I think you are correct to observe that if we base our simulations on our natural world, it stands to reason that if our world is also a simulation then our physics must be inspired by the universe which is simulating ours.

However we don’t know if it goes back into infinite or if it still originates from a true natural world.

It’s extremely intriguing to think about though right? The potential for infinite and finite are both there!

...which is why the simulation hypothesis is useless.

It’s extremely intriguing to think about though — Mark Dennis

Not so much. Rather pointless, actually.

Pointless to you is not pointless to me, it being pointless to you doesn’t stop it from being intriguing, as I am intrigued. Knowledge of something like this serves the purpose that it is probably true or simulation theory is untrue in which case it informs people not to worry about it either way. Which isn’t the same as it being pointless.

Beings may want build a simulator to avoid illness and death. Not sure if the world we live can be justified with any such noble reason. It seems then if are in a simulation it's either a game or some test.

Knowledge of something like this serves the purpose that it is probably true or simulation theory is untrue in which case it informs people not to worry about it either way. — Mark Dennis

It's bad philosophy drawn from pop culture. Another sign of the end times, I suppose, in that it distracts from substantial thinking.

I can live without that kind of satisfaction.

(anyone get the Clanad reference?)

End times for what? Humans or life?

It's bad philosophy drawn from pop culture.

Except pop culture got it from plausible interpretations of the multiverse theory backed up by evidence from experiments in physics and quantum mechanics. Pop culture gets all its inspiration from culture up to and including the culture of science itself. They don’t call it science fiction for nothing. However this one, Simulation theory is still plausible as per the evidence and it is yet to be known if it is pure fiction or not.

Have you read Quantum philosophy by Roland Omnes or any of the works of Michael Lockwood?

Experiments; include double slit and quantum eraser variants of these.

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

It's just act, given the preponderance of theological discussion on these forums, millenarianism seems appropriate.

...plausible... — Mark Dennis

Not so much.

Have you read any real physics?

Yes I have. Kind of a requirement before going into philosophy of quantum mechanics or hard quantum mechanics..

Millenarianism sounds really interesting to me though! Thanks for mentioning that I didn’t know about it before. :)

So you are aware that the multiple universes interpretation lacks any testable outcomes.

A better ancestor to the simulation hypothesis is Descartes's daemon.

Yeah; if you can program well enough, you get to become a god. Sort of a cyber-mormon.

So you are aware that the multiple universes interpretation lacks any testable outcomes.

Yes, however this is due to the difficulty in determining and interpreting test outcomes due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately those pesky electrons keep superpositioning themselves/teleporting themselves around the atoms at every point until we look and we can’t really figure out the behaviour without imagining that the electrons are slipping into other dimensions. (Dimensions not parallel universes, that to me is nonsense).

A better ancestor to the simulation hypothesis is Descartes's daemon.

- @“banno”

Hahaha! Have to agree with you there. Little arsehole/arseholes are probably contributing to global warming in there own stupid reality leaving the computer on for so long... saying that though it could have only been five minutes there, I dunno.

“without imagining that the electrons are slipping into other dimensions.” Sorry, correcting myself; unless they can be interpreted as a wavelength/field. Those are the options as far as I’m aware but I’m a few years out of date

Does the simulation hypothesis also apply to those running the simulation?

If it does, then they are just as likely as the sims to be in a simulation, as are the ones running their simulation, and so on to infinity. It’s simulations all the way down. — NOS4A2

The simulation hypothesis is a self-sorting problem. As the name implies, it only applies to yourself. It asks whether or not what you, personally, experience is the result of a simulation (an ancestor simulation, specifically). So you can't apply the hypothesis to those running the simulation (they could presumably apply it to themselves, and their conclusions may or may not be different).

Thanks for that point, but I don’t quite understand. Do you mean that the simulation hypothesis only applies to sims because sims came up with it, and therefore is limited to that specific simulation?

Thanks for that point, but I don’t quite understand. Do you mean that the simulation hypothesis only applies to sims because sims came up with it, and therefore is limited to that specific simulation? — NOS4A2

The simulation hypothesis is a new take on an old question: is what I experience real. You can't ask that question for other people, because you only have access to your own experience. In that sense, it's not about whether "the world", or some part of it, is being simulated, but rather about whether you can trust your senses.

The simulation hypothesis is a new take on an old question: is what I experience real. You can't ask that question for other people, because you only have access to your own experience. In that sense, it's not about whether "the world", or some part of it, is being simulated, but rather about whether you can trust your senses.

I suppose I hold a different conception of self. I think it’s more about reality in general, basically wether what we experience is real. I can access reality directly by virtue of the fact that I am also my senses, and there is no buffer between sense and reality.

I suppose I hold a different conception of self. I think it’s more about reality in general, basically wether what we experience is real. I can access reality directly by virtue of the fact that I am also my senses, and there is no buffer between sense and reality. — NOS4A2

Isn't what we experience always simply in our heads? Our experience is real whether or not we are being simulated.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "buffer" between the senses and reality. Do you mean that the senses directly inform us of "objective" reality, without any distortions, additions etc.?

Isn't what we experience always simply in our heads? Our experience is real whether or not we are being simulated.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "buffer" between the senses and reality. Do you mean that the senses directly inform us of "objective" reality, without any distortions, additions etc.?

What I mean is I do not believe I am some little being in the head viewing my experience, or that I am viewing any experience at all, but that I am also the senses, the entirety of the body, and I am directly interacting with the world. By “buffer” I mean the assumption that there is some distortion, veil or other barrier between me and reality.

What I mean is I do not believe I am some little being in the head viewing my experience, or that I am viewing any experience at all, but that I am also the senses, the entirety of the body, and I am directly interacting with the world. By “buffer” I mean the assumption that there is some distortion, veil or other barrier between me and reality. — NOS4A2

Right. I can see why the simulation hypothesis wouldn't make any sense to you from that perspective.

But, even if you are your senses, you can still get things wrong. Maybe you're missing some channels (like extra spatial dimensions) or you're constructing patterns that aren't really there. From an epistemological perspective, there is therefore still a difference between your experience and whatever that experience is based on. If it were otherwise, you'd not experience the world, you'd be the world.

Right. I can see why the simulation hypothesis wouldn't make any sense to you from that perspective.

But, even if you are your senses, you can still get things wrong. Maybe you're missing some channels (like extra spatial dimensions) or you're constructing patterns that aren't really there. From an epistemological perspective, there is therefore still a difference between your experience and whatever that experience is based on. If it were otherwise, you'd not experience the world, you'd be the world.

True, my senses do not receive all the data and my brain is equally as fallible. But when I give primacy to direct interaction it becomes more about how I experience than what I experience, more about experiencing reality than experiencing experience. To me, the notion of experiencing experience is a form of solipsism and seek to avoid it.

True, my senses do not receive all the data and my brain is equally as fallible. But when I give primacy to direct interaction it becomes more about how I experience than what I experience, more about experiencing reality than experiencing experience. To me, the notion of experiencing experience is a form of solipsism and seek to avoid it. — NOS4A2

We could reformulate the simulation hypothesis as "your sensory input is modified by some intelligence outside of yourself".

Does the simulation hypothesis also apply to those running the simulation?

If it does, then they are just as likely as the sims to be in a simulation, as are the ones running their simulation, and so on to infinity. It’s simulations all the way down. — NOS4A2

Does it really make sense to call them "simulations" because "simulation" only makes sense if there is a "reality" to compare it to.

We could reformulate the simulation hypothesis as "your sensory input is modified by some intelligence outside of yourself".

I’m skeptical of terms like “sensory input”, “experience” or “phenomenon”. I think leaving it at “reality is a simulation” suffices to make sense of the argument.

That’s a good point. I suppose future humans might use historical records to recreate a reality. I’m not sure what landscape non-human beings would use as a model.

I’m skeptical of terms like “sensory input”, “experience” or “phenomenon”. I think leaving it at “reality is a simulation” suffices to make sense of the argument. — NOS4A2

So long as you recognize it's talking about your subjective reality. As a metaphor, the reasoning for the simulation theory imagines every human that lives in any version of the early 21st century, real and simulated, in a long line, and the first X people in that line lived in the "real" 21st century, while the rest experienced only a simulation. The question it then asks is whether you are among the first X people or the rest. That's why I called it a "self-sorting" problem earlier.

I hold that there is only one reality, and anything “subjective” is merely the point and position from which it is viewed.

I appreciate the clarification of “self-sorting problem”. That makes sense in context of Bostrom’s argument, that we are able to believe or not that we are simulated.

I still can’t see how the argument would not apply to the original people, however.

I hold that there is only one reality, and anything “subjective” is merely the point and position from which it is viewed. — NOS4A2

That doesn't make any sense to me. But I lean towards a constructivist stance on reality.

I still can’t see how the argument would not apply to the original people, however. — NOS4A2

It would apply to them if they asked themselves the same question. But the logic no longer works if, instead of sorting yourself, you're trying to sort other people, too.