So yeah… we’re probably in a video game? If so I think I’m running an older console.
“The strongest argument for us being in a simulation probably is the following. Forty years ago we had pong. Like two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were.
Now, forty years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. Soon we’ll have virtual reality, augmented reality.
If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now. Then you just say, okay, let’s imagine it’s 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale.
So given that we’re clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on any set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions of such computers or set-top boxes, it would seem to follow that the odds that we’re in base reality is one in billions.
Tell me what’s wrong with that argument. Is there a flaw in that argument?”
Emily “Syreene” Vitori says
I tried playing the Outside MMORPG, but it uses Windows and the graphics were horrible.
Thomas Wrobel says
This argument is basically correct, but in a few other ways too;
1) we have no clue about the physics of the higher reality
We have a sample range of 1. And 1/1 universes we know of have the capacity to simulate universes within them.
For all we know its vastly easier to simulate other universes in higher realities.
2) Doesn't matter how real a sub-universe seems. If your brought up in it, you wouldn't even know what "realistic" is to higher reality standards.
[insert something about a cave and shadows here]
Lower realities have less information then higher ones. Thats pretty much all we can say.
Other then that, I would suggest we are in a stack of them, with realer worlds and faker worlds. Maybe…..infinite.
Paul Spoerry says
Yeah… someone tried to take this in a god-y direction with me over on the other social network… to which I had to reply, they're functionally the same. In that we cannot ever "know". Fun thought experiment but practically speaking it makes no difference if it's real or not… as long as we experience it then it's real to us.
Thomas Wrobel says
Some argue it means we have to be interesting or we will get turned off – but id argue the maths is hugely against that scenario. (as it takes a very specific intention simulation with beings like us observing us and having the concept of "bordem")
I wouldn't say its completely worthless though, on some level it might help make us accept seemingly un intuitive parts of physics."That cant be right its too weird" doesnt apply quite so much when you can just think of it as information and code.