Simulation Theory - A Philosophical Debate

[@PhilosophyVibe]

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Philosophy of Perception” eBook available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe3 It is also part of the Philosophy Vibe paperback Anthology, volume 2 “Metaphysics”, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2

[@rogue6069]

The biggest thing I think people overlook when arguing why advanced civilizations would want to simulate the past is that they don’t have to “stop” the simulation when it gets to their present day. The real advantage is running thousands of simulations to see the FUTURE. Start it, run it (the entire thing could take minutes) and let it run to extinction to see what things to avoid. Let it run to advanced years to mine technological advancements beyond their own. The benefits are endless.

[@djvastfx]

Wouldn't we simulate all our past, it would be amazing to see all that happened.

[@blob3106]

I agree, in my head I just think about the movie war games when the simulation was running thousands of tests a minute just to see how if slight things changed, the ending might alter in some way. That could also tie into alternate realities or something too

[@gavinburr6213]

I doubt it would be used to get ideas from the simulated civilization. They’d be so advance that nothing would be “new” also it would be a bit like finding something in a dream and then it being there when you awoke.

[@daviddawson1718]

​@blob3106 you think in your head. Pray tell where the fuck else would you think?

[@Joeyjojoshabbadoo]

It's a pretty ridiculous theory. More the stuff of a whimsical sci-fi movie, the stuff of fantasy, and not a significant philosophical inquiry. I guess it's possible that future civilizations could have built super computers that could simulate an entire universe, or at least our lives on earth, and I can't prove that it's impossible to be a reality. And that our apparent living selves are simply part of that simulation, and not exactly the flesh and blood reality we ascribe to ourselves. And these computer geniuses of the future apparently would want to do that, because they just would. Would because they could! And so naturally they would, it's almost a sure thing. And here we are. I don't know what else to even say after that, other than I would assume that's not the case. And there is no simulation. If it has any intellectual value, it's more as a cautionary tale of sorts, of how stupid and vain and frivolous people can be, by trying to apply things like 'logic', without restraint, and coming up with absurdities like this, other than as something you could almost think of off the top of your head, as an example of the wonderfully fanciful, imaginative capacity of the mind, but not something you would ever seriously propose for realz. By way of a simple intellectual mechanism that one contrived phantom of the mind 'follows' into another, and eventually you're left with some sort of presumed logically necessary, but also extremely preposterous conclusion. And which mainly counts as an exercise in intellectual folly and immodesty, and not some sort of audaciously insightful possible reality. But you know, there's no law against it, so have at it. It's more to sell books, is what I would say. We're all content producers these days. Publish or perish....

[@The_Great_Escapist]

It’s a really interesting philosophical concept but I think Bostrom’s 3 possibility option does it an injustice. There are so many reasons why a simulation would exist. Getting hung up on it being a post human ancestral simulation is reductive.

[@fredriksvard2603]

Also: it would take a different technology entirely, computers as we know them would require more energy and matter than there is in the universe to simulate a universe. Then there's the consciousness problem, computers arent getting closer to consciousness no matter how vomplex they get. But,, imagine a different universe/higher dimension/alien technology/god and so on where these limitations dont apply and sure, they could simulate us. But what's the difference between that and the idea that god created everything? Base reality seems to be information or probabilities anyway.

[@thatoneguy6233]

We are the "simulation" expressing itself.

[@chrisrambo8307]

Dreams are simulations. So like in the matrix the machines are powered by us. In a dream (which isn’t real) you don’t know you are dreaming. You can taste smell and feel in dreams. And you only know you are dreaming when you wake up

[@spiritualphenomenon2413]

@@fredriksvard2603 that sound more logical than this other stupid shit ,what ever god is ,is outside of time and space

[@fredriksvard2603]

@@spiritualphenomenon2413 The cosmological and ontological philosophical arguments aren't "stupid shit", they have problems and they can be refuted though. The first mover or uncaused cause (that by definition wouldn't be dependent on timespace or causation) is still an interesting thought exercise imo and so is the history of these ideas from ancient Greece or even earlier to Aquinas, Spinoza, Leibniz and Craig.

[@WisdomisPower-10inminute-dn5no]

I'm passionate about these themes and have been exploring them in depth in my latest videos. Great to find others who share this interest.

[@andrewrae8064]

Love the dialogue format

[@NativeVsColonial]

3:52 It is actually a quadrilemma, and the 4th point will be: 4) Humans will eventually reach that technology, but will use it against each other (self elimination, back to 0).

[@ritvicpaarekh6963]

How self elimination if its simulated?

[@NativeVsColonial]

@@ritvicpaarekh6963 In Dharmic philosophy, simulation is known as ‘Maya’, and Maya is closely translates to attachment to this physical world, like attachment towards wealth, lust, family, Maya is not equal to hollow or everything programmed in 1 and 0, this world physically exists, and Maya or Simulation is a spiritual concept of coexistence from all material attachments.

[@elantir9260]

One argument that supports the simulation theory is that the programa can be made not by humans but by aliens for purposes that we can't understand. Great video, budys!!!

[@fredriksvard2603]

The only argument really... aliens or higher beings with different abilities or technology. Our type of computers as we know them, nope. Future entirely different tech, ok, but that's kinda the same thing as alien tech.

[@cozmothemagician7243]

One word: Cats

[@lorenzoluciani3439]

Please, can you discuss the theory that: everybody is crazy but we can t see each other craziness because we are used to it, a sort of invisible craziness... I don t know how to name it. Here some references: Pirandello and Italo Svevo (Italian writers of the 1900) write about the thin line between being sane and being crazy. Probably some philosophers write about this. Here there re topics I think would be interesting to debait: - Difference between deliriums and everyday beliefs - Difference between magical thinking/ Ocd rituals and everyday unusual actions or everyday rituals - Difference between wierd behavior and customs/culture Ecc... I hope you got the point, I really love to discuss this stuff with friends

[@michaelshannon9169]

I used to think like this as a child. I remember when I left the church I discovered that life itself is a religion, like a cult, a church. We all believe things that are false about the world, about our lives in hopes that it gets better. I grew to realise that everyone is just mimicking everyone else. Its insane but to ppl its normal.

[@lorenzoluciani3439]

Exactly, in my opinion we try to make sense of the world by creating a sort of story or narrative in which to live. Mimicking others is a big part of it, also in our development... By mimicking parents, peers, movie/ book characters or idols we kind of build up this narrative

[@janne-mans8295]

would run out of energy, prior to wasting the energy for integrating selfconsciousness module if invented or discovered by that time, even with tapping directly from the abundant energy fields directly, as it would require overriding itself as such. it confirms though Logos or a supreme language involving all possible computations bypassing Gödel incompleteness theorem, to the extend selfautonomification of the process, including a modification toolbox, to let it seek to reconnect for the desired outcome to blend in with an outcome rewriting existing history to the desired one that (re)produces itself, within itself. The alternative is, a ground layout with potentialities to run simulations until one is sufficiently matching the ideal with an attached toolbox to selfautonomiusly improvise towards desired flow of history as a full witnessing package, involving one or more game style like all-in-one level upgrades, to enable the involved witnessing consciousness collection, to escape from one simulation to a superior next, one with a higher level of witnessing attributes to refine the soulselves necessary, that are supposed to lay at the core from a sound rewarding purpose objective. If there already is some kind of witnessing capacity, regardless free willed or not, the future is unimportant. What Bostrom suggests must already somehow analogue have happened, yet efficiently rather prior in advance, and if properly done, the contends involves a nearly approachable stage of Bostrom-like features to accomplish if not prohibited by the above mentioned selfautonomous improvisation toolbox, that prevents such stalls from overriding attempts.

[@janne-mans8295]

From such escape to a higher level witness format sim, it derives that the escape challenge in simmed/controled fashion put forward within our current sim level is simply this: - detecting the ourely pragmatuc soulless entities and modulating the to lower skill management positions than Peter Principle has alliwed such empty cyborgs currently performing their duties in high leadership ranks, such as those playing out scripts like states within states, returning what seems and claims more civikuzation, to real civilization based on highest standards human rights. In that regard one can or may refer to a new hypothetical ideal twelveship as suggested in Rev 19:4.

[@hstenzelorigami8489]

I have always had the exact same idea as George Berkeley

[@yhelloh]

So glad I found this channel :)

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Welcome :) hope you enjoy the content.

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

Maybe we are in a simulation but who's running the program

[@devidasi5206]

Just read the Srimad Bhagavad Gita As It Is 1972 Edition, English translation of Sanskrit work by His Divine Grace Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. The entire simulation and pre-simulation is explained so nicely there. The way to get out of the simulation is also explained. All the best to each and every one of you.

[@swampfoxky1187]

To simulate a given item, the simulator would need to be physically larger than or equal to said object. Let’s say that we could use an atom as data based on electrons, the largest thing that this atom could simulate would be an atom, therefore reality would take a reality-sized computer to simulate

[@jaylucas8352]

Not at all

[@sgringo]

I think this is generally referred to as the simulation *hypothesis*. I think this is an important distinction, given that this idea crosses into the realm of science.

[@abhishekanand6217]

Hypothesis is something that can either be proved or disproved. I don't think they have a experiment in mind to prove/disprove it.

[@sgringo]

@@abhishekanand6217 Right, I think we're on the same page. I just wanted to point out that it's really not correct to call it the Simulation Theory. Calling it a theory implies that it went through a rigorous, empirically-based, peer-reviewed process of testing under varying conditions and settings and observing consistent, repeatable results. Since this never happened, it's typically referred to as the Simulation Hypothesis.

[@linnie589]

What if the simulation is really a place outside reality and electronics pull you into it, like a soul capture?

[@bouho683]

Thank you guys! You are doing such a great work with very interesting philosophical content. 👍👍🥰🥰

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Much appreciated, so happy to hear you're enjoying the content :)

[@muhammadaliawan7352]

Food for thought 🙂

[@jeffk3746]

I think scenario 1 is most likely, because you are down playing the hard problem of consciousness. I’m aware that this is a God of the Gaps argument but I do feel that there is something fundamentally different about the question of consciousness

[@helderalquimia]

The simulation theory can be proved wrong by creating a simulation that is more complex than this universe. That is because if we are in a simulation, then we can never create a second simulation that requires more processing power to run than the first one.

[@robertomondello2447]

Like I say… there are many paradoxes in this so call simulation argument

[@f.b.i6889]

But we can't create a simulation more complex than this universe if we use materials from this universe. This is because, even if the simulation was more complex than everything outside it, it would still be made up of the universe and thus as complex as the universe.

[@jaylucas8352]

Incorrect

[@helderalquimia]

@@jaylucas8352 I can't hear you

[@jaylucas8352]

@@helderalquimia I can’t hear you either

[@Ubermentsh]

Exactly what would be being simulated?

[@robertjsmith]

A.i could be programed to kill,any group of people you want out the way

[@jonstewart464]

"Because technology advances" is not a rebuttal to disbelief in 1. of the trilemma (that the technology for simulated conscious beings will be invented). We have no idea how biological systems create consciousness, we don't know what the necessary physical substrate needs to do. Guessing on the basis of zero evidence that it's a bit like digital computation, so all we need to do is build faster computers and we can have a whole simulated reality with conscious entities - and then claiming it's "likely" - is nonsense. I have no reasons to believe it will ever be possible to create billions of simulated realities, which conscious entities experience (for 80-odd years at a time?) from the inside. Saying "one day we we'll work it out" is just like saying "one day we'll learn how to conduct nuclear fusion in a bath tub". The whole thing is absolute garbage and the mind-blowing thing is how it got to be taken seriously at all. Great video though, love your work! Edit: Wrote this before the lad on the left had his final say, and put my objection forward well. What are their names BTW?

[@mustaki7620]

George and John

[@Anatolia909tv]

Bu t wait wait wait. Going back to the start of it all. I remember Bostrom always stating that his intention of starting from the Simulation Theory was to then establish a Simulation HIPOTESIS. In relation to the Fermi Paradox, even. It seems to me that people in science communication have rationalized Bostroms arguements to make them fall into other aspects of Philosophy. Instrumentalizing just the starting point of his idea to ponder on a "The Matrix" kind of situation. Like trying to find justifications for Idealism, again.

[@robertomondello2447]

Every time see a video or a post on Instagram about this argument, I think that there are some problems or paradoxes that question the feasibility of the simulation argument

[@dabriggbriggzbeatz427]

It was mirror mirror on the wall I thought

[@SGBassplayer]

You don't necessarily need to believe that it is happening for it to be truth; you need only to accept the possibility that it COULD be happening as a possible truth. Absolute truth cannot be known.

[@Joeyjojoshabbadoo]

Fair enough, once you've had this cockamamie theory explained to you, belief plays no role. It's way, way too far-fetched and ludicrously unprovable for the mental state we refer to as 'belief' to play any role. And if it's true it's true, and if it's not it's not. Belief has nothing to do with anything. And as you say, if you simply accept the bare possibility that it could be true, and that should be easy enough with something as silly as this, 'belief' in it or not is totally irrelevant. Once you know about it, you can't unknow about it! It's almost as if the beauty of it is how easy it is to logically follow along, even if it's the stupidest shite you ever heard. As if, it's only virtue as a thought experiment or whatnot, is that you can follow the simple logic of it very easily enough. And other than that it's bonkers. This has to be a bit of mischief from that philosopher, with AI coming down the pike, and so many momentous computer advances now upon us. It's just not something you would ever take seriously on the merits. And he's just quietly laughing to himself that people are such chumps and lushes that this con job, or philosophical hoax has become a big thing in the culture for educated classes to ponder, or at least pretend to ponder. You even got the frantic search to find glitches in the matrix, deja vu, the Mandela effect. It worked like a charm.....

[@weirdorwhat7294]

I know we live in a simulation but what sucks is the fact that we incarnate back over n over n over again and we have our memories wiped each time but some people remember living the exact same life and some people have glimpses such as deja vu and what isn't fair is the fact that how are we supposed to learn and grow if we never get the chance to if our memories are wiped each time? Earth is a simulation prison hell but the fact that we have to keep doing it for an evil thing we've done and never get the chance to change and learn is unfair big time.

[@robertjsmith]

Where do thoughts come from ?

[@WoWdropzone]

Good video. Also, "Mandeler effect" 🤣

[@vegardstensen4815]

I did not understand the "third man argument". I see that there is an infinite regress in the sense that every person in every reality as advanced as ours (simulated or not) would have good reasons to think that that reality is simulated. But so what? Those belonging to the base reality would simply be mistaken. Their belief would be false even though it is warranted. What am I missing?

[@Robert-p7t2k]

Are these two different guys or one guy playing both parts?

[@Joke9972]

A younger Ringo Star has been created to explain 'simulation theory'

[@KronusMtlPJM]

I think. Much more possibly theory is that. We living rather in game, then simmulatine

[@arsenalboy4ever]

This is so good, amazing debate guys. wow

[@avivastudios2311]

Humans outside of the simulation: They're on to us.

[@mpen7873]

Excellent work 👍

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you

[@Gmx92]

For the mandella effect, if this were a real phenomenon, we would constantly have a large percentage of the population who was convinced Germany had in fact defeated the Soviet union, or that the UK was the first country on the moon

[@gabygarcia0123]

im finally early to a philosophy vibe video 😭💀

[@mustaki7620]

😂😂

[@lifes40123]

If a super technological advance being creates a simulation where humans with consciousness experience pain, suffering, and misery.. over and over and over..then that super technology advance being is not morally advance..dont you think humans would have a moral obligation to follow even in the future? thats just my opinion though

[@tempbauer2131]

I think option 2 would never happen. I don’t think if we had the technology that we would *never use it. Oops! I initially wrote EVER but it’s corrected to read NEVER. So I think it would be used if available. Idk why I wrote that in such an odd way but such is life Option 1- we never get there i think is most likely. I think ai will reach advancements that as of now we can conceive but an ai that can constantly learn and has a “consciousness” and an “awareness” and understanding of life and death in the way we do. Mmmm.... i just don’t think so. Like, my cat can learn and is aware when something is dead and tries to stay alive BUT I don’t think he has the same awareness as we do. And I don’t think we’ll create an ai that would ever perceive and have the awareness and consciousness in the same way we do. I’m NOT a good writer so I hope my thoughts on this are clear enough. If not, well.... such is life Option 3 - if can happen and it has happened already and I’m in it, well.... then so be it

[@blob3106]

Just knowing humans I can almost guarantee if a simulation were discovered with full consciousness and programmable options, then it would be used by someone. Whether that be some crazy scientist hiding from the government idk but it’s almost impossible that it wouldn’t be explored if we could present it.

[@lancimusprime9488]

You guys are the best!!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you :)

[@edwarddankin8138]

Nice! I was just saying this in another video you had for fun. I just enjoy these topics. Really fun stuff 💯 I didn’t realize Shazam was gone I remember that movie being out. Omg, Then he brings up Solipsism at the end. I literally just watch that one on this channel and learned about it yesterday & Mentioned simulation theory on that video! What in the World is going on?!!

[@JW-ku7nn]

Wait.. Shazam never existed?!?!?

[@wassollderscheiss33]

Of course it's mirror, mirror on the wall. What else would it be?

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Magic mirror on the wall.

[@chicawhappa]

@@PhilosophyVibe no...

[@m.perspective101]

@@PhilosophyVibe I remember this as a type of mandela effect

[@michaelhurley3171]

You know whoever came up with this was really smoking something good watching the Matrix one day!

[@numericalcode]

Agree it’s most like Berkeley

[@Joe-ym6bw]

It wouldn't matter reality is where you're at at the time of your consciousness

[@helderalquimia]

11:00 tô 13:00 A bunch of false arguments that could very easily be debunked e. g. déjà vu which is linked to epilepsy.

[@isaacgarcia8686]

Simulation theory does not mean we are not physical, material thigs in a real, physical world.

[@isaacgarcia8686]

we are real and physical.

[@juandominguezmurray7327]

It is a possibility. The appeals to emotion and ad verovosium presented are not good counterarguments. But the hypothesis lacks evidence to confirm it so there is no compeling reason to believe it to be true.

[@gbaleng2954]

Metaverse is here already

[@pallabidutta968]

Vedantists call it "Maya". Psychologists call it "conditioning" Bostrom calls it "simulation". Different terminologies for the same "thing" if any.

[@kevinkant6817]

I’m nude watching this, thanks 🙏

[@johnaCombo]

If we were advanced enough to create a simulation so advanced the characters are conscious, then why wouldn't we simply create real life forms in created solar systems? Why get fake when you can have real?

[@davidjewell9796]

Because a computer consciousness is less complicated than an animal or plant cell. I think it would be very hard to "create" a new life form. I don't mean cloning existing cellular lifeforms and I don't mean complex breeding for traits like a sort of "accelerated forced evolution." What do you think?

[@romeocapuletti2425]

Guys, Apple has released their version of virtual reality: Apple Watch. So this is the first step. Let's see what's next.🤞

[@Joke9972]

Digitalising everything has given us a great leap forward, but I am afraid we will need AI to make another leap forward.

[@fredriksvard2603]

AI isnt getting closer to consciousness. Quantum computers, or more advanced technology than that, would be needed to simulate the complexity of a universe or even a planet. And you'd still have to solve the problem of consciousness, which some think is possible through quantum mechanics. Some don't.

[@thatoneguy6233]

@@fredriksvard2603 everything around you is consciousneas

[@treich1234]

Do you guys go out of your way to be that dry or were you born that way?

[@djvastfx]

These people sound like a computer program.

[@ramanjeet1111]

ok the funny thing is that even if we are living in a simulated universe controlled by sophicated AI, then what does that universe looks like which is controlling us........

[@jaylucas8352]

A bunch of 1s and zeros

[@NativeVsColonial]

In Dharmic philosophies, this simulation phenomenon is known as 'Maya' meaning 'illusion'

[@ZubairKhan-vs8fe]

We don't live in a simulation. We are experiencing one.

[@slapmyfunkybass]

Difference being?

[@ZubairKhan-vs8fe]

@@slapmyfunkybass we are not here. This is a persistent dream. It's only an experience that we think is real. Like the matrix movie

[@slapmyfunkybass]

@@ZubairKhan-vs8fe Maybe you’re right my friend. Peace.

[@cozmothemagician7243]

I played ZORK. I got eated by a GRUE. Then a lady took me to bed. When I woke up the next day (with a BIG smile) I realized that that the 6502 chip was better than a Z80. If we live in a SIM , I hope it runs on an Apple ][, not a TRS-80. Bill Gates is a pirate, and Wozniak was genius. Virus search say 'nope' GO JWST!!!!!!

[@peenweinerstein9968]

Simulation theory is just a materialistic justification for God

[@psvs3960]

The mice will be furious.

[@richardsonwilderness]

It isn't a simulation. It is, for lack of a better term, 'Time Path Selection'. It is how time works. You make choices. These choices take you down paths. There is, quite likely, no limit to the number of paths. Some people can sense these paths better than others. Some people have been down a path, or set of paths, many times. This makes it seem easier for them. Time Path Selection has far-reaching consequences and effects. Don't let it drive you crazy. If you would rather think you are living in a computer, well, it probably won't hurt you. People's beliefs are fragile. Don't think on this too much. You may not like what you find.

[@skrieni]

The Simulation Theory its one of the most stupid things i've ever heard. If we are living in universe simulated by other beings then what created their universe? It will just go in circle without end. Bad theory.

[@rashardmitchell7915]

Their universe is obviously also simulated toooo!!!

[@diegesisfreak]

holy crap you're just one person aren't you

[@MegaDJcubano]

Human think the we are unique and nother been is smarter then human.....YOUR OR WRONG

[@johncarroll5087]

No...we don't 😎

[@WagesOfDestruction]

Why do you keep going on about simulations for historical research? simulations today are used by a wide range of people today from engineers to financial planners, gamers, the military, etc. They do not even have to be real history it could be a game.

[@joecotter6803]

Nowhere do you define what a simulation is. Your usage of the term is pathetically vague. Bostrum's speculations are just that. Reference to AI is introduced without foundation. The three scenarios are flawed. They are based on a misnomer that computers can have certain powers of self-knowledge or consciousness. Video games are trivial. I will stop writing as we have solved this problem many years ago when ditching Bishop Berkley. Yawn.

[@ebjygstkrvhtsfrvjrsnourgbr1287]

Email Elon

[@cozmothemagician7243]

Ok, As a magician I enjoy messing with people's minds, This video messed with mine. Thank you! ' I need to find the cheat code that make me GOD. GROK