Discussion: There is a problem with the simulation hypothesis.

  • by

There s a problem with the simulation hypothesis.

Related image link : https://ibb.co/8YQF16X

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: It’s 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 simulation is much higher than being in the base reality.

Type 1: ONLY one of the triangles versus ONLY ONE rectangular so you have two options, which are plugged-in (i.e. triangle) or unplugged (i.e. a rectangle). So the probability is not as high as the type 2’s in this one and it would simply depend on how many people would chose to plug themselves into the simulation.

THE PROBLEM: The simulation hypothesis only works for type 2 sims , not for type 1’s . However being able to create a type 2 sim depends on our ability to create conscious minds (the round ones) and we don’t know the probability of this ever happening . Therefore all the probability predictions about the simulation hypothesis are meaningless and false. The only claim we can make about us being in a simulation is that “we don’t know if it will ever be possible to create ancestor simulations”.

Simply put: The answer to the question “Are we in a simulation?” is “We have no idea because we have no idea if we ever will be able to create simulated consciousness”. This means that those probabilistic predictions about us being in a simulation are therefore false because the likelihood of us being in a simulation is the same likelihood of us ever being able to create simulated consciousness and that’s simply an unknown so the probabilistic predictions about it are false.

So to sum it up:

If the question is : Are we in a simulation ?

The ONLY right answer should be: We don’t know because we don’t know if we ever will be able to create simulated consciousness.

Any other answer than this is nothing more than just conjecture .

Note: I am not trying to prove that we are definitely not in a simulation. I am only trying to explain that it’s not as likely as many people seem to claim. I am trying to show that the simulation hypothesis which goes “If we can create many simulated realities then the chances are we are in a simulation” is simply wrong. We can not make this claim based on the observations on how technology is improving today and how simulations are getting more and more realistic etc. These are flawed assumptions/ predictions.

With other words: THE SIMULATED REALITIES WHICH WE ARE CREATING TODAY CANNOT YIELD ANCESTOR SIMULATIONS SINCE THEY ARE ALL TYPE 1 SIMULATIONS AND WE HAVE NO IDEA IF OR HOW WE CAN EVER BUILD TYPE 2 S and unless we can build type 2 s we cant have ancestor simulations.

Note 2: This post is meant as a discussion so feel free to post your views and criticism about it. I have adapted the original post so I hope this time MODS do not delete it and we can have interesting discussions here.

submitted by /u/Ok_Table3193
[link] [comments]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *