simulation hypothesis

[Peter*]

Hello,

Could someone please explain how equation 1 is arrived at, in the attached Mathcad file. The Simulation Hypothesis posits that we are living in a computer simulation writen by our posthuman (ie. in the far future) selves. The statistical analysis is based on the following (taken from the Abstract of the paper in the Reference, at the end of the Mathcad document):

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true:

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.

Thanks.

Peter

[PS: my opologies for the web URL, (in the Reference of the Mathcad document) not being a hyperlink but the Insert hyperlink in my Mathcad 15 (15.0.0.436) does not work. Does it work in later revisions?]

[RichardJ · Accepted solution]

[Peter*]

Hello Richard,

Many thanks for your clear and concise answer. I will use it to write a Mathcad document which explains the math in the "are you living in a computer simulation?" paper, for the math challenged like myself. Perhaps I will post the result here.

Peter

[RichardJ]

But why should H=H2? The author does not address this (at least, I didn't find it, but I also did not read the paper very carefully)

[Peter*]

I agree. I've read the paper many times and this is not addressed. You seem to have uncovered a slight flaw in his argument.

[AlvaroDíaz]

Hi.

In that case, the discussion of the implications it's more complicated. For instance, must to start from this:

[RichardJ]

I think the entire thing is way more complicated than the author makes it. As one example, he talks about the computational cost of simulating all the minds in a civilization. This is not necessary though. At the lower limit, only one mind has to be simulated in it's full complexity: that of the observer (cogito ergo sum). He also ignores the question of why people would run these simulations. Maybe they are for entertainment. Sit down in the evening, and in one hour of real time live a virtual life (you are unaware that it's virtual until you die in the simulation, and wake up in real life). If that were the reason for the simulations, and nobody can be in more than one simulation at a time, then at a given time the total number of simulations must be less than the total number of real people, but it would still be quite large. This is a scenario that is possible, but is not consistent with any of his three possible conclusions. There are numerous other questions and variations, none of which are addressed.

[AlvaroDíaz]

Hi Richard.

Richard Jackson wrote:

I think the entire thing is way more complicated than the author makes it.

Absolutely true.

He also ignores the question of why people would run these simulations. Maybe they are for entertainment.

Prety sure of that. How do never play Age of Empires or something like it, 'God Mode' games?

... but is not consistent with any of his three possible conclusions.

Well, that's the point, I don't "see" the 3 conclusions, much less more after reading your questioning about why H=H2.

Best regards.

Alvaro.

[RichardJ]

Here's another issue I have with his reasoning. He states that post human civilizations will have enough computing power to run very many simulations, so unless they are banned, they will do so. I doubt that the limiting factor will be the amount of computing power though. Someone, or many someones, will have to program those simulations, and given the required complexity that will be a monumental undertaking. So post human civilizations may have only a few such simulations (they could have many copies of the same one of course), or possibly none at all, because the rewards don't justify the huge cost of creating them.

[Peter*]

I agree, programming and maintaining  the simulations would be the resource limiting factor and because of this there are not the great many simulations that Bostrom's math argument requires. In Jim Elvidge's book The Universe Solved he maps out how the programming might be done, however I think his approach is too static. I think the key would be to develop algorithms for how things develop - Embryogenesis for instance.

[AlvaroDíaz]

Hi.

Peter* wrote:

I agree, programming and maintaining  the simulations would be the resource limiting factor ...

I'm not sure of that. What about AI for those both things? Long time ago (well, maybe not that long) humans make tools for make tools, like forges. Right now, there are machines making machines, and some few programs are making programs.

I guess that maybe more important question could be how much important it is if we live in a simulation. This is, how much unreal a simulation could be.

Finally, considerations about time could be dangerous, because maybe time is an effect of the simulation, but in the simulator world there are nothing like time, or none of the 11 or 12 dimensions that the brana's theory talking about, excepting, obviously, the coffee and the other few really important things.

Best regards.

Alvaro.

[RichardJ]

An AI is a possibility. But who programs the AI? Maybe another AI? But allowing AIs to program ever more powerful AIs seems like a very dangerous thing to me. So maybe no post human civilization that allows that survives. There are just too many maybes. too many what ifs, to realistically come up with a probability that we (or just I, since I don't know for sure that any of the rest of you exist) are living in a simulation.

[Peter*]

Attached is the promised Mathcad document.

Richard, do you think it would be worthwhile to post another question to see if anyone can come up with an analysis that avoids the H=H2 assumption, or are you confident that the way you did it is the only way it can be done?

[RichardJ]

I wouldn't say that the way I did it is the only way it can be done, but unless I made a mistake all derivations should result in the same answer.