The Simulation Argument
What I Learnt Today #132 I Our World Sunday’s
Elon Musk famously said sometime in 2016 that he is almost certain that we are living inside a computer simulation. We could be living inside an advanced version of The Sims. If you accept that our knowledge about reality is limited it is worthwhile opening your mind to the possibilities no matter how irrational it sounds.
This is what Nick Bostrom, a Oxford University Philosopher writes about his assumptions in his 2003 paper titled Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?
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.
Apparently there are a few distinct possibilities, while it is hard to say which one is the correct one, the idea that one of it is, is quite mind bending. But then if you think of the speed at which computational power is impacting our daily lives - who knows? The first computer game in 1970’s was Pong - a ball ( circle ) bouncing around two boxes (rectangle). We have come very far in the last 40 years with simulations and AR/VR allowing us to interact with virtual worlds, seamlessly. If this trajectory continues (of course we could potentially destroy ourselves and the planet well before that) and if we continue the pace of technological growth in say 10000 years our descendants could be colonizing small planets, turning them onto giant computers using self replicating nano robots, and runs simulations of how (the future) we got there or just amuse the (future) ourselves looking at how the ancestors (current us) worked through our life and issues.
In his article for the New Yorker Joshua Rothman quotes works of a bunch of other scenarios as envisages - both in fictional as no fictional accounts - like Eric Steinhart and his book “Your Digital Afterlives” where he ‘focusses on the possibility of nested simulations’. Economist and futurist Robin Hanson, in his book The Age of Em describes a time in which researchers haven't yet cracked artificial intelligence but have learned to copy themselves into their computers, creating ems, or emulated people, and makes a business case for em’s - “instead of struggling to find a team of programmers, a company will be able to hire a single, brilliant em and then replicate her a million times.”
Just to think of the possibilities itself is rewarding. If we are indeed in a simulation we can argue that the world and the human race survived total annihilation due to our own conflicts or some form of Alien invasion. Bostrom, in his paper outlined the other metaphysical and ethical issues, as pointed out by Alvin Chang in his piece on the topic in Vox (if you want a quick grasp of the idea this is the one to begin reading):
Apart from the interest this thesis may hold for those who are engaged in futuristic speculation, there are also more purely theoretical rewards. The argument provides a stimulus for formulating some methodological and metaphysical questions, and it suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions, which some may find amusing or thought-provoking.
Links to all the material quoted above:
This cartoon explains why Elon Musk thinks we’re characters in a computer simulation. He might be right. https://bit.ly/2HgwCRQ
What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation? https://bit.ly/2DPNUlC
Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? https://bit.ly/2vdm66s
If you want to find my earlier posts and articles in this series check this link. I update this everyday.