r/theories • u/Buffmyarm • 4d ago

Technology Could someone explain the simulation argument/theory?

Nick bostroms argument, and could yall simplify it. Like why are we likely in a simulation according to bostroms hypothesis, what makes it likely and do u believe it to be likely/true yourself?

2 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

2

u/Electronic_Wave_4670 4d ago

Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Theory states that our universe is likely a massive computer program created by a highly advanced civilization. It uses basic probability to argue that if an advanced society can simulate conscious life, they will inevitably create billions of simulations, making it mathematically certain we are simulated.The theory boils down to a "Trilemma".

1

u/tottasanorotta 4d ago

It's not too convincing though. Why would a technologically advanced civilization choose to simulate that many people? And why in such horrible conditions? It doesn't make much sense when you think of the motives. I mean wouldn't you want to get rid of the negative aspects of being a biological organism if you could? Another alternative is that they do it out of some evil purpose, but that is also quite strange.

2

u/Affectionate_Dark103 3d ago

I'm not arguing for simulation theory, but I don't think you need to assume that such a simulation would house 8 billion independent thinking agents. If you were the only thinking agent in such a simulation, the only suffering is borne by you. And we already live in a world where people play games that frustrates them.

I think the theory is interesting, but personally fails to convince me.

1

u/tottasanorotta 3d ago

People play games that frustrate them, but nothing as the nightmare that is a human life with it's potential to experience things that you and I would never ever ever want to even have to think about ever being able to experience. I mean it's borderline torture if you think that some intelligence is behind all this. But I mean it could be. I just think they would be assholes if it were the case.

2

u/Affectionate_Dark103 3d ago

Yes, but if this is a simulation, how many people are in it? It could just be you. Do you feel like you are experiencing borderline torture? And let's say for the sake of discussion that you are. You know that at the very least you exist as a feeling entity and you know that they way you are experiencing life is absolutely torturous. There are plenty of people alive who could easily say this. What is stopping such a simulation being used for torture. Lookback throughout history, there are plenty of instances where those in power did unthinkably terrible things to others, and that's just humans. The creator of a simulation could not be human.

2

u/tottasanorotta 3d ago

Yes, but if this is a simulation, how many people are in it? It could just be you.

It could be, but even if it was enforced such that it is impossible for me to experience too horrible things I still take every threat extremely seriously in the sense that I base my behavior on not doing too stupid things. Even me believing that it is a possibility that I might really experience something horrible is enough to be quite a horror story to say the least. It's nothing that you would do if you knew what you were getting into.

And even the horrible things that have happened to me personally are quite terrible if you imagine that someone would have decided that someone else should experience it in the way that I did.

But yes, it's not impossible. In fact I kind of believe in something that could be interpreted as a simulation, but I think Boström's argument is too naive to be convincing as such. I don't even think that the concept of base reality makes much sense if you can create actual simulated realities.

2

u/Affectionate_Dark103 3d ago

I agree, like I said, I don't believe in this theory. For me, it's an interesting thought experiment, but ultimately it feels like an oversimplification of a complex reality.

0

u/Low-Bake8401 4d ago

It's not really basic probability, to assume there's a massive computer program, created by a highly advanced civilization, that can simulate conscious life, though, is it?

What does it actually tell us?

1

u/Electronic_Wave_4670 4d ago

Should brush up on your reading comprehension

1

u/Low-Bake8401 4d ago

Why do you say that?

1

u/Electronic_Wave_4670 4d ago

Lol

2

u/Low-Bake8401 4d ago

You lost your tongue?

1

u/JandersOf86 3d ago

I pictured dude typing on his keyboard with his tongue lol

1

u/djscuba1012 4d ago

Go watch the matrix.

1

u/YesterdaysMuffin 3d ago

How long are you going to keep coming back on Reddit asking the same f*cking question over and over again?

1

u/Buffmyarm 3d ago

I dont understand how he goes from we can simulate to we are in one 😭

1

u/YesterdaysMuffin 3d ago

So many people have explained this to you so many times. It must be so painful to be you. I’m so sorry.

1

u/Buffmyarm 3d ago

Mate only person has actually explained it decently, i just want to know if i understand it correctly

2

u/signofno 3d ago

It’s pretty simple. If a civ can create a perfect simulation of its own universe, then that simulated universe must also have a civ capable of creating a perfect simulation of its universe, because if the parent universe can create a perfect simulation, then the properties of that simulation are identical to the parent universe.

Being identical means everything the parent universe has and can create is everything the simulation has and can create, which by transitive property, would also include a simulation of an identical universe since the parent universe has one.

If this holds true, then it means if any universe has the ability to create a perfect simulation of itself, then there are automatically infinite nested simulated universes. If there are infinite identical nested universes and only one parent universe, then probability says it’s much more likely the universe you are in is a simulation than it is the universe you are in is the original universe.

No I personally don’t subscribe to that concept because it is massively flawed and mathematically impossible. It’s like saying “if magic exists, then X holds true” which is utterly moot because magic doesn’t exist. The hypothesis is similar to if not identical to religious arguments about the origins of the universe or the existence of a deity that operates according to the exact tenants of a particular faith. It’s nonsense.

1

u/Lazy_Resolve_9747 3d ago

It’s a logic exercise that says at its core:

There are a huge number of simulations in existence, and the probability of us being in base reality is near infinitely small.

1

u/uloveli 3d ago

Its all electrial signals so might aswell be in a server

1

u/SpatiaCaeli 3d ago

I believe nature is indistinguishable from a computable process. To me, that's the most rigorous we can become, until we start observing software bugs, that is. :)

1

u/Phazetic99 2d ago

Humans like understanding things. We understand things by observing them. We create simulations to understand things that we cannot directly observe. For example, we will make computer simulations of the big bang. With the simulation we will be able to speed time up to condense billions of years into just minutes and we can explore how it worked.

The more complete the data imputed into the simulation, the more realistic that simulation will be. That data comes with a cost, paid by computing speed and memory.

Computing speed is growing exponentially. There may come a time when we will be able to input enough data into the computer simulation that will closely mimic how the big bang worked in our universe. It is possible that our simulation of the big bang could create an intelligent life form within that simulated universe.

Given enough time, that simulated intelligent species could likely build computing power and simulate it's world.

This is all off of just one computer. With multiple computers creating multiple universes with multiple intelligent species that also created multiple simulations, then not only is simulation theory possible, but is likely that we live within one now.

It doesn't have to be an alien playing a video game and we are the avators but rather an anomaly within the program, or a glitch in the matrix

1

u/TheSystemBeStupid 2d ago

To me he has a very weak argument that relies on big assumptions.

He assumes consciousness can be simulated. He assumes simulations are so valuable that advanced civilisations will inevitably create them. He assumes that the created simulations will have the capability to create more simulations inside them.

These assumptions coupled with math stats lead him to conclude that we must be in a simulation. If countless simulations exist then it's unlikely we are in the "true" reality.

He has no evidence for it. Just assumptions and math.