Relax, Elon Musk, We're Not in a Virtual Simulation -- Watch This Video to Understand Why

Elon Musk raised eyebrows last June when he suggested reality itself is almost certainly a virtual simulation created by a powerful alien species and that "the odds that we're in base reality is one in billions". This video above, from Elliotte Lee's Click Philosophy channel, provides a helpful and reassuring argument for why this notion doesn't make much sense. Based on the writings of the great, recently deceased Hillary Putnam, who had the advantage of being both a philosopher and a computer scientist -- so he'd probably be less impressed by Elon's "we can already simulate a World of Warcraft in computers, so super-smart aliens could simulate an entire universe" argument -- Putnam's argument boils down to something like this:

If you showed an alien from Mars a simulated version of the Earth, he wouldn't be able to understand what he was experiencing, since he has no prior experience with the Earth and its contents. In the same way, it doesn't make much sense that we could somehow understand a simulated reality we're plugged into without actually having been in base reality at some point. (And I don't recall being subsequently plugged in, do you?)

That's a truly elegant argument I wish I had thought of first, but then, I'm not Hilary fucking Putnam. On the other side of the ledger, I still like my own three counter-points, especially this one:

At this point, our very non-human-like hypothetical alien race which can and wants to simulate all of reality doesn’t seem fundamentally different from the Biblical version of God, or for that matter Zeus, Brahma, or whoever. So in the end, the simulation argument is just a secularized version of any number of creation myths — and not especially superior to it. (It's really just an update to the medieval "God as clockmaker" argument, where God looks like E.T., and the clock is an Xbox.) So if we're to give the simulation argument credence, there's really no reason to dismiss any other religion-based "simulation" belief. And is that really the kind of world (simulated or otherwise) we want to live in?

Anyway, Elon, what we're saying is everything is cool. Well, everything except for the actual world, which seems to be catching on fire, and we could really use your help.

Video via /Philosophy, which of course has a spirited conversation on the topic right now.

Please share this post:

Tweet

 

Comments

[Shockwave yareach]

The idea we are in an artificial universe is little different than the idea that our universe was created by God. Both assume a creator that controls everything. One just has a tech component to it that youd better pray is on a really good ups.

[Thommy Boy]

If the Earth is a simulation, as is all of what we perceive to be reality, and we have always been a simulation - then of course we do not need a reference point in reality as the simulation has always been our reality. The difference between religion and testing to see if we are indeed in a simulation, is that one seeks the truth, the other intends to force a perceived "Truth" on others.

[Guntram Graef]

Of course we could have been in base reality at some point. That we don't remember it might be an intentionally induced amnesia to increase the realism of our simulated experience.

[Iggy]

If this universe were a simulation, it had to be designed by LInden Lab.

[Tito Gonzalez]

Wow that is so weak.
A baby has never been in it's reality either and yet it learns pretty damn quick.

[Drew956]

Lol I have to agree with Tito.

I also liked what the others were saying.
It's important to note that if we are in a simulation, even IF that simulation crashed, or something went wrong with the tech, we'd likely never know.
For the instance where it crashes, if we get reverted to a "save state" we don't have any recollection of anything that would trigger flags in our minds.
We wouldn't know anything had happened.
We'd just relive the moments before the crash as naturally as before.
(whether identically so or not is a different matter entirely)
Our internal state does not save data which points to an external state.
At least as far as I know, correct me if quantum physics wishes to argue otherwise.
(though know that even that theory doesn't equate to proof of anything, itself being just a (well-supported) model, not the absolute)

Switching off while in one state and resuming to that same state after any duration of time would still be a fluid, uninterrupted, experience from our point of view.
In otherwords, even if we were "unplugged" for a billion years, and then the "program" or whatever was resumed, we wouldn't know any difference.
We would not be able to perceive an external time frame, since our internal time frame is self-contained and based on when we are actually being simulated.

These were just some thoughts I wanted to share, not necessarily directly linked to the overarching question of if we are in a simulation.