, cars or trains. Second reason — abysmal power to weight ratio, if you used radiation shielding — the thing that keeps everyone dying from radiation sickness. Guess what people discovered from trying to create these machines? The obvious. They would be too dangerous and the power to weight ratio — made everything unpractical.
There’s fantasies that went much farther than that. There’s also all of the fantasies where the nuclear energy transforms you into a superhero — Hulk, Spider-Man, the blue guy from Watchmen. The Hulk and the blue guy got their superpowers from being exposed to radiation and the Spider-Man got his powers from being bit by a radioactive spider. The thing that in real life leads to organ failure and abysmal death, in fantasy leads to greatness. We could get to logic behind it but not today.
The point is that the potential of new technologies is a doorway for our fantasies to run wild. Computers aren’t any different, as a rule of thumb if I see multiple insurmountable problems, problems so great that there aren’t even any serious theoretical solutions to the sub-problems of the main one. Then the possibility of creating that technology and the consequences of it, aren’t worth worrying about. Simulation hypothesis is our all to human inability to distinguish reality from our own imagination. So, stop dreaming, you’re not living in a simulation.
