Nick Bostrom - The Simulation Argument (Full)

Interview with Nick Bostrom at the Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University - www.simulation-argument.com/ - The simulation argument is continuing to attract a great deal of attention. I regret that I cannot usually respond to individual queries about the argument.
www.simulation-argument.com/si...
ABSTRACT. 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.
Many thanks for watching!
- Support me via Patreon: / scifuture
- Please Subscribe to this Channel: kzbin.info_cente...
- Science, Technology & the Future website: scifuture.org

[@nfinn42]

Meanwhile outside the simulation: "Hey look, one of the sims figured it out! Should we pause the simulation, scrub his program, and reboot him?" "Nah, let him run, none of the other sims will believe him." ^_^

[@julz_and_toby9265]

nfinn42: I mean in some sense that could be true, but if our universe really is a copy of the original universe, then is it possible that the original universe isn’t real? I mean to you it wouldn’t make sense, that we are living in one simulation or in a dozen put the theory does sound like an endless rabbit hole and I don’t think there’s any chance that we could know if the original universe had its original Big Bang, as a matter fact I don’t think that there could be any original universe because the original universe could be another simulation, even if it’s being run by aliens or humans I wouldn’t think that this is possible, there’s no way to deny it because it could be true any original universe could be another simulation, I don’t think there is an original universe so the simulation theory kind of sounds impossible Or if you do believe in it then that means that we came into existence from a endless rabbit hole, Did you hear any scientist or physicist ever say anything about that? I want to hear it from you if you think I’m wrong or right I just want to hear your opinion

[@cloudoftime]

Figuring it out is part of the ancestral simulation process. They would be discovering how they got to the point of creating simulations, which would require coming up with this idea first, so that would actually be expected.

[@fadammte_aggst]

I don't get why it should be "ancestral" at all. If there is 1 simulation, there is (maybe almost) an endless number of different simulations. Some may be only slightly different, some may be completely different. Anyways I could imagine a (or more) simulations, where the simulators went like: Well, we have 4 arms and hands, lets make a simulation where we only have 2 arms and two hands and let's figure out how life like this would be (or would have been). One could imagine this with endless options in differences. I think of genetic manipulations. Before we will genetically engineer the human race, we might be running simulations first, to figure out wich modifications would make the "most sense" to actually realize.

[@spinoyen4756]

Damn!!! ☮️💚

[@kirkmcgraw735]

BandikidMadness could be where string theory fits into the puzzle of reality

[@dwadhams23]

im too high for this shit man

[@templaraxion]

Or not enough high

[@lucashall352]

I'm currently high as fuck lmaoo

[@Nightsd01]

As a software developer I can say that the 'architects' (I like that word) of this simulation wouldn't retroactively erase people's memories. Even for a super intelligent being, it would take far less energy to simply rewind the simulation and change the parameters to fix any glitches. To us humans, our linear experience of time would remain unchanged without having a Men In Black memory erasure moment. The most interesting idea regarding the simulation hypothesis is general relativity itself. When I write software that gets stressed out, like a video game running on an old computer, it tends to slow down and become 'choppy'. The same thing happens to matter in the universe when it attains a high speed, time itself slows down. It's as if the universe is a computer that slows down parts of the simulation so that the energy required to run the simulation stays low.

[@PatriotIzzy]

+Brad Hesse That's something that I had thought about recently! Thank you for bringing it back up to me. It makes total sense.

[@Angloth]

+Brad Hesse Hahah, that truly is a mindboggling thought. Hats off, sir.

[@reezy69]

+Brad Hesse Nice interpretation, but just a small correction, time dilation and length contraction are phenomena predicted (and experimentally verified) by special relativity, not general.

[@nickhill9445]

Perhaps the simulation started at the level of technological maturity of a civilization capable of running such simulations but the clock is running backwards to simulate past events. In which case, our future has in a sense already happened, yet the simulation that we are in may have parameters yet to be fully established to simulate our past. Our memories would therefore be incomplete pictures of the simulation's potential future. It would not be at all strange to us if our memories turned out to be false since the point at which we can resolve the accuracy of a memory would immediately become our future, which we have no way of remembering. This would make any perceived accuracy of a memory an illusion.

[@Icureditwithmybrain]

So god needs a new computer?

[@Joey5ama]

I love how people keep talking about an advanced civilization capable of simulating our universe yet still talk about them as if they use the same technology as us. If they can create our entire reality odds are we cant even begin to grasp their technology. I have seen numerous comments talking about loading your consciousness into RAM........ What makes you think that their computer tech uses ram? If they can create a universe....Think about the scale of that, hell think about scale in general. There are layers of existence that go from microscopic to interstellar, so if that can be simulated by beings then they sure as fuck don't use RAM.

[@ConsoGane]

Joey5ama right. That what i think to. Find it funny how people talk about "Computer Simulation" or "a Game" as they where using same tech as us...

[@ConsoGane]

Maybe their bits and bytes are what we call our "Atoms" but maybe its something diffrent.

[@zarni000]

RAM does not mean the implementation we use for it now. it's a general concept. we use transistor based ram chips. theirs could be atomic based in which case you could fit all the memory of all the computers into a "chip" the size of perhaps a grain of sand or something you won't even be able to see without a microscope.

[@amadexi]

​@@zarni000 RAM means random access memory (which means that you can access any part of it at about the same speed) so it's pretty vague and if you really use it to mean that, you can just say "memory" nowadays. Though what people generally mean by RAM is: 1) fast memory close to the CPU (like cache) 2) volatile memory, which means that the state (information in the RAM) isn't saved when the power is shut down. That's really specific and it's a wild assumption to talk specifically of RAM instead of memory as a general concept we we're talking about "advanced civilization simulations", It's making a lot of irrelevant pre supositions on their hardware and architecture. Especially since computer science theory avoids talking specifics about hardware and is often based on abstract ideas of computers. It's like saying "They can't run a simulation because it's too difficult to fit in in a CD-ROM". That or to say "CD-ROM is a general concept" doesn't make sense.

[@zarni000]

@@amadexi i am quite aware what RAM means. Maybe you should reread what i posted.

[@dane3886]

Rogan should have watched this before having him on.

[@bluesgut]

Dane yeah i was yelling at my speakers

[@dane3886]

@@bluesgut me too.... I hadn't been that mad at Rogan since I heard him use the term "White male privilege" unironically.

[@RegularRegs]

@@bluesgut me too

[@otoolepw]

😂

[@nisachannel7077]

You read my mind. It was excruciatingly painful to see Nick trying to explain to Rogan the basics of the simulation argument over and over again, with several metaphors and analogies but Joe just did NOT get it! Man, the man has no basic grasp of fundamental probability theory!!

[@donkrx7]

"It could be a big window popping up saying: 'You are in a simulation.' " LOL

[@violetdusk1968]

Made me think of the show reboot. It was a show about beings living in a computer.

[@transfettisolat8953]

Everytime when he says "simulation" you have to drink one shot

[@mariakritikosoakes1354]

Bombed by minute 3.

[@vidvoid9488]

This was dangerous, I almost died

[@futurehistory3959]

There's a theory out there called the Transcension Hypothesis. It basically states that the reason we haven't found extra terrestrial life is because they create virtual worlds in which they live in, so they don't bother to explore space...pretty interesting!

[@davidgalindo3553]

OMG your comment is about 6 years old and nowadays reminds me of Meta.

[@scfu]

Great point! We hosted John Smart, the author of the Transcenscion Hypothesis (aka STEM hypothesis) number of times: www.youtube.com/@scfu/search?query=John%20Smart

[@ianoliver2224]

That... doesn't make any sense.

[@manlymanseses6674]

Regarding the second proposition, i think another motive to run such simulations despite ethical concerns would just be to test the nature of reality. Meaning once a civilization gets to the point where they can run such simulations, they can no longer know if their reality is simulated or not. So simulations would be a science if you will.

[@hystericheretic7678]

They know they are not in a simulation when even their greatest computer can't Even get remotely close to even calculating the number of people in their world. Not to mention their land or their omniverses.

[@hystericheretic7678]

You are under the fallacy that everyone and everything is like what you are familiar with. It's not like that at all

[@poidial]

What I never understand is, the first civilisation at Base Reality would have also had this thought. They too would not have known if they were a in a simulation, despite going on to create it (or not).

[@hciasdhi]

so we could acutally be at Base Reality or we could be thousands of levels of simulation down

[@karlkoch9324]

That is Part of the 3rd hypothesis, it's just framed as "we're in a simulation" because of the incredibly high probability that it we are not in base reality (1 real one vs. Millions of simulations)

[@David-uc4hc]

Here, in our reality, it's science that drives us towards the simulation hypothesis, not thought experiments. At a quantum level, the universe works almost exactly how we would expect a computer simulation to work. Particles don't exist unless they are being observed, just like in a game environment where the simulated game world only renders what you're currently interacting with. There's a lot of other aspects of our universe that work like we would expect it to if it were a simulation. I would expect that the 'base reality' people would have lived (or are living) in a universe that likely didn't have these properties. They may have asked the 'brain in a vat' question, but that's not what the simulation hypothesis is suggesting. In this case, we know the universe works like a simulation regardless of our thought experiments. For the people in the base reality, it seems plausible to me that through science, they'd likely easily be able to prove that they are indeed not being simulated.

[@BeardedBill86]

Not neccesarily, the laws of the "base reality" might be self-evidently "real" unlike our universe. We can't know, since a simulation can simulate whatever you want and we can easily imagine universes and laws within those universes vastly different to what we understand about our own. A simulated universe, however perfectly structured would likely have some sort of signature of mind due to the flawed nature of natural minds - unless you believe hyper-advanced AI's simulate the universe, which is also possible (although, motivationally questionable).

[@hafstrat]

poidial I agree.

[@AlexPlugaru]

I followed fragments of this interview and found it very interesting. Thanks Adam for posting the full length of the interview and good job on the editing.

[@juarezcastelo]

Simulator: Are you sure you want to move the Malaysia Flight 370 plane to the Recycle Bin ? Accept - Cancel Posthuman: Accept

[@froilananthony7391]

until now the flight is a mystery nowhere to be found ..it is in the Recycle Bin And we dont know wheres the Bin its placed, maybe its in My documents folder, its not in the desktop.

[@Dudlers95]

They put them on the Lost island bc the series became so shitty in s4 the make an live alternate ending know

[@siggiberger3071]

Maybe the Recycle bin is a black hole?

[@thevillan2604]

maybe The Langoliers got the plane :)

[@Emery586]

Maybe Deja Vu explains the glitches he is referring to, kind of hit me when he mentions their power to rewind or remove the memory of the glitch around 17:50

[@wtalkie]

It hit you? You haven't seen the Matrix?

[@jackcourtier-dutton2201]

De ja vu is a psychological thing which has been proved by biologists to be a 'memory gap filler' when our brains can't process pre-experiences that have already occurred

[@poidial]

Shouldn't there be a fouth proposition in the simulation argument? "That a sustainable and convincing simulation is unachieveable"

[@excessvoltage]

I thought about the same thing. But it seems more likely than unlikely to create such a simulation

[@jjtech195]

So you mean that it will NEVER be possible? Not in a million years? (literally). If the computing power doubles circa every 6 months (Moore's law - and even if it slows down significantly, it doesn't matter) - then why would't it be possible in 1 thousand, or 1 million years (looking from our perspective of progression of time, which can in reality be different outside of simulation)... Some say it can be possible as soon as 50 years.

[@poidial]

jjtech I didn't mention likelihood at all. I think a simulation seems quite possible at some point, maybe sooner than we think. However, this is a "proposition" so all possibilities should be proposed regardless of their probabilities. Moore’s law is based on the past to form trends. Maybe we hit a physical limitation tomorrow, maybe we need a million times the processing power to run a simulation of such a scale. It seems unlikely, and all signs point towards that not being the case, but it is incomplete and almost conceited to exclude "unachievable" as a possible scenario.

[@poidial]

Brian What? How do you figure that? I'm proposing that there could be a physical limitation of Moore’s law that we are approaching or perhaps a fundamental incompatibility between the human brain and a persistant simulation. If the human race goes extinct before achieving the impossible, the fact that it is impossible should be noted as the cause, not our inability to survive to technological maturity. All these propositions suggest that a simulation is inevitable, it is a possiblity that it is not.

[@poidial]

Brian Neat...

[@mococaman]

I think it is interesting that to find the answers to these questions that one must mix science with philosophy and really be able to think outside the box.

[@jackcourtier-dutton2201]

the problem is that they are unanswerable questions, mixing science with philosophy allows one to think outside the box and come up with many theories, but does not in turn lead to any answers

[@xJohnNguyen]

After a mushroom trip, I was touched by a divine being's energy tentacle which seemed to transfer loads of information into my brain. Afterwards, when I looked around my room, it was as if I had an Iron Man user interface of the world. I could see calculations, lines, formulas, the periodic table, quantum changes in particles, time fluctuations, and words everywhere I looked in mid-air. I felt like I had gained some kind of superpower or access to the administrative interface of reality. Unfortunately, it eventually went away after a few hours. However, this made me really believe in the simulation hypothesis. I wish I had took out any audio recorder and read out all the words I saw, but I was too excited in the moment thinking I had become a mini-god.

[@teishastackspaper]

same thing on a mushroom trip i was looking at my phone & my mind said to me you are the most advanced technology on earth that’s why we create technology because we are a technology race ...

[@roachdoggjr3357]

none of this is true

[@milkyway9225]

next time try starting a scientific discussion with ,,so once I was high" lmfao. Look how people will react lmao

[@michelesiciliano2016]

Looks like you were on drugs

[@xJohnNguyen]

@@michelesiciliano2016 The chemical action is very different, so I wouldn't be so quick to write it off if I were you. In many ways, these act as sensory enhancers. I would say it allows us to tap into abilities and senses that we already have within us, but lie dormant during our normal everyday lives. It shows the capabilities of the brain way more than anything out there.

[@hvbris_]

I can imagine a future where the Simulation Hypothesis becomes a form of religion... fascinating

[@ris9813]

Say more?

[@holisticlove6631]

Yeh pretty sure it will. Teaching religions will be ditched and simulation theory will be taught instead. Too much controversy and contradictions in religion. None of this with the simulation hypothesis

[@violetdusk1968]

I think if we are in a simulation it would prove religions to be true because someone would have create it and we most likely made in their image.

[@eddenz1356]

If we are simulated, the creator of the simulation would be be god nog quite the one in classic religions though.

[@eddenz1356]

Would there be simulated heaven and hell too?

[@qwertical]

"We are all in the same boat when it comes to existential risk" - Boström, 2013 Nick, you are killing me with your humour! xD

[@gabrielvarella9925]

To me, the interesting part is that this conversation starts to challenge the very definition of the concepts of what we’re talking about. Ie defining the words we are using in such discussion. I’m super surprised to not see this discussion immediately going In that direction first. And a critical part of the scientific process is to define the parameters of what we are testing in out hypothesis. The argument’s/hypothesis’ concepts here seem more “conceptual” than actually material. Although I understand The deeper you look into the lie the more blurred it gets. And the very act of constructing such concepts brings up questions that challenge the very same concepts. Just like Morpheus’ answer when Neo asks him “is this not real?” Morpheus: “ what is real? How you define real?”

[@Challenge9000]

"There would be conversely many ways in which they could let us know that we were in a simulation if they wanted to do that. There could be a big window popping up in front of you like informing you " Some of these "window popups" include: 1 - Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" 2 - Movies such as Thirteen's Floor, The Matrix, Dark City, The Nines. Inception. I'm sure you guys can find more examples.

[@Joshua_Froschauer]

Total Recall Oh...and Bostrom's Simulation Theory

[@selvmordspilot]

I just realized why they'd create the simulation... To observe whether the simulated people decide to flip the switch.

[@aSASa45454]

selvmordspilot ?

[@Thetwinkly]

selvmordspilot And create a simulation of their own?

[@Tio_Remi]

Thetwinkly i don´t think we have such power. is the same as a sedated caged lion.

[@ianoliver2224]

That doesn't make any sense!

[@scfu]

ultimately, if the thing inside the simulation _functions_ just like the thing outside the simulation, what does it matter?

[@blues_guitar_string3733]

There is some wonderful music at the start of the video. It is a fragment from Bach's 3rd cello suite (the prelude). Often played on the guitar, as it sounds like it might be here.

[@Edralis]

thanks for the identification!

[@Fabiocomplejo]

Hello. First that all thank you very much for your videos. They're very interesting and accurate. May I ask you a question? May I use one of your videos (Nick Bostrom - The Simulation Argument) for put it translated into my spanish channel? I think it will be very informative por the spanish speakers. Thank you very much again. Fabio.

[@scfu]

Hi, I'd prefer to keep my interviews unique to my channel - a sincere thanks for asking! Others just take my material without asking or even providing a reference. It would be good to get the interview translated into Spanish - though I would like to have the video uploaded to my youtube channel.

[@HiAdrian]

KZbin supports subtitle files, so there's no need to upload a separate video just to add a translation.

[@Scientist_Albert_Einstein]

Very interesting! however this hypothesis still leaves unanswered questions. What was the first civilization to run a simulation? and why was that civilization the first one to originate in the real world?

[@osuf3581]

+Scientist Albert Einstein I think these questions are relevant regardless of whether our world is a simulation or not, and conditioned on having such answers and us making a simulation, the answers of your case are answered as well. Meaning, they are interesting questions but I do not see how they could be counterarguments to the simulation argument.

[@speedoflight33]

There was no begining ... everything runs in an endless loop !

[@drawnhere]

There's obviously a civilization that would have been the first one to originate in the real world. although most certainly many many civilizations originated at the same time across the universe.

[@EvaLasta]

@@speedoflight33 lol cringe. Explain?

[@michalandrejmolnar3715]

I think a really interesting question would be how that outcome is influenced by evolution. What if every evolutionary development results in a civilization creating a simulation?

[@TubeConscious]

There is one crucial assumption - The civilization is able to create and run simulation. However to create the simulation of an universe similarly complex to ours, we would need to assume it has infinite memory (or that the computer create memory from nothing ). Without stating this assumption, all other arguments are invalid, as we could only create simpler universe, that would create even more simple ( it can't be infinite ).

[@spatters1971]

TubeConscious I was going to suggest similarly that there is a fourth possibility, that such simulation is not possible. But I don't understand why you think there would be a need for infinite memory. That assumes our universe is infinite, which is not necessarily the case.

[@TubeConscious]

Let's imagine the computer having 4GB of memory, to run the simulation in it, you can't use again 4 GB, bacause the original universe would not have space to exists. So you need to take just sub-part of the memory, that would consecutively create the simpler universe. And that universe could only create the simpler simulation again ... No matter how complex the original universe is, we would fast (exponentially ) come to the simulation that is so simple, that it is not able to simulate anything. There are two solutions, that get on my mind: 1) The universe can create memory out of nothing (potential infinity) 2) We can make the simulation the same complex, but running slower in the time: - we allocate 1 GB for the simulated universe, which will run 4 times slower, however the hypothetical creatures living in that universe, would feel the same as we do, as also their biological processes would be logically slower.

[@spatters1971]

We're talking about much larger memory spaces here but at the quantum level I'm not so sure the same rules apply. In any case you kind of do get to use at least some of the same memory again because the memory of the outer system is arranged in such a way that the inner system uses it, albeit possibly less efficiently. The idea is not far off from the concept of emulation in modern computing. Again, what if quantum computing allows us approach 100% efficiency. But even at 10% or 1% or 0.000001% we're not dealing with infinity. Our universe is effectively finite even if it is theoretically infinite, and while I grant you that it might require a much larger universe to simulate, we already suspect that our universe is part of a much larger reality. Any finite 4d space is a tiny fraction of a larger 11d space. Is that what we're seeing? And why stop there? There's no telling how many dimensions base reality could have.

[@spatters1971]

We're talking about much larger memory spaces here but at the quantum level I'm not so sure the same rules apply. In any case you kind of do get to use at least some of the same memory again because the memory of the outer system is arranged in such a way that the inner system uses it, albeit possibly less efficiently. The idea is not far off from the concept of emulation in modern computing. Again, what if quantum computing allows us approach 100% efficiency. But even at 10% or 1% or 0.000001% we're not dealing with infinity. Our universe is effectively finite even if it is theoretically infinite, and while I grant you that it might require a much larger universe to simulate, we already suspect that our universe is part of a much larger reality. Any finite 4d space is a tiny fraction of a larger 11d space. Is that what we're seeing? And why stop there? There's no telling how many dimensions base reality could have.

[@TubeConscious]

yes, what you say make sense and so it is possible our universe is the simulation in some other. I have just missed the assumption of infinity in the video, that I have found crucial for the theory to make sense.

[@Gig5q1]

Errors in the sim are subject to 1) discovery 2) willingness to correct 3) resources to correct. Like many products today, small bugs, irregularities, non-fatal errors need never be corrected unless prioritized to do so. Also, discovery of flaws/errors is an excellent metric to guage the sim's maturity.

[@scfu]

Yeah glad you enjoyed it! I still have a couple of more interviews with people from FHI that I will upload soon.

[@geoffsaunderson3601]

whats disturbing is he is assuming if a future entity had created a simulation of the past they would deem it un-ethical for us to suffer pain / distress ect, and if they dont deem that unethcal where does it all lead

[@scfu]

If one had the power to create/simulate a universe from scratch, would one design in suffering, or omit to design it out? If so why? Some of the possible reasons: a) the simulator does not value valence/raw feels, or is indifferent b) experimenting with emergent phenomena to see nth-order effects that may be difficult to accurately predict without a simulation (with pain/suffering in it) c) ancestor sim (the simulator can't go back in time, and is trying to simulate something akin to it's history perhaps so it can understand its origins) d) the simulator sees value in suffering/pain (that we don't) e) the simulator is the devil f) (despite the question) there is no simulator (if intelligent life were the object of the simulation - why would the simulator be so wasteful with all the empty space and seemingly inconsequential matter/energy?)

[@uniquesensitivesnowflake7366]

Adam Ford or the creator is playing with us like sims

[@labradoodleandpalz]

geoff saunderson I think that without the perspective negative emtions give us, we would be unable to experience positive ones. So, at least to some degree, it could be moral to create hardship intentionally.

[@akzual50]

Adam Ford space doesn't take up space. If it did, GTA V would be impossible to play. Space doesn't exist. Distance between particles is what makes up 'space' but then again, if you go out past the point of expansion of the big bang distribution, space is out there, it's just nothingness. Hell, before we tackle this simulator question, let's try and figure out how far away other 'big bangs' have occurred outside of our range of sight. There could be more than 1 big bang that's happened, and the other ones are soooo far away, they cannot be seen. Also, what if the particle/object that started those big bangs had a different distribution of mass/particles so that the majority of the stars were mad of carbon, or something else? That would be badass. Also, what if 2 big bang distributions collided so that there were different ratios of say beryllium and carbon intersecting, and beings in that intersection that are civilized knew there were 2 big bangs?

[@akzual50]

Adam Ford space doesn't take up space. If it did, GTA V would be impossible to play. Space doesn't exist. Distance between particles is what makes up 'space' but then again, if you go out past the point of expansion of the big bang distribution, space is out there, it's just nothingness. Hell, before we tackle this simulator question, let's try and figure out how far away other 'big bangs' have occurred outside of our range of sight. There could be more than 1 big bang that's happened, and the other ones are soooo far away, they cannot be seen. Also, what if the particle/object that started those big bangs had a different distribution of mass/particles so that the majority of the stars were mad of carbon, or something else? That would be badass. Also, what if 2 big bang distributions collided so that there were different ratios of say beryllium and carbon intersecting, and beings in that intersection that are civilized knew there were 2 big bangs?

[@xcite83]

For years I have admired Bostrom's Simulation Argument, it's a wonderful thing to ponder about as it throws up all sorts of intriguing and bizarre situations. It is fertile ground for fiction, for instance imagine a situation where humanity has progressed into the early postshuman stages, we have an enormous amount of processing power at our disposal and the necessary infrastructure upon which to run it, many interconnected groups have been working on simulation technology and we're getting closer and closer to the day of the big 'switch on', we're able to simultaneously run an exceptionally large number of sims, so many that even 'time travel' may be possible. The likelihood of producing genuine simulations of our past is causing massive unrest amongst the world's religions, there are extremely powerful forces who have vested interests in stopping the simulation from getting switched on, be these both from religious groups whose existence relies upon historical doubt, and also perhaps from a greater number of people who realise that we are now in a most bizarre situation where if the 'machine' is switched on, then we can be pretty certain we are simulated beings, whereas if it's switch on is prevented, suddenly we're all real again! What a crazy situation and a perfect prelude to society destroying itself thus obeying a version of the first proposition, or we come to an uneasy agreement to avoid mutually assured destruction by never running the simulation, thus obtaining the second proposition. Cannot wait for Superintelligence!

[@xcite83]

***** Hey there, with kind regards when I mentioned 'Superintelligence' I was actually referring to Nick Bostrom's book 'Superintelligence' that I believe is due out this summer, in respect I did actually see how that read after I'd wrote it and felt a little silly, as it looks like I'm saying I can't wait for my own posthumanism! Sorry that is my fault I should have clarified better. Nonetheless thanks for your kind comments, Bostrom's argument is a wonderful multifaceted thing that I think will provide you with a great deal of healthy and enlightening debates with your buddies! Kind regards--T

[@xcite83]

***** Well I think that for as long as there are humans, there will be religions, the existence of them today despite the ridiculous amount of time humans have been around is testament to that, so naturally if we begin to move into a 'posthuman' existence this will surely cause 'massive unrest amongst the world's religions', but this is part and parcel of the birth pains of posthumanism.

[@raynoobkac]

the simulation argument has a very very big flaw in it and i really dont understand why most people(even nick ) didnt notice it. even if our universe is a computer simulation, that simulation is based on the universe which is running the simulation so this means that the universe which is running the simulation is very similar to our own and even if THAT universe is a simulation logically there must be a universe that is absolutely REAL(the real world) which everything and every simulation is based on so this argument by itself proves nothing.

[@xcite83]

Karlo Kupres Nick does touch upon the idea of nested simulations in some of his writings, I think I get what you're saying, since the simulation argument naturally follows from our present situation (our reality), then the 'REAL' reality must be extremely similar if not identical to our own, hence the likelihood that ours is REAL and not a simulation would be significant. OR at least you are saying that since the ultimate real reality must be very similar to our own, then our own might as well be it. I don't really see how this would invalidate the argument since the argument isn't saying, 'we live in a simulated reality' (that would be the simulation hypothesis); it's saying that if we do not live in a simulated reality, then we are almost certainly going to destroy ourselves before we run advanced ancestor simulations, or we're almost certainly never going to run ancestor simulations. So the argument in itself does not attempt to 'prove' anything, it is a tripartite disjunction; it's basically saying that at least one of these three possibilities must be true.

[@nickodemo1]

why are you so excited bout superintelligence... you ll be prolly first victim of it xD

[@nolotrebako9883]

which (mathematical) part of the argument does give support to the inference that we are most probable be among the big part of simulated people? what makes it that the group of simulated people is so tremendously bigger than the group of original people?

[@jamesmeritt6800]

Are there control codes/command files for the reality simulator and,if so, how could I access them?

[@doclee8755]

QUESTION: If the simulation argument is true, wouldn’t the ethics developed in the “simulation” be just that as well? If the ethics are just part of the natural progression of the simulation, why should they matter or be a restraining force if they are not true reality?

[@syahmiInc]

Nice question

[@scfu]

Q: What does the B stand for in 'Benoit B. Mandelbrot'? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot. It has been shown that complexity can arise from simple conditions. We have not discovered all possible methods of computation. Perhaps it is not required that a simulator (computer & algorithm) be as complex as the outcome of a simulation. And I say this with ignorance, but without invoking the need for 'magic'.

[@abbasalshamiri3665]

You and he is wrong when you say simplicity breeds complexity. Complexity looks simple in its beginning stages then it flourishes. Kind of like a seed it looks simple enough but grows to a complex flower or tree. Seed is not simple but looks simple. Mandelbrot is an idiot

[@roxxyburrus6784]

What is the test being performed and what have the results been so far? WHAT IS THE TEST AND WHERE CAN I SEE THE RESEARCH?

[@AndrewFurmanczyk86]

At 20:24. If decreasing chance of options (1) and (2) increases (3) Wouldn't being able to determine if we're in a simulation by creating our own simulation (3) be the motivation we need to stay interested in creating an ancestor simulation and thus eliminating (2)? Rephrased, if we can learn if we're in a simulation or not by seeing if we can create our own, then wouldn't that make it irresistible to the point that we couldn't help ourselves? If I'm not missing something, then that would mean (2) is much less likely to be true, and in turn vastly increase the chances of (1) and (3).

[@timothyreinerman1001]

While thinking about this, I came upon the idea that LIFE wasn't the simulation. What if the "project" was a Big Bang simulation? We already have the ability to "create worlds", we can set time and gravity values inside these worlds. What if an architect just put in values for elements x infinite gravity that created the singularity that erupted in the Big Bang? As the data compiled after the "explosion", certain things would happen based on gravity values, speed of light limits etc. Information INSIDE the simulation would combine and progress "organically"(for lack of a better term). Elements would change through heat, masses would form, set into systems etc. To program what we live in may be beyond ANY for of technical maturity BUT, trying to figure out what would happen if certain things were subjected to some amount of infinite gravity is something WE might attempt ourselves.

[@Joe_Does_Stuff]

+Timothy Reinerman This is a great idea.

[@TheLyricsGuy]

That could definitely be possible. However, such a simulation would require some kind of advanced life form to create the computer to carry out the simulation. And when you pair that with the fact that we, too, are life forms capable of creating our own simulations, then would it not be more probable that life is at least the most important part of the simulation, and that the big bang was just the creation of the medium for those life forms to evolve in? Just to repeat for the sake of clarification, the two most important factors are: 1. It would have to take some kind of life form to create the simulation. 2. We are ALSO conscious lifeforms that can ALSO create simulations. This means that the simulation we are living in probably wasn't just a simulation just merely testing physics equations. I hope that made sense lol. I can try to clarify if it doesn't.

[@Hogram82]

You could be right dude. The base reality simulation might have just been a physics experiment, i.e give it physical laws to abide by, give it a beginning, give it a trigger, and watch it unfold. Life could just be a biproduct of that experiment.

[@Hogram82]

Bri 1 You're a glass is half empty kind of guy, yeah?

[@timothyreinerman1001]

We see unintended byproducts all the time. Saccharine is a byproduct of the oil industry. No one could have sat down and figured that would happen. And, one of the great/terrible things about science is that often, the answer to one question is another series of questions. No, we may not know the data compiler or what made the data compiler or why it decided to do this experiment. But, we have the ability to even wonder if such a compiler is even possible.

[@SaccidanandaSadasiva]

I am schizophrenic and I frequently have ideas of Matrix, Truman show, solipsism etc

[@arvindgb7995]

I'm not schizo and I think the same, although I'm not solipsistic. I just think the universe is being simulated including my mind. I've had a lot of weird coincidences that makes me realize my mind interferes with the simulation too.

[@bgs03548]

It’s all in the mind. :)

[@dariodelgado9444]

you have the power to believe and think anything.. use your energy wisely

[@cobe398]

@Om Sasasiva me too :( it makes me sad

[@alexhill7557]

I have schizo too and I think the same. That we are in a simulation or Truman show.

[@Bejaardenbus]

Could anyone direct me to the follow-up papers professor Bostrom mentions?

[@NuclearIsShit]

Ancestor programs would be great at predicting future events by adding different probabilities of outcome. You could use the program to see...what happens if the Allies lost...or what would happen if Kennedy live, what would happen if xyz etc.

[@mpotts461]

So if this reality that we all know is a simulation...... Did the creator or creators push start and walk away or do they influence the outcome.

[@airbus2216]

Godamn

[@hciasdhi]

The idea of a scientific simulation (an entertainment based one would be different) is that the creator would set up conditions then let it run its course. In this case the conditions would be the scientific principles that make up our *perceived* universe. But of course the creators could influence an outcome too.

[@Hogram82]

I highly doubt your day-to-day activities are decided by any higher power. Remember that if our reality is a simulation then time doesn't exist. Our simulation could have been started one "second" ago to however started it, and might run for one of their "weeks" before they even care to check on its progess. Therefore your existence wouldn't even be noticed, let alone dictated or documented. Think of it this way. If you ran a Universe Simulation starting at the Big Bang, would you give a shit what Steve is doing on earth for 80 years of his existence amongst it all? You probably wouldn't even notice earth at all.

[@hollywooda111]

I bet the conversation in 3000 years time will go something like this... "So! we have enough computing power to recreate our ancestors in a real world simulation! I cant wait to see what they did!" "seems they used to post photos of their food online, watch videos of funny cats and argue over weather a dress was blue & black or white & Gold?" "..... nahh fuck it, that's a waste of fucking time".

[@xender6969]

"we would definitely want to see how it ends if left unattendent" Definitely the simulation will create another simulation after getting bored of posting pics and playing games, Conciousness and matter always have to merge, why? 🤔

[@kdaleboley]

I also find this a compelling idea. The first proposition that advanced civilizations do not run ancestor simulations I find least likely. Many people today run many forms of ancestor simulations. People who play war strategy games are essentially running an ancestor simulation. And when one runs such a game, he is in control of potentially thousands of A.I. simulated beings. Scale that up to the number of people who are running ancestor simulations at any given time and the current population of simulated beings on Earth may already be higher than actual humans. Of course at our current state, the A.I. in games is not really close to real intelligence but soon they could be.

[@Taqu3]

Bostrom's argument seems to exclude the possibility that physical laws may indeed put a limit on the level of "technological maturity" that intelligent beings can achieve. It may be impossible to reach a state of knowledge where we can create simulations which are as real as our own universe and the physical laws in it.

[@influentia1patterns]

The simulation theory AKA: The Allegory of the cave Reloaded.

[@sierrafarnum9689]

How?

[@russell7768]

Resimulated

[@Locrian08]

A 4th possibility is that there is some yet unknown physical limitation that would make such a simulation impossible. If I had to guess, it would be that options 1 or 4 will be the case.

[@_-__-____]

I believe Nick would call that a subset of the 2nd possibility

[@Elmesal]

This seems so plausible! Considering how humans hardly change and often seem to follow their "programming", this makes perfect sense.

[@p3tr0114]

@17:30 Surely, they would rewind the simulation and make it so Bostrom wasn't seriously discussing the possibility. That's if they wanted to keep it secret.

[@whitegardenia4238]

It is the problem of pain which makes me think that simulations will be quite different from what Nick Bostrom describes. In his hypothesis the structure of the simulation is analogous to the initial timeline. But why should we have to live through the kind of horrible experiences that we see in this timeline. If it is to recreate a timeline (as in Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory) we could simply simulate every possible sets of MEMORIES and thereby skip the actual events altogether. Im sure if she were given the choice a VR simulation of Ann Frank would be willing to relive the horrors of the Holocaust….if it meant being reunited with her family and her loved ones, she would presumably do it in a heartbeat. But why would she have to relive those horrible experiences all over again when we could simply simulate every possible sets of MEMORIES and thereby skip the actual events altogether. Ann Frank would simply be recreated in a virtual timeline with her memories PRE-PROGRAMMED. Everything that comprised her personality would be back without actually having to experience the suffering….And once she is in the virtual timeline (which would presumably be a virtual "Heaven" with all the pain and horror of the real world edited out) she can then resume experiencing life in the minute-to minute second -to -second fashion that we are all familiar with…. So I believe that Bostroms simulation hypothesis may flawed in that sense. I cant see why there would be so much pain and suffering in a virtual reality timeline. But of course I could be wrong…maybe there is some reason why the entire timeline has to be replayed. Please check out my interview with Frank Tipler for more on artificial intelligence how it could theoretically facilitate the resurrection of the dead (type Frank Tipler/ Richard Dawkins and it should be your first search result...)

[@bismuthcrystal9658]

We don't know we *didn't* skip the Holocaust. Perhaps the simulation started right after Frank's death. Though even if we didn't, you're making a lot of assumptions about the natures of the simulation-runners and their ethics, not to mention the motivations and nature of the simulation. But even if subjective reality is exactly as we intuit and the past is not illusory, they may well just not care about our suffering. It's hardly a flaw in the hypothesis, or the argument. I do envy you your inability to see why there would be so much pain and suffering in a simulation, though. It speaks of a much brighter view of humanity (and post-humanity) than my own. And I do find some comfort in the simulation argument from each point but the first. 1) Everything ends; no sentient species will ever get very far. Bad. 2) Humanity sorta sucks at present, so them changing sufficiently to perhaps decide it's unethical to run a simulation with conscious people might be quite cheering. Though there's also much darker possibilities like mind control to prevent people from being able to run one. 3) Okay, we're in a simulation, but A) Why's it matter? B) At least *someone* survived past every Great Filter we can currently envision. C) Yeah, maybe there's a Heaven as you say. I can't conceive of the Christian God or any kind of eternal reward if we're in base reality, but in a simulation, anything goes. Eternal life, here I come (maybe)!

[@whitegardenia4238]

​@@bismuthcrystal9658 Heh...you make a great point when you say " We don't know we didn't skip the Holocaust. Perhaps the simulation started right after Frank's death." In fact, following up on that, its possible that the simulation ( ie a minute-to minute second -to -second style simulation) just started ten seconds ago...and all of the painful things i remember living through are all programmed memories (ie maybe I , didnt live through them at all) As far as the idea that I have a much brighter view of humanity (and post-humanity)...Its funny cuz I consider myself to be more of a pessimist, but the arc of human history seems to moving in the right direction...Judging by what we have seen so far...the human race seems to be getting better and better...both in terms of ethics and in terms of technology. Although we do see some minor setbacks (and weve seen many of them recently) if we look at the big picture, the human race is still more or less on the right track. And just as the human race has created multiple sets of checks and balances to prevent, for instance, the abuse of large scale nuclear weapons...similarly, the post human civilization would presumably have multiple sets of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of VR and simulation technology.

[@bismuthcrystal9658]

@@whitegardenia4238 Yep, entirely possible our pasts are illusory - but when our entire existences are, what's the difference. I like the idea of being able to separate myself from trauma and tragedy through that lens, though, even if i accept that, played out in full or filled in 'in post,' the difference doesn't really matter if we're simulated anyway. And it's very true that humanity's getting better. I rely on Marxist Dialectics and the notion of our current global wave of misguided populism as a reaction of those with power fearing losing it, to cheer me when i look at Trump and Boris and Bolsonaro and such. But yes, we're still winning, even despite them. The harm Trump has done to trans rights is only partially offsetting the astounding progress, the scale of which i'd never have predicted on such a timescale when i was young. For example. Oh, and the one-to-one assumption is one i've dwelled on a lot. As a lot of my subjective feeling involves compromises made in the simulation, due to bandwidth requirements. There is some data to suggest this could be the case, but nothing conclusive. But essentially, simulating the universe 1:1, in every way, would likely be impossible. Size, detail, or time would have to be compromised, likely. So we could be running at a slower 'clock speed,' with less granularity, or in limited scope, with invisible walls set up. Or any/all of these. Bostrom addresses this, of course, but i find it one of the more interesting things to ponder. As to checks and balances on technology... i dunno. They would seem to get exponentially harder as technology gets exponentially more advanced. Much of my more optimistic hopes for the future are an anarcho-communism which revolves around 3D printers and the copyleft movement and the inability for states and corporations to control that information. So it would be incredibly hypocritical for me to then hope that states are able to limit the use of technology in the form of simulations, even if that's a bit further down the line. I've sorta made my peace with the possibility. Also i weight things differently. The second option; humanity losing interest in running an ancestor simulation; seems far-fetched to me, just on a visceral level. A state might, but at a sufficient level of advancement, it's hard for me, personally, to envision a technological future in which, eventually, some script kiddie-equivalent doesn't have the computing power to run an ancestor simulation. And so i just can't see that happening, even if a state might be opposed to it; we're too curious. So i'd weight the likelihood of us being in a simulation at about 66%. And also there are other frameworks. Bostrom's is limited by design, but what if base reality is incomprehensibly different than ours? What if an alien species in a reality of dense dimensions we cannot comprehend turned us on, through some form of a computer as we'd recognize it, or something entirely different? These questions are interesting and i do allow them to influence my beliefs, but not so much how i live my life. They are not terribly instructive. They will affect us in some way, but the one real danger of believing there's a good chance we're in a simulation is not treating other people as real. Is the right wing 'NPC' bullshit. This is contraindicated by some basic logic, of course, and it's if anything the most-illogical variant of solipsism (as, if you have worth, 'real' or not, why shouldn't you assume everyone else is equally real; assuming they're an 'NPC' is illogical). But then, these people tend not to be... the most thoughtful anyway. So the best thing to do, as i see it, is... accept the possibility and move on.

[@whitegardenia4238]

@@bismuthcrystal9658 Hmmm interesting analysis....I actually believe that you are much more optimistic than me. Im intrigued by this statement- "...it would be incredibly hypocritical for me to then hope that states are able to limit the use of technology in the form of simulations, even if that's a bit further down the line." I suppose this gets into the basic question of whether humanity can police itself. But when I see my cat playing with a mouse, I have some serious questions about whether nature is basically good or basically evil (or some mixture of the two)...I grew up reading the Marquis de Sade, so I'm very suspicious of what really motivates humans beneath the false veneers. As far as politics I agree that the current state of world is disastrous...but ironically, I think it is because people are rejecting institutional checks and balances. (The Right in particular, seems bent on attacking the FBI, CIA, CDC, WHO and any other organizations that have sufficiently complex internal checks and guardrails...right now, the Right seems just as "anti-Establishment" as the Left) But anyways, I agree with you that this kind of technology has to be embraced. Artificial intelligence and simulation technology will be developed one way or the other….so it would be in our own interests to embrace these technologies now and make sure that they are developed in a way that reflects our culture and our values. If you have some time, I actually wrote an incredibly long essay about death that addresses this very topic (originally published in a magazine...but Ive reposted it here -whitegardeniamusic.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/the-new-nihilism-an-autobiographical-essay-by-daniel-valiant/ Anyways, if you get a chance, check it out...thanks for the interesting conversation

[@Puuch44]

Did the Joe Rogan interview occur within the original timeline? Or the simulation? :P

[@J0113]

Was looking for this.

[@bcagz9835]

It was quite frustrated how Joe was arguing at the end of the podcast. It seems that he doesn’t understand the concept of probability in a scientific context. Either way... it occurred in the simulation... probably. 🤔

[@scfu]

Perhaps a slightly more or less coherent one occurred in the original timeline

[@scfu]

I hope to interview Nick again!

[@govindagovindaji4662]

The first problem I detect is that "the simulation argument" is an "assumption" (that one of the three possibilities is true) rather than a hypothesis. So it can never be proven one way or another anyway, so what is the point of "distributing our credence more or less evenly between them"? I correct myself here: later in the video Mr. Bostrom also speaks about "the Simulation Hypothesis". I guess my next step is to learn the purpose of "an argument" in science as opposed to a hypothesis. Interesting. The second problem I detect is that we have yet to, technologically, produce/create 'consciousness' in ANY simulation. All we have done is extended our own consciousness into our "game pieces/avatars' or whatever they are called. I don't see how it would be possible to simulate neurons to the complexity of the human brain, however, as he suggests may be possible at some point. This is all fascinating, to contemplate, and yet scary as well. The unknown. I hate to think that I might be a simulation and someone is just effing with me on this constant basis...especially physical pain...and will they recreate me at their whim upon my physical death? With more pain? Also, do ppl who speak about simulation mean that the earth and the people on it are simulations? Or, we, as humans, were first simulated, and then placed on an earth already in existence? I will be researching simulation theories for days now.

[@ForcedRejection]

Hell, even if we lived in the "real" universe instead of one of the computer simulations someone is running, the "real" one consisting of matter-energy space-time is still a simulation.

[@Blueberry-tu9el]

I don't think its ,,runned,, no one runs life itself we do the reality makes any gowerns reality

[@kompassorpigo7600]

9:29 was this a simulation glitch

[@riccardodeltorre2493]

I love you 😂

[@caunesandrew1476]

I have one question : In the case where the two first propositions are wrong and we are in a simulation. It is likely that the ppl who are simulating us do it for there own entertainment, like a video game or something (I'm thinking about a Westworld equivalent). Then the reason they simulate us is likely to be that their own state of civilisation is boring them, they prefer recreating the past rather than living their present. In this case, if one day we reach the technological level to simulate our own worlds, it is likely that our world has become similar to theirs. Then what is left in our world to keep them from switching it off ?

[@MrHenshole]

Professor Nick Bostrom does work involving artificial intelligence, is he leaving something out of his simuluation argument paper? i.e is the simulation constructed by a fully advanced artificial intelligence network from the future, that is researching the biological entities that originally developed A.I. ?

[@scientious]

Nick Bostrom, 1860: "Given that we are building steam locomotives and building them larger and faster, one of three hypotheses must be true." 1.) Our civilization will vanish before we reach a very high degree of steam locomotive sophistication. 2.) Our civilization will lose interest in transporting people and goods over large distances on land. 3.) We will have steam locomotives that weigh 10,000 tons, travel 600 mph, and can carry entire clipper ships on specialized rail cars. "This is the steam locomotive argument."

[@alapone8734]

scientious lol

[@drkmattrchscake4237]

Exactly!! I didn’t like how he framed this as the only three possibilities.

[@zuldo8577]

Hahah you nailed it.

[@alon.diamant]

I think that his point is: Situation S: Given a civilzation C, 1. If no simulation exists, it is because of: a. The civilization died before creating it, or failed to create it to a satisfying level, or could not create it due to external reasons (not C's choice) b. The civilization did not want to create it for some reason (C's choice) 2. If a simulation exists, then it is likely that the members of the civilization are inside it because: (i) The new civilization C' that is inside the simulation will be facing the same situation as the original civilization C, this time it will be denoted S'. (ii) Situation S' creates either nothing (options 1a/1b) or a similiar situation S''. This is repeated for S'', S''', S'''', S'''''', ad infinitum (or until no more simulations can be created). (iii) There's a large (or even infinite) number of civilizations: C, C', C'', C''', C''', etc - but all except C are inside a simulation. So probablistically, any civilzation of type C* will be far more likely to be in a simulation that not inside of it. Basically, there aren't 3 options, rather just 2 - a civilization creates a simulation or it does not. Case 1 was divided into 2 parts - not sure why.

[@micklepru]

the steam locomotive argument is kind of valid as long as you tweak the second hypothesis: 2)Our civilization will lose interest in transporting stuff USING STEAM LOCOMOTIVES and as we can see, this hypothesis happens to be true - we found more effective ways to transport stuff but if we didn't, given enough time, we would have had extremely fast locomotives with enormous cargo carrying capacity the reason why I say it is KIND OF valid because unlike intelligence & technical development, steam locomotive development has very low limits and if we haven't lost the interest in steam locomotives, we would have developed the technology to its limits but can you imagine developing computation to its limits? we can turn every particle in the known universe into some form of computer

[@MyMUSiCKCHANNELTV]

That's true. You make good points and yes it is definitely something to ponder on. I actually just re-watched The Matrix movie and it kind of relates to this except for the part that instead of gaining information on running the simulation the movies makes the point that the humans are connected to the matrix to give power to the machines. But yea in the end who knows what we are or what is out there. I guess we wont have concrete answers in our lifetimes.

[@joesr31]

If we can simulate consciousness, is it a MUST for each of the 3 premise to be true? is there a chance that all is false or all is true?

[@alexhill7557]

Could simulated programs in simulations that are in the simulations also be self aware since they were created in a simulation were the programs obtained self awareness.

[@thepiper5522]

IT makes more sense that we're not living in a simulation.

[@abbasalshamiri1842]

That's the whole point of the simulation

[@thepiper5522]

@Beyond Space C'mon, grow up. It's real. This is real. If you were so superior you wouldn't have to call me inferior for choosing the explanation with the least amount of assumptions. You'd offer proof or worthwhile evidence. Do you have anything? I won't hold my breath.

[@thepiper5522]

@Beyond Space It makes more snese that we're not living in a simulation. I don't think this is a simulation. In order for me to think that it's a simulation, I'd have to assume that something in reality made the simulation, made it so well that we can't tell, have computers capable of rendering it, and who knows what else. For me to think that there's no simulation, only reality, I only have to assume that there is reality. A much smaller bar to clear.

[@thepiper5522]

@Beyond Space You're making my point. The simulation is so good, that we can't tell. Then why the hell does anyone think we're in a simulation? The simpler explanation for why reality looks like reality, is that it's reality. Hehe.

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

@@thepiper5522 Bostrom is not trying to convince you that we are in a simulation. He is saying that it is a possibility, depending on his first two axioms. If we one day develop computers powerful enough to run simulations involving "people" whose cognitive abilities are indistinguishable from our own, then the unavoidable question is why would we believe that we ourselves are not the same sort of simulation, perpetrated by individuals in a more base reality than ours? There is no indication that this level of technology is not physically possible, so the point is that it is worth considering whether we are currently in the position of the simulated beings we will probably one day create. What is so hard to understand about this?

[@paintball626]

I've seen the world turn into pixels with the help of psilocybin.

[@zy9dh]

PLANK = PIXEL

[@georgesamaras2922]

Technically our eyes are made of tiled sensors. So even if world is continuous not quantized which is not, our base perception is pixelized meaning we don't have the necessery sensor to perceive a potentially continuous world even if it existed. It probably couldn't be otherwise because continuous things would happen infinitely fast, and consioussness wouldn't matter since a moment from the next is not a concept in a continuous world. Time and quantization are linked.

[@mattnewhouse1781]

I had similar effect on DMT

[@jakestockton4808]

I think I found a workaround for the simulation hypothesis (not the argument): If you build a matrioshka brain, and you create a simulation that creates a matrioshka brain, that simulation can't have the same processing power as the original. Therefore, once you get to that point, and the numbers don't add up, you'll know you're in a simulation.

[@HueyTheDoctor]

There NEEDS to be a recorded discussion between Bostrom and Thomas Warren Campbell Jnr - I need to find out if Bostrom considers Tom's TOE to be a viable hypothesis.

[@rayjohnson3286]

I don't know if anyone watch Atlanta, but Darius brought me here.

[@jaleanevans3389]

Ray Johnson me too

[@TheDavereich]

rick and morty anyone? "its a simulation inside a simulation, INSIDE A SIMULATION"

[@Hogram82]

Okay help me out here. Suppose a simulation exists within a simulation. That is simple code writing code, or to put in another way - just code with rank (one dictates the other). So therefore no matter how deep you go (simulation upon simulation upon simulation recurring), in its simplest form, it's still just code from one source within one source. So my question is, can code at any level affect code for any level? I.e. If our existence is a simulation could we then not write code that could affect the code written for our simulation? Think about it this way. A computer can write code to create a virus that destroys itself. That's just code writing code that destroys the original operation. So could we eventually do this?

[@scfu]

Computing is not about creating matter - it is about generating patterns, in effect re-purposing matter / re-configuring patterns that are already represented in matter. I think patterns are all that is required for sentience. Matter is another matter.

[@henryaudubon]

This argument depends on the computational theory of the mind, which claims that consciousness is just information processing. Thus consciousness can be simulated by a computer. But the nature of consciousness is not a settled question. What if computers can't simulate consciousness? We can't rule out this possibility at this time.

[@SuperTonyony]

I would argue that a human mind downloaded into a computer is basically a "clone" of that mind, not a continuation of that mind. A human consciousness is meat (a brain) in motion (firing its synapses). Anything else is a spinoff/clone.

[@aeglorre]

It actually doesnt depend on computability, it depends on "ability to simulate". In other words: IF consciousness - regardless of WHAT consciousness is - can be simulated, then the simulation argument still holds.

[@mscottveach]

aeglorre is right. plus, it seems unlikely there is any version of consciousness that can't be replciated maybe our simulation computer will have to be made of organic material. i suppose it's possible that consciousness is bestowed magically upon us.. but.. you know...

[@TrollinJoker]

Thats what I think too!

[@jjtech195]

NOTHING is ever settled. It's all a speculation. I don't even know what "nature of consciousness" would suppose to be.... the problem with Bostrom's theory is that it's terribly probable. This condition is: if computers will EVER be able to simulate consciousness? In 1.000.000 years? in 10.000.000 or 100.000.000 years?

[@vdizhoor]

Somebody must have watched "13th Floor" ;)

[@MotorsportUK2009]

When i take allot (ALLOT) of hallucinogenics I see the fabric of light waves and things including human faces become pix -elated and I can see the RGB colours , it really does feel like a first person computer game.

[@caveyful]

It's possible aliens from another multiverse or time are simulating all the possible permutations of life in the multiverse throughout time rather than searching a mostly empty universe looking for it (or remnants).

[@justaman6972]

The big question here is: Why do our pinky fingers exactly fit our nostrils?

[@laslocurasdepalfer5811]

Lol

[@ItsMyQuantMyQuantitative]

The men who couldn’t get out a disgusting booger looked disgusting to women, therefore didn’t procreate as much as the men who could get out that disgusting booger.

[@Gregoryt700]

Philosophy meets science in the best way..... Fascinating argument, actually has many possible implications

[@maidwithluv]

What kind of relationship do the 3 possibilities have to make only one of them true? and in what conditions

[@Dgfrmxon]

I think the bigger problem with the "Inception" layout is that the cost of simulation grows with each stage. I'm saying that even a single stage simulation is extremely costly. It would be much cheaper for future intelligent life to spend their time dabbling in their own universe. That waters down the simulation argument, and argues toward the Doomsday Argument. There's no physical argument that we can ever have infinite capability for such simulation.

[@trinajska]

Humans tend to have a very creative imagination and that is great.

[@QueLastima]

And that's all this is.

[@bbusch23]

Berenstein or Berenstain. Could this be the result of a glitch and/or a reboot of the simulation?

[@qvole7310]

any argument even a simulated one requires a minimum of two sides. this is more of a monologue about simulation hypotheses packaged and pre orchestrated to be preemptively rationalizing almost to the point of exhausting any argument that might possibly debunk/derail the hypothesis. too many unknowns built in by default as looping backdoors. by simply observing the experiment in the moment we change the way it is perceived. simulating stimuli and variants might be fun if it is, does that mean that the future is really that bored with the present?

[@KennyMackForever]

Why would a great filter lower the possibility of this being a simulation? What if the great filter was initiated from the outside? What if they had a rule that simulations are not allowed to create their own simulations?

[@grizzkhaleafa]

So since the probability of an advanced civilization reaching a post-human stage is so small, we would technically have to be already living in a simulation for our future descendants to even be able to run ancestor simulations with the probability of them even desiring to do so. Meaning that we (if we are simulated) will go on and on, only to, in the future, when computer processing is capable enough, create an another ancestor simulation which will do the same as we did and create and endless loop of simulated universes. I AM TOTALLY MIND FUCKED RIGHT NOW

[@ijfsk8cr3w]

true

[@jeetjerome]

but maybe there is a cause like in the simulation before our simulation there had been bugs, so in every new looped simulation humans have the possibility to change the next simulation for a greater good. Maybe in the last simulation we were vampires and at the end of the simulation we did get the point that being a vampire sucks, when all living, blood containing lifeforms are gone, so we changed the next simulation to be not being vampire anymore...

[@jeetjerome]

Brian ??? ehhh your comment makes even less sense, then the whole simulation hypothesis...

[@jjtech195]

In your view, what doesn't make sense in the simulation argument? (this is about simulation argument not hypothesis. Simulation hypothesis is just one of the 3 options of this hypothesis)

[@Hogram82]

Yes and no. This could be base reality now. We might create the first simulation. We might do this by exactly understanding the Big Bang and recreating that simulation in a computer, at which point our entire reality gets played out for us for the first time. We could sit back and watch our own ancestor sim play in full. That would be the first. You wouldn't need to be in a sim to replay a sim, you'd just need to understand and be able to recreate the exact circumstances of your own reality. From there, the sim would definitely create its own sim (because it's a replica of our existence), at which point, you'd have an endless simulation replica running.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

I've always found this to be by far the most profound and difficult to counter form of solipsism. Every other version seems to be subject to the idea that it is unbelievable because it runs counter to evidence and thus while it can't be disproved, it should not be believed. This version gives affirmative reasons to believe in a solipsistic world view based on evidence that we see in the world. That is MUCH harder to dispute. I must admit that while I don't believe this conclusion, I have no good reason to doubt it in spite of having thought about it a great deal. There are good arguments not to believe it in practice, but none that I can see why it is not likely to be true even if we should not believe it. And since you can't really choose your beliefs, this is of little value as a solution.

[@StavrianaRadaiou]

what has this to do with solipsism?

[@chrisbsomething7338]

It seems to me the argument ends up self-contradicting. The argument as stated is to assume that the universe is as it seems, that civilisation advances, computers are developed and get more powerful etc. And then move on that argument to say that computers might advance to the point where full simulations are possible. The trouble is, if full ancestor simulations are possible, it's also possible to simulate realities that have no relationship to the real reality. The real reality might have no big bang, no planets, stars, evolution, rise of civilisations, etc. Using the same kind of probabilistic argument, if an infinite number of simulations are possible, some of them very close to the real reality, and some of them creating universes that are nothing at all like the real reality, then by argument of probability, our reality is nothing like real reality. So we can't assume a universe like ours with stars, planets, evolution, rise of civilisations. If we're in such a simulation we can't even conceive what the real reality is like. In fact, we can't even be sure those things exist in our own simulation. They might just be window dressing. The simulation might have started yesterday and all the memories created from nothing. That's not hard for a civilisation with that level of technology. By the same probabilistic argument, that a simulation could start at the beginning, or it could start anywhere else, we could say it probably started somewhere else, and the dinosaurs never existed. The bones were just simulated in the ground. Or in other words, the nature of the simulation argument is to jump to very specific conclusions about what the possibilities are, whilst ignoring an infinite number of possibilities. Possibilities that by the nature of the speculation are even more likely than the possibilities outlined in the argument. Therefore the argument, is for all intents and purposes, a useless argument.

[@tested211]

I think you raise a good point - Nick Bostrom mentions "ancestor simulations" as the type of simulation that would be run but surely there are many more possibilities such as a much longer term simulation... Perhaps the basic physical constants were defined and the big bang set off and our controllers sat back to watch what unfolded from that point...their motivation might be that their universe has a different set of physical constants altogether. If they are simulating an earlier version of their own universe, what would be the point? Surely you'd want to enter the simulation and that wouldn't be worth doing unless you were aware that you were doing so? I don't think any of that invalidates his basic argument, though.

[@CaptionClosed]

Excellent point.

[@rabidlenny7221]

Is it just assumed that you can model a consciousness on a computer with ease. Like what happens if that turned out to not be possible? Would that be a 4th category? Or would that fall into 2, civilizations chose to not do them.

[@matiroy]

Nick Bostrom doesn't even mention the option that simulations are not possible, probably because he's very confident that they are possible. Interesting... What is your probability distribution between these options?

[@thirtyacres7504]

He does say that. Watch the video again.

[@matiroy]

Oh! (I won't watch it again; but I trust you; thank you for correcting my mistake.)

[@phdfloppercopter1002]

my question is can we break out of the simulation without dying?

[@Hogram82]

Maybe. If simulation theory is real then, in essence, we are just smart code inside a computer able to write our own code. Who's to say we can't eventually write code that's advanced enough to change our own programming? I mean a computer today has the ability to write code for itself to change how it functions, so why can't we?

[@David-uc4hc]

I guess that would depend on how simulated we are. If we're people living at the end of the universe, then there's the chance that when we die here, we just wake up there. If we're purely simulated, then if the simulation turns off or if we turn off (death), it's over. Alternatively, if we're simulated, than our consciousness is digital, and that means we can just be digitally copied and preserved. But if we are digital anyway, there's no reason to assume we aren't already copied trillions of times, while our program is being run in trillions of other simulated universes (is it death if you yourself die, but an exact copy of you continues on in some other simulation?). Regardless, I don't see a way for any of us to have a say in what happens to us beyond the simulation we call existence. All we can do, the only choice and control we really have, is to value the fact that we existed at all.

[@dougrmitchell]

The simulation we could exist in (of the simplest sort, at least) is one in which we're no more real (alive *or* dead) in the universe doing the simulating than a character in The Sims video game is real in our universe.

[@alinvr861]

Yeah , there's a risk if someone find out a way to acces "world basic code" he can change it .

[@stlkngyomom]

PHD floppercopter Try Waking Life,Manifesting the Mind,MAPS,Living Matrix,TED:meditation,lucid dreaming,obe,fasting,banned.

[@pwninkev]

well if we can constantly save our files, turn off our computers, add more ram to a computer to improve the processing power of the computer, it's not really a paradigm now is it? There's always some alert that "you are reaching your ram limit to your computer" or something like that.

[@MrVoodemar]

If this could be possible I think a "suffering" argument would be rejected by potential creators of simulations because what we perceive as an inconceivable drama of human evolution would be treated on the level similar to our perception of movies: so even when something is horrifying on the screen, we still know it's only done for our amusement, reflection etc.

[@SuMBuDDe42oE]

"The Animus"

[@jimmydurmody2490]

But is creating of such simulation ethical? Why we think it should be legal in society that is so technologically advanced? Shouldnt they be also advanced morally? The suffering in simulation is as real as it gets.

[@phdfloppercopter1002]

Jimmy Durmody good thought what about all the suffering that could be ended with a tweek addicction cancer war etc

[@Septiviumexe]

The human mind would mature enough to stay objective. Simulations and science, there would be laws but we would be extremely tolerant towards unethical acts in the mission to reach progress

[@jimmydurmody2490]

Paul Sack Well simulation of such magnitute seems innefficient to be done by humans, I cant imagine what would they achive by running it that cant be achieved by calculations without generation of vast 3D environment with dimesions and all that. Humans will merge with machines probably this century and will achive technology that can modify everthing from their emotions to health and experiencing of reality, so I cant imagine why would they need a simulation of whole universe that takes 13 billions years, to find out about something.

[@merrick926]

we would think it was billions of years but it wouldn't be that long in the programmers universe www.space.com/25859-13-7-billion-years-of-galaxy-formation-in-44-2-seconds-simulation.html

[@Septiviumexe]

"Time is relative." - Paul Sack

[@skypossum4952]

I doubt we are in a simulation but IF it makes sense to formulate us as one I think the most likely scenario is a form of Vast Distance Simulation. It's not unreasonable to assume telescopes of the future will construct/simulate 3 dimensional models of what they are looking at. They will take in factual data (via light and gravity) and then fill in the "pixelated" gaps based on all known physical law, planet formation, galaxy formation etc. and create a 3 dimensional assumption as to what they thought they were looking at in detail. This could be done in a quantum-like parallel and creatures viewing what their telescope was observing/modeling from the outside would put a probability across the parallel of earths as the most likely fit for what the natural earth (or whatever they were looking at) was. This would also answer the fermi-paradox...where are they? We may exist in their telescope.

[@LightGreen5013]

When he says "There could, for instance, be a big window that pops up and says 'You're living in a simulation'" and I'm watching him say it on laptop... 👀

[@thenomadicmerchant1328]

How many times can you say simulation in 23 minutes?

[@David-uc4hc]

We're still running the simulations to see. So far, scientifically speaking, it's a lot.

[@cascade7641]

gosh. smart people everywhere, all i can think of is the sims 4

[@stlkngyomom]

Try Waking Life,Manifesting the Mind,MAPS,The Living Matrix,science of lucid dreaming,simulation theory.

[@PhilHibbs]

One quirk of the "three propositions" is that if we are in a simulation, then the physical laws and parameters of the "real" universe could be very different to ours, and so we can't even begin to speculate about whether such civilizations are remotely comparable to ours, and therefore cannot comment on which proposition might be more likely in such a reality. Also the third proposition (that we are "almost certainly" in a simulation) relies on the fact that not only do they run simulations, but that they run A LOT of such simulations. There have been around 100 billion people that have ever lived, would such simulations really simulate more people than that to a sufficientl level of detail that we perceive an entire universe of subatomic particles and galaxies? Or is such detail an illusion within the simulation, that we are simply programmed to not notice the pixels? Also, he says that a civilization reaching the point of running a simulation would conclude that they are therefore in a simulation... but the first real civilization to reach this point might come to such a conclusion and would be WRONG!

[@PhilHibbs]

It isn't infinitie and he doesn't say that it is, so inserting an infinity and then arguing against that it is a classic straw man.

[@hasatum]

For explanation, see other videos where he talks about anthropic reasoning.

[@thirtyacres7504]

Phil Hibbs I think you completely missed the point of his argument. Watch the video again.

[@ray4mondo]

Don't think you quite grasped: 1 The interlocking tenets of the argument, 2. The detailed and logical step by step approach within the argument. 3. The conclusion of the simulation hypothesis.

[@DEPHY4NT]

Is Cern not an existential potential risk in technology? or GeoEngineering?

[@thilosavage]

Proposition #4: We are the only civilization ever EDIT: I disagree with myself. This cleverly falls under "we go extinct first" scenario

[@kevinfairweather3661]

Indeed.

[@doles909]

If there was only one civilization ever (that creates simulations), then it would only be a few hundred billion to one that we were 'it' and not one of 'its' simulations...

[@thilosavage]

I mean ONLY civilization ever, simulated or not. Perhaps it's just physically impossible to make simulations. Or does that fall under the "we go extinct before we learn how" option?

[@doles909]

Thilo Savage I think thats just an argument for 'we go extinct before we learn how'.. and if that's true we may as well be the only self-replicating program in this universe or 'the only civilization ever' as you say.. as we are not going to be meeting any others if they are all going extinct shortly after they emerge.

[@thilosavage]

doles909 Ahhhh ya that makes sense. So.. given the possibility that it takes infinite time for a civilization to develop a simulated reality, we will undoubtably go extinct before infinite time. For sure. I retract my #4 proposition!

[@FatmanQQ]

What happens if a simulation crashes? LOL...

[@scfu]

Things within our simulation will stop happening, perhaps the simulators will reboot to restore point - if we are in a simulation, this could have already happened many times before - we have no way of knowing.

[@AzymisGFX]

Natural Disasters

[@lucidanecdote683]

It happened in 2012, when the world ended

[@beamboy14526]

we ded

[@llongone2]

We create simulated worlds (in gaming, etc.) and live vicariously through heroic, powerful, superhuman characters; a world much different than our "reality". If you imagine a civilization that was advanced enough to create a simulated world (that we could be the subjects in) and we assume they are advanced enough to have eliminated struggle, suffering, strife, insecurity, distress, conflict, worry, and despair...What kind of simulation do you think they would create? Maybe our struggles are their entertainment.

[@tommyjcom]

There is another choice, we are the first on the way to tech maturity. Then on another note, the ability to cover up mistakes sounds like YEC's claim that the dino bones are planted there. So is the sim running from the big bang? how much time do you have to have on hand to run this universe on your xbox 360 to the googleplex power?