Talk:Simulated reality hypothesis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Almost Certainly

A small point: The phrase "almost certainly" occurs often in this article and in the accompanying discussion. Is this meant in the mathematical sense of "with probability 1"? If so, I would recommend a link to the article "Almost surely" which explains the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.99.123.3 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

'Quotes'

The 'article' 'contains' a few 'too many' words that are 'enclosed' in single-quotes, and 'often' it seems there 'is' no 'reason' to surround that 'particular' word in 'quotes' at all. Also, use 'double' quotes (" ") like you're 'supposed to'. Oddity- (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Nonsense

The statement "If one was to believe that life was nothing but a dream or simulation, logically they would be able to effect the dreamworld or simulation using their mind, as in a lucid dream (see lucid living and Reality in Buddhism.)" is nonsense. It does not logically follow that a person who is simulated would be able to effect the simulation. In general, the opposite is true: if a simulation is so constructed there is NO WAY for the simulated consciousness to even know he is simulated, much less effect the simulation at a higher level than the physical reality being simulated. I've removed this sentence. --Vincenttoups 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Refocussing the Article

This article has come in for a lot of criticism, mainly becuse of the lack of adherence to the Wikipedia Conventions, some editors using it to attempt to prove their own theories about Simulated Reality. More worrying are the criticisms that the article is vague in intent and unfocussed. In response to all this, I should like to suggest a complete rethink of the article, along the following lines:

Firstly, the header at the top should say something like:

Simulated reality is concerned with the idea that reality as we perceive it is an illusion, and the world as we know it could be a simulation — possibly a computer simulation — to a degree indistinguishable from 'true' reality. While to many this notion may be dismissed as the work of a crank or a conspiracy theorist, in fact there is a long history to the idea. It is an important theme in science fiction, and recently has become a serious topic of study for futurology, in particular for transhumanism through the work of Nick Bostrom.

This I believe would help to get the article back on the right track. It would allow a concentration on discussing what has been written about simulated reality, (and there is a huge amount), rather than authors expressing their own views on what may, or may not be the case when simulated reality eventually comes along, or whether or not we are actually living in a simulation.

Suggestion for new structure:

• Types of Reality Simulation
  • Already-exisitng, but needs to be referenced either to mind transfer or science fiction topics.
• Origins & Historical Precedents
  • lots of this stuff is already in the article
• Philosphical Issues
  • lots missing; needs to be referenced to Futurology, transhumanism and to Nick Bostrom's papers etc.- the theoretical stuff.
• Scientific Issues
  • much is already in the article about Quantum mechanics, relativity. Here can be discussed stuff about digital physics, computationalism etc. It might also include stuff on current simulations such as biological and cosmological simulations, as well as celluar automata, and whether ot not such things are capable of supporting intelligence.
• Computational Issues
  • This would discuss the curent state of AI, computational requirement needed to run simulated reality, Moores Law, and predictions of how close we are to doing it. In addition it would need to discuss the relationship between consciouness and Turing computability
• Legal, Ethical * Moral Issues
  • very little of this is in the article. Peter Jenkins article (Journal of Futures Studies 11(1)) would make a good starting point.
• Simulation Arguments and Counter Arguments
  • here can be explored all of the stuff which currently is littered throughout the artcle and cluttering it up. It would start with Bostrom, and go into refutations, as well as including stuff about digital physics, QM as software glitches(paper by Ross Rhodes - http://bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html)
• Simulated Reality in Fiction
  • Lots of stuff already, but what is needed is a quick summary of the different types. I have a feeling this should go to a separate article.

There is probably stuff that I have missed, and no doubt my suggestion will come in for heavy criticism. However, I would ask the community to take this idea seriously, and work towards something like this framework. We desperately need to get this article back on track, and looking like it is a serious piece documenting the current state of thinking on this topic in the world out there, rather than a vaguely interesting but ultimately inconclusive internal debate amongst the editors.

--TonyFleet 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How much of this are you willing to do yourself? The "community" is currently three people. Are you intending to make the page longer or shorter overall? 1Z 01:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK What I am proposing is this. on Simulism I will (have) set up a simulated reality of this topic. I will offer to keep that there, and work on it, and anyone else who wants to contribute can. I will police it, and chuck off miscreants and keep to the agreed philosophy. I will incorporate those elements from this article that abide by the principles set out. At the time when it appears that there is something better than what is currently here, we have a debate about what to do with the current offering. This should take a couple of weeks. Initially the page would be considerably shorter, since all the stuff which is unsubstantiated would go. It could come back if people are prepared to do the work necessary to make it valid.

I originally thought of setting up a different topic (eg Simulism) by plagiarising the idea from Ivo Jansch's Wiki; the problem with the title is that can't find any other references to it. However, that does not alter the principle.

--TonyFleet 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Small addition seemingly required

It seems in the section where it speaks of Computational Load,

"In answer to this objection, Bostrom calculated that the whole of human history would require roughly 1033 to 1036 calculations to simulate.[1] He further calculated that a planet-sized computer built using known nanotechnological methods would perform about 1042 calculations per second -- and a planet-sized computer is not inherently impossible to build, (although the speed of light could severely constrain the speed at which its subprocessors share data)."

The part at the very end discussing limitations by the speed of light, it should be noted, again, that the simulation would not necessarily have to run in real time and thus that limitation is non-existent.

I'd make this addition myself but my additions to anything always get deleted immediately regardless of validity for some reason no matter where they are.

If the simulation is being run for purposes of research, it does need to be reasonably fast. 1Z 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New Opening Section and Definitions

I have set up a new opening section on Simulism. Comments Please?

--TonyFleet 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Authority and citations

If I were to write a blog entry about my personal convictions regarding simulated reality or write an "unpublished" paper and link to them as authoritative citations would that stand up to scrutiny under Wikipedia's editorial guidelines?

I ask because some of these links to citations are very dubious. One appears to be a blog entry of a reader who read Nick Bostrom's article and wanted to share his analysis of Nick Bostrom's simulation argument. If we're going down that path then I'll just set up a blog and respond to his flawed and biased analysis of the Bostrom paper.

In my view, readers should share their comments in the discussion section rather than writing a blog and linking to it in the article itself. It lowers the quality of the article and exposes their strong desire to input their personal convictions rather than have an encyclopedic resource that allows readers to come to their own conclusion.

If everyone agrees I'll start axing some of the ridiculous citations to readers websites, blogs, and papers that appear nowhere but in someone's hard drive or their personal website without any peer review.Lordvolton 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

_______________

The distinction between a blog, a website, an unpublished article, a yet-to-be-published article, a conference paper, a peer-reviewed conference paper, a journal article in a 'cosy' publication refereed by your mates, and a fully refereed journal article in an internationally recognised prestigious publication is a long journey, but each step along the way is small and it is sometimes difficult to tell that you have moved at all. My view is this: first and foremost, this article should be about what has already been written. Nothing in this article should be there unless someone other than the editor writing the entry has said it. If you write a blog, and I link to it, then I am deciding that what you have said is of merit, and is worthy to be put in. Another editor can disagree and we have a debate. In essence, as we do this, it is peer review.

Now I totally agree that we should be aiming for fully refereed Journal Articles, standard texts etc., however, with a topic such as this, we would (to my knowledge) have four such items about the central topic. This would make the Simulated Reality Article pretty short. In the absence of more substantial work, we should mine down into some of the other areas. I personally think it is valid to say, for example that the Simulation Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis, justifying it by links to the FAQ on Bostrom's website and an unpublished paper by Chalmers on the Matrix Website. The reason being that Bostrom is the generator of the SH, so his views are that of 'an informed expert'. The paper on the Matrix website is written by an academic, is a fairly serious piece of work, it is on a sort-of reasonably prestigious and certainly relevant website, and substantiates the statement from a slightly different point of view.

On the other hand, it would be totally unacceptable for anyone to ref themselves anywhere, unless the material had already been through some sort of peer review process.

I take the view though, that the first stuff to go should be anything which is NOT subtantiated. The 'poorly referenced' stuff like blogs should only be removed when the unreferenced stuff has gone. It will be interesting to see how much is left when both of these have happened. I suggest it will be (a) not a lot, and (b) pretty unbalanced.

--TonyFleet 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sturman blog and the wiki response really should be a discussion topic. I believe most of it was already covered in the discussion page and the article itself. I know the editors want to debate the issue, but I don't think the debate should take place within the article guised as authoritative citations.

Maybe there could be a debate wiki or public blog where people are allowed to debate the issue. "For more views pro and con visit XYZ".

It shouldn't require a special login. Otherwise nobody will participate.

Lordvolton 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...

(i) for a debate blog, or a place to post your pet theories, try: Ivo's Place on the web for freaked out simulants

(ii) My comments were directed at stuff like this:

Dreaming

In order to demonstrate the possibility that what we accept as reality is a simulation there should be some evidence that we could point to in order to extrapolate that it is in fact an illusion. Dreaming is one such example where ordinary people are fooled into believing a simulated reality (a dream) is the ‘true’ reality.

Unlike recent philosophical analysis that require readers to imagine future generations that may create simulated realities, dreaming requires no such leap of faith. All that is required for the observer to realize he has been fooled is the simple act of waking up.

Since dreams are commonplace, and most people are fooled by them, the "reality" of dreams should silence the critics who argue that simulations are theoretical or that humans are too intelligent to be easily fooled by them. As a result, left open is the question of whether we’re being fooled when our eyes are wide open.

• • • • The idea of simulated reality is valid for those who realize that "things which do appear were not made of things which do appear". These enlightened individuals understand the concept of "calling those things that be not as those they were". I know, I know. So many of you will not a clue as what is being said, but those who have actually accomplished bending "simulated reality" to their will fully "get it".****** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.218.170.99 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this (a) does not understand the differenee between an argument and an analogy; (b) undermines their own argument all by themselves in paragraph 2, (c) states unwarranted assumptions as premises in paragraph 3, then merely asserts them in the guise of an argument , and (d) Seems to have authored it entirely by themselves with no reference to any external material whatsoever.

It is drivel and should be removed.

(iii) And please.. can we archive some of this debate, it is taking forever to load the page!

I have helped by putting an Archive Icon at the top of the page

(TonyFleet; sorry not logged on!)19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think that's bad, you should have seen the first version! (Yes, I agree to deletion) 1Z 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Sturman affair--the material on Simulism is the only counterargument to the Occam's Razor objection that anyone has so far produced.1Z 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs

Just to be clear, references to your own blogs are not acceptable. WP:V 1Z 00:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

_____________________

Agreed.

I say we axe the blog material including Sturman's refutation of Bostrom since that's just a personal website/web log. Otherwise we end up with what just happened -- blogs responding to blogs.

The wiki responding to Sturman is also a blog responding to a blog in essence.

I think a debate is healthy and interesting and I don't having a problem with Sturman or the wiki -- we just need to move it to a more proper forum. I created the blog to illustrate the point -- but we can still use it for discussion.

I can probably get Nick Bostrom to chime in if you guys are really interested in debating and analyzing the issue.

Lordvolton 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed citation to personal websites, blogs, etc.

Lordvolton 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the difference between personal blogs, your own blogs, notable blogs etc.1Z 01:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

____________

Duly noted, which is why I left in the unpublished article. The others were not notable.

I presume Sturman is one of the editors? He runs a web design company so has no special status above another of the others editors working on this article.

Lordvolton 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

______________

AFAIK he has not edited the article, but he is a pretty smart guy who posts on David Deutsch's list.1Z 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC) _______________

I think the unpublished article is a serious analysis of Bostrom's work. And while Sturman is probably very bright his analysis is basically a blog entry. And if we include his analysis we enter the slippery slope of including other blog citations to refute him.

There was already one written before I even noticed the link to Sturman's personal webpage.

And while it may not be an editor's blog -- we could all very easily get our friends who agree with our positions to write on the topic. And many of them may be very bright too.

In the end we should avoid (when possible) debating within the article and instead take that debate to another forum where everyone can let loose. I do think the criticism sections are useful to give a balanced view, but adding citations to personal websites or promotional pages weakens the article.

I aso agree that citations to Descartes should be included in the dream material since the idea that our dreams can fool us in not original to any of us. And that was a constructive response to the lack of citation to outside authority.

On that note, the good news is that I don't think there is a lot of "original" research in this article. We just need to spend some time finding out who came up with some of the ideas first and cite to them if necessary.

The flipside is having too many cites where it becomes difficult to read the article.

Lordvolton 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

_________

No you have not noted what I asked you to note. You just removed a reference to Russel Standish, a maths professor who has written a book on Platonic Simulation.

In general, I would rather you did not go ahead with this exercise, you just don't understand enough about editing or about the various subjects involved.1Z 01:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

___________

It's website dedicated to selling his book? If you simply want to reference his wikipedia page that is one thing -- promoting the sale of his book has nothing to do with simulated reality.

You may respect him, but you didn't link to content relating to the point you were trying to make. Lets try to keep the citations relevant to the topic.

Lordvolton 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that there are people who take the idea of Platonic simulation seriously. He is such a person.1Z 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

________

And we should buy his book? That seems to be the point of the webpage.

Lordvolton 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dreaming, again

How predictable.

Now: explain why your version is better than Tony's, in terms of wikipedia's editorials guidelines.

1Z 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Note:

Unlike recent philosophical analysis that require readers to imagine future generations that may create simulated realities, dreaming requires no such leap of faith. All that is required for the observer to realize he has been fooled is the simple act of waking up. And since dreams are commonplace, and most people are fooled by them, the existence of dreams resolves the questions of whether simulations indistinguishable from "true" reality are possible and if humans are too intelligent to be easily fooled by them. As a result, left open is the question of whether we’re being fooled when our eyes are wide open.

... and ...

the existence of the argument itself is testament to the possibility of its own truth.

... say the same thing.

If you trust your readership, and think that the people who read this article will be intelligent perceptive adults, you should remove the whole of the first paragraph above. If you think the people who read this are cranks of average to low intelligence hooked on conspiracy theory, and looking for a quick fix then you probably need to leave it in.

Debate. :oP

--TonyFleet 07:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to apply this analysis to the rest of the article? Please read Computability of Physics that has a nice internal debate that nobody but the author is raising. "Another way round the problem."

What problem? Whose problem? Peter's problem.

I've been very patient and attempted to get Peter to edit his work. Imagine his reaction if someone where to add whole paragraphs to Platonic theories, Computationalism (which was moved to the top of the section interestingly), or Computability of Physics.

You'd get reverted as a "vandal" faster than you could say "Peter Jones". ;-)

I like Peter and the fact he's researched so many areas, but he appears to be insistent on absolutely no changes to anything his hands have touched. Even when it's barely comprehensible. And perhaps I am being to harsh and he's willing to make the necessary edits.

I hope that is the case.

Lordvolton 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

___________

Your only objection is that you don't understand it.1Z 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

__________

And your response is refusal to edit or improve it. That’s not very helpful.

Rather than take personal offense to any and all edits of your contributions, why not improve it? I like the fact that Tony added beneficial material to the Dream section. I didn't revert his material and replace the original back.

I attempted to merge the two. And I'm willing to discuss more changes.

The Computability of Physics section just doesn't work. Plain and simple. I asked you to do your own edit on multiple occasions and you've refused to do, but you also don’t want anyone else touching it. You need to make it readable. And it has nothing to do with the internal debate you're having about issues related to computability of physics.

Those are matters better hashed out in the discussion page dedicated to that topic. It needs to stay on topic. Right now the section makes itself irrelevant in the first paragraph, "In fact, known physics is held to be computable, making the simulation hypothesis safe — if lending no positive support to it.”

If known physics are held to be computable and the simulation hypothesis is no way endangered by this analysis then why go into a long drawn out, potentially meaningless, analysis? This article is about simulated reality.

If it’s not relevant to simulated reality then it needs to be concise and to the point.

There is a wikipedia page already dedicated to computability of physics. If people really want to know more about computability of physics then can just click on the link you’ve provided. Why do they have to read through internal musings that have little to do with simulated reality?

For these reasons, here is how I think it should read:

Computability theory deals primarily with the question of whether a problem is solvable at all on a computer. The halting problem is one of the most important results in computability theory, as it is an example of a concrete problem that is both easy to formulate and impossible to solve using a Turing machine. Much of computability theory builds on the halting problem result.

Therefore, a refutation of claims that what we perceive as external reality is computer-simulated would be the discovery of some uncomputable physics. If reality is doing something no computer can do, it cannot be a computer simulation. In fact, known physics is held to be computable, making the Simulation Hypothesis safe — if lending no positive support to it.

Another potential explanation is that the universe is not a Turing machine but an analogue computer or a hypercomputer. However, there is no evidence that can conceivably be produced to show that the universe is not any kind of computer, making the Simulation Hypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore scientifically unacceptable, at least by Popperian standards.

• • If you can come up with a better edit please do! This is a community sandbox and we're going to play with all the toys and even tinker around with them in an effort to make them better. And making them better doesn't mean coming to a conclusion on whether this is a simulated reality as Tony points out. You can join us and we'll all have fun making this a better article or you can be miserable attempting to prevent any changes to your contributions.

Lordvolton 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to "help" with the "problem" unless it is explained in terms of the editorial guidelines. 1Z 12:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

______________

Hi Guys

I know I have come into this debate late, but I really feel that article really needs to get back on track. No-one should be arrogant enough to think that when he/she writes something it should not be tossed and shaped by other people. That is peer review and the world of the Wiki. If you dont like it, don't join in.

This article could be really interesting and a really good read, but some of you guys have been bickering for so long that and arguing about minutiae that you have lost the plot, and the article is suffering.

Question: What exactly IS the plot? What is the focus of the article?

Can we get away from debating whether or not the SH is true, and onto documenting the issues? --TonyFleet 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The question of how true or relevant various arguments is part of the debate about what to include and what to delete. The form cannot be separated from the document.

I am always open to editorial suggestions which can be justified in terms of wikipedia's guidelines.1Z 22:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

LV

You still haven't justified your editing decisions in terms of the guidelines.1Z 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

______________

Both of them are fairly short and I think it flows better having them together. It also conserves some space. Additionally, a lot of the material in the section is a response to the Bostrom article which I believe should be placed ahead of other arguments to avoid confusion. Actually, I think you placed computationalism ahead of it for reasons that were never explained in terms of wikipedia guidelines, rules, procedures, or citations to local law. ;-)

To put it into perspective, I believe in its original incarnation this article was inspired by the Bostrom paper and has expanded into other areas (and become much better as a result). I think we do a disservice by placing our arguments ahead of it.

Lord knows I've done this sort of thing myself. So I'm not saying I'm innocent.

However, if you feel your computationlism entry is more compelling than the Bostrom argument upon which many of the other arguments flow I'm all eyes and ears. I'm willing to consider why you think it merits placement at the top of the list?

Other than you wrote it, of course. =-)

Lordvolton 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained my decision to put computationalism first:because a lot of the other material depends on that initial hypothesis. The Bostrom paper is important, but still depends on computationalsm. Your version of the article had your own "dreaming" section at the top, not Bostrom.

You still haven't explained your editing decisions in terms of the guidelines.11:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And what you leave unedited is just as mysterious. Some of the stuff under "arguments for simulation" (immortality, religion) is so weak it could easily be dispensed with. Any explanation? No of course not1Z 12:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You must have me confused with someone else? As you may recall I was in favor of getting rid of the Mormon plan of salvation. I don't think either of us wrote the religious material. I think that person needs to chime in and defend its inclusion.

I take more seriously your efforts and that is why you get a lot more of my attention since a lot of write you include is good stuff. My main issue is just making it concise and to the point. You've forgotten more than most people will know on these topics and the danger is assuming readers have similar backgrounds.

I know that others have complained that perhaps we assume the readers are morons. I don't think they're morons, but I also know they're typically not editors who've researched a lot of these topics. It could be their introduction to the topic(s) and assuming they have a high degree of exposure to these ideas is probably being overly optimistic.

On the other hand it's not rocket science.

Finding a middle ground is the hard part. I think we've found it for most of the article. As much as we debate the precise wording I think the article is pretty good, but it can always be better.

Lordvolton 21:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Refocussing (Another Attempt)

Current:

Simulated reality is the idea that reality could be simulated — usually computer-simulated — to a degree indistinguishable from 'true' reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not know that they are living inside a simulation. In its strongest form, the "Simulation Hypothesis" claims we actually are living in such a simulation.

This is different from the current, technologically achievable concept of virtual reality. Virtual reality is easily distinguished from the experience of 'true' reality; participants are never in doubt about the nature of what they experience. Simulated reality, by contrast, would be hard or impossible to distinguish from 'true' reality.

Practical or not, the idea raises three vexing questions:

   * Is it possible, even in principle, to tell whether we are in a simulated reality?
   * Is there any difference between a simulated reality and a 'real' one?
   * How should we behave if we knew that we were living in a simulated reality?

I think this is unfocussed as (a) it mixes up science fact, fantasy and wishful thinking with hard science, philosophy and a desire to prove or disprove the SH, and we are threfore forever muddled about what the article is about, and (b) the header seems not to have any references or justification. Whys for example have we got the 3 Q's in the box? Whose agenda is this? Who says this should be the focus of the article? It seems to me that the quations should be (i) Is it possible, in principle and/or in practice to do it? (ii) What is the purpose of doing it, and should we be allowed to do it?, and (iii) Has someone already done it and not told us? These three questions are variannt sof Bostrom's three disjunct hypotheses, and really need to be explored, if people are expected to accept this as a serious article.

I therefore propose the following:

Proposed New Edit:

1. Simulated Reality

Simulated Reality is the hypothetical creation of a simulation (possibly a Computer Simulation) which is sufficiently convincing that the conscious minds which exist within the simulation might be unaware of the fact. The related Simulation Hypothesis contends that reality, as we accept it, is such a simulation.

Simulated Reality is an example of a Fictional technology, and is also an important theme in Science Fiction, but recently has become a serious topic of study for Futurology, and Digital Philosophy through the notion of Digital physics. The idea has recently been explored at an academic level as a Transhumanist debate via the work of Nick Bostrom, whose 2003 paper concludes that a strong form of the Simulation Hypothesis is valid.

This article should then focus on the background to the Simulation Hypothesis, its precedents and related issues, such as the literary references, as well as the scientific, philosophical and practical issues. In particular there should be an exploration of the underpinning computational requirements (both at hardware & software level), a discussion of the nature of consciousness and whether we can achieve a truly conscious AI, and whether we would know, material on digital physics and philosophy, which whould be required to provide a theoretical and practical underpinning of Simulated Reality. Bostrom' s paper should be summarised, and a note leading to the second article. Also included would be a summary of all the material in popular culture such as Truman, 13th floor, Vanilla sky, holodecks, Matrix, EXistenZ etc., which have used the plotline or incorporated it.

2. Simulation Hypothesis (that's right- a separate article!)

The Simulation Hypothesis contends that reality is in fact a simulation (most probably a computer simulation), of which we, the simulants are totally unaware. The hypothesis itself has been a central plot feature of many Science Fiction stories and films, most notably The Truman Show, The Thirteenth Floor and The Matrix, and the subject of serious academic debate whithin the field of Transhumanism via the work of Nick Bostrom. On the surface, the Simulation Hypothesis is an example of a skeptical hypothesis, a proposal concerning the nature of reality put forward to question beliefs, and as such, there is a long history to the underlying thesis that reality is an Illusion. Such a thesis can be dated back to Plato, arguably underpins the Mind-Body Dualism of Descartes, and is closely related to Phenomenalism, a stance briefly adopted by Bertrand Russell. However, Nick Bostrom and other writers argue that this is not the case, and there are empirical reasons why the Simulation Hypothesis might be valid.

This article should focus on the SH itself, and should include: a philosphical background, full summary of the Simulation Argument by Bostrom, the objections and counter - bjections, together with all the other evidence which has been suggested eith in support of, or against, the argument. There would be a lot of 'linking back' to the Simulated Reality material.

The rationale for splitting into two is to provide a serious article on Simualted Reality which concentrates not on whether it might be true, but rather on the practicalities of doing it, and the implications , ethical & moral etc. The Simulation Hypothesis article would be more philosophical, and is about argument and debate, focused on how we know things, the nature of evidence etc.etc.

Tony Fleet -- 06:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (aorry not logged on)

Won't work. Wikipedia articles are dynamic. People are going to read one article and add objections or references to pop culture that are already present in the other. Both article will grow to resemble each other. If the article is going to be split you need a "for X see Y" at the top, and that has got to be simple. My suggestion is to hive off the fictional references. 1Z 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Will work, providing that the focus is clear in the header.

Editors can then say - not relevant to this article, because the focus of the article is about X. This about Y. so go and publish it somewhere else. In any case, if they did begin to resemble one another we could merge them to have one really big article, with clearly-defined sections. To me, fictional references are important. Simulated Reality is a Fictional technology, so you need references from fiction about how it's supposed to work together with references from science about how it could work.

We need to do something.

--TonyFleet 12:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"this is about X not Y" only works if the distinction is really simple. Look at how many words it took you to explain your proposed distinction.1Z 14:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because I am verbose, circumlocutionary and obfuscatory, not that it can't be done.

You can't cite my failings as a reason for not doing it!

--TonyFleet 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't even see what you are trying to do , your explanation is too macroloquacious, circumambulatory, prolix, etc.1Z 19:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely different Issue

Ok here's two reasons why I think we are NOT Living in a simulation.

Reason 1 the knowledge required

Just think about what you would actually need to do to program a universe to the detail that we see around us - I am not talking about the computing power, I am talking about the knowledge & understanding of physical, psychological, sociological, biological and cosmological processes, together with an algorithmic implementation of these. If you say "an intelligent operating system could fill in the details in an ad hoc manner", that does not circumvent the main issue, that we would need to know just about everything about everything in order to do it, AND we would have to have a mechanism for being able to implement this on some sort of computational substrate; which either means programming or evolving some sort of neural net (or equivalent).

Ok, so lets say we can do all this. We have effectively solved all the world's problems. We have biology sorted, we understand ourselves thoroughly, we know all about physics. Then why the hell should we want to run a simulation? What would be its purpose? Bostrom presupposes that societies would want to run ancestor-simulations, but why would they? The purpose of such simulations is to find out how people behave under situation X, or what would have happened if Y had occurred intead of Z. That works, provided that the simulation is a model of the society, and contains less detail. Simulations currently have two main purposes: information-gathering and entertainment. The first is ruled out, and unless the superintelligent beings are creating a simulation just to watch how I behave when I get up in the morning and go to the toilet, then I despair about the future of the universe. If I really am a character in a 10^17th century version of a soap opera then I just want to give up now and send for the men in white coats.

There is one, and only one get out and that is Tipler. If the reason that we are here is that this is the only way to survive the Big Crunch then I can go along with that. However, that's not really a simulation is it? If the entire universe is the substrate on which the simulation is running, then what is the difference between that and reality?

Reason 2: the motivation to do it

The world as we see it has evolved for the last 15 billion years from the big bang, through loads of different manifestations. Ok I can posit Last Thursdayism and say it was all invented by some programmer and run-time has been 5 days, or 5 minutes, but that does not get around the fact that the complexity that we see would need to have been developed somehow. I am not sure of this point, but my intuition tells me that has got to be some sort of conservation rule that says that something equivalent to the level of complexity and organisation we observe could not take less than the 15 billion years we think it has taken us to get to this point. I say this becuse the 15 billion years is not a guess, it's a prediction made on the basis of consistent scientific theory & observations. That means the program has been running for 15 billion years, or that it took 15 billion years to develop. They have either got an amazingly dedicated set of programmers who like each other a LOT, or they are amazingly patient; I mean if a program takes me more than a couple of hours I get bored.

Looked at from our point of view, we see a universe which seemingly has used all of its 'computing power' to get to this point, and it has taken 15 Billion years of our time to get to this point. If we decide, in our future to develop a program to do simulate what we see around us, we would need to either (1) to use ALL the universe's resources and 15 Billion years to do this, (which is effectively what we call reality)or (2) The same detail, but a subset of the Universe's resources and therefore longer than 15 Billion years (which for practical reasons, no-one would realistically attempt), or (3) Create a simulation with far less detail than we think we see.

It is case (3) which intrigues me, and which I think has been used as the get-out. If we could actually do this, then this invokes reason (1) big-time. Just think about what would have to happen to implement this. Suppose I am working ar CERN, and I decide to investigate Higgs Bosons. OK says the intelligent operating system - this guy is about to create some new physics. Let's do some calculations about what is going to happen, just to make sure that he sees what he is supposed to see. This means that something, somewhere has enough knowledge and computing power to calculate EVERYTHING down to the last qubit (or at least invent it when it's necessary). Trying to imagine how much knowledge would be required to do that is mind-mangling. Remember this is a simulation, so things would have to be there when they're required, which means that they would have to be calculated and generated in real time. This requires deterministic knowledge of the way highly complex and non-linear systems operate. Currently when we have complex dynamical or non-linear systems, we solve them by running simulations. This is not an option here, otherwise we would need to run a simulation to find out what to put in the simulation, which would inevitably involve simulations within the simulation and so on to infinite recursion.

Therefore I cannot see that a simulation of reality this complex would work. Either we would never reach the PROGRAMMING capability to do it, or if we did, why would we bother? We could calculate answers to stuff in nanoseconds, so if we really wanted to find out how our ancestors behaved we would calculate it. Effectively we will either never reach the sage at which we are capable of running ancesor-simulations, or if we do, we will not be interested in them, because we have better ways of finding answers. Either way, using Bostrom's argument, cases (1) & (2) from his disjuction are more likely than his case (3), ergo we are not living in a simulation.

Thank you & good night. --TonyFleet 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re item one:

Well I guess part of the idea is that we could not be sure that the simulation IS using the exact biological, psychological, and physical laws of the universe where the program resides. So, the designers could have arbitrarily specified some of the laws they didnt know. So, I dont think it follows that they have "solved everything". I dont think we are living in a simulation either, but for other reasons. Artman772000 04:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000

RESPONSE TO TONY FLEET

Interesting.

I've thought about this myself from a simple programming perspective. I've also read some articles from the true believers who await the singularity. I think it becomes possible when we move away from computers. The more the debate centers on computers and the "future" the more ridiculous it sounds.

I think Nick Bostrom made a mistake in this regard -- which I keep repeating.

Nick's a smart guy and the article is interesting. But I have to agree with Peter and his friends in their critique. You really can't trust prognostications about a future that could itself just be a simulation or not.

That's fools gold.

So what does it really require to create this world? Getting down to brass tax -- what is all that is required. Forget about computers and the future.

A single human brain with inputs and outputs.

Nothing is rendered outside of it. The TV looks like a TV in my brain alone. Does the TV appear as a TV separate from the machinations of my own imagination? When I dream about a TV it seems equally real. The reasons dreams are problematic for realists is because the entire thing (real or simulated) is just a simulation no matter how you slice it.

There is no REALITY outside of our brain. I only experience my internal reality. Descartes hit the nail on the head.

The vision of the TV in my head is not the actual television. It doesn't get teleported into my brain. It's a replica that bounces from neuron to neuron. The entire world falls into this category. And since I appear to be a biological creature I therefore assume all that is required are billions of neurons interacting with an electrical from biological sensors to create what I perceive as reality.

No futuristic super gizmo required. Although the brain is a super gismo in its own right.

Perhaps those pesky neurons need to get more credit, for they're capable of creating very lush environments with societies and political systems when they begin interacting with each other. What would be very difficult for a present day computer to do is done quite easily by heaps of neurons stored within an average human skull.

6 billion skulls full of neurons create ever more complicated results. Assuming they exist at all.

So if we can reverse engineer the human brain and then create a MAS "(Multi Agent System)" simulation then it should be no problem. I don't need to worry about the other stuff since humans will render their own interior world and everything should flow naturally.

Why would it be so easy?

Well, everything that happens in by brain comes from a few biological sensors. Electrical impulses get translated into objects in my mind. The object itself doesn't have to exist or even be rendered outside of my head so long as the sign post is out there. As long as my neurons get the proper information it's real to me. That reduces the computational load dramatically.

I don't even need any outside stimulus. I just close my eyes and dream.

For example, if we know that 1122112 creates in your mind a chocolate ice cream cone with whip cream and a strawberry on top then all I need to do is create the symbol. I could copy every code in your brain and create a master list. These 20 billion items make up reality. And all brains are encoded with them.

No more rendering outside of your brain. The symbol is all we need. I see STRAWBERRY and the image appears in my head. The strawberry isn't even there! I'm seeing one right now. And it looks tasty, but it's not "real" in our shared sense of the word.

In a simulated world that's all we'd need. But cracking the brain won't be an easy task. Once we crack the biological brain then simulating the world it creates internally will go a long way to simplifying the creation of simulated worlds as we envision them.

A single brain receiving the correct electrical impulses can create the whole thing. These impulses are not dizzyling impossible to create -- your eyes, ears, and tongue create them quite easily. And everything that appears complicated is a result of those electrical impulses reaching your neurons.

If we were to erase every electrical impulse your brain received what would be left of your concept of society, physics, and everything else? I imagine your world will be a dark wasteland. Unless those concepts were already coded - in which case you could still dream.

Brains that already have a history and shared codec could be connected to each other. The computational problem would be making sure the pointers remain consistent. My own experience has been that dreams and reality are different in this regard. I change locations and things don't always stay in place in dreams which might point toward the different between solitary single brain simulation and multi-brain simulation -- if simulations exist at all.

In order for us to have a shared experience that isn't cumbersome the pointers (symbols) need to remain consistent to avoid participants getting lost or confused. Or worse, figuring out they're in a simulation and wanting their money back! heh.

It still doesn't explain why we would want there to be dreams at all. Or the next question you raise, "Why create simulations". I'll address then more briefly in a moment.

The brains itself will create the complexity that seems impossible. So long as the symbols are shared we can all react to them properly. And this might explain why teleportation works.

There are no "real" items or spatial locations. Just pointers. When you change the symbol you change the location. It's like viewing a frozen fish in an aquarium from different angles. The fish never changes position, but the angle on the fish can change, so it looks like the fish moved.

Note: a weakness to all of this would be a simulation making us think that neurons are responsible when the entire thing could be a clever hoax to lead us down dead ends.

Lordvolton 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a strawberry, and imagine one, but it is an exceedingly pale experience to the experience of a real strawberry. When we look at a strawberry, the experience is not generated by looking up strawberry in a table, we look at it, and recognize it as a strawberry. Strawberries come in many sizes, shapes, colors, smells and tastes. If each experience were the result of looking it up in a table in our braim, the table would have to be infinite. I can walk to my bookshelf, pick up any book and read it. I did not create the content of these books, in fact I am pretty much incapable of writing a book, at least one that anyone would care to read. If I dream that I am reading a book, it's terribly confusing, because my brain attempts to create content on the fly that I couldn't create even if I sat down and took my time working on it. I can look at paintings or sculptures that I could not create. I can listen to songs that I could not create. Our brains do create a representation of our sensory inputs, but that is not the same as creating the content of our sensory inputs. --RLent (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that we're dealing with the very concept of reality, so assumptions usually made in real life, or even in philosophical discourse, are no longer valid in this context. As a quick-and-dirty response to your post: you have absolutely no way of knowing whether your "instant reality", i.e. the current frame in your consciousness cinema, comes from an "outer world" or has been entirely generated by you. Neither you could, of course, distinguish any mixture of the two in any way. First, because the limits of "you", i.e. the consciousness, cannot be clearly defined (thus the range of theories from the recognition of an outside world to full solipsism). Second, because it might not matter: in fact, what you are feeling at the present moment is true (for you), no matter how strange it is. It is only when humans meet that they agree on a consensus reality, but is something false because only you can perceive it?. Well, it might be, but also it might not. Third, because even assuming the "outside world plus people" model, you are greatly underestimating the creative capacity of a mind: some psychotic patients create entire personalities out of the blue, and they can be extremely complex, way more than the strawberry or books you are citing. With your example of "dreaming of X", note that while you are dreaming, everything makes perfect sense to you-in-the-dream. It is only when you wake up that, if you remember the dream, you can examine it and list the "inconsistencies" (with the reality you now occupy). There is no guarantee that you won't "wake up" in some ten minutes and find this world completely absurd and inconsistent. The mind has an immense void-filling capacity, both with old memories and creating new content on-the-fly if needed. If our thought processes proceed computer-like, the amount of computing power required just to correct (and fill the voids) of the crappy images generated by our eyes is dazzling. Furthermore, there is absolutely no guarantee that such mind is not either being fed data made up by an external being (be it Descartes' Evil Genius or The Matrix), or that is not making up that data itself. Life in a solipsist universe can be so boring... Habbit (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WHY CREATE SIMULATIONS

I'll probably never know the true answer in this life. Sadly, I may never know with any certainty if this is a simulation or "true" reality. However, assuming it's possible to create simulations I can think of a few reasons.

1. Space travel

If there is a first order reality its physics may be strictly Newtonian. And things like teleportation may not be impossible, which means severe limitation on how far we can travel and the things we can do. The creation of a simulations would allow for adventures across created space.

2. Efficient use of resources

Assuming there are limited resources and actually feeding people "food" is far more costly than simply feeding their brains and nothing else it could be that simulations address the problem of limited resources.

Not everyone can be rich and famous. In simulated worlds you could be whatever you want. There would be no limitation other than your imagination (within the limits of the created physics). No trees get cut down, no planets get emptied of their natural resources, etc.

3. Simulants versus first order humans.

It could be that creating humans in the real world isn't nearly as efficient as creating simulants with similar powers. Of course, if we can simulate humans then SUPER HUMANS would be possible.

4. Super humans who are historians.

Super human simulants might be interested in their own history. And since everything that has occurred in this lifetime is easily retrievable (radio and tv signals, blogs, frozen brains) they could probably create a fairly precise historical simulation.

5. As already mentioned in the article: boredom. We play online poker, video games, and see films for the exact same reason. We want to be entertained and the real world is often boring. Of course, if this is our idea of fascinating entertainment what would it say about the outside world? That is why I think a more plausible explanation (again, assuming it's a simulation) would be a historical experience. Also, the other games would get boring sine there would be no challenge.

Eventually hard core gamers would want to try their hand at simulations where they're not completely in control of the outcomes and they could lose. How fun would poker be if you knew you'd always win 100% of the time?

I think we should probably divert this discussion to a blog since this could end up being a lot of pages of text.

Lordvolton 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

MIND MANGLING NUMBERS

If we assume it's a simulation it probably didn't take billions of years in outer reality. In fact, in this reality we will be able to create the complexity you see via a simulation for 9 billion people in about 1 second.

Within a few hundred years on the pessimistic side! And that is their entire life (80 years) in a single second. The human brain would never be able to keep up -- but a simulated brain operating at the speed of the computer would.

Time within the simulation would seem to move at a snails pace. But time would be a construct. And that is why the future could be rendered too. That would conserve energy. Certain features such as mountains (which change very little over time) could be safely rendered into the future.

And if you're on a solo flight most places and people you'll never meet or see anyway.

How did I come up with these numbers? This is done by simply figuring out how many frames per second are being rendered by the average brain and then calculating that times the number of people. You start with the best graphics processor today and then apply Moore's Law.

This would be what is possible to send directly to your brain via electrical impulses (artificial vision). It's in its infancy right now, but it's being done. So it's not a theoretical.

Programmers would be silly to render the entire universe since you only experience individual frames. You don't experience the whole universe. And the quarks would just be simulated too. Nothing would be "real". In fact, your naked eyes sees very little from a rendering perspective. It only sees what a naked eye is capable of seeing and never, ever anything more.

You think you see more because you look into a microscope. But all you see is what your eye is capable of seeing and nothing more. You see a few dots on a screen. And that's all that is rendered -- if it's rendered outside your head at all.

Today whole continents with cities are created in massively multiple online games with millions of players. That is what is pushing us toward simulations. Photoreal games are next, and then stereoscopic 3D, and finally halographic where your mind cannot tell the difference between game world and real world -- although players will be consciously aware it's a simulation.

However, even that will be problematic. Gamers will eventually want more "realism" and that's when they will introduce games that limit access to those neurons that know the "truth" about you. And then you can really believe you're King Arthur or Michael Jordan or whatever the case may be.

Whether that's healthy or a good thing is another question. Since it's akin to drugs. People already get addicted to the characters they've created in cyberspace and would become the character right now if it were possible -- forever losing the person they were.

Lordvolton 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what the substrate is; Moore's law is irrelevant. It's the knowledge and the understansding that's the issue, not the computing power. If you don't know how the universe funictions, or if you haven't got a good, consistent set of equations to put in, it won't work. If you have such a set of equations, you don't need a simulation, unless it's to keep yourself from going mad.

I read a science fiction story once - a long time ago, about how humans created a supercomputer to determine whether entropy could be reversed (way, way before Douglas Adams), and asked it to answer the question, but it couldn't. Time passed and the computer was organic, joined up to the evolved human brains, and the question was a asked again, and it couldn't; eventually all that was left in the universe was a synthesis of brain + computer - everything had been converted into this in the quest for meaning. The brain asked itself what was the meaning of life, and whether entropy could be reversed. The answer... Let there be light! Nice story, but I got to thinking. What would it be like to be that brain, and there was nothing else, no universe to look at, nothing to investigate, just you. Imagine being the mind of god. You would go insane through boredom and loneliness. Complete and utter nihilism - the only way that you could survive would be to invent things to stop the madness; maybe we are in a simulation; maybe we are at Tipler's Omega point; maybe we are figments of our own madness.

BUT... that's not what Bostrom had in mind, and that's not a simulation of reality; it is just an uncovering of reality, because there is nothing else.

--User:TonyFleet 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

HOW THE UNIVERSE FUNCTIONS

"It's the knowledge and the understansding that's the issue, not the computing power. If you don't know how the universe funictions, or if you haven't got a good, consistent set of equations to put in, it won't work. If you have such a set of equations, you don't need a simulation, unless it's to keep yourself from going mad." -Tony Fleet

Well, I'm assuming that "knowledge" and "understanding" are simply manifestations of collective neuronal behavior if we're to believe what we see has anything to do with what is required to create a simulation of reality. Certain electrical impulses effect neurons and they respond accordingly.

If there is a "starter" universe then presumably that was the basis upon which a sub-universe could be designed. To bring it closer to home, designers in this world simulate weather systems and collisions in games to mimic our "real" world.

Another school of thought is that the conditions for life could be simulated and allowed to evolve and what we see is simply the complicated result of a MAS system where things fight for survival. There are already simulations that attempt to do things along this line in our own world -- albeit very simplified versions that don't come anywhere near simulating our reality.

But games are getting there.

Bullets richochets, water drips down windows, and it's getting better and better. It's no stretch to think that we'll be able to simulate physics to a point where the human sensory system cannot tell the difference.

It doesn't take that much to fool us since we only experience the world at 24 fps "(frames per second)". Imagine if we experienced 1 million frames a second. Why only 24 fps?

I can imagine a player within a simulated world asking your question, "But where did the idea for these physics from from?" And his issue is really not with "his" world but with the "master" world.

The first world.

I can alread here Peter Jones saying, "But that doesn't answer anything because that world could be a simulation too. So we haven't answered the question, merely extended it!"

I think that might be what really sticks in his craw by the way -- not getting the answer. Perhaps a wrong answer or a leap of faith is better than not knowing as evidenced by the popularity of religion.

However, the simulated Peter Jones makes a good point. And I don't know if there is a way to be certain any world is not simulated. Especially if were already in a lower level simulation.

And perhaps the answer would require divine design intervention or a really crafty mind that finds a way to communicate with the outside world. Assuming this is a simulation -- which we're still trying to figure out.

The could be the first world. And I'm sure when we eventually create simulations indistinguishable from reality participants in those worlds will face the same difficult question. And if the design is tight the answer will usually be, "It's definitely the real deal!"

Kudos to the design team if it's not live, but Memorex!

Lordvolton 23:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first talked to one of my colleagues about the SH, his immediate reaction was - "you'd need a bloody good graphics card". Like him, I still think you are missing the point.

I am attacking Bostom's Argument, not the Simulation Hypothesis. Bostrom looks at the known universe and extrapolates from this to his argument. It's the only evidence he has to go on, since, as has been pointed out many times, we can never know anything about any hypothesised exterior world other than by extensions from this one.

So we say OK, suppose WE set out to do this as a simulation. How would WE do it?

Hence all the stuff about substrates, knowledge etc. The conclusion is that WE will never be (1) in a position to know enough (see Barrow's book on Impossibility, Goedel's incompleteness theorems etc.), or if we are ,(2) we will not be interested because we will then have complete deterministic knowledge, and better ways of doing it than simulating it stochastically. This means that when Bostrom argues that the prob of (1) & (2) are close to zero, he is wrong, and therefore he cannot conclude that (3) We are almost certainly living in a simulation.

Technically the conclusion of may argument is 'we are not almost certainly living in asimulation', which is different from what I advertised it as (i.e. we are almost certainly not living in a simulation), and I knew that; I was just waiting to see if someone else spotted it, which they havent, so I have now owned up

--TonyFleet 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Bostrom's argument cannot answer whether we're in a simulation, only whether we're likely to create one. It may increase probabilities, but it's not definitive. We very well could be the first to do it... and not the 2nd.

And that is why I think a better route is to look for signs of design in our world. In the event we create simulated realities those participants could also be able to look for design elements that would imply their world is simulated.

And that is why I think the planck limits are interesting.

But the signs of elegant design could simply be God or some other explanation. It doesn't necessarily mean it's simulated. The other related issue is that we struggle telling the difference between reality and simulation already (dreams). Which puts us as at a disadvantage in trying to come to a conclusion.

Although it may not lead us to the promised land, the question of whether we're likely to create simulated realities is still an interesting one. I think a more interesting variant is whether we're likely to enter our own simulations and then fool ourselves into believing its real. Or restated, how likely is it that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If we say it's 99.9% then the next question becomes more meaningful, "What is the probability that it's already happened?" This is essentially Bostrom's argument but it relies on current humans and not necessarily theoretical humans.

Do we want to create simulations? Do we want to fool ourselves into believing they're real? If the answer is yes then the math is important. Because we can calculate how long that it will likely take and it may also increase the odds that we'd enter historical simulations to relive our past. This also addresses the issue of where we get the data from for specifics -- our own brains.

Not too different from, "Do we want to fly to the moon?", "Do we want to go to Mars?" We can make meaningful predictions based on technology. But the most important element is the collective will to do it. Toward this end, there is a tidal wave of people already working on creating simulated worlds.

Imagine Bill Gates and Warren Buffet stating, "Were' going to do everything in our power to create a simulated reality in our lifetime and when we're done we plan to relive our past and, more importantly, we will believe it's real. And if it doesn't happen in our lifetime the foundation we're funding will spend the next 100 years dedicated to making it a reality. And since we're freezing our brains they will have access to our memories so the first participants can relive our lives. We ask that you donate your brains to our efforts so that your life experience will not be lost and will be enjoyed for the next millennia by your offspring."

A statement like that could increase the odd significantly. Although I think a few industries are already on trajectories where it's likely to happen even absent a major benefactor. In other words, if this isn't a simulated reality then the evidence may lead us to the conclusion that it's only a matter of time before humans end up in them. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing?

A fun thought experiment.

Lordvolton 09:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, the main reason that I might believe that we are living in a simulation is through the delayed choice-quantum eraser version of Young's double slit experimentWalborn et. al. 2002.

Thi experiment appears to show that the decison to keep or erase a particular piece of information collected during an experiment will affect the result of the experiment after it has occurred. Now either we have all got it wrong, and QM is the biggest con in the history of science, or there is something weird happening with reality, and I mean really weird. Consciousness affects reality big-time. Our decisions not only shape our own personal reality, but everyone else's as well. A guy in CERN observes a Higgs Boson. That calls Higgs Bosons into existence when effectively they have never existed before. How can this happen?

Either we are all part of some massively distributed cosmic consciousness or someone or something is detecting our thoughts and providing us with what we need to construct a consistent picture of the world. Either or these two scenarios is pretty close to one or more versions of the SH.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that even though Bostrom's Argument might be correct (actually I think it's flawed logic), nonetheless his Conclusion is wrong, as he does not adequately examine the extrapolations and the logical consequences of being able to simulate to the degree required to 'fool' simulants.

Bostrom says there are "empirical reasons" for believing that we are in a simulation (see FAQ3 on his website). "Empirically" = using this universe to extrapolate from. His arguments about what might or might not happen are therefore based on our knowledge of this universe and the hypothetical extrapolations from it. Given those experiences, it is at least questionable whether or not his (1) & (2) have probability zero, (it can be argued, as I have done above, that the probablility of either (1) or (2) is quite high). He says they have, I say they don't.

Because of that his conclusion is not safe.

--TonyFleet 09:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Delayed choice and eraser experiemnts can be explaiendby the hypothesis that time works differently to traditional assumptions. (see transactional interpretation, for instance). You don't need to be bring consciousness in.1Z 13:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we had a lot of debate on whether to include quantum mechanics as evidence that we might be living in a simulation, so I'm biased. I think from a design perspective it makes great sense -- render only when you actually have someone looking at it. So looking at it effects the outcome.

In a game world we'd simply create a loop so that players always have satisfaction when they start looking at small things. The next layer has to be different than the first so that it remains interesting and doesn't give anyone the sense that there is a limit. However, if they construct something that requires too much processing power it might be useful to create a "black hole" rule. A lot of those design decisions would depend on the ultimate purpose of the simulation.

That's how more or less how we do it in game design right now. The other nice thing is QM works as a great backdoor in those situations when something really ridiculous (in terms of probability) has to happen to fix something.

Could just be coincidence or we mimic elegant design in our simulations because it's the most efficient use of resources.

Lordvolton 09:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's the knowledge and the understansding that's the issue, not the computing power."

If you have enough computing power yu can use an evolutionary approach -- run a alot of sims with random parameters and pick the ones that work. The problem, however is determining whether they are populated with zombies.1Z 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'l still bang on about this. The first person who eventually finds a Higgs Boson (or whatever - tachyon, gluino, squark, or what you like), will create some "new physics". If this is a simulation, this new physics would already be known by the operating system, otherwise it would not be possible to simulate its results. How the simulation gets done, how it gets calculated does not matter. It knows, or at least it can work out the anser in a very short period of time.

By the same argument every single new observation we make, every new thing we find out relies on observations we make; these are simulated for us, so the answer is known in advance. The rules are there, implicit, either in the universe as reality, or the universe as simulation. If it is the latter, the rules are programmed, embedded, or intrinsic; however you want to view it, they are known in advance. Something or someone already knows the answers - not just some of the answers, ALL of the answers to all of the questions we can ever ask (or at least is able to work them out in nanoseconds). Ok you can talk about putting the universe on hold while you work out the answer by running massively parallel evolutionary simulations until one of them comes up with the answer, but we are talking really complex stuff here: these evolutionary simulations will need to themselves contain the same order of complexity as the original. What is to say that they themselves will not come up with the same (or a different) problem that they can't solve - what then - run another batch of massively parallel evolutionary simulations, recursively receding into eternity?

I think this effectively rules out the 'universe as experiment' type of simulation, as it is ultimately pointless. It also begs the question about whether or not, in principle, it is possible to know enough stuff to do it. There may well be limits to what we CAN know in principle; for example, there are an infinite number of points between 0 and 1 on the real line. Some of these are terminating decimals, and some of these are recurring decimals. We can specify these and describe them algorithmically, and as such they are enumerable. The non-recurring decimals are a different matter. Cantor's diagonal argument effectively shows that there is no mechanism for enumerating these, no matter how clever you might be: there will always be some that you miss (actually an infinite number of them). Goedel used the same idea to prove that there are statements we can never ultimately prove or decide the truth of; Deutch, in the 'Fabric of Reality' discusses Cantgogtu VR environments, concluding via a use of Cantor's diagonal argument that it is possible to hypothesise a VR environment which cannot be created.

All of this this illustrates is that there are pieces of knowledge which effectively cannot be known, and hence any attempt to simulate this universe in the detail we see it, based on the knowledge that we can create using logic and scientific mehtod will ultimately break down. We are either NOT in a simulation, or if we are, the universe is hell of a lot bigger than we think it is - by factors of a googol or probably bigger.

--TonyFleet 14:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Media

This article was linked to from www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/080307sonymatrix.htm here] --Striver - talk 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Defining Simulations

I think the definitions of Types of Simulations at the top of the article needs a bit of work. At the moment, i am not clear what it is actually saying. Is this section viewing Simulated Reality as Fictional technology, and documenting the different types that have been portrayed, or is it a speculative piece about Future studies, and what might be possible in years to come, or is it looking at the philosophically different types of simulated realism?

I have seen several attempts in other places to create a 'definitive' list of possible simulations, but none has really succeeded. However, on Nick Bostrom's website, there is a paper by Dainton: (Dainton, B. (2002), 'Innocence Lost: Simulation Scenarios - Prospect & Consequences.), in which he defines some 'theoretically' different types of simulation, and they all make sense, but I am struggling to get my head around the different combinations.

The definitions come in pairs:

Complete Simulation = every part and aspect of the simulation generated by artificial means.

Partial Simulation = some parts or aspects of experience are generated artificially (e.g. where a person retains their individual psychology).

Hard Simulation = simulations reulting from tampering with the neural hardware of the brain.

Soft Simulation = streams of consciousness running on computers; no external hardware support.

Active Simulation = simulants have free will and actions not dictated or confined to particular courses of actions other than the constraints of the simulation.

Passive Simulation = simulant has pre-programmed set of experiences.

Original Psychology Simulation = simulant has an external existence outside the simulation and retains original psychology.

Replacement Psychology Simulation = simulant has external existence, but none of the original psychology is retained, only consciousness is tranferred.

Communal Simulation = many simulants share the same experience.

Individual Simulation = one simulant only has the simulation experience.

There are potentially 32 separate combinations of these, but not all of the combinations exist. I have been playing around with this, and I think I have some idea of how they might relate to one another. I have two questions:

(1) Does anyone wish to comment on whether any of the combinations are, in theory, impossible?

(2) Should we rewrite the first section (Types of Simulation) to take account of these definitions?

However, here is a problem; this is a piece of 'original research', as it would entail going through all the 32 combinations, and arguing whether or not they would be theoretically possible, then finding examples from SF, film or TV which have actually used these. I think this approach is justified, as it uses David Lewis's notion of Modal realism, and examples to demonstrate that it is at least 'theoretically' possible for the combinations to exist. If this article/discussion/argument were posted on another website (e.g. [[1]], and there was sufficient peer scrutiny of the ideas, this would allow the Simulated Reality article to reference that discussion, albeit somewhat tentatively (or is that the biggest cheat ever?).

The problem is, as it stands at the moment, I think the the entire section is a bit confused, and is really without any foundation.

Tony Fleet (forgetting to log on yet again!)88.106.241.89 07:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

___________

An exhaustive list of all possible simulations should be a separate wikipedia page in my opinion. I think the the point of the current list is to give the broad categories rather than delve into all theoretical possibilities. Separately, I believe an exhaustive list of all possible simulations is inappropriate for this particular article due to its focus on the the simulation hypothesis.

The danger is to try and cover everything in too much detail in a single article rather than creating wikipedia branch articles that examine related topics in detail. This has been my issue with other sections. In a couple instances there are wikipedia pages dedicated to topics that are presented as if the information is being freshly conveyed in the simulation article when in truth its just a synopsis from another wikipedia page with internal commentary added. Sadly, those sections never get edited and become wikipedia concrete for reasons already discussed.

However, simulation as a design topic is a thriving within the scientific and gaming communities. And I think they would be interested in examining the potential simulations possible since they're already investing time and energy creating them.

Lordvolton 19:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Jones

Peter, as usual you want to edit the document and create a line of logic to justify your personal take on the article, but you don't want it to apply to sections you've written. For example, you want to remove a quote "because that is what wikilinks are for" but you don't want any of your quotes removed.

You justify this by deciding unilateraly what is "well known".

In my view you simply want to make changes that reflect your personal view and not because you want it be more readable or accessible. Otherwise you would a) edit down sections you've written or b) allow others to edit your writing.

You refuse to do either. And as a result the only solution is to revert a lot of what you've done because it's biased. Others may disagree, but this seems to be your pattern. Lordvolton 01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How many people do you know who can quote Feynman?

if you are an unbiased editor. why do you never edit anything except this article, and then the sections you have written yourself?

Your claim that dreaming has an impact on OR is still baseless. It is not justified by anything in this article, and you were unable to justify in it extensive discussions with me.

1Z 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

__________________

That is factually incorrect. I've edited my own contributions and others. I've even attempted to edit your contributions but you stubbornly refuse to allow anyone to edit anything you've written. I've also edited other articles.

In fact, I've attempted to catch typos on articles you've recently edited.

Getting back to the point, you're logic is inconsistent. You come up with arguments to willy nilly edit articles, but God forbid if that same logic is applied to your own work. Don't come up with willy nilly rules if you don't want them applied to the entire article and your own contributions.

Your are consistent in one thing: nobody can change your writing. I knew you wouldn't stand for your quote to be removed because that would require someone changing something you wrote. As I recall you refuse to allow that section to be edited by anyone for any reason.

I do enjoy some of your work, but your inability to play well with others more than offsets it.

From my vantage point it's all just your way of rationalizing edits that further reflect your personal opinion on the topic or how you "feel" the rules should work based on your mood that day, except when those rules are applied to your own writing.

Editing is part of the process. You need to come to terms with that.

Lordvolton 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel your edits can be justified by the guidelines, please do so.

Note that WP:OR will be reverted.1Z 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of what you write is a compilation of your research without any citation. I find it fascinating that you complain loudly when others do it. I've applied the standard you wish to apply to the rest of the world to your own writing (see Computability of Physics).

I'm sure that your reaction will be similar to the reaction of others when you do it to them. There is a balance between readability and citation to everything.

Lordvolton 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dishonest edits

LV: You removed a quotation which was relevant and from a noted authority, saying in the edit summary that it is "irrelevant". You must edit in accordance with the guide lines or you will fact being barred. You also deleted, and not for the first time, a "citation needed" tag, without giving any justification in the edit summary or on the talk page. The idea is to provide the citation. Any editor is entitled to revert edits that go against the guidelines. I will ask you ask again what I have asked you many times before: use the talk page justify your edits according to the guidelines.

1Z 11:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

_______________

You need to stop attempting to debate your points within the article. I understand that you really want everyone to come to your conclusion, but this isn't an argumentative essay. It's an encyclopedia. We know you think it's "real". We understand that is your conclusion.

Your entries that beg the reader to come to your conclusion have been allowed to stay for the most part. Running around the internet to find quotes that support you conclusion will result in everybody else doing the same.

And of course you'll hate that and remove it. We've already been done this road when you started linking to the website of your "friend" to prove your point.

And then I'll point out you're being unfair and applying a double standard and remove your entries. And we'll end up with a fair article.

Save me the trouble and simply stop attempting to turn this article into Peter Jones presents!

Lordvolton 03:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You have removed the citation needed tag again.

You are no closer to justifying your edits according to the guidelines.1Z 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And again. Who do yo think you are fooling? 1Z 01:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In Support of Peter I think this article could be really good, but is completely marred through the lack of adherence to the WNPOV and lack of credible reference sources. I attempted to make some suggestions a few weeks ago, and did some edits, but now I have lost the will to live in this piece. Lord Volton's behaviour here is beginning to feel almost like Andrew Schafly at Conservapedia, and most of this article would fit in very well with the style of articles there. I would suggest transporting it there, but I am currently under a ban for 'inappropriate edits' (i.e. I inserted 10 citation needed tags in an article by Schafly, and before I new it I had been locked out. --TonyFleet 08:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In Response to Tony

I can't speak to your being locked out, but I am not personally interested in transporting the article or getting involved with the simulism webpage which you've brought up a couple of times. It might be a great idea, but it's enough work (for me) just keeping tabs on wikipedia articles.

Nothing personal -- just don't feel like rehashing it.

Lordvolton 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging Sections as Deficient

I spent about half an hour tagging some sections with:

This entire section should be labelled ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , rewritten or removed 

I realise that this might upset some (and I notice that several of these tags have already been removed). However, there are particular sections which have no external links, no references (and very few or tangential internal links either), and apparently no justification for the siource or provenance of the material other than the opinion of the author. This is against the Wikipedia NOR, and NPOV edicts. I know these tags will probably be removed, but before you do this, please read the sections carefully and ask yourself how these sections could be Wikified. Thanks --TonyFleet 08:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for undoing a half hour of your work. I have removed the "tags" and a couple of sections. We should not put unconventional tags in the article page, it would allow people to make up their own tags, such as: "I disagree with everything in this section." I understand your intentions but there are better ways of doing this, such as inviting random editors to have a look at the page, or asking for mediation. All the best.Mmoneypenny 09:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Instantiation

This entry was inserted unde the above heading:

"A possibility similar to emigration would be true instantiation, where the person has no actual body, most likely because their body has died or was (accidentally or intentionally) destroyed. If, because of some capacity (such as a form of telepathy where the person could transfer their consiousness into the machine when they died), or the person was transferred into the machine because they were dying, if the machine either had other people stored in it or had networking with other machines that also have people in them, it is possible for the person to have almost limitless experience (subject to whatever restraints the underlying software supporting the world impose, or what the hardware being used can support). Instantiation is differentiated from emigration in that there may not be any "body" to return to (consider the idea of one dying and their "soul" being transported to an afterlife, a "heaven", "paradise" or "valhalla" only it's not "real", it's a computer simulation.)"

I removed it, because I feel that:

1. It is not referenced and therefore conflicts with NOR.
2. The title Instantiation does not sit easily with any of the other Wikipedia uses of the term. If it does, please make this clear in the article.
3. It seems to me that this just represents a variant of mind transfer OR a 'resurrection' of a dead person as a 'virtual person', and these categories have really been discussed elsewhere.

Tony Fleet (not logged on - sorry) --194.81.33.39 08:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A clean sweep

Wandered across this page during one of my "Random article" adventures. Have taken out my simulated broom and given it a spring clean. I have removed as much of the didactic style as I could. This is not a lecture or a textbook, it is an article in an online encyclopaedia. I have also removed much of the pure conjecture/original research in the article. If this cannot be backed up by stalwart references it doesn't belong and shouldn't be placed back in. I have also removed rhetorical questions such as: "Who knows what reality ought to be like?" I would ask people to have a look at a "real" encyclopaedia or the vast majority of other articles here on wikipaedia before placing additional long-winded soliloquies into the article.Mmoneypenny 11:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Archived most of the discussion up to this point in Archive 3.--TonyFleet 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

explanation for removal of criticisms of Bostrom

I'm removing the following section:

Bostrom's argument relies on probability when not all possible outcomes are known. The conclusion that we might be living in a simulated universe means the assumption that "there can be large number of simulated universes and one physical universe" is not necessarily true. There are other possibilities and hence probability cannot be applied to only a subset of the outcomes. Further, the argument isn't deductive, and commits the fallacy of false dilemma in the last two statements.

In addition, Bostrom's argument uses circular reasoning, which is a form of the Liar Paradox. The argument begins with a discussion of the reality around us, and extrapolates from this to what might happen in the future, and to other possible civilisations. The argument then proceeds to offer three conclusions, at least one one of which, it is claimed, is true. One of the outcomes is that we are almost certainly living in a simulation. However, if this were true, it would invalidate the evidence on which the argument is based, as we can no longer make the extrapolations either to our own future, or to other civilisations. This argument is one of several refutations offered by Fabien Besnard in an unpublished paper entitled Refutations of the Simulation Argument.

In my opinion, this section is unclear, not written from a neutral point of view, and unsourced except for a paper that is unpublished and therefore unreliable by our standards. --Allen 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

the face on mars, easter egg?

would itbe worth adding that some people (like me) sees lots of similarities between the face on mars and easter eggs? (as I see it, it was an interesting "feature" only accessible during a certain period of time, using the right tools, from the right position, just as many video game and alike easter eggs are)--TiagoTiago 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would consider that an "easter egg". 121.209.200.117 (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

see also

Should Holographic principle, Holographic paradigm, and Holomovement be added to the 'See Also' section?????

I don't think so.

1Z 21:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the websites listed above appears to be selling CDs and is generally a bunch of hocus pocus. I found an article that does a good job of explaining some of the underlying principles from a scientific perspective, minus the snake oil pitch.

Here is the article: http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/

Lordvolton 07:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Lordv, very nice. I agree with Peter that this topic should not be in 'See Also'. Artman772000 04:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000

Why does that part of the article have a blue highlight over it? It's very hard to read. >> 75.105.128.39 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First lets organize what IS there.

I did a re-organization to pull together writings about the same topic which are scattered throughout. I also found redundant writings located far from each-other; I combined them and deleted reduncies. I think it is an improvement. Maybe from here we can discuss content. I am new to wiki and the philosohpy group so I did not understand that this reorganization could not be done without discussion. The changes are on hold because of this. I propose that we accept these organizational changes (which I believe have not changed content much at all), and subsequently discuss more. Again, maybe you think my edit requires more work, but I think it is a much more coherent grouping from which to start that work. Please put your comments below about this edit. I hope we will take it and get you guys moving on this page. It is the edit with a time of 22:21 Thanks.

(If you think I have removed your work, please look more closely, the idea is probably still there - for example because you had actually re-written something that was already in another section. I tried to even keep texts if they were nearly the same but not identical concepts) Artman772000 04:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)artman77200

If you are just re-organizing and deleting duplicated material,why has the page got longer? (Well, you have added a passage on dreaming into the middle of "computional load", for one thing..) 1Z 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, it didn't "got longer". The edit under discussion took the size from 55.8 to 54.7. Everything I wrote here in this discussion is about that major re-org edit. Not about mine or others' prior edits where needed material was indeed added. Artman772000 13:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)artman772000

Yea, I agree that dreaming section is kind of long and seems out of place being so near the front. I did not put it there though. Also, my re-org edit is not perfect, just a lot better (as described above). Anyway, what is the process by which it would get approved if it were to be approved and used? Is there a mediator or something who would decide? Artman772000 13:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)artman772000

Second Life: Small Edit

I'm clarifying the link to SL a little to explain it is the closest match to a simulated reaity in real life. 172.135.174.48 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Okay, now is the time for whoever placed the tags all over the article to explain why we should keep them. In my view excessive tagging effects the flow of the article and the person responsible for the excessive tags never came into the discussion room to offer up their reasoning for adding tags.

Instead they made a unilateral decision to tag because in their view that is how they feel about the article. So whoever tagged step up to the plate and give us all a good explanation why all those tags are needed.

And if we agree then we'll keep the tags.

Lordvolton 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently those who added the tags are long gone. So I've removed the tags until such time as those who inserted them (without getting any feedback) wishes to discuss their reasoning.

Lordvolton 04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Validity of 'Validity of the arguments'

Validity of the arguments is a small section that I tried to clean up (diff). That edit was reverted (which I imagine happens often in this article) so I'd like to indicate why I think this section seriously needs work:

• It is unsourced, which here means that it is either original research or a truism.
• It's unclear exactly which argument (or counterargument) it is addressing, but the immediately preceeding (and dominant) argument is Bostrom's, which absolutely depends on the assumptions described in this section as irrelevant.

The paragraph violates Wikipedia's policies in order to make an ambiguous argument which is either obvious or completely wrong. If my edit doesn't address this, somebody else should try to put these points in context, or simply remove this section. --Wragge 11:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You have my full support to re-insert the edit. LV should discuss this and not revert without comment. 1Z 15:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the section was moved from its original location. There were some typos and I thought the additional material was a bit confusing, although I don't disagree with your goals.

Lordvolton 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, as this section seems out of place. I checked it again, and it still reads like idle speculation. Nothing has been done about it. I admit that my additions were a little bit contorted, but that's partly because I had to fit them around a strangely-placed counter-argument to something undefined. I can't suggest a simple deletion of the section (which would be an improvement over the status quo) - because it would leave a significant counter-argument/source-of-confusion unaddressed. (One that would be independently added back in.) A long-term solution is to make these points into either: (a) their own section, or (b) a section specifically about the terms of Bostrom's Trichotomy. --Wragge (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Recursive simulations

Question about the "Recursive simulations" section.. those limitations are only true for subsets of our universe right? Maybe this should be clarified in the article. We certainly can't defeat the laws of physics by simulating a system with more memory than the simulator, but this could be a limitation imposed by a simulator "higher up the chain" than us, and other simulations of that simulator don't necessarily have the same limitation. --ffroth 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I could imagine such a limitation being imposed somewhere up the chain specifically for the purpose of limiting the power of sub-simulations. Maybe someone successfully took over a parent simulation by simulating it with their non-constrained memory capacity, predicting their every action and essentially being able to subvert any influence the parent had on the simulation.. and news trickled down (or up!) the chain causing someone to impose the memory limitation. --ffroth 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation For Asimov Reference, Please

Someone please cite the Asimov reference:

Isaac Asimov pushed the limits of this by claiming that, unbeknownst to the inhabitants, the simulation could even run backwards, or in pieces on different computers, or with a million generations of monks working weekends on abacuses — all without the simulation missing a beat 'in simulation time'.

== Whaat?

Link's awakening as an example of simulated reality? Might as well put all video games of the world there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.210.234 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gurdjieff's aspect definitely should be mentioned

Gnostisism (and ‘waking up’ to the fact that this world is a ‘Matrix’- i.e. Hysterema = world of suffering and constant disharmony) is indirectly referenced through mentioning the Matrix movie (plus the movie Blade Runner, based on PKD’s also Gnostic philosophy), but Gurdjieff’s aspect is omitted in this article, and I believe it is absolutely important to highlight that aspect as well! From his Fourth way and aspect that "humans are not born with a soul. Rather, a man must create a soul through the course of his life" (humans are basically born as ‘androids’ and only very few ‘humans’ reach the level of true spiritual humans with soul, which is very different from gnostic aspect that we are all essentially souls trapped in the physical world, and also very different from atheist aspect that completely rejects the existence of the soul) we have that it is possible that the ‘inhabitant of the simulation’ (some ‘Agent Smith’) himself AWAKENS to the fact that he is in a ‘Matrix’, created from some world ‘outside of’ (i.e. transcendent to) the Matrix world, and after maintaining the awaken state and having a desire to escape this Matrix world (and/or all Matrix worlds and get back to the basic world of the spiritual essence), can supposedly (if following Gurdjieff’s teaching or something related) succeed. This would mean that an entity being ‘pure information’ (as Agent Smith) can through some ‘heuristic development’ (or some better term/concept if someone finds) become more ‘self-aware’ and ‘awakens’ (from information via some more ‘essential information’) and attach itself to some ‘outside user’ (either already a ‘player’ of this Matrix-simulation or some ‘newly invited player’)... Also the solipsist aspect (or Taoist/Zen Buddhist in its core mystical sense) that represents the aspect that everything is illusion (exists relatively, as a product of my interaction/symbiosis with Matrix), and only my mind/consciousness (and my 'life-experience' through all this suffering) is real (exists absolutely and as autonomous entity with free will) -so all other ‘conscious entities’ are basically ad-hoc creations of my interaction with Matrix, either conscious or 'subconscious')is very significant (and is good that it is mentioned). If this Zen/Tao solipsist aspect is combined with Gurdjieff’s aspect we have this strange hybrid aspect (but nevertheless very possible to be the ultimate Truth) that this ‘physical universe’ is completely WITHOUT A SOUL with me being the only autonomous consciousness, 'born' as Information and now to-some-degree 'awaken consciosness' involuntarily trapped here in this monstruous creation, and by the ‘enfolding’ of this Matrix-infonverse-universe, the Soul (or emanation of Spirit, the true manifestable essence)) is only supposed to somehow emerge and fulfill the purpose of the existence of this ‘physical universe’ (Matrix-infoverse) in the first place. Maybe that is what will happen with this (at this moment very disgusting/unjust/satanic for me) Matrix-world, on Dec-22-2012, and is ‘programmed to happen’ since in some iteration already happened, and if it doesn’t occur (as it is programmed), then this Matrix is really simply a disgusting complete waste (unrelated to the Spirit and insufficiently good to attach itself to any of its manifestations)! Anyway, Gurdjieff (and solipsism as well) should be definitely included somehow, if this article is to be serious and with some true philosophical depth. Ndru01 08:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source linking G. to the actual phrase "simulated reality". 1Z (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is at least as much reason to mention Gurdjieff as there is to mention Blade Runner (in "Hidden Messages" section). Gurdjieff is actually responsible for the whole idea of androids being indistinguishable from humans in visual sense and the unavoidable confusion of an android for a human (with a transcendent self=soul). I actually took the freedom to add that in the article under "Emigration". If necessary it can be reworded maybe, for some better clarity. Regards.Ndru01 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gurdjieff is actually responsible for the whole idea of androids being indistinguishable from humans in visual sense.

Do you have a ref for that? Can you prove PKD read G? 1Z (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But why is it even necessary? Respecting them both (G and PKD), why is it relevant for this article of SR to prove that PKD read G, I don't really understand? I meant if it is relevant to mention PKD (through Blade Runner), it is than even more relavant to bring up Gurdjieff because for better understanding SR he is actually (also) essential, wheter as an influence (indirectly) or directly.Ndru01 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Connecting Gurdjieff's teachings with this is reaching. It seems to me more a chance for you to look smart. Show me somewhere in Gurdjieff's writings where he, in any way, suggested we are living in a simulated reality. That really reflects a shallow subjective understanding of esoteric knowledge in general. Just because Gurdjieff used the term "wake" up 60 years ago, and now it showed up in The Matrix, doesn't make it the same thing. Keeping that part in here really does a disservice to people trying to make sense out of this article, and does a disservice to anyone trying to make sense out of Gurdjieff. 68.183.202.18 (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just check wikipedia's entry on Gurdjieff. The fact that he considered humans basically as automatons living in unconscious/sleeping state (born without a soul, and only a very small percentage of humans really waking up and succeeding to develop a soul in this life), clearly means that he regarded this world as something artificial (and a sort of a trap) that originate some place else (being a product of some superior world). That is basically the same idea as the idea of simulated reality, just before the simulation-running-computers existed (that finally brought this idea to the surface).67.204.16.182 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)