The simulation hypothesis has always bothered me as it requires a belief in the unprovable hence making it seem like a religious dictum. In this video Dr. Tyson tries to get past that but I think he made a critically erroneous assumption that each parent generation creates only one child simulation. That assumption wouldn't pan out if we were to base it on our experience with Minecraft like he did in the video. We don't have one Minecraft simulation but millions with varying levels of complexity. So the original question still stands. Is the belief in the simulation hypothesis equivalent to believing in a superior being called God?
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Neil seems like a nice guy but he's clueless about physics.
gater
Level 7
May 24, 2020
0
Really?, Doesn't he have dozens of original publications? So maybe he actually is smart. His style may be strange but he is no dummy.
I totally agree with what is being discussed here - the 50/50 chance. But because it's still 50/50 there's a 50% possibility that we're not in a simulation. Hence why regardless of what pour reality is I still want to be a very productive person. And I guess you can make the argument that even if we're in a simulation we want to be productive in order for the chances of this universe to still stay afloat without consequences to us.
CommunityTom
Level 7
May 18, 2020
1
I prefer to listen to a scientist who has more passion for science than always being the center of the attention! Prof. Dawkins??
PabloNeruda
Level 6
May 18, 2020
1
But there are very few scientists who speak publically. So it creates a dilemma. I assume that I have never heard of the most passionate scientists.
I agree, more should speak out, we need them out in the fields, out of the classrooms!
The idea makes for a great idea for a short story. I imagine an universe breaking down and people freaking out. And then have people trying to contact the creator (A seventh grader's science fair project).
Beowulfsfriend
Level 9
May 16, 2020
1
What a fantastic idea? Sort of like a flipped Matrix narrative.
I don't have an opinion on whether or not it's all a simulation because it doesn't matter, The consciousness that I experience still has to deal with the reality that is presented. But in regards to the assumption of only one child simulation being created per parent, isn't that addressed when he comments on various scenarios being presented to simulate relevant historical events? That would mean a single parent could create several children of which each represents a different historical event.
redbai
Level 8
May 16, 2020
1
He kind of glossed over the multiple child simulations. In an infinitely large hierarchy of parents, even a small multiple in number of children is sufficient to make the odds of being in the first or last one infinitely small.
@shivasregal Why doesn't the fact that we cannot create the simulation ourselves demonstrate that we are either the first which has never or the last which hasn't yet? Why is the default that it is feasible when it has not been demonstrated to be possible?
@redbai the default position of it being the first one is very defensible. And it being the last is also very good. However, for it to be the last there is no requirement that the predecessors are all 1:1 parent to child ratio. So in that scenario the numbers can balloon up. Since it is at most a thought experiment, it just feels like one with too many holes right now.
Hard to argue against a feeling, but it would seem to me that the 1:n, parent to children ratio (as opposed to the 1:1 parent to child ratio) is only relevant outside of a given consciousness' relative simulation. I don't see how or why alternative child simulations would matter to the experiences of any given consciousness in a specific child simulation, which is why, as I said in the beginning, I don't think the whole thing matters. It's like Pokemon trying to figure out if they can have meaningful life experiences in a chess game.
@redbai no argument with that. The point I am quibbling over is a minor one and that is in a (1:n)^billion, the odds of being in first or last go down to zero fast. So his explanation is not an acceptable solution.
I like Tyson and I appreciate his knowledge but there is lots of this that I cannot buy. For us to get down to ideas of a matrix and a simulation it would appear to be something coming out of a computer age or a sci fi story. Our current conditions and limitations were here from the beginning without the "advanced thinking." My thoughts are the same about people who suggest we are just "a brain in a vat." What vat and what kind of brain? Currently there are just some things we do not know.
DenoPenno
Level 9
May 16, 2020
2
While I agree with your views, I also am open to the possibility of new computational advances like AI that allow our successors to make these simulations. Considering that 20 years ago, a voice interface for regular human computer interaction felt like sci-fi, it is hard to declare this scenario a zero likelihood occurance.
@shivasregal While I can agree with you some of the content of my post is ignored. Being able today to do super things with a computer does not mean we bring computer logic into speculation like a simulation. What about all the years we did not have this technology? It's kind of like saying "god does everything in his own time" so he waited until about 1980 to give us useful DNA.
@DenoPenno my apologies but I don't understand the point about 1980 and DNA. DNA was likely created about 3.5 billion years ago from RNA.
@shivasregal My DNA reference is in pointing out that the wonderous god in his wisdom only allowed mankind to find useful purposes in crime solving through DNA around 1980. I refer to it as a technology. DNA beginnings and when we started to use it are not the same thing.
Who cares? There is no way to sufficiently evidence this hypothesis. Effectively, what we live in reality.
A reality where the mental processes of 90% plus of the human race are delusional in some way.
Ginaphil
Level 5
May 16, 2020
1
I care only to the extent that if it is plausible maybe I should get busy building my computer to be one of the players. 
It’s an Utterly ridiculous Idea just like all creation myths.
JacobMeyers
Level 6
May 15, 2020
1
I don't think it equates to believing in a god at all. I have often thought it could easily be some snotty teenager running a sim on their super powerful PC in his/her bedroom. Theres absolutely nothing magical about running a sim.
Nardi
Level 7
May 15, 2020
1
The only problem is that it is untestable with our current knowledge.
IMO the simulation hypothesis works well as an analogy. Our everyday world of the senses really is a simulation. We as individuals create and exist within that simulation. Our higher Self is the observer of the simulation, and supplies awareness and free will.
As an explanation of ultimate reality beyond the senses, the simulation hypothesis falls short, leaving numerous unanswered questions. It’s a tantalizing idea, but try and visualize that higher realm of the computer and you wind up with confusion.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
May 15, 2020
1
I look at it the same as I do other unanswerable(so far for me) questions like 'do we have free will?' or 'are there such fundamental things as good or evil?. The fact is -- I don't have any way to tell.
So I figure I might as well act the way I want -- act as if I do have free will and act as if good and evil exist and act as if there is a real world and the simulation question is nonsense.
RichCC
Level 8
May 15, 2020
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.