Simulation Hypothesis - Matrix Hypothesis

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2901
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Simulation Hypothesis - Matrix Hypothesis

Post by Shen1986 » Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:39 am

Hi

Its been a while I posted but I am kind of busy with my real life. However a week back I friend and I had a discussion about the Simulation Hypothesis also known as the Matrix Hypothesis, that we are living inside a computer game that is so real that its our reality. The premise of this idea came from the philosopher Nick Bostrom.

I know its kind of old news but I would like to find some logical arguments against it. I have written down my own arguments here against it and I would like to hear other ones so here goes.

1. It a old idea that was around centuries back then. People always believed that there is something more and that our sense are not perfect and deceiving us a a idea based on Solipsism. Some in the ancient times believed we are just living a dream.

2. That we are living inside a computer is not new, there were times when people believed we lived inside a universe that works like a clockwork which was found to be false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe. So again when we find something new that works like a computer or a clock we will believe that the universe works like this.

3. It smells a lot like religion that there is some kind of creator or creators behind it.

4. Its turtles all the way down. If we live inside a simulation does our creator live inside a simulation too? Who made the creator?

5. Too many questions like who is our creator? A race of aliens, robots or a advance human intelligence?

6. Nick Bostrom himself claims that there is only a 20 percent chance we live inside this simulation:
Bostrom estimates that there is only a 20% chance that we are living in a simulation
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -elon-musk

7. If this is a simulation there must be a way to get out a special code or pill if you like but nothing like this is found so far. Similar to lucid dreaming where you can and you know that you are dreaming and can even control the dream in some way:
A lucid dream is a dream during which the dreamer is aware that they are dreaming. During lucid dreaming, the dreamer may be able to have some control over the dream characters, narrative, and environment.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream

8. If we live inside a simulation then everything we do is pointless. We are just beings on a computer screen who cannot have a meaning.

9. All religion ideas about reincarnation or afterlife can now be true because as a program we can live on eternally which is nonsense.

10. Ethics would be pointless in such a world or responsibility because we are just some Sims who do what the programmers want us to do.

11. Its just a thought experiment and not a real thing.

12. There is scientific evidence that we do not live inside a simulation: https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/phys ... simulation

13. Its quite a paranoid idea. Its the same like claiming we live inside a smoke or a inside a aquarium.

14. We cannot prove this or disprove this because every experiment we do can be just a way how the system is deceiving us or giving us what we want.

15. People who are interested in doing experiments with this idea are woo believers:
In 2017, Campbell et. al propose several experiments aimed at testing the simulation theory in their On testing the simulation theory paper.[15] In 2018 they intend to crowdfund the experiments through a Kickstarter campaign.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulatio ... physically

Campbell works with John Knuth who is a senior figure at the Rhine Institute:
Tom Campbell and John Kruth (Executive Director, Rhine Research Center)
Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/si ... escription

Also Tom Campbells reasons for doing this kind of research is similar to a woo proponent with this kind of logic:
2. Why hasn’t this experiment been done before?

It’s not easy to make it this far when you're addressing a topic that suggests a profound change in the currently accepted model of reality. Scientists like Tom Campbell have been quietly working for years, developing the solid theoretical foundation for these types of experiments. There’s a tremendous resistance to this type of radical change in thinking within the scientific establishments. It has the potential to upset a lot of scientific apple carts.
Or this:
5. Hasn’t someone else already addressed this?

Science has been reluctant to test this theory since it is radically contrary to current orthodoxy. However, we now have more sophisticated tools for measurement than ever before, and a group of scientists willing to put their reputations on the line to advance humanity’s understanding of itself.
Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/si ... escription

Tom Campbell is also a known woo proponent: https://www.monroeinstitute.org/Thomas%20Campbell

So far this is all I found and I was able to come up with. If there are more arguments against this. If someone has more arguments against this I would be happy to hear them. Thanks.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Wordbird
Poster
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:03 pm

Re: Simulation Hypothesis - Matrix Hypothesis

Post by Wordbird » Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:11 pm

I absolutely disagree with points 8 and 10. Whatever medium we're inscribed on, we still interact with other beings who feel pain and fear death, and we still have empathy. I think this is the foundation of morality and that it still exists no matter what we are. Even if my pain is just a simulation, is still feels like pain and I still don't like it. Also, I don't want to die, even if that process isn't messy at all and just means my little segment of code being wiped clean. I'm not a simulation that just says "I don't want to die" - I literally do not want to die.

I also think the Cosmo article doesn't prove much. Once you reach the point where our computers can't compute it, there would be no way to prove it's not just random.