New Twist on "Reality is a Simulation" Theory Just Secularized Rehashing of Bible's Tower of Babel Myth

Fascinating twist to the much-discussed "reality is a simulation" hypothesis featured in last weekend's New York Times. Many scientists are now trying to prove the theory is true, but philosopher Preston Greene argues that that's a really, really bad idea:

[I]f our universe has been created by an advanced civilization for research purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that it is crucial to the researchers that we don’t find out that we’re in a simulation. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world.

Of course, the proposed experiments may not detect anything that suggests we live in a computer simulation. In that case, the results will prove nothing. This is my point: The results of the proposed experiments will be interesting only when they are dangerous. While there would be considerable value in learning that we live in a computer simulation, the cost involved — incurring the risk of terminating our universe — would be many times greater.

This pretty much illustrates my point that the simulation hypothesis is essentially indistinguishable from traditional religion:

[T]he 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.

In the Bible, for instance, when humans try to gain knowledge of the divine by building the Tower of Babel, God forces humanity to speak in many different languages, so they can no longer work together sufficiently to complete the construction -- in other words, resetting the simulation with new parameters. But if Judeo-Christian theologians wrote an essay arguing that, say, creating supercomputers might cause God to unleash another Tower of Babel reset, they probably wouldn't be published in the New York Times.

In any case, more reading to set your mind at ease:

• No, Elon Musk, We're Probably Not In A Virtual Simulation
• "The World Is A Simulation" Folks Like Elon Musk Should Study Some Alva Noë
• Relax, Elon Musk, We're Not In A Virtual Simulation -- Watch This Video To Understand Why

Pictured above: Matrix Reloaded, because every simulation post goes better with Keanu.

Comments

[Ta2025]

Just because someone writes an article that says we are not....proves nothing. I think it highly more likely that we are and we are supposed to figure it out. maybe we are AI, just achieving sentience...

[Tizzy Canucci]

In 1998, Pierre Lévy wrote 'Becoming Virtual: Reality in the Digital Age', where he argued that you never leave the real world to go into the virtual - we still sleep, eat, have inter-human relationships. Instead it's a distinction between the actual (rather than the real) and the virtual - between what exists physically and what exists in our imaginations, and we move between the two, as we live and think. The real always exists.
That's a far more accurate understanding of how people work - but far too mundane for the tech enthusiasts, tech philosophers, and newspapers hunting a headline. But maybe if you get paid real money to peddle the idea that reality doesn't exists, it's more tempting.

[Pulsar]

@Ta2025 the articles don't just say "no". They come with reasoning and arguments that say *why* "we are probably not..." or *why* it may be not worth / may be dangerous. Yours, instead, is exactly just "I think it highly more likely", without showing any reason why should be highly more likely. It's not whatever one believes just because vs whatever you believe just because. It doesn't work like that. Evaluating the odds and if something is more or less likely isn't random: it has some basis, there are arguments that follow a logic; at most you can point at where they are weak and why, and show counter-arguments.

Whatever the probabilities, one argument in this post is:
a) it's not a simulation => we won't produce any result
b) it is a simulation, but we won't be able to find out => no result as above, the universe simulation continues without issues
c) it is a simulation, and we figure it out => the simulators may decide the experiment is void and they terminate it. (This is an existential risk).

You might counter case b maybe: in case it is a simulation, we don't know the purpose of the simulation*. What if (case b1) the purpose is about to find out if a simulated intelligence is able to figure out it is simulated? Maybe:

b1a) the simulated intelligence can't figure it out: the simulation won't necessarily continue, it may be over after a while, not producing any result. (existential risk)

b1b) the simulated intelligence is able to figure it out: the experiment is complete the moment it happens. Unless there is a follow up, the result was found, the experiment is over and the simulation ends there. (existential risk).

Let's hope the purpose of the hypothetical simulation isn't to see if we can figure it out! LOL
---
* = It's hard to guess how the simulator/s' mind work. If it is a scientific project, we could consider the probability they are simulating as we would do (a simulated universe similar to our own to study our own universe) in which case there may be similitudes; but their mind could be entirely different instead, it could be a what-if experiment for their next sci-fi story; it may also be an artistic purpose or just for fun, or anything else.

[Joey1058]

"Reality" is a result of perception. I perceive a digital world called SL that my imagination occupies. I also perceive a default world that my physical self occupies. They run in parallel to each other. What I believe, is that both are binary. The above statements are my "what is" examples. "How" and "why" fall under theology. That's where my head goes all 'splodey.