# Discussion: Problems with the simulation hypothesis.

There s a problem with the simulation hypothesis.

First the explanation of the diagram: There can be two different types of simulations (as depicted in the diagram above.)

Type 1:Plugged in type simulations: (on the left hand side of the diagram) This is where our mind (Conscious mind A in the diagram) resides in the base reality while we are plugged into a computer and we experience the simulated world through it (rectangles) . This is typical “Brain in a vat” type of situation. So here the conscious mind (A) who is experiencing the simulation is outside the simulated universe . X,Y, Z, etc. are only simulated experiences in different simulated worlds. Its important to note that they are not simulated minds. There is only one single mind in this type of simulation and that’s the conscious mind A in the base reality.

Type 2:Fully simulated universes: (on the right hand side of the diagram) This one is more like an advanced version of the SIMS game with fully simulated characters with simulated minds existing within the simulation. Here while the conscious mind B is in the base reality there are many simulated minds as well in all levels of the simulation within simulation within simulation etc. and these minds exist inside these simulations. So C,D,E ,F,G ,,,etc. are all individual simulated minds. As we can see, unlike the plugged-in type, here we have many minds in various levels of the simulations.

Probabilities :Its what’s above the red line versus what’s below it for both types.

Type2: 14 round ones versus the single rectangular one. Which means the probability of being in a sim is much higher than being in the base reality.

Type 1: ONLY one of the triangles versus the rectangular one so you have two options plugged in (i.e. triangle) or unplugged (i.e. a rectangle). So the probability is not as high as the type2 s and it would simply depend on how many people would chose to plug themselves into the simulation.

If we create fully simulated worlds (type 2 s) these worlds will be made of software running in our computers not made of physical matter, so we can not assume to be in a type 2. Since only a type 1 simulation would make us “feel like” we are in a physical universe and since our world which we are in right now is made of “what we call physical matter” and we know that our computers can not process actual physical matter then we can not create type 2 sims. What our computers can do is only to make us “feel like” we are in a physical universe .(i.e., Type 1) And for this type of sim the probability calculations of the simulation argument does not work.

The problem with the simulation argument is that we are looking at type 1 sims (software based sims ) and we are assuming that we ourselves are a type 2 sim (physical sims ) which is not possible. No computer we can build can create a type 2 sim made of what we call physical reality. Therefore The only way which we could be in a sim AND experience this world as a physical universe would be if we were in a type 1 sim and that’s a problem since the probability calculations of the simulation argument does not work for this kind of sim.

Simply put : We can not be in a type 2 sim created by a computer since what we know as matter can not be processed by a computer. A type 2 sim CAN NOT BE WHAT WE KNOW AS REAL . The only way we maybe in a simulated world is if we were in a type 1 sim , which means in type 1 s the computer makes us “feel like” we are in a physical world. But then the probabilities of the simulation argument about the chances of us being in a simulation and the simulation hypothesis as a whole must be flawed .

To understand the problems I am talking about here , it’s crucial to keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between a type 2 simulated world which we can create in a computer and the physical world we are in. We can not create a WHAT WE CALL A PHYSICAL WORLD in our computers. A type 2 simulation is not a physical world to us. The only way we can do this is to MAKE US BELEIVE THAT WHAT WE ARE OBSERVING IS PHYSICAL and that’s a type 1 sim. This does NOT work for type 2 s.

The problem with the simulation argument is that we are looking at type 1 simulations which we are creating today and we are assuming that we are going to create type 2 sims in the future and those will be our ancestor simulations. However this is a false assumption, since no matter what those universe will be they will not be what we call physical universes like ours so even if we would manage to create type 2 s we can not assume that we are in such a sim .

To be able to simulate a type 2 world like ours you would need to build a computer which can process actual matter or create the laws of this universe and that’s impossible to do. So the only way we can do this, to simulate a world which would “feel like ours” would be to create a type 1 sim. That’s the only way for us to build simulated universe just like ours, (i.e. ancestor simulations) and only then we can claim that we might be in a simulation but then again it would be a type 1 sim and since this would be a type 1 sim the chances of being in one is no where near as probable as is depicted in the probabilistic arguments as claimed by the simulation hypothesis.

Summary: we must be in a type 2 simulation for the probabilities of the simulation argument to work however computers can not create a type 2 sim which would be *what we call physical * simulations. So since we know that we are in a “what we call” a physical world so then we must be in a type 1 sim (cause that’s the only way we could be experiencing physicality) and thus the arguments must be flawed and the hypothesis that we are most likely in a sim must be false. The probability of being in a sim is therefore the people who would chose to plug themselves into a type 1 versus the ones who prefer not to. Therefore the probability arguments of the simulation hypothesis are flawed.

With other words, The only way that we can be in a simulation and we can experience it as being a physical world is a type 1 simulation and for the type ones the probabilistic arguments do not work. Or to put it in another way since we can not create physical type 2 s in our computers we should not expect to be created that way by our creators either. So if we are in a sim then we must be in a type 1. (and as mentioned above the probability claims do not work for type 1 s.)

This is meant as a discussion so feel free to post your comments your criticism and I will reply all the comments. I hope this time MODS do not delete this post and we can have a fun discussion about it.