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

[Axphism]

Obviously chose "He's party right."

[Forogil]

The "simulated universe" thesis is just a secular version of creationism, for that matter. It's as old as people.

I would say it is not only similar to creationism - but specifically to the Omphalos-hypothesis - a variant of "young earth creationism".

If someone is simulating the earth and has made simplifications for objects in the distance from earth (simulating the entire universe in this level of detail is really infeasible) it seems logical that they didn't start the simulation at the big bang, but more recently. Thus, similarly as Omphalos-hypothesis, it implies that dinosaur fossils are planted "evidence".

That specific idea is actually later than the scientific evidence for an old universe - because earlier times didn't understand the need for that.

- - - Updated - - -

does this idea not suffer from an infinite regress? If we are in a simulation then the simulated people would advance to be able to create simulations who would advance enough to create simulations...you would end up with infinite nested simulations

That is not necessarily a problem, since in reality the simulations of another reality is just a fraction of what is done - and it is running slower and is more limited in space than the original one.

Making a computer-program that simulates a computer-program is possible, so one might think that it opens up the possibility for infinite regress. But when you try it the result is just that it runs slower, slower, and slower the more layers you add.

[Garnier Fructis]

does this idea not suffer from an infinite regress? If we are in a simulation then the simulated people would advance to be able to create simulations who would advance enough to create simulations...you would end up with infinite nested simulations

You'd have high probability of getting very many nested simulations, but not infinite. With a small probability of not being in a simulation, if you take enough 'trials' then you have probability close to 1 of one not being a simulation.

In the same way that if you kill Lich King 10,000 times on heroic you're very likely to see Invincible drop, even though the likelihood of it dropping on any one attempt is very, very low.

[Eroginous]

Pretty much what I said base reality is. Whatever existed originally still had to be created out of nothing unless it was just always there but that doesn't seem to make sense either since everything had to have a beginning.

For all the same reasons people argue God exists is the reason we wouldn't be base reality. Something being a simulation doesn't mean a literal simulation like a video game does or something. Saying we're base reality says the big bang started everything and that it was caused by nothing but rather was the beginning of everything for our universe. If something created the big bang, then that thing would be closer to base reality than us.

I never argued it was useful. At the same time though, if we don't know anything about such forces outside our universe, how do you know for sure it's useless to speculate and maybe one day actually come up with an answer? Regardless, that's what philosophers do whether it's useful or not and it's not difficult to sit down and think so why not do think about it?

Follow along with me for a moment, see if we can't get on the same page.

1. I'm only interested in what's useful. This thread is dedicated to discussing an idea put forth by a wealthy entrepreneur. An idea that has to have some usefulness to it or we have every right to dismiss it out of hand. As smart as Elon Musk is, if he didn't realize the infinite regression in his own words, I can't help him. Even Einstein had 'duh' moments, right? So if we're not talking about something useful here, we're just wasting everyone's time.

2. The idea of a 'base reality' is to be a reality free from needing to be created. The quote of yours I posted specifically talks about the idea that a 'god' created itself (lol?) and then created this reality. That's the point of Occam's Razor and avoiding an infinite regression. You have to simplify your explanation to the point where you get rid of all the things that aren't necessary, such as a 'god who created himself.' That simply doesn't serve as an explanation for anything. I can't put that into my equation and come up with a probability or a trajectory or even a shred of support for that explanation. It doesn't jive with the reality we find ourselves in, simply by being impossible to test.

3. No one is certain of even the big bang. Yes, it's the likely beginning of this universe, the universe we are able to observe and know things about. You trying to claim that it was the beginning of everything is like you claiming the earth is flat or that the sun is the center of the universe. It's only a matter of perspective, and once ours is able to change beyond the known universe, to whatever we call the thing outside the known universe (yes, there is something there, there has to be), we will have a different understanding of this universe, right?

Tell me again how a god who creates himself so he can create the universe is useful explanation?

4. Again, by definition, a simulation requires someone outside, creating it. It's no different than saying 'god created us all.' Elon Musk might as well make that his default position, convert to Christianity. Or whatever theology suits him best. You can't have a simulation that just exists with no cause because if no one caused it, it's no longer a simulation, by definition. Again, the whole infinite regression thing voids the theory. It's a non-starter. Zero explanatory power. Brain vomit by a smart guy.

[Dhrizzle]

Follow along with me for a moment, see if we can't get on the same page.

1. I'm only interested in what's useful. This thread is dedicated to discussing an idea put forth by a wealthy entrepreneur. An idea that has to have some usefulness to it or we have every right to dismiss it out of hand. As smart as Elon Musk is, if he didn't realize the infinite regression in his own words, I can't help him. Even Einstein had 'duh' moments, right? So if we're not talking about something useful here, we're just wasting everyone's time.

2. The idea of a 'base reality' is to be a reality free from needing to be created. The quote of yours I posted specifically talks about the idea that a 'god' created itself (lol?) and then created this reality. That's the point of Occam's Razor and avoiding an infinite regression. You have to simplify your explanation to the point where you get rid of all the things that aren't necessary, such as a 'god who created himself.' That simply doesn't serve as an explanation for anything. I can't put that into my equation and come up with a probability or a trajectory or even a shred of support for that explanation. It doesn't jive with the reality we find ourselves in, simply by being impossible to test.

3. No one is certain of even the big bang. Yes, it's the likely beginning of this universe, the universe we are able to observe and know things about. You trying to claim that it was the beginning of everything is like you claiming the earth is flat or that the sun is the center of the universe. It's only a matter of perspective, and once ours is able to change beyond the known universe, to whatever we call the thing outside the known universe (yes, there is something there, there has to be), we will have a different understanding of this universe, right?

Tell me again how a god who creates himself so he can create the universe is useful explanation?

4. Again, by definition, a simulation requires someone outside, creating it. It's no different than saying 'god created us all.' Elon Musk might as well make that his default position, convert to Christianity. Or whatever theology suits him best. You can't have a simulation that just exists with no cause because if no one caused it, it's no longer a simulation, by definition. Again, the whole infinite regression thing voids the theory. It's a non-starter. Zero explanatory power. Brain vomit by a smart guy.

For someone who thinks that "useless" ideas can be dismissed out of hand, you seem to spend a lot of words trying to convince others to believe the same things as you.

[xChurch]

If he could give us a solid reasoning as to why any species would want to do this, I might be more inclined to believe in it's possibility but other than doing it "for shits", I can't really see the purpose in creating a digital universe.

[Elim Garak]

If he could give us a solid reasoning as to why any species would want to do this, I might be more inclined to believe in it's possibility but other than doing it "for shits", I can't really see the purpose in creating a digital universe.

Funny reading such a statement on a MMORPG forum.

[xChurch]

Funny reading such a statement on a MMORPG forum.

How so? The scales of what you're comparing doesn't really make it fair.

[Elim Garak]

How so? The scales of what you're comparing doesn't really make it fair.

I'm comparing reasons. they are on the same scale.

[xChurch]

I'm comparing reasons. they are on the same scale.

The reason's would be different too since there are no PCs in our universe that we know of, I mean sure we could be in a game but it would seem strange to render so much extra shit you didn't need to. Not to mention all games we create still run on our time, so unless a universal game was created with it's own seperate time rate (which would have to be significantly faster than the creators time rate) the game would be extremely long and boring. The Titan game that became Overwatch was suppose to be a game where you worked your day job during the day hours and were a hero during the night and they canned it because it just wasn't fun. Seems like a game of our scale would suffer a very similar issue. Especially if you could already do unthinkable things in your own reality.

[Deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

I believe reality is a probabilistic simulator which renders reality according to known information.

Whatever it means for information to be "known" I do not know. But there is definitively many theories.

[Elim Garak]

The reason's would be different too since there are no PCs in our universe that we know of, I mean sure we could be in a game but it would seem strange to render so much extra shit you didn't need to.

Lol, it's easier to draw all the shit, because it requires lots of effort to NOT to. There are specific technologies designed specifically to not draw what is not needed, because of the performance hit. But if performance is not an issue - it is EASIER to just draw everything as is.

Moreso it is DESIRED. Drawing everything makes it easier to create destructible environments that look decent. Ever wanted to dismember your enemies anatomically correctly? Hard to do it without a performance hit, hence never happens in current video games. But if performance wasn't an issue - WE WOULD ALL WANT IT NOW.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

I believe one day we will get there and with disastrous results.

However, I don't think our current life is a simulation. It's too mundane and not very technologically advanced, nor is it equal in terms of global, racial, or economic terms.

[xChurch]

Lol, it's easier to draw all the shit, because it requires lots of effort to NOT to. There are specific technologies designed specifically to not draw what is not needed, because of the performance hit. But if performance is not an issue - it is EASIER to just draw everything as is.

Moreso it is DESIRED. Drawing everything makes it easier to create destructible environments that look decent. Ever wanted to dismember your enemies anatomically correctly? Hard to do it without a performance hit, hence never happens in current video games. But if performance wasn't an issue - WE WOULD ALL WANT IT NOW.

The question is then, if performance isn't an issue, why is our universe so freaking dull?

[Elim Garak]

The question is then, if performance isn't an issue, why is our universe so freaking dull?

Dull for whom? NPCs? Lol

[xChurch]

Dull for whom? NPCs? Lol

If there were PC's around, then the laws we've come to know wouldn't work all the time if the game was suppose to be fun, because if they did, short of being able to manipulate the fundamental forces/particles of nature, what could you do to make it more fantasy than what we have now?

[Elim Garak]

If there were PC's around, then the laws we've come to know wouldn't work all the time if the game was suppose to be fun, because if they did, short of being able to manipulate the fundamental forces/particles of nature, what could you do to make it more fantasy than what we have now?

Why are you looking at it from NPC's perspective? Ever wondered what WOW's NPCs think about WOW universe?

How can you even think of assuming that you can know what "creators" and/or PCs find entertaining?

[Dhrizzle]

If he could give us a solid reasoning as to why any species would want to do this, I might be more inclined to believe in it's possibility but other than doing it "for shits", I can't really see the purpose in creating a digital universe.

For entertainment or informative reasons. If you can simulate a large population (like the people on Earth for example) you can see how they'd respond to certain events or stimulus without risking permanent damage in "the real."

[xChurch]

Why are you looking at it from NPC's perspective? Ever wondered what WOW's NPCs think about WOW universe?

How can you even think of assuming that you can know what "creators" and/or PCs find entertaining?

Because we would be the NPCs. The NPCs in WoW would probably think they live in a pretty interesting Universe and it would be pretty obvious to any of them who PCs were if they had suspicions that they were in a game.

For entertainment or informative reasons. If you can simulate a large population (like the people on Earth for example) you can see how they'd respond to certain events or stimulus without risking permanent damage in "the real."

That makes total sense on a small scale sure, but we're talking an entire Universe here.

[Elim Garak]

Because we would be the NPCs. The NPCs in WoW would probably think they live in a pretty interesting Universe and it would be pretty obvious to any of them who PCs were if they had suspicions that they were in a game.

Lol, you are hilarious. You cannot know what PC find entertaining, you cannot know how many of them are currently online, you cannot know how many shards there are, perhaps we are on a low population one... ever wondered about all the crazy shit going in the world? Might be the PC's doing. Not to mention that if shits really hits the fan - they can just reset the state to the moment before shit happened and we would be none the wiser.