• Shawn
    12.6k
    I just read an amazing op-ed by Elon Musk yesterday about simulation theory, and the probability we're in one. Following are some quotes from him:

    ====

    You could argue that any group of people — like a company — is essentially a cybernetic collective of human people and machines. That’s what a company is. And then there are different levels of complexity in the way these companies are formed and then there is a collective AI in Google search, where we are also plugged in like nodes in a network, like leaves in a tree.

    We’re all feeding this network without questions and answers. We’re all collectively programming the AI and Google. […] It feels like we are the biological boot-loader for AI effectively. We are building progressively greater intelligence. And the percentage that is not human is increasing, and eventually we will represent a very small percentage of intelligence.

    The argument for the simulation I think is quite strong. Because if you assume any improvements at all over time — any improvement, one percent, .1 percent. Just extend the time frame, make it a thousand years, a million years — the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Civilization if you are very generous is maybe seven or eight thousand years old if you count it from the first writing. This is nothing. So if you assume any rate of improvement at all, then [virtual reality video] games will be indistinguishable from reality. Or civilization will end. Either one of those two things will occur. Or we are most likely living in a simulation.

    There are many many simulations. These simulations, we might as well call them reality, or you can call them multiverse. They are running on a substrate. That substrate is probably boring.

    When we create a simulation like a game or movie, it’s a distillation of what’s interesting about life. It takes a year to shoot an action movie. And that is distilled down into two to three hours. But the filming is boring. It’s pretty goofy, doesn’t look cool. But when you add the CGI and upgrade editing, it’s amazing. So i think most likely, if we’re a simulation, it’s really boring outside the simulation. Because why would you make the simulation as boring? [You’d] make simulation way more interesting than base reality.

    =====

    I find his argument persuasive and convincing for the simulation hypothesis. I don't think computers are prohibited by the laws of physics to render reality as a simulation, thus is he right in the last piece of the interview?
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    the universe is 13.8 billion years old. — Elon

    we are most likely living in a simulation. — Elon

    When the conclusion invalidates the premises, the argument is weakened.

    That is to say, it is probably more convenient to simulate a universe that is - say - a minute old, but looks 13.8 billion years old, than to run the program for 3.8 billion years, which would be 'boring'. but if the universe is not that old, then the argument somewhat collapses. Elon has to assume the reality of the universe that he wants to argue is likely a simulation.
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    So, what you're really saying is that we are in base zero reality given how old the universe is?
  • apokrisis
    6.8k
    It feels like we are the biological boot-loader for AI effectively. We are building progressively greater intelligence. — Musk

    I think if you understood biology as well as you understood tech, then you would realise how much more amazing the biology still is.

    So this is 99% bullshit.

    Now human culture is amazing. And we are finding all sorts of ways to evolve and augment that through our tech mastery. Machines amplify our control over material reality, giving us a means to act out our fantasies. AI - or really great pattern recognition machines - is one of those kinds of tools.

    But simulation is essentially pointless. Life and mind are about a modelling relation with the world. Simulation appeals because it seems to be modelling without limits. But it is also then modelling without consequences. Someone would have to explain why that would be of any real interest. There is a missing bit to the argument right there.
  • Michael
    14k
    I think he took this from Nick Bostrom's trilemma:

    • 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, or
    • The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero, or
    • The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one

    And he thinks the third is more likely.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    I'm saying the argument is self-undermining. I'm not making any positive claims.

    If simulation, then evidence is simulated.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    So this is 99% bullshitapokrisis

    How so? His argument is sound. As he mentions, at any rate of progress you end up with the consequences of the simulation hypothesis.
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    Yes, I think he just expanded on that rationale.
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    Well if all you're saying is that reality must exist somewhere then I don't disagree with that. But his argument still holds.
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    Well if all you're saying is that reality must exist somewhere then I don't disagree with that. But his argument still holds.Posty McPostface

    Let's call that reality 'the Presence of God'. all things are possible to God. Bla bla... I don't think it is impossible, but I don't think there is an argument either. somehow, when it is dressed up in scientific garb, folks will swallow the most medieval cosmologies and think them both new and plausible.
  • apokrisis
    6.8k
    How so? His argument is sound.Posty McPostface

    So if you assume any rate of improvement at all, then [virtual reality video] games will be indistinguishable from reality. — Musk

    Indistinguishable to who? Are you and me going to be actual real witnesses to this shared simulation, or are we simulations of those witnesses and thus part of the simulation too?

    You think there is an argument here, rather than the usual hand-waving based on having also watched the Matrix?

    At what point is the biology of consciousness shown to be replicable by "computational simulation"?
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Indistinguishable to who?apokrisis

    Any observer or participants of that shared reality.

    Regarding your other question, I think that as long as the laws of physics don't prohibit such a reality from occurring, then it's possible and guaranteed to occur given enough time.
  • apokrisis
    6.8k
    Any observer or participants of that shared reality.Posty McPostface

    But are you claiming those observers/participants to be themselves physically real or computationally simulated? You are failing to flesh out the critical part of the argument. Thus there is no "argument" as such.

    I think that as long as the laws of physics don't prohibit such a reality from occurring, then it's possible and guaranteed to occur given enough time.Posty McPostface

    That's a view. And I say that anyone who understands biology as well as they understand computation can see why its inadequate as "a sound argument".

    So I've asked you to show you understand the biological constraints on "simulating consciousness". But - like Musk - you don't want to clearly commit to having to place your observers/participants on some side of that tricky line.

    The argument is that virtual reality tech can be so good that we don't know the difference. Biology can already be fooled by skilled programming. And we can imagine that fooling progressing exponentially - particularly because we can be so willing to immerse ourselves in the "reality" of our fictional movie and gaming worlds. The laws of physics don't even come into it. The nature of our biology has this in-built capacity to learn to believe anything to be real.

    But it takes real food to nourish the gamer's body. Real diseases can kill it. At some point, civilisation does interrupt the fantasy being spun exponentially here. As Musk also admits....

    Or civilization will end. Either one of those two things will occur.
  • praxis
    6.2k
    The metaphysics supposedly help to account for some quantum weirdness, like entanglement and how information appears to travel faster than light, on the positive side. :razz:
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    But are you claiming those observers/participants to be themselves physically real or computationally simulated? You are failing to flesh out the critical part of the argument. Thus there is no "argument" as such.apokrisis

    The argument is valid either if we're simulations or not. I don't see the issue here.
  • apokrisis
    6.8k
    Which argument are you finding so impressive then - that we are most likely all the figments of a simulation, or that if this were the case, then the reality beyond our simulation would be "boring"?

    If we dismiss the first, what can be said about the second?

    I think you are still stuck with the observer issue. The analogy is that we make movies as a heightened reality - life with the boring bits taken out.

    But it is a higher intelligence - the clever writer or director - that is constructing these heightened realities for us as their consumers. Sure, the filming process might be boring (well even that doesn't ring true). But the world beyond a Matrix simulation isn't going to be some mindless world - a computational substrate that for no reason, in some fashion that is quite different to the laws of physics as we understand them, also wants to generate these heightened realities with fictional observers within them, and no actual observer without.

    If you actually stop to analyse this op-ed for any proper philosophical argument, it is just a bunch of handwaving fragments.

    You can sort of see what Musk is going for there. If the ultimate reality is some kind of computational multiverse, then in blind fashion, that might just construct these random simulations of every kind of reality. And by the workings of infinite chance, that will generate bizarre creations like our world where we are simulated people, in a simulated world, complete with simulated physical laws and simulated biological histories.

    The laws of physics don't seem to forbid this computational multiverse, you say. Again that is totally questionable given the holographic limits on physical computation. But then, by the light of the hypothesis itself, who could even care about this caveat if those laws are just going to be the simulated features of some randomly generated scenario?

    There are just so many holes and loose ends in a short few paragraphs. I see no argument as such. Simply fashionably muddled thought.
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    Are you arguing over the observer effect in QM, and how it might impact a simulated reality? Non-locality and locality would be an issue if we were to live in a simulation, I think.
  • apokrisis
    6.8k
    Again, the claim being made is too confused for QM to be an actual issue. But if the laws of physics are taken as a constraint on the realisation of computational simulations, then you can’t gaily exponentiate that infinite computation ensures anything is then possible.

    And that is before we get on to the biological constraints.
  • Maw
    2.7k
    Elon Musk is proof that just because someone is rich, doesn't mean they are smart.
  • Marchesk
    4.6k
    The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to oneMichael

    One potential problem is that we don't know whether a simulation can include consciousness. The fact that we're

    A. Conscious
    B. Don't have any clue what it would entail to simulate consciousness

    Argues against the likelihood that we're living in a simulation.
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    I'm not sure we're on the same page. Could you distill your qualms with Musk's argument?
  • Marchesk
    4.6k
    The argument for the simulation I think is quite strong. Because if you assume any improvements at all over time — any improvement, one percent, .1 percent. Just extend the time frame, make it a thousand years, a million years — the universe is 13.8 billion years old.Posty McPostface

    But this argument doesn't work for everything. Say we apply it to the speed of transportation. There was a dramatic increase from horse to train, automobile and airplane. But after a certain point, which would be the 60s or 70s with highways, concord jets and trips to the moon, we didn't really increase our speed of transportation, despite continued improvements in technology related to transportation. We leveled out on how fast we move people and things around.

    A similar thing might happen to computing before we reach the amount we would need to actually run an ancestor simulation. What sort of computing resources is it going to take to simulate Earth's history? It will be a tremendous amount, if you want it to be anything like the real world.
  • BC
    13.1k
    I think Mr. Musk should mind his several businesses and leave the universe alone.
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    I believe Musk is creating the conditions with his Boring company and SpaceX, to be able to travel to any part of the world in an hour's time. That's pretty radical if you ask me.
  • Marchesk
    4.6k
    I believe Musk is creating the conditions with his Boring company and SpaceX, to be able to travel to any part of the world in an hour's time. That's pretty radical if you ask me.Posty McPostface

    Sure, along with cold fusion, flying cars, and Martian colonies. We've heard this sort of stuff for decades now. You should see some of the futuristic predictions from the 1950s.
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    I don't understand your pessimism on the matter of those futuristic ideas. They will be a reality in the future if it's economically viable and possible. Which then renders it an engineering problem.

    One thing that Musk is good at is generating interest in more economical and efficient solutions to our current dilemma of transportation (depending on where you live).
  • apokrisis
    6.8k
    Could you distill your qualms with Musk's argument?Posty McPostface

    Are you taking the piss?
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    No, good Sir. I am wondering what exactly are your qualms with the argument. All I could figure out given my limited understanding was that you thought biological organisms are far too complex to simulate. Is that correct?
  • BrianW
    999
    Is Elon Musk (or any of us) part of this simulation? If so, then it's that real. That is, a simulation is real to its objects/subjects. Right...? And how do we come to realize it's a simulation? We must have a reality (or non-simulation) to compare it with, right...? If we're not part of the simulation, then what are we?
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Its such a lazy argument.

    Over a long enough time-span, any bullshit scenario I make up is more likely to be the case because time. Time, therefore, [insert bullshit scenario here] is very likely.
  • apokrisis
    6.8k
    Sure. That would be one of the things in demand of support to constitute an argument.

    Where is it plausible that any amount of computational simulation adds up to be anything like a conscious biological organism?

    I realise it is fashionable to take it for granted. But enough science exists to say let’s see a little more evidence and a lot less handwaving.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.