Elon Musk says were living in a simulation, here's his argument

[chrisnumbers]

I didn't see it posted in this thread so here it is:

It's an interesting thought.

[Sandraudiga]

It's possible. In the end though it doesn't matter because even if we were it shouldn't affect anything for us. It would still be OUR reality.

[apepi]

A whole bunch of crap. Show me the proof. There is none.

[Eroginous]

It's a slight misrepresentation of the position.

The argument is that if simulations were indistinguishable, then we would be unable to differentiate between reality and the virtual.

If there is only one base reality, but simulations are extremely commonplace (millions, billions, etc) - then they may contain many, many orders of magnitude more people within simulations than outside them (in 'the real').

Given those assumptions, it's a fair position to suggest that we are more likely - statistically to be virtual beings than real beings.

The assumptions themselves however are fairly dodgy - knock down any one of them and the argument falls too.

Yes, for example: if the argument is applied to our existence, we're positing that an external force is deliberately responsible for us, which still requires that we explain that external force. It's an infinite regression at that point because no matter what the explanation becomes for the next external force, each new explanation then requires it's own explanation. Until we decide that there is either no explanation (because there doesn't need to be one) or that any proposed explanation is sufficient (opinion), this will always be the case. It's just a matter of how far into the rabbit hole you want to go.

I mentioned Occam's Razor for a reason.

[Drekker17]

In 40 years? Yeah right, tech advances in a specific area always slow down, always.

I don't believe it because it has no more evidence than every religion.

[I Push Buttons]

I don't doubt we will have interactive entertainment that will be indistinguishable from reality in the near future, but I do doubt entirely the notion that we are currently living inside of a simulation.

If for no other reason than hardware, even hardware capable of quantum computation, can only do so much. Processing power cannot advance infinitely, there is a hard line where it can't physically go any farther... I mean literally physically, like the laws of physics would not permit it.

So yes, I believe we will eventually have simulations indistinguishable from reality... But they will be mere glimpses, pieces of what appears to be another reality... We will never simulate entire other realities... Entire other universes. It would require computing beyond what physics would allow.

[Theodarzna]

Elon Musk needs to lay off the shrooms.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Let me put it that way, if we live in a simulation, someone go and tel me the keybinding for opening up the command line console.

[May90]

I didn't see it posted in this thread so here it is:

It's an interesting thought.

Aaaaaaah, I see his point now... Well, from this perspective, I guess, he is right. The wording was a bit ambiguous in the OP.

[Ifeanychukwu]

I don't think he's right but I think he's right.

[May90]

Well, the other alternative is that we created it. And then put ourselves into it. i.e Matrioshka brain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain

This is interesting, I've never really thought about it. I wonder if it is possible to prove somehow from within such reality whether we put ourselves into it, or someone else did it for us.

[Eviscero]

He says look at computer games. First we had pong, 2 paddles and a dot that simulated a tennis game. Today what 30-40 years later we have multiplayer games that simulate whole worlds pretty accurately and with hundreds of other players sharing the game, think WoW or GTA 5. And the sophistication of these simulations are growing all the time. What kind of simulations will we have in 40 years time? He says simulations by then will indistinguishable from reality.

So that's why he believes we are living in a simulation. In fact he said there is only a one out of a billion chance that we are living in "base reality". "Base reality" meaning the real world or simulation level 0.

Do you buy into Elon's theory?

Neat idea, but statements like 'one out of a billion chance,' unless it's pure hyperbole for emphasis, are moronic and prove you know nothing of probability theory.

And it really depends on what he means by simulation. Does he think our universe is running on a computer somewhere in a lower level universe, which may itself be a simulation?

[Deletedaccount1]

If God or any sort of supernatural entity exists and exerts some sort of force on our world then we live in a simulation.

[Mormolyce]

I presume he's illustrating a point, because why on earth would anyone want to simulate this reality?

[oxymoronic]

That is VERY doubtful, because the hardware power increases have slowed down already.
Unless we get quantum computing working and matured in just 40 years (fat chance) we will likely plateau for a while.

Real life is infinitely complex. We cannot simulate infinite complexity.

right now we can't... but you really gonna say what we can and cant do in one million years from now? give me a break.

- - - Updated - - -

Except it's just horrible logic no matter how you spin it. Simulating a billion realities doesn't make "reality" less real - or less likely to be real - by way of statistics.

It's basically like taking the President and putting him into a room with a bunch of people and saying, "Ok, now it's statistically less likely that he's still the President." which just isn't how math works.

actually that is exactly how math works... wtf are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, for example: if the argument is applied to our existence, we're positing that an external force is deliberately responsible for us, which still requires that we explain that external force. It's an infinite regression at that point because no matter what the explanation becomes for the next external force, each new explanation then requires it's own explanation. Until we decide that there is either no explanation (because there doesn't need to be one) or that any proposed explanation is sufficient (opinion), this will always be the case. It's just a matter of how far into the rabbit hole you want to go.

I mentioned Occam's Razor for a reason.

occams razor would be that we are living in a simulation as it is the most obvious mathematical answer.

[Garnier Fructis]

Voted no on the basis of that reasoning being ridiculously bad.

- - - Updated - - -

occams razor would be that we are living in a simulation as it is the most obvious mathematical answer.

Until you realize that this ends up postulating an entire outer existence that's doing the simulating. Base reality is a more suitable consequence of Occam's Razor, otherwise we've ended up postulating a tech version of God.

[Rothg]

The feigned ignorance of your Hubcap character is always amusing. I do sometimes wonder what you really think though.

Does he have another account on this forum? I've definitely picked up on some feigned ignorance for humor from him before

[Kapadons]

I actually like Elon musk but the shit coming out of his face is getting weirder and weirder. He either got some bad acid this last time from his dealer or he is collapsing under the weight of his own genius. Seems to happen a lot

[Wezmon]

Um, no. If you think that, you totally missed the point.

Putting the President in a room with a billion people doesn't suddenly mean that he only has a 1/1,000,000,000 chance of still being President. He's still President regardless, simply throwing more options at a known quantity doesn't suddenly mean that said known quantity magically becomes "statistically less likely".

No but you are looking at it wrong. In your argument the president "knows" he is the president (as you say, known quantity), and of course stays president. But the argument in the simulation hypothesis is that the simulated realities do not know they are simulated. So the maths is sound. Its like having a room with one man in and someone says the president is in that room. Picking a man at random will give you 100% chance of finding the president. Now repeat with a billion people and the chances are now 1/billion.

Now I'm not saying I believe the hypothesis, but it is quite interesting it always makes for a good natter in the pub. I suspect it fails on the point that tech will never get advanced enough to create consciousness, or that by the time we can people will have no reason to create "sims" for enjoyment (it relies on everyone creating sims on their personal pcs, hence the 1 in billions number)

[Eroginous]

occams razor would be that we are living in a simulation as it is the most obvious mathematical answer.

The point of mentioning Occam's Razor is illustrate the problem with the explanation being posited by Elon Musk - it's infinitely regressive, offering no real explanatory power for the reality we find ourselves in. It's not a matter of positing 'math' and then calling it a day, math is a human construct that we utilize to the best of our ability to explain the universe. Math is not always the right explanation.