Talk:Simulation hypothesis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Editing Notes

This page is a companion page to Simulated Reality, and is specifically dedicated to the Hypothesis that we are, in fact, living in a simulation.

The page will eventually contain the following:

• 1. A statement of Nick Bostrom's Argument
  2. A discussion of whether it is now, or ever would be, technologically possible to Simulate Reality
  3. A discussion of the purpose of such a simulation, together with the ethics of doing it.
  4. An analysis of the evidence (pro/con) in support of, or in denial of the hypothesis, in the light of the first two, and the logic of Bostrom's argument.

References within this article might be very 'iffy', given that the material is highly speculative. Editors are asked to select sources with care, and not simply to reference blogs or other contentious material without having sufficient corroborative, more substantial sources. Please do not add personal material and/or individual comments on the item.

Please do not add to the SH item until the structure has been established.

--TonyFleet 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Structure & Headings

Somewhere: 'As Bostrom's argument points out, in order for us to be living in a simulation, a race of beings would need to be technologically capable and motivated to create such a simulation.' The Simulation Argument

Technological and Scientific Capability Required

Ethical and Motivational Issues

Evidence for and Against the Hypothesis

--CatWatcher 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Shouldn't this be at Simulation hypothesis, with the current title of Simulation Hypothesis being a redirect? It's the other way around right now. --Sapphic 06:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to propose the renaming, since nobody seems to be objecting and I think it's the right thing. --Sapphic 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not merge "Simulation hypotheses" into "Simulism". If you insist on a merge, do it the other way around. The term "Simulation argument" is far more common than "Simulation hypothesis" -- which itself is far more common than "Simulism". For instance, a Google phrase search (using the double quotes) currently returns 20,500 hits for "simulation argument", and 4,230 hits for "simulation hypothesis", but only "1,560" hits for "simulism". --Parsiferon (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The two short stories

The article links two short stories, but neither is attributed to an author of note or appears to be the subject of any further noteworthy discussion. Merely writing a story about a subject does note make that writing notable, and does not merit a link from Wikipedia; if that were not case then my epic story "I like bananas" would be a reasonable link from the banana article, despite it (and me) being entirely not noteworthy. Absent evidence to the contrary, I contend these two links should be removed, and are something between trivia and spam in nature. 87.112.17.229 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion that these short stories should not be included. However, I believe it must be noted that the inclusion of those links does make the viewer read that sentence, and likely the rest of the article, in the voice of Troy McClure. For this reason, the sentence must remain completely intact. --76.28.156.92 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What if God simulated us? (Citation needed)

Has anyone ever suggested such a theory or metaphor? I have not found it in this form in the literature, but there must be.

The concept is in short: What if God created universe and the evolution of life simply by programming some fundamental laws of physics (many of which we don't know yet) into a computer, and clicking on "run"? Every now and then he might stop the simulation, manually change its state and restart it. This results in a "supernatural intervention" that does not obey the natural laws and cannot be repeated, and therefor not can be studied by scientific methods by the observers inside the simulation. The objective might be to develop a species that is similar to god. When we die he might copy the information state of our brains (=our soules) into another computer simulation, where there is no second law of thermodynamics, no sickness or death, no lack of resources. I suggested this metaphor for the creation in mid-90s in some forums, but I'm convince I was not the first one.

Is this theory a form of Simulism? Mange01 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you (both) correctly then it is a form of simulism but not an original one. What I think you're describing was proposed by Prof. Ed Fredkin in the early 1970s after having seen Conway's Game of Life. A quick primer is the article Did the Universe Just Happen?, or alternatively you can go straight to Fredkin's site at http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.46.227 (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi--I just came across this discussion. In the nineteenth century, Mary Baker Eddy, the American religious thinker and founder of the Christian Science movement, proposed that the material world (as it appears to us) is an illusion created by our conscious and unconscious thoughts. She conceived of the world as a kind of collective hallucination or "phantasmagoria," and furthermore that our condition can be improved or "healed" by a recogniation of (a) the fact that the material world is an illusion and (b) there is a spiritual reality beyond it, of which the material world is a distortion. This, she believed, was how Jesus healed in the Bible, and she founded the Christian Science church to try to reinstate the lost element of healing. However, I don't know of any texts specifically relating this to contemporary simulation theory, though the parallel is striking.89.100.155.6 (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"However" list can be improved

I went through all the written "However" and I think none of them really says nothing against the hypothesis.

I will comment them all:

- "The assumption of this theorem is very far from being complete [...]"

Not very good for the first one: a negative-proof fallacy.

- "Arguments against simulation realism: Gravitational singularity, any of scientifical singularities [...]"

I don't see why an implementation of gravitation could not return Infinity for a certain combination of space and time coordinates.

- "[...] Weak helpfulness of Weather simulation, weak helpfulness of Earthquake prediction [...]"

I don't quite understand this one. The fact that current weather simulators could improve doesn't seem to say nothing against or in favour of the simulation hypothesis.

- "[...] Butterfly effect [...]"

Is this saying that simulations have to be linear? Aren't non-linear systems allowed?

- "Simulations are sometimes modified during their lifespan, but Physical constants (exact), Mathematical constants (exact), Exact trigonometric constants are stable (not to be confused with programming constants which are changeable)"

This one is a bit blurry. First of all, programming constants are not generally changed once the program is compiled. All programs have some exact constants declared whose value doesn't change unless a hacker modifies the exact byte of the constant in the compiled code. Secondly, this argument is a fallacy; the fact that some simulations are modified during their lifespan doesn't mean that there can't be simulations whose foundations don't change at all.

- "Simulations are temporal ("can be turned off", "restarted"), so the longer we (mankind and/or a person) live, the less likely it is that we are part of a simulation"

That is assuming that: "If a simulation is turned off or restarted, agents inside the simulation will notice it". I don't think that needs to be true. Maybe the universe just restarted now after being applied a patch and we didn't notice.

- "Simulation that is undetectable for scientists (for instance both astronomer and at the same time quantum physicist) would have to be very large and detailed, and hard to motivate with mankind ethic."

This is a misunderstood in complexity. Complexity doesn't only arise from very large and detailed systems, it can arise from very simple ones. Exact examples for this are fractals and, in general, any non-linear system.

- "Theory about simulation undetectable by scientists is not approved by ockham razor principle."

As if the Ockham Razor was a dictator who says what is true and what is not!

Hope this is usefull.

83.41.20.140 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the 'however' is that the points are presented as somehow being against the SA in general, while they are really only focused on why one should reject one of the trilemmas. A good argument against the SA would show that the triple disjunction is not exhaustive or is contradictory. --Gwern (contribs) 17:17 8 February 2010 (GMT)

"simulations are sometimes modified during their lifespan, but Physical constants (exact), Mathematical constants (exact), Exact trigonometric constants are stable (not to be confused with programming constants which are changeable)"

This one isn't just a 'bit blurry'. Moreover it's not only a fallacy in the sense stated. To my mind it's anything but a valid (counter)argument. Since here is obviously implicated that, in case of a change of some physical or mathematical constants, we, the inhabitants of a supposed simulation, would/should/could be aware of it, i.e. possibly detect it. Which is absurd. "They" could in fact do just about everything with this supposed simulation, all along without us being aware of anything. It could've started just yesterday! Or an hour ago. How could we tell? We're part of the system at any rate, so we, just as everything else in the system, may be subject to change. At any time. Someone who seriously buys into that kind hypothesis would be well advised to immediately stop believing in anything whatsoever. It would be pointless -- and, to my understanding, that's exactly the sole clear, tangible, workable assertion this hypothesis produces. There isn't more to it. Not exactly helpful, for sure, but a bit of fun on a rainy day, with nothing noteworthy on the TV. Zero Thrust (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Things that point towards this being true

I'm spent my career as both a game programmer and a simulation programmer. It seems quite striking to me that there are a number of things that we observe about our universe that make it seem to have properties very much like the restrictions that a simulation might have:

1. Quantum theory. When you look at the very smallest things - their behavior is random and quantized. In a finite precision computer, that's exactly what you'd expect. There would be randomness due to things like roundoff error and because of that finite precision, you'd see quantised behavior in all sorts of very small system. Old flight simulators from the 1980's used to have a precision of 1/256th of a foot - if you lived in that simulation, you'd say that the laws of physics quantised all distances to a "plank length" of 1/256th of a foot and invent complicated 'laws of physics' to explain that.
2. Relativity. It's very convenient for the simulation for there to be a finite speed of light and a universal speed limit. It constrains the amount of the universe that you'd have to simulate with great precision and covers up the effects of latency between computers simulating different parts of the universe - and it also prevents humans from spreading outwards beyond the region which is simulated at high fidelity.
3. The Big Bang. That's a very convenient way to hide the finite nature of time. You can't have the simulation running forever - it has to have a fixed start time. It has to be impossible to see what happened before that time - and starting things off as a singularity makes a lot of sense. This also imposes a limit on the size of the observable universe - which, again, is handy if your computer has finite memory.
4. Why there is so little matter in all of this vacuum. Building your simulated universe like that allows you to have a vast universe with much less computational effort than if it were mostly full of matter.
5. Entropy. Highly organized systems take a lot of simulation time - allowing things to degenerate into low grade thermal 'noise' keeps the simulation within reasonable bounds. If the system became more organized as time passed, the simulation computer would start to run more and more slowly.

I don't think I believe the simulation hypothesis - but it does actually explain quite a lot!

SteveBaker (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are alternate reasons for all of these. If you're not familiar with the anthropic principle it can be summarized as "There are a lot of universes. Only those that support life will contain life, so if something makes life possible, we should not be surprised by it, but instead expect it." With this in mind:

1. Quantum theory. Without quantum theory, the ultraviolet catastrophe would kill us all.
2. Relativity. Prohibiting superluminal travel makes the world more predictable, making it easier for life to form. The Poincaré group is also arguably simpler than the Galilean group and therefore favored by Occam's razor.
3. Entropy. I'm going out of order on this one because the big bang makes no sense without understanding entropy. The second law of thermodynamics is a mathematical theorem (see Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Proof_of_the_Second_Law). If entropy is not at a maximum, it will almost always rise. If entropy is at a maximum, it will almost always stay high. In such a case, information processing, and therefore life, will be impossible. In fact, the lower entropy is the more probable life is.
4. The Big Bang. Since entropy almost always rises, it must have started low or life would be extremely improbable.
5. Why there is so little matter in all of this vacuum. Space used to be more dense, but life was impossible. Now it has expanded and life is possible. This expansion is approximately governed by the Friedmann equations, so the exact conditions are mostly specified.

74.14.109.234 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Synchronicity

Wouldn't this hypothesis provide the best (best as in "fanciful") explanation for synchronicity? Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the simulation hypothesis is true - then everything that happens in our universe is "explained" by this single hypothesis. If the programmer who created this simulation decided to include "synchronicity" into the software, he/she/it probably could easily do that. But I don't see anything specific about the concept of synchronicity that is especially related to this. Also, I don't actually think that synchronicity needs any explanation - I don't think it's a real phenomenon...more likely observer bias of some kind. SteveBaker (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In this fanciful proposition, synchronicity is not something deliberately programmed, in fact, it's quite the opposite. It's an error, a bug in the system that disrupts the simulation. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound much like an obvious simulation bug to me - but since we know nothing of the nature of how this hypothetical simulation is programmed - it's truly impossible to say whether such bugs are likely or even possible - so even if we knew for sure that the simulation hypothesis was true, we still wouldn't know whether synchronicity was a bug, deliberately programmed, and 'emergent feature' of the simulation or merely a figment of our (simulated) imaginations. Bear in mind that we don't know whether this simulation would be something where every fundamental particle was simulated very simply - and things like stars and planets and human beings simply "happened" via the interactions of the laws of the simulated physics...or whether this is more like video games where the simulation is started off with things like humans designed into the system at the outset. SteveBaker (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the idea of breaking the fourth wall in theatre? Synchronicity breaks the boundary of this wall and disrupts the suspension of disbelief. I suppose intuition and dreaming are along the same lines. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Fix This Page

The 'However' section needs to be removed. It presents original research debating the validity of the hypothesis with misappropriated citations from Nick Bostrom's original paper. This is not the place for original research or debating the validity of the Simulation Argument. Just summarize the Simulation Argument, summarize some of any *published* criticism, and leave it at that. Please leave the article as just a neutral summary of the Simulation Argument itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.7.165 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I plan to remove the "However..." section completely. Let us plan to put back the original "Criticisms" section - but enforce the rule that only properly referenced criticisms should be included - and rigorously remove anything that isn't referenced. SteveBaker (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Ryan North argument is full of holes.

1. No civilization will reach a literature level capable of producing a convincing story.

   The nature of a story is a continuous, essentially single-threaded narrative that leaves out VAST amounts of information about the universe in order to convey in great detail the super-thin thread of the plot. You can't read War and Peace and gain any understanding of the orbit of Venus. It's not mentioned anywhere in the story - so it doesn't exist.

2. No civilization reaching aforementioned literature status will produce a convincing story...
3. You are almost certainly a character in a story"

thus leading to the following theorem:

"So if you think that (1) and (2) are both false, you should accept (3)."

But it's very clear that a story - by it's very nature - cannot be convincing about all aspects of every human's existence. Since we may easily accept (1) - it doesn't seem reasonable that we're all living in a story.

The analogous reasoning for the simulation hypothesis is much clearer though. It is very obvious that convincing computer-based simulations could provide an utterly convincing virtual world for all of its inhabitants. We're heading in that direction with computer games all the time. So North's analogy doesn't hold water - it doesn't go anywhere towards disproving the simulation hypothesis because it's just not credible.

You could of course argue that a truly "convincing story" would say everything about everything in the universe at once - but that's really just what a simulation is, and now if you accept the conclusion that we're all living in a story, that's not such an unlikely prospect because this kind of story is so very far from any experience we have of stories. The idea that North has performed a reductio ad absurdum of the simulation hypothesis simply doesn't hold water.

So I think we should give North's argument only the briefest of mention (per WP:UNDUE)...which is the long way of saying that I strongly support C. A. Russell's reversion of 190.42.85.116's re-insertion of North's arguments into the article. SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Simulation must be in a different reality.

Someone just removed: "The hypothesis implies that the simulation is being run in a different reality." from the lede on the grounds that sim's could run self-similar sims. I have reverted that change: here is why:

I can see where that idea comes from - but it's simply not possible. There cannot be a computer in our reality with enough memory to store all of the information needed to simulate a universe identical to the one in which it has been constructed. It would need enough memory to store a potentially infinite number of simulations within simulations - and that's obviously not possible in our universe.

If our universe is being simulated, then the "real" universe that's running us must permit much larger computers with much faster data transfer rates...probably without our speed-of-light limitations. A computer large enough to represent our "known universe" has to have many, many bits of memory for every fundamental particle in our universe. If built out of "normal matter", it would have to be considerably larger than our visible universe. The speed-of-light limitations of our physics would make it impossible for a computer of such size to operate because light/electrical-signals from one corner of the computer would be unable to travel across the circuitry fast enough to make it to where the other corner is being simulated.

Hence "our simulation" must be being run in a reality that at least differs in the speed of light - or in the density of theoretically plausible compute resources.

It would be nice to find some kind of reference for this - but you can't remove that statement on these grounds.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A "different reality" fails to convey the ideas it was intended to replace, and yes, I can remove it. The previous user made the change because the phrasing was awkward. True as that may be, I've restored the 07:06, 25 April 2011 sentence... so feel free to source it, challenge it or delete it. As I explained in my edit summary: (time to quote a source? there's not only the supervenience to consider, there's interactive causation; more figuratively, a sim could (and surely would) run self-similar sims... to say "a different reality" is just too whimsical).

Practical limits are arbitrary because it's only hypothetical, but the theoretical limits imposed by physics can do little to hinder outrageous speculation (Tipler comes to mind). Why are you stipulating the Full-Laplace? It was the idea of massively multiple, smaller scale sims that helped to popularize it. There's no good reason to doubt that substance, like software, can run on any universal Turing machine. Only an interactive simulation would need to run "in real time" (or there abouts), sims could run just as well on "A Bunch of Rocks"... I wouldn't put too much stock in the article's external world skepticism emphasis... it's almost never the point.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Universal Turing machines are only equivalent if they have unlimited storage space. Since the real universe cannot have infinite anything that is accessible within the life of the universe, your analogy fails. These are not just practical limits. Our universe can only accomodate N bits of storage - and it takes more than N bits to simulate. A computer of finite size cannot simulate itself...neither can a universe. Hence efforts to make a self-similar simulation are doomed - the simulation must always be less extensive or less detailed. It is therefore "different". Speed of computation seems like only a practical issues - but then too there are theoretical issues to consider. If it takes longer than the life of the "real" universe to run a child simulation to the point where (for example) stars and planets might emerge - then you can't have simulation within simulation at all. Given the necessarily enormous size of the computers' storage matrix, the speed of light is indeed a harsh mistress. Certainly we could be living in a simulation - but either the parent universe is "different" from ours (specifically, it would need much more matter and/or a much larger speed of light) - or our simulation is greatly simplified such that most of what we see out there is merely stage scenery which is not simulated in as much detail as (say) our solar system. But that makes the parent universe different - it has detailed things happening on distant stars where our universe has much simpler things. Again, the parent universe is - by necessity - "different".

Sure, we may need another form of words - and references are important - but it is an absolute computational necessity that the parent universe is a different place than ours. SteveBaker (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You haven't so much as skimmed the article have you? Why would anyone want to simulate the whole universe down to the last quantum? Or wait billions of years for something unpredictable to happen? Seriously, why bother with physics at all? Living on a leprechaun's nose is more parsimonious. Why (say) our solar system? If our descendants were interested in modeling history, don't you think they'd focus on simulating places populated with people? Why would our descendants live in some crazy parallel reality? Read the article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey - that's kinda insulting, yes, of course I've read the article.

If (as you say) the simulation that we're living in is not simulated down to the level of fundamental particles - then it must have restrictions and limitations that a "real" universe wouldn't have. That makes it "different" in fairly major ways. When the occupants of such a limited simulation decide to make a simulation of their own, the storage space in the parent simulation now has to double in order to allow the simulation of a simulation at the same degree of fidelity as the first generation simulation. By the time you get to the Nth generation of simulation of simulation of simulation..., it has at least N times the original storage requirements. For sufficiently large N, the parent universe can no longer simulate the N'th level universe unless it's infinite and has no cosmic speed limits. That being a fundamental limitation, now we can say that at the N-1th level we have a simulation that cannot produce a self-similar simulation because the zeroth level computer would be bigger than the universe it's stored in. So generation N-1 is "different" from generation 0. You can then carry this back to us in our 1st level simulation because we would be living in a universe where only N-2 levels of simulation were possible - where the "real" universe can produce N-1 levels. Ergo, YES...it MUST be different.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry... my bad, I didn't mean to be insulting... Honest, the only thing you need to convince me of, is what page of where I can verify it... It seems like you're spinning your wheels... help me fix up the article a little bit and later we can argue about anything you want k?

And hey, kudos for even thinking about the physics of simulating entire universes down to the particle level. modal realism is roughly synonymous with 'the land of make believe'... Good to keep in mind when reading David Chalmers (*cough* hack) who does mention micro-sims v macro-sims somewhere near the end of his monograph for the Journal of the Philosophy Section of the Website for The Matrix Movie, the qualia of which, having been noted by Nick Bostrom himself, can hardly be impugned... (not one word from Chalmers about philosophical zombies—just whole universes full of tasty brains-in-a-vat... all I'm saying is, he claims there's a spoon. Is that flamebait or a confession?)

Anyway, the major inconsistencies in our article are due to the "text dump" from "Simulism"... The merge target should have been Simulated reality but because Simulated reality already contains so much identical material, no doubt it was a lot easier to dump it here. Still, the dump needs to be merged into Simulated reality (or the Simulism article needs to be reinstated until someone can handle it properly).

Well, I'm happy to entertain the notion that we're living in a sim, who wouldn't... But actually, I want to say what Bostrom says... that based on the empirical evidence so far, it's overwhelmingly probable his tripartite disjunction will obtain. If a window pops up in front of everybody saying "You're simulated. Click here for more info." that would narrow it down... but basically, 1. mass extinction; or 2. ungrateful little hooligans that they might be, it's possible that almost none of our decedents would be willing or able to run ancestor simulations or 3. we're sims. Furthermore, if it just-so-happens that we create ancestor simulations ourselves, #3 is all but certain...

He kindly formulated it so that it wouldn't be just another skeptical argument. I think that's really what it's all about... that, and the simulation hypothesis behind door #3...

He really does say that only populated areas need to be modeled (for his purposes), for example, he mentions the Earth's interior isn't required. He wants a healthy margin of error, so he's only trying to establish that a fraction the total computing power available to our descendants might be utilized for ancestor sims (he thinks an Apollo mission type-scenario where vast resources are poured into the project would be too far fetched).

He actually gives minimum estimates that should be more than sufficient for what he's talking about. They're given in terms of computing power per kilogram of hardware (and he purposefully ignores Moore's law... so that's circa 2002). He specifies that the simulated physics only needs to be accurate down to the cellular/synaptic level. That's because it might reasonably suffice for simulating consciousness (physics on a smaller scale only has aggregate effects on consciousness).

Wouldn't it take an awful lot of resources to implement a brain by composition of wave functions? I wouldn't know, but I imagine we're still a miracle or two shy of calculating computational chemistry directly from decohering quanta... You'll be interested in his discussion of how the non-simulated hardware at the base of a stack of sims-of-sims is a hard limit. I think it was in one of Bostrom's reply papers... no sure, but someone's estimate was that a stack of only 16 would overflow, even if every particle in "the universe" where dedicated.

Which gave me pause... "Hog the stack or have a beer?" What kind of intellectual sociopath would hesitate?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Any chance you could refind that paper? I've read most of Bostrom's stuff and it doesn't sound familar. I did a little figuring myself and it didn't seem like 16 would blow the stack, as it were. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 29 April 2011 (GMT)

There is no way you can estimate anything like this to a precision of one part in 16! That's just naive. The numbers involved (especially the estimate for the number of bits you need to "simulate a world" are nothing more than wild-assed guesses and have error bars like plus/minus 10¹⁰ or more! If your best estimate is 16 then a proper scientific answer is somewhere between: "We'd need to have 10¹⁰ times more compute power than we could possibly have in order to make just one convincing simulation"...or..."We could simulate 10¹⁰ worlds with the compute power we already have." The difficulty all of these estimates have rests in the assumption that you'd only have to simulate (say) the surface of the planet Earth and everything upon it. That wouldn't work. Humans are digging deep boreholes and using the results of seismic studies to understand the inner structure of the planet by timing refractions through it - measuring gravitational anomalies from spacecraft. Those results wouldn't make coherent scientific sense if some simulation was attempting to provide answers to our questions without simulating a consistent universe in extreme detail. I don't believe anything short of a fundamental-particle level simulation would convince us with our current level of science.

In truth, I'm actually starting to halfway believe this hypothesis(!) precisely because science is finding things that are very plausible artifacts caused by "merely" simulating things at the level of fundamental particles. The way you can't pin a particle down precisely (per heisenberg and schrodinger) - the fact that all of the properties of our universe are quantized - these are all the kinds of thing I'd expect to happen if we had started to probe the numerical precision of the computer that runs our universe.

Incidentally - my job of the past 35 years has been in simulation - and I have even built a simulation within a simulation(!) - so I know a bit about what I'm talking about here! SteveBaker (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It from was one of the authors Bostrom posted on his website (Jenkins, Peter S. (August 2006). "Historical Simulations – Motivational, Ethical and Legal Issues". Journal of Futures Studies. 11 (1): 23–42.). He used Medical testing protocols to explore legal issues with sims. AIs would be treated like people, and if they're still in the lab, a protected class (like children, prison inmates, the impoverished, expectant mothers, etc). With informed consent, its memory can be erased but (within limits) opportunities to quit must be arranged. Any rewards and penalties (like deletion) must not unfairly exploit their vulnerabilities. Nonetheless, in order to more effectively deceive an AI during the testing phases of software development, historic simulations would be essential: anticipating the challenges of programming morals/ethics, practical methods to weed out the "bad seeds" should be accommodated, and, to be effective, the subjects (some highly intelligent) must have no reason to suspect they're being tested.

Anyway, it was in reference to Seth Lloyd's Programming the Universe (whom I saw on your page... cool site BTW), “[I]f every single elementary particle in the real universe were devoted to quantum computation, it would be able to perform 10¹²² operations per second on 10⁹² bits of information.^{Lloyd 2006, p. 166.} In a stacked simulation scenario, where 10⁶ simulations are progressively stacked, after only 16 generations, the number of simulations would exceed by a factor of 10⁴ the total number of bits of information available for computation in the real universe” so I take it he observed 16×6=96 so a megabit sim couldn't be stacked 16 times with only 10⁹² bits of storage. Gwern, sorry I didn't mention the megabit... it was orthogonal to my deep thoughts about beer.

SteveBaker, the author (a naive attorney FYI, not a naive scientist) was just saying ya can't stack very many. You need to be a lot less abrasive, a megabit off by 10¹⁰ (10¹⁶) is totally in same ball-park: 6. Here's one for ya, hot shot my "best estimate" of you not missing the point, goes a`lil something like this: ‘10th on a stack of 10¹⁰ each’... consider yourself challenged to prove your posturing and wild hyperbole are anything like "proper scientific answers to ?"... ‘how big's a (quantum?) simulation of...?’ your head? “my job of the past 35 years has been in simulation - and I have even built a simulation within a simulation(!) - so I know a bit about what I'm talking about here!” Get out, me too! Like quantum and big as the universe? So, how do ya make a window popup in front of everybody saying “You're in a quantum simulation. Click here for more info, or click here to download a copy of my cat, Mr. Quarkibottoms”?

Something like Digital physics would be the venue for the universe as quantum "simulation" and Simulated reality for skeptical issues about a quantum simulated universe. You're saying Bostrom's wrong about the interior of the Earth, and more generally... that what he's talking about won't work. You are aware that policy prohibits the use of your opinions about Bostrom until they're published by a reliable source... So, I don't understand what you're expecting? Send Bostrom an email if you think you're on to something... (bug fix: Bostrom, Nick; Kulczycki, Marcin (2011). "A Patch for the Simulation Argument" (PDF). Analysis. 71 (1): 54–61.).

Back to Bostrom (re: stacks) “If each first‐level ancestor‐simulation run by the non‐Sims requires more resources (because they contain within themselves additional second‐level ancestor‐simulations run by the Sims), the non‐Sims might well respond by producing fewer first‐level ancestor‐simulations. Conversely, the cheaper it is for the non‐Sims to run a simulation, the more simulations they may run. It is therefore unclear whether the total number of ancestor‐simulations would be greater if Sims run ancestor‐simulations than if they do not.” Bostrom, Nick (2009). "The Simulation Argument: Some Explanations" (PDF).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand it a little better. It looks to me that it's either engaged in double-counting or is making assumptions about being able to optimize or cache. I mean, suppose we have the first simulation A, who run 10^6 simulations Bs; why does that require any more resources than Simulation A did in the first place?

Simulation A isn't punching out of its simulation, browsing across the root universe's Internet, and hacking into a supercomputer to run the additional simulations - all the Simulation Bs are being run on the same visible universe of atoms Simulation A was using before it decided to run simulations with some of its atoms rather than let them swirl around as usual.

Same number of atoms, same amount of computing resource from the root universe's point of view. Unless, of course, the simulation is cheating or optimizing in some way so that it really does require more resources to simulate Simulation A atoms being used in a computer configuration than it required for those atoms swirling around in an ocean. --Gwern (contribs) 19:25 6 May 2011 (GMT)

Well, I don't believe Jenkins was thinking about quantum simulations of the solar system or the universe. He was fairly consistent with the scenario in Bostrom's argument. I understand that a quantum simulation big enough to be indistinguishable from the observed universe would be the best simulation imaginable. But that sounds like a hobby for Gods, not posthumans. Abstract physics emulation software seems to be what he had in mind, so I don't think the atoms in the ocean would be simulated at all. Like the interior of the Earth, the ocean would be faked at the maximum level of abstraction amenable to an ancestor simulation. I imagine that ancestor brains would have the highest fidelity (greatest data density) and Bostrom said he considered simulation down to the neural/cellular level to be reasonably sufficient for that. By extension, I imagine a hard drive wouldn't need to be simulated with imperfections. The practical effects could be simulated abstractly based on failure rates.

Let Nephelokokkygia be a quantum simulation of the universe today, running in the Mind of God, for purposes of discussion—storage for all the quanta would need to be allocated up front, including any buffer for vacuum fluctuation (have a theory of quantum gravity too, it's on the house). If the simulated imagineers at Disneyland(0) were to program and host a nested sub-simulation of Disneyland at Disneyland(0), She won't need to increase the storage capacity in Her mind in order to accommodate it (consistent with what you were saying above, I think).

Using only Disneyland(0) resources, I think the best way to maximize the number of Disneylands is by running sub-simulations in parallel, rather than nesting them in a stack. If Disneyland(0) could host $n>1$ parallel sub-simulations, it could host $m$ nested sub-simulations where $n>m$.

If She wouldn't mind terribly, perhaps all of Nephelokokkygia can be made available for Her to let there be Disneylands, (it goes without saying She neither cheats nor optimizes). Let the figures be consistent with Lloyd “perform 10¹²² operations per second on 10⁹² bits of information” and indulging Jenkins, let's assume 10⁶ bits per Magic Kingdom, wouldn't we get either $n$=10⁸⁰ parallel sub-simulations ~ or ~ $m$=15 (and change) stacked sub-simulations at ground 0 of the Happiest Place on Nephelokokkygia?

Bostrom didn't seem to consider resources to be much of a problem. It seemed he imagined there would be a lot of flexibility, perhaps at least comparable to the software in 2002: resources/processes being dynamically allocated, throttled, prioritized, suspended, terminated, etc. He factored in a wide margin of error and stipulated that only a small portion of the available computing power should go towards the pursuits of wealthy posthuman ancestral simulation enthusiasts (no Gene Roddenberry was he). As far as I can see, quantum simulations on an astronomical/universal scale aren't what Bostrom had in mind. That doesn't preclude the use of quantum computing in general... he bases no assumptions either way on quantum computing technology.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I see. There's an obvious point that you're not limited to doing the simulations consecutively or in parallel; you can mix them up with regular parallel strategies or specifically Dovetailing (computer science), which naturally reduces the damage any overly demanding sub-simulation can do. --Gwern (contribs) 18:57 9 May 2011 (GMT)

Cool. I'm not really comfortable with the way SteveBaker's trolling my posts so I'll say thanks for link and I do wonder about that 10¹²² Later.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Forget computation time - think about storage space. Even though you multitask and do whatever you can in that regard, you still have to have enough memory to store all of your simulations and simulations-of-simulations at the same time. This is an irreducible problem. SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Bostrom was thinking carefully enough. The kludges, shortcuts and hacks that you're discussing here would be quite easy to spot by the simulated humans. If human brains didn't behave like normal physical matter at the sub-cellular level, don't you think we'd notice it? Remember - if what you're saying is true then the simulated world has science and technology that's at least as capable as the world that's doing the simulation. But no matter how much clever lossy-compression tricks you apply, you fundamentally cannot compress an infinite number of levels of simulation into a finite computer. Surely you can see that? It's really fundamental information theory. Arguing that you can use some magical quantum computer to improve your capacity also doesn't help because if the simulated universe is of comparable complexity to the simulating universe - then it also has to have quantum computers. Simulating a quantum computer inside a quantum computer brings you back to the precise same issues you'd have by doing it with a conventional computer. This is still a totally ridiculous, poorly thought-through concept.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't tried not arguing yet... just a little FYI in case you ever wanna give that a spin.

I suppose those “kludges, shortcuts and hacks” would come in handy for erasing any memory of “kludges, shortcuts or hacks” wouldn't they? I can see you're unfamiliar with the concept of philosophical arguments. Bostrom can simply go smaller if science determines that objects smaller than the neural/cellular level don't only have aggregate effects that can be abstracted. What his finger is pointing out, (and what I've already explained at length, solely for your benefit), is that the assumption is reasonable enough to work with for the foreseeable future. Your objection doesn't affect the substance of the argument. You'd do much better to carry on about philosophical zombies or qualia or even souls for that matter. I get that you WP:DONTLIKE it. I've asked you twice what you're hoping to accomplish with all this arguing. WP:DISRUPT.

I won't bother asking for a source but why did you say a computer program would take "notice" purportedly due to perceptions of a “sub-cellular level” that it lacks a "human brain"? Is that in the context of your science-perfect "simulation"? The one that's as big as the universe which you've been pushing all this time? "magic"... Programs don't ever have a human brain do they? And a “humans brain” obviously can't detect anything at a “sub-cellular level”, can it? And neither could just "notice" if it was made out of matter or antimatter, could it? (I even came up with a somewhat rational example for you... it was either that or green cheese).

This is way too much effort. You never bother engaging me in any sort of discussion. You do, however, troll for fragments and that's unsettling (WP:DISRUPT) and I'm finding it difficult to WP:AGF: your writing here differs in many respects from your writing elsewhere. No less contentious it would seem, but in general, you do appear to be in full command of your faculties... So what gives... Oscar? When your brain turns back into “normal physical matter” you let me know how that worked out for you.

“Remember - if what you're saying is true then the simulated world...”

• Whoa, dude! If you spun all that off of the word "today" ... you need to go lie down for awhile. First off, I'm not making assertions about a "simulated world"... that's your malfunction, and here you are, trying to twist the discussion into a fiasco about simulating "infinite" universes? Infinite now? It just gets dippier all the time, don't it? And that's what you want this article to be about, right? I'll quote you: “This is still a totally ridiculous, poorly thought-through concept.” It is ridiculous but, it's the only "respectable" argument of it's kind. Your concept however, is "totally ridiculous" and it's 100% WP:OR. Stop fabricating it by accusing me of complete bullshit: “Simulating a quantum computer inside a quantum computer brings you back to the precise same issues you'd have by doing it with a conventional computer.” You are allowed to continue being clueless about quantum simulations and "conventional computers"... I've come to expect it.

“But no matter how much clever lossy-compression tricks you apply, you fundamentally cannot compress an infinite number of levels of simulation into a finite computer. Surely you can see that?”

• No no no, the creepy f*ed-up question is: Can you see that? Literally, can you see that anywhere on this page? Dude, seriously, you have a little problem going on. Can you remember what made you think that? Is it something that's no longer here? I swear dude, no one's going to erase your brain. You should maybe just tell someone about these things...

“Arguing that you can use some magical quantum computer” Yah right! You need to get WP:CIVIL and decide if you're willing and able to stop the lies and bullshit. You're not fooling anyone with that sad little wad of self delusion. I've already challenged you once to put up or shut up. You've done neither... your choice. WP:CIVIL—no lies.

“This is still a totally ridiculous, poorly thought-through concept.” Why are you still here? Why do you keep arguing just for the sake of arguing? WP:DISRUPT Why can't you articulate what you're trying to accomplish? Are you exercising your “position as an authority on computer graphics” again? tisk tisk—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The sentence is beyond awkward, it's incomprehensible. I'm happy to have my sentence removed since it's practically a tautology, but I don't want to see the old sentence back there again. Bhny (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, (I've removed it again). Side-effects may include faster-than-light solipsistic exo-physics.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

ongoing issue with nock bostrom

adding what is basically 'nick bostrom marketing' to an impartial page, in a theme that literally thousands of people over 2000 years have contibuted to no man of nicks (smallish) net additions to this field needs 5+ citings of his own name. its personal marketing, and its wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.21.106 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research

This article is one huge piece of original research, putting together various phylosophical schools about the nature of perception, reality and Nature. If one wants to keep this page, they much clearly say, with references:

• Who explicitely formulated this hypothesis
• Who drew analogies with the ancient and Hindu and whats not thoughts, and who dres inspiration from what.

Per WP:SYNTH, any connections between various similar philosophies must be attributed to someone who noticed such connections and wrote about them. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. Tag removed. Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not up to the task, but it's worth mentioning that Frank Tipler first authored this theory, in rudimentary form, in his widely rejected book, The Physics of Immortality. a full 10 years earlier than is stated. An entire chapter is dedicated to the concept that the universe is a simulation, that reality is a concept equally applicable to simulations, and that simulations should be expected by advanced civilizations. The book itself suggests that in the far distant future (omega point) all the energy in our universe will be dedicated to the production of an ancestor simulation; a sort of technological resuerection of the dead. This work by Tipler ties back to an earlier book he co-authored with astro-physicist John D. Barrow, which described the Omega Point (see Anthropic Cosmological Principle). I was surprised that this article seems to be completely ignorant of these works - or perhaps purposefully so, as both of these books have been thoroughly trashed by the scientific community at large. It's also interesting to consider these books may merit re-reading in consideration of the Simulation hypothesis. I am not a wiki-user or author, and do not know how to annotate wikipedia but I hope these comments will be read by one of you more capable, and the article suitably updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.209.106.162 (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This article may benefit from this link.

I think that this article may benefit from this link. However, since I am not a science expert I don't understand it very well. I'm not sure if it's proving or disproving the simulation hypothesis. Someone else may be able to make sense of it. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Here it is a year later, and we're still bumping up against any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Sources such as:

1. The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation

   The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time.

2. John A. Macken describes such a lattice at the Planck length, as well as a more-than-ample source of energy to run such a simulation — but with no mention of the hypothesis — in The Universe is Only Spacetime.
3. Rule 110 gives a program for the simulation — with no mention of the hypotheses.
4. Digital physics takes a stab.
5. A New Kind of Science does, too.

—Pawyilee (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be deleted and started anew. As Bostrom and others make clear, the simulation argument is not the simulation hypothesis. What we have here is an enormous amount of OR that has gone unchecked for years. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I couldn't agree more.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that assertion is that it presumes that the "parent" universe (the one in which the simulation is being run) is in some way similar to ours. Suppose, for example, that the theory of relativity doesn't apply in the parent universe - so things can travel at arbitrary speeds. This would allow you to build a computer that ran at any speed you want. Support the parent universe has more than three dimensions? Suppose there are no quantum limitations in that universe so that an analog computer can be infinitely precise? I think it's very hard to hypothesize about the artifacts generated in such a universe. If it were so, then it's perfectly reasonable that they'd simulate a universe with fewer dimensions, speed-of-light limitations and quantum effects. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I have a strong impression that the section "Origins" is one huge chunk of OR, of WP:SYNTH type. Specifically, I fail to see reliable sources that link "simulation hypothesis" with early thinkers. In my spare time I will look into this closer and start heavy chopping, unless you convince me otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I see that I've already talked about this in this talk page two years ago, and the only answer was "no it is not" Well. I will prepare specific questions. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

For starters, which reference explicitly connects simulation hypothesis with Descartes. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the term "simulation hypothesis" is used specifically to refer to a computer simulation, I'm going to guess that no source connects them. What's happening here, is that some editors are using the term in place of another, erroneously. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the lede is about one specific thing (Bostrom's simulation argument and simulation hypothesis) and most of the article is about a more general thing (simulated reality). Most of the current content can be moved wholesale to "simulated reality", I'd say just WP:BRD it and see if anyone at that page objects or offers to help. Consider renaming and redirecting the article to "simulation argument". The remaining article content can be fairly small, just a layman's explanation and comments from third parties like [1]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. The page history for simulation argument should be instructive. Might be best to simply restore simulation argument as it was the original topic before it was redirected to the wrong topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Counter proposal

This article has already been merged into simulated reality twice. The editors there have already incorporated any relevant and verifiable material into that article.

This article could either be:

1. rewritten for the WP:FRINGE topic "simulation hypothesis" (without relying on the notability of Bostrom's simulation argument and insisting that they're really just synonymous)
2. or it could simply be redirected to Simulated reality (which already provides adequate coverage).

Either way, simulation argument should be redirected to Simulated reality#Simulation argument.[2]—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by "without relying on the notability of Bostrom's simulation argument and insisting that they're really just synonymous". Does that mean "without relying on the notability of Bostrom's simulation argument" and "insisting that they're really just synonymous", or "without relying on the notability of Bostrom's simulation argument" and "without insisting that they're really just synonymous"? If the latter, I'm not sure what the "simulation hypothesis" would mean separately from "simulated reality". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the history. The "simulation argument" seems to meet WP:NOTABILITY as a separate article, the article has 289 cites according to Google Scholar and press coverage is small but exists: [3] and maybe [4]. That said, I'm indifferent between whether it stays a separate article or gets redirected to Simulated reality#Simulation argument; either way is fine by me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that I don't consider Bostrom's simulation argument to be the topic of this article. The article is inclusive of any kind of computer-related skeptical argument, (even supernatural physics, as an editor pointed out).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that simulation argument could be spun-off at some point into its own article (with a WP:SUMMARY in simulated reality). It's not a skeptical hypothesis but it could also have a summary here if this article survives.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a start by deleting of the some off-topic or marginal content. I assume by Wikipedia policy we need to carefully merge (for the third time?) and redirect, tempting though it would be to just blank-and-redirect and put the onus on anyone who wants to save some of the current page content to move it themselves. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well done, looks good.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Time Dilation Considerations

It is impossible for a multiplayer simulation to replicate relativistic temporal dilation where outside time is faster as you travel closer to the speed of light. So either the universe is not a simulation, or there is only one real user/player in the simulation. Were the latter the case, then I would obviously posit that I am that user and you are not. Once again the Weak Anthropic Principle suggests that I am probably not that lucky, and I am metaphysically certain that you are not. -Benjamin Wade Goulart 2605:A000:C3C0:5500:4C71:EEDF:AD2B:DB27 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. Why do you think it's impossible? It would make for some tricky computer programming - but it seems entirely possible to me.

You should also bear in mind that the computer running this hypothetical simulation might not be bound by the laws of physics in the our (simulated) universe. Simulated universes that we humans have actually made (such as video games and Conways' Game of Life) typically have far more restricted physics than here in the "real" universe. If we live in a simulation, it's very likely that our laws of physics are far more limiting than in the "parent" universe. SteveBaker (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In a multiplayer simulation you're always stuck with a shared time. It's not physics, but logic. To constrain logic in a simulation or game is to cheat, by definition. You can try to compensate with many isolated single-player simulations interacting across a network and then cheat outcomes when things like time dilation occur, but these become increasingly convoluted to the point that if users were on a voice system in the real world above while in the simulation, they would increasingly no longer be actually interacting with the other players within the simulation itself they are still talking to, but rather against increasingly fabricated renditions. Functionally and unless you believe you are going to find evidence of the universe cheating or violating information conservation, then this can't help but become just a bunch of independent simulations with single users and limited to no actual interaction between the real observers within that simulation. This type of arrangement already violates the definition of a multiplayer simulation, to say nothing of the conflicted competing claims (read that: hostility of positions) or the psychopathy of each of us saying we are the only conscious being in the or our own universe.

If you want to fly with it anyway and slightly tweak it to say that we're all conscious software, regardless of whether all such software is kept around to be immortal or not, and the simulation is running virtually within a "real" constructed information system of which we are a part, new divergent virtual users would be created infinitely in the prior paragraph's attempts to deal with physics, requiring exponentially-skyrocketing system requirements towards infinity. Real constructed systems are finite and limited, and the only "thing" that appears to be infinite is the very whole of everything (the aforementioned universe and eternity) and I would not identify that as creatable. That at some point you must logically come up against the need for an uncreated, uncaused something anyway in the origins of stuff, and the universe just so happens to apparently fit this requirement, is unlikely to be coincidence. Again, not getting into the minutia of apparent physics, but logic: I'm assuming anyone who is exploring the simulation hypothesis in the first place already grants that the one real world above at some level (pick a level, any level) would have to satisfy that.

As for the explanatory benefits of independent, isolated and self-centered users in an information system with regards to quantum mechanics but ignoring the impossibilities and illogic and other quandaries (including moral) of the prior paragraphs for a moment, we importantly assume it's not a finite system-within-a-system but rather all there is, and apply Information Theory math, then the weird quantum effects do start making more sense... at least as much as abstract math can. It's a useful tool for studying the implications of the math for things that are counterintuitive. Information Theorists didn't know they'd already explained effects like the double slit experiment, for instance, and physicists didn't know it either, but in retrospect the math was there. So quantum physics is abstract like trying to understand gravity. All the laymen illustrations fail to fully do it justice. The bowling ball on the elastic sheet is a simplification of a more complicated math concept. You just have to trust the model and accept the weirdness if you want to fully utilize the theory. Treating all the universe as information is not the simulation hypothesis, though, as there is no surrounding reality. That an information framework is useful and shouldn't be violated is not a new concept and doesn't mean we're *in* a computer game or *are* a computer game.

The rest of the supposedly apparent simulation-like quality of the universe, like saying there is evidence of programmed "self-correcting code" in string theory, is better explained by combining Information Theory with the Weak Anthropic and Holographic Principles, and the resulting framework's zero-dimensional, abstract, asymptotic zero-point "before" the Big Bang, as it were. It may still seem squirrely, but it favors mind-bending gymnastics of logic to creationist-like laziness. -Benjamin Wade Goulart 2605:A000:C3C5:3600:29D1:676B:B09A:B1B2 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal reality or physical reality?

I think there is a mix up taking place in this article between two different conceptual levels. If it is about personal reality then the question is rather philosophical (see solipsism). I think the idea of the article is about the entire universe and physical laws being simulated. For example, if holographic principle is correct, then one can say that the matter within a volume is a simulation, whereas the "true" reality is only what's going on on the boundary of the volume. Anyway, the section on Brain-computer interface is inappropriate here. Note that I'm not discussing the question whether it is an original research or not, because before that it must be clear what is it all about.Tr00rle (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Philosophical underpinnings of simulation hypothesis

I wrote a philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind, not necessarily God in the traditional sense) which I won’t link to here so as not to be accused of spamming (even though it's free access with no ads). It is based upon the validity of relativity (there's virtually no credible dissent on that count) and the eternalism it implies (the majority viewpoint amongst both philosophers and physicists, including Minkowski and Einstein himself). If eternalism is true, then my proof points out the apparent necessity for a higher dimensional time to that of our reality, the same paradigm inherent within the subject matter of this article. The necessity is that the obvious existence of causality on an empirical basis cannot be accounted for within a static, eternally existing universe (or multiverse, if makes no difference in this regard).

Instead of our reality being a computer simulation, would not the ages old paradigm of Eastern metaphysical thought first noted within the Upanishads, perhaps antedating classical Greek philosophy, that the primal basis of reality is Consciousness ("Brahman" in the Hindu Advaita Vedanta terminology) which manifests as the material universe and which created the algorithms of the material existence that we observe and experience (thus accounting for causality) also satisfy the considerations that gave rise to the simulation hypothesis?

Isn't the simulation hypothesis merely an alternative explanation of the same ancient viewpoint? If so, should this be noted along with Greek idealism as its philosophical underpinnings? Moreover, while the extra-dimensional computer simulation hypothesis merely pushes back the ultimate question of how anything could exist without a beginning a step into a computer programmer's reality, the nonmaterial nature of Consciousness existing eternally and timelessly at least seems philosophically possible, albeit beyond our comprehension at the present time. Perhaps such will always be the case as the human intellect cannot fathom an existential logic alien to its nature.

On a peripheral point, I agree with those who object to the computer simulation hypothesis on the grounds that it cannot explain phenomenal consciousness thus rendering participations "zombies." Positioning Consciousness as the fundamental basis of realty would account for such, which is the reality we experience.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

section on criticism / autocriticism

The situation isn't improved very much even by the fact that some heuristics (algorithms not based on the laws of established mainstream physics) are probed, because then, accordance with models/equations of physics is obviously further forsaking.

Such heuristics are in order to constraint (locally hold, locally micro-restart) calculations against revealing deterministic chaos to easy.

Possible important cause: supercomputer's calculations are based on (in-fact nowadays: narrow, non-interactive between subsystems, specific) subset of differential physics equations.

About mentioned above definitively intrinsic uncertainties see more in: metrology, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (ontological limits of precise information transfer in nature).

As far as I can tell, the above sentences from the first paragraph of the criticism section are gibberish. In fact, I think I will delete them, as they add no value to the article whatsoever. Any objections? — M3TAinfo (view) 20:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of 0 AD?

The realtime strategy game 0 AD has little relevance to the simulation hypothesis. It's a game, not a false reality. It would only be relevant if all computer games would be relevant... and really other genres like an open ended RPG like Skyrim where the other characters just go about their lives makes more sense. Neither really fits though, this looks like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabby1982 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

+1. As nobody provided counter arguments, I’ll delete this game’s mention. Palpalpalpal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Simulation in SF

Time Out of Joint is not a simulation of people, i.e., a simulation of the kind in this article. It is a deception. The characters are real people. The deceptive sets are mental constructs provoked by little cues, but the people are still real. I am removing the Time Out of Joint material and depositing it here in case there is a discussion of it. (It's too bad; I always liked that book.) Zaslav (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

One of the first references to simulations occurred in the 1959 novel Time Out of Joint by Philip K. Dick. In this the central character is trapped in a "bubble" of 1950s small town America.

Nothing on how this theory is sometimes viewed as related to Platonic and Gnostic ideas?

Ideas like like Sophia as the World Soul, that we are all Trapped in the world created by the Demiurge.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We're Not Living in a Computer Simulation, New Research Shows

https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/10/02/160217/were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation-new-research-shows

Kevin Baas^talk 16:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Response from Tom Campbell:

1) There is nothing about this article that even vaguely implies that our reality is not a VR. This article is about the difficulty of calculating a very specific type of quantum calculation with a classical computer. Why would anyone assume that the Larger Consciousness System is limited to what we call a classical computer? Answer: ignorance of the logical consequence of any VR -- including our VR. It is illogical to assume that the computer (superset) that renders a VR is somehow constrained by the rule-set limitations of the (subset) VR it renders. 2) Why would anyone assume that calculating this particular quantum problem is relevant, much less necessary, to creating a VR? Answer: Materialists are logically locked into the requirement that our reality could only be computed by a bottom-up deterministic model (the only model that supports materialism) that starts with subatomic particles (thus the need for quantum calculations) and then from these computes atomic particles, and then from these computes molecules, and then from these computes the rest of chemistry and biology and all the hugely complex things contained within the VR -- and then repeat all these calculations for every changing object in the VR universe every Delta-t. This idea is possible, but like "many worlds" it represents such an incredibly inefficient process that its possibility is so improbable that believing it could be true speaks of the utter irrational desperation of a fundamentalist believer cornered by experimental facts that contradict the believers beliefs. A VR evolved from initial conditions and a rule-set that is primarily implemented as a top down probability model, has no need to operate at the quantum level except for the rare occasion when someone is making measurements at that level -- and then it will produce the result of that measurement using its ruleset and probability. As John Wheeler said: "There are no particles. There are no fields. There is only information "The rule-set is predominantly deterministic with some probability and randomness included. It is the ruleset that computes the probability distributions that are used to drive the everyday action of the VR. It only needs to compute those distributions once, or at worst, only occasionally instead of for every change of every object and every interaction for EVERY Delta-t as is required by the bottom up computations of material reductionism.

There seem to be a misunderstanding here... protons have a lifespan... quantum particles such as electrons probably not... everytime information is computed in a Quantum Computer... due to its interaction with the environment... that data is written in an immortal substrate. :) The goal... is to replicate our universe into something more permanent... initially any form of VR of the universes were said to be a reality inside another... which means that by the time our Sun dies... we would have ensured our own survival by transferring all the relevant data elsewhere. We can draw from that line that anything above quantum particles are just a simulation. That's what any intelligent and advanced life would do... and is the only explanation to the Fermi Paradox. Our presence on Earth for other species start with our electromagnetic signatures thrown from the date we invented technological communication... it would take about 200 years to transfer the data... by the time Earth will stop emitting any new signals... us going from a simulation to another. In fact, only stable POV is that, both compatible with science and religion... and we currently have tested all the technologies which can do that (it means it is not relying on future technologies which may never come). That theory was so common that it appeared in several popular movies, see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Consequences section

That claim in the first paragraph is bogus, and plus is standing on one source alone. It is even factually incorrect... because any simulation would inevitably imply cognitive bias from the creators part which means contingency rules being inserted into the program... that and with a little bit of apparent randomization, each time new simulations are created, less and less power would be required... mathematically speaking there could be enough power so that zillions of new baby universes are simulated.... It would theoretically take few Quantum computers... attached to classical computers (to allow any form of apparent determinism... not allowed by Quantum computers alone, because of the environment interferences). That's how us humans would be doing it...(the Quantum part has been proposed for decades) not adding some info in the simulation, and checking if it is revealed (rules of the initial universe which weren't included leaking into the simulations), proving the simulation has acquired consciousness... and it's time to shut that simulation, since it has acquired a form of autonomy beyond its substrate...(having been integrated in the initial source-environment) Lee Smolin has put much interest in quantum simulation, would be convenient for him to test his own theories,like his Cosmological natural selection. In popular Movies, this theme come in different forms... in the Matrix... the hidden code which doesn't come from within the simulations which only a human could find... because he interact from above the machine... similar to what happens in Tron movie. In any case, I am removing the first paragraph, unless it is reworded! Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Bell's Theorem

Have there been any studies of how a Universe simulation relates to Bell's Theorem? I.e. how can a simulation satisfy Bell's Theorem without utilizing the properties of its own (presumably) non-deterministic Universe? Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any such studies, but it seems clear that a simulation would only have to make it look as though Bell's theorem was true every time it was investigated, rather than Bell's theorem having to actually be "true" - ie consistently implemented; this would be simpler computationally. No aspect of science would be able to "get at" the underlying reality that was producing a simulation, unless the simulation failed in some respect.Orbitalforam (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Fermi Paradox

The Fermi Paradox article talks extensively about the Simulation Hypothesis as a possible explanation. Reciprocally there is nary a mention of it here. Should it be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C75:88D0:317D:437D:871B:FB02 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It sure is!!! It's in fact the only hypothesis which would explain Fermi Paradox... Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The Fermi Paradox article includes a number of potential explanations for the observation/paradox. If you can show that only one hypothesis is viable, Yahya, you should publish your argument (somewhere else; Wikipedia is not for that) and then perhaps the argument could be cited on Wikipedia :-) Orbitalforam (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If not self-published. —PaleoNeonate – 19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Why using fraction in Bostrom's theorem?

His Hypothesis is so tedious. I would suggest a more simple and comprehensive hypothesis:

One of the following sentences must be true:

1. There isn't any post-human civilization that is capable of running simulations. 2. There isn't any post-human civilization that is interested in running simulations. 3. We're all living in a simulation. 77.124.57.214 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's the same hypothesis, just in a different and more easy to understand wording.

If it were up to me I would add to "1": or there is some property of the universe that makes creating simulations that have conscious qualia impossible. Mbarbier (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Bostrom's actual paper says: "...at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." charon (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Simulation Theory (album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Simulation theory of mind which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Simulation theory of empathy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

David Hoffman's simulation theory

Donald Hoffman's Multimodal User Interface (MMUI) theory of reality and doctrine of Conscious Realism together posit that the reality humans perceive is like a simulation in which non-physical conscious agents interact in order to generate the dynamics we observe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

I think this should be included in Simulation hypothesis article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.205.24 (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading/confused link to Simulation Argument

Right now Bostrom is introduced under the heading of the simulation hypothesis (SH), then the next subsection (ancestor simulations) deals with his actual Simulation Argument (SA), which is fundamentally different from the SH! The SA implies that we *might* be simulated, while the SH claims we *are* simulated. The page makes it look like Bostrom believes or argues for the SH, while he is just arguing for the SA.

Worse, the [simulated reality] page has a different but equally long explanation of his argument as this page.

It seems to me that this section need to be cleaned up so it both represents the actual argument and the actual position. Anders Sandberg (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Applying the hypothesis

This section is solely based on a problematic paper, essentially invoking something like [| Eddington numerology] to do... something. It has nothing to do with the simulation hypothesis and should not be here. Anders Sandberg (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is somewhat suspect as it links to Wikiversity where original research is permitted, and which is considered a primary source. I'll remove it as improperly sourced, thanks for pointing this out. —PaleoNeonate – 11:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference number 13 in the article leads to a 404 page not found. I'm going to delete it from the article and hope someone else will present an appropriate substitute reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverlappingMagisteria (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of the theory

The probability of consciousness forming in the universe is very low. The probability of an advanced civilization simulating consciousness is much lower still. Therefore it is more likely that we exist alone, there is no simulation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.45.33 (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sims

In 'Popular Culture', could the game series Sims be added to the article?Qwerty21212121 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Qwerty21212121 I don't think so; the Sims doesn't really confront the simulation hypothesis, beyond being a simulation itself. I dream of horses (t) (c) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 04:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't the CTMU mentioned in this article?

I have a perfectly well-meaning question. If, for example, Dr. Bostrom's (rather prominent post-2003) association with the reality-simulation hypothesis is credible, then why isn't mine?

I'm a well-known person with a longstanding biography right here in Wikipedia. (If anyone is curious, I'm known for two things: my reportedly high intelligence - I'd apologize given that some people like to complain about IQ and IQ credentials, but mine are as good as any, and I did receive considerable mainstream publicity - and the Cognitive/Consciousness-Theoretic Model of the Universe, a theory of reality with a distinct and very robust logico-mathematical structure.)

In 1989, I published a paper called "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox". That would be reference number 7 in the Wikipedia article "Newcomb's Paradox", and it's been there for many years now. This seminal paper, decades ahead of its time, was published in the journal of the Mega Society, which goes back to the 1980's and also has its own page here on Wikipedia. It seems to have been the first detailed application of the Simulation Hypothesis to an outstanding philosophical problem, namely, Newcomb's Paradox. This paper features a modern version of Descartes' "evil demon" ("Newcomb's Demon"), and a reality-simulator "Gamma" through which it enjoys random access to spacetime in an otherwise paradoxical decision-theoretic context, embedding the entire scenario in a simulated reality and thereby supporting the data furnished with the paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb's_Paradox

The CTMU is very widely known, albeit perhaps not in academia - I'm not an academic, I'm usually not invited to the academic conferences at which academics trade and promote their ideas, and I was only recently (2017) invited to publish in a peer-reviewed academic journal long after the one in which I'd previously published folded under withering troll attack. In 2006, a CTMU article here was deleted on the blatantly false grounds that the CTMU was "non-notable", and additionally, that it was "Intelligent Design Creationism", about as absurd an accusation as has ever been leveled against an idea. Back in those days at least, Wikipedia had its own "cancel culture", and some of its members targeted me and my work dishonestly and with a vengeance. Hence, no CTMU article in Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, a number of detailed, peer-reviewed CTMU papers have since been published. The most recent is called "The Self-Simulation Principle: Reality is a Self-Simulation". If one thinks about it for a moment, the existence of a real "reality-simulation" implies that on some level, reality is simulating itself. After all, the existence ("reality") of any given reality-simulation implies a higher level of reality which comprises or emulates its host system. The ubiquitous demand for a "higher level of reality" naturally leads to the consideration of an "ultimate reality" - or if one prefers, the ontological intersect of all intelligible simulations - and it must therefore be asked how the structure of ultimate reality might support "reality simulation" in general. Inasmuch as every reality-simulation that is ultimately real is carried by the structure and dynamics of ultimate reality, ultimate reality is "self-simulating". Hence, the "Reality Self-Simulation Principle".

https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/867/1476 

The CTMU has developed simulation theory to a rather advanced state over the last 30 or so years. In fact, it has done the same for other disciplines. In the field of simulation theory, there's really nothing else that can touch it. So if nobody minds my asking, is there any particular reason it's not mentioned in this article despite a string of peer-reviewed publications stretching from 1989 to 2020? (That's 31 years.) Remember - I'm notable, both of the above-linked papers are associated with notable journals and/or organizations, and there's no question about relevance.

For now, I'll hold off on attaching any links to the article. To my recollection, there's some kind of proscription against "self-promotion" / "conflict of interest" here, and I certainly don't want anyone to get disgruntled or feel threatened. But to my way of thinking, the CTMU is in every way entitled to coverage in Wikipedia, particularly as refusing to mention it amounts to a conflict of interest in its own right, as it indirectly awards original credit to people who never earned it and has arguably retarded the progress of the field by decades. It's not as though I couldn't easily rebut any combination of latter-day "authorities" in the field should they criticize my work under their real names, in the full light of day.

Remember, what academics happen to know about is only part of the story. Academia is a closed system, a kind of circular enterprise in which academics cite and reward only each other for new ideas. But of course, valid ideas are not obliged to originate in academia, and no encyclopedia worthy of the name can let itself become an academic enforcer which jealously limits public knowledge to just that for which professional academics can take credit. It's simply not conducive to the intellectual advancement of humankind, in this case demonstrably.

Thanks for your attention. Chris Langan (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: Hi, Mr. Langan. Your Wikipedia page is listed in the category "Low-importance Creationism articles", so it's hard to swallow that you or your theory are all that well known. In the past 10 years or so, there have been only two articles written about you in mainstream publications, and both of them pertained to your racist and conspiratorial social media rantings (Ward, 2019 and Feldman, 2019). I see no reason why we would take your claims of being a prominent thinker seriously. Are you trolling us?

Regards, Gary 90.208.134.158 (talk)

The importance rating of the article is irrelevant. Obviously, if neither I nor the CTMU met the notability criteria of "national publications", then they would not have published hit pieces on me. And last but not least, your phrase "racist and conspiratorial social media rantings", along with your "trolling" query, violate several Wikipedia standards and betray what appear to be unsavory motives for posting here. Chris Langan (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Langan, do you seriously think that wasting time here on Wikipedia quibbling on irrelevant inclusions in articles is really going to get you the validation and fame you so desperately seek?

Even if wiki proclaims tomorrow that you are the greatest genius the world has ever known or and that your work is a masterpiece, the likely outcome would be that people would think this is a variation on April’s fool and moderation here would lose credibility. Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• There are two separate questions here.

1. Does this article give undue weight to the views of Bostrom? Answer: Probably yes.
2. Does that justify including CTMU? Answer: No. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. This article should summarise peer-reviewed scientific research, not self-published theories.

I think that about covers it. Guy (help!) 11:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Application section for the main article

I'm thinking of adding an Applications section to the main article. It would go something like this:

"The first detailed application of the simulation hypothesis to an outstanding philosophical problem dates from 1989. In the paper "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox" (Langan, 1989), a paradoxical decision-theoretic scenario is evaluated within a simulated reality affording a seemingly precognitive "demon" random access to the timeline of events, thus supporting the anomalous data furnished with the paradox. In 2002, the computational paradigm used in this paper was explicitly generalized to a theory describing reality as a "self-simulation", breaking the computational mold by positing that reality is "generative" in the sense of ontological "grammar" in the context of dual aspect monism (Langan, 2002). The logico-mathematical structure of the CTMU is that of the "Metaformal System", a coupling of language and physical reality in a self-contained "metaformal identity language" (Langan, 2018). A supporting quantum ontology exists in the form of "Quantum Metamechanics" (Langan, 2019); the 2019 paper was followed by another which explicitly introduces the "Reality Self-Simulation Principle" (Langan, 2020), which is based on a correspondence between the standard simulation hypothesis and the CTMU Metaformal System."

This is an abbreviated version of the historical sequence, but at least it begins to fill in a few of the gaps attending the "cancellation" debacle described above. I respectfully invite your comments. Chris Langan (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: The idea of simulated realities was being entertained as far back as the 1984 book Neuromancer, which inspired the movie The Matrix. I find it difficult to believe that your 1989 paper was the first time anyone had ever suggested that our reality is a simulation, or to apply this idea to an outstanding philosophical problem. But I could be wrong. Are you able to provide a reliable third-party source to substantiate your extraordinary claim?

Regards, Gary 90.208.134.158 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Science fiction is irrelevant here. If you have a prior paper which solves an outstanding philosophical problem in the same way and in similar detail to the 1989 paper I cited, feel free to post a link. (By the way, although Wikipedia clearly asks editors to sign their posts, you have failed to do so. To sign your posts, use four tildes.) Chris Langan (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: Sure thing. In his 1981 book Reason, Truth, and History, Hilary Putnam attempted to refute the outstanding philosophical problem of scepticism by showing that we cannot be brains in vats (i.e. living in a simulated reality). Here is a link to the book, as requested:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/reason-truth-and-history/17C4C420E3BFE409FD6673C262BF1446

Also, it seems that your "solution" to Newcomb's Paradox was heavily criticised by other members of the Mega Society, most of whom considered it to be gibberish. Moreover, as the paper wasn't submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, there is no way for us humble Wikipedia editors to be sure that it doesn't contain errors. Of course, you would certainly assure us that the paper is perfectly free of errors, but such a guarantee is meaningless coming from the paper's author.

Regards, Gary 90.208.134.158 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Chris, I've never seen anybody cite themselves so often in such a short passage. Does anybody elses work inform your own? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. (squabble between members of a facebook group.) See WP:NOT. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Among the problems faced by Wikipedia is this: few knowledgeable and well-intentioned people have time for an "encyclopedia" glutted with rampaging trolls and Wikipedia warriors who, when they run out of real "pseudoscience" or "pseudomathematics" or "pseudophilosophy" about which to complain, will settle for pretty much anything. Absent something relevant onto which they can latch, such bellyachers complain about crimes like self-citation, which is common in academia and absolutely necessary in some cases, and supposedly "inadequate" citation of others, an accusation which sticks only when others have published material absolutely crucial to one's paper. Very seldom can such people provide any indication that they understand anything whatsoever about the topic under discussion. Two of the last three posts on this page come from a pair of monomaniacal trolls who are known to work together. (I'll provide their actual names on request to any Wikipedia administrator.) The last is a snide, content-free query from an editor calling herself "Roxy the elfin dog". These posts contain unsubstantiated assertions, baseless innuendo, and nothing of relevance. The only thing that initially looks like it might be vaguely relevant refers to a book chapter which has nothing to do with the simulation hypothesis. Nowhere in this chapter is anyone embedded in a simulated reality or a simulation of any kind. Putnam's argument involves mental representation and reference. While computation is mentioned, it is mentioned in the context of the Turing Test. No one but an idiot would pretend otherwise. My proposal stands. Please confine your responses to matters of relevance to the article, and drop the insults. No worthwhile Wikipedia editor would try to pass off insults, innuendos, and falsehoods as constructive, on this page or elsewhere on this site. Thanks for your attention. Chris Langan (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC) “No one but an idiot” And then “Drop the personal insults” You are a hilarious circus freak show, I feel sorry for you! But you make me laugh! Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC) @Chris Langan: A brain in a vat is someone living in a simulated reality. Putnam attempts to refute philosophical scepticism by showing that we are not brains in vats. He may not directly refer to "the simulation hypothesis" in the book (neither did you in your paper), but that is essentially what he is attempting to refute. There is nothing further to debate here. I have tried to be respectful to you, so please don't call me a "troll" or threaten to reveal personal information about me to others. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules. Thanks for your attention. Regards, Gary 90.208.134.158 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC) I'm afraid you may be a little mixed up, "Gary". Perhaps you need to attach a source and a date to the remark you've mentioned without benefit of quotation marks. (As for my own remarks made to the CTMU group from which you and your friend here were ejected (for trolling), they can only be interpreted in light of over 30 years of my own work relating cognition to simulation.) Now please, no more of your anonymous trolling - it's making a mockery of this encyclopedia. [ADDENDUM (for "Gary's" alteration of his original comment): It is not the place of a pseudonymous troll to speak for Hilary Putnam, putting words in his mouth and attributing "meanings" to what he writes. Dr. Putnam was writing about brains in vats, just that and nothing more. He did not state, let alone establish, that brains in vats are directly simulated. Again, he was talking about the Turing Test. And as for your false claim that the 1989 paper does not mention simulation, it didn't have to - all it had to do was describe such a simulation in detail, which it did. The paper did, however, mention simulation: "All ND has to do is run a Gamma-presimulation of interstratum transmission." The prefix "pre-" merely refers to the order of the simulation in time. And speaking of time, please stop wasting our time here. You may be titillated by it, but it has nothing to do with the content of the article.] Chris Langan (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC) @Chris Langan: You called me a "troll" in your previous post (not to mention the one that I am now replying to) and offered to give my name to Wikipedia administrators on request. Date: today. Source: scroll up. The brains in the vats themselves aren't simulated, but the world that they perceive is; and Putnam is arguing that our world is real, not a simulation of the kind that a brain in a vat would experience. Try as you might to weasel your way out of this, you won't succeed. All your talk of "crushing" those who debate you is just that – talk. You have never crushed anyone in a debate, and that certainly isn't going to change while I am your opponent. Unlike you, I don't cower away in an echo chamber refusing to listen to criticisms of my ideas. I am used to debating people, which is why mopping the floor with you today has been so easy for me. Regards, Gary 90.208.134.158 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Of course the brain in a vat is an example of a simulated reality, and this guy totally knows it. He’ll have the entire world collapse before he admits he is wrong. Leave him be, and let him go back to his kids on his FB group to scare them about their upcoming global wipeout! Langan, you may now go back to the kids on your group, their mental age is a better match for yours! Accordingly I herby adjust and boost your IQ based on your new mental age of 13 to 450IQ points, isn’t that amazing Chris! Horaay, now you can like brag to your friends and all! This is my gift to you! And btw your new super awesome IQ makes you totally right and we lost this debate like so bad ! Sure brains in a vat aren’t a simulation it’s whatever you say sweet heart! Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC) First, "Gary", thank you for admitting that you are here as my "opponent" in the "debate" you've inaugurated. Date: 6/12/2020. Source: scroll up. (It's not clear to me that your desire to debate with the subjects of Wikipedia articles and/or substantive contributors to the topics of other Wikipedia articles has any place here, but as long as you've mentioned it, I think it's best that everyone make note of it.) Secondly, I suggest that you read this carefully, as I'm getting tired of trying to explain it. You have just made the following statement: "Putnam is arguing that our world is real, not a simulation of the kind that a brain in a vat would experience." Note the juxtaposition of "reality" and "simulation". Unfortunately for your interpretation of Putnam's words, the concepts "reality" and "simulation" coincide in the simulation hypothesis - reality is what is being simulated. They are not juxtaposed or disjoined, but conjoined. It follows that Putnam was not "applying the simulation hypothesis". Surely you can understand this simple logical distinction. (Again, unlike my 1989 paper, Putnam's book chapter does not mention the word "simulation". If it did, and if the concept were directly applied to simulated brains in simulated vats, then every author who has ever written on this topic would be obliged to cite Putnam as the first to apply the simulation hypothesis in detail. Needless to say, Putnam is not cited in this way.) I hope this is clear at last. Chris Langan (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC) @Chris Langan: The simulation hypothesis doesn't say that reality as a whole is a simulation. It simply says that what we perceive as the real world is a simulation. In every version of the simulation hypothesis that I have heard, there is always some "base reality" of which all lower-level realities are simulations. Try again, champ. I am sure you will "crush me like a bug" eventually. Don't lose hope! If reality as a whole were a simulation, that would make reality the source of its own simulation, leading to your paradoxical notion of a self-simulating reality. But what does that even mean? It sounds like a fancy way of saying "self-creation" to me, which is the furthest thing from an original idea. It is one of the many paradoxes that philosophers have come up against – self-creation, creation from nothing, infinite regress, etc. – over the centuries when thinking deeply about existence. Regards, Gary 90.208.134.158 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Have you read the opening sentence of the article, "Gary"? It says "The simulation hypothesis or simulation theory is the proposition that all of reality, including the Earth and the universe, is in fact an artificial simulation, most likely a computer simulation." You, on the other hand, apparently think that it says "what we perceive as the real world is a simulation" in "every version of the simulation hypothesis that I have heard". (We know that this is your opinion because you just said so, and we therefore know that your opinion fails to align with the facts.) Has it not yet occurred to you that there may be a cognitive glitch in your understanding of the simulation hypothesis? And has it not occurred to you that once an idea has been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal (as some of mine have), it has been gone over for logical consistency? This is not about your personal inferences regarding the simulation hypothesis. I suspect that almost no one here is even slightly interested in the unsubstantiated opinions of random pseudonymous editors. If you think your own personal opinions have some kind of weight on this topic, then the proper procedure for you would be to explain them clearly in a paper, sign your name to it, and submit it to a peer-reviewed academic journal. Chris Langan (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC) @Chris Langan: Yeah, but the article isn't using "reality" in the same sense that we are, is it? If literally everything in existence were a simulation, that would leave nothing external which could be the source of that simulation. By "all of reality", the article is obviously talking about our reality. But hey, you're free to disagree. Just as you aren't interested in my interpretation, I'm not interested in your inferior interpretation. You should take your own advice and submit your The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox paper to a respected (i.e. not Cosmos and History), peer-reviewed journal. I wouldn't hold my breath on getting it published, though! Regards, Gary 90.208.134.158 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Thank you for yet another "informed" opinion, "Gary". Just so you know whom you're belittling, here they are: https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/about/editorialTeam Of course, we must also include everyone who has published in that journal, including (e.g.) a Nobel Prizewinner in physics and a former Program Director of the National Science Foundation with whom I've corresponded, as well as many others of comparable stature. It's a good thing you've made it clear who's "wearing the pants" here, intellectually speaking. Otherwise, we might not have understood whose opinion really counts! ;-) Chris Langan (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Langan you are my favorite unironic comedian! I swear! So you call us trolls, a waste of time and then proceed to spend all day wasting time arguing with us “trolls” ! Ok human nature and all, let it slide! But then you spend 30 years whining like an infinitely entitled baby about academics and exclusion which was entirely your own fault. Ok, to err is human , to forgive divine! Forgiven! But then when you come and rant nonsese here and get bested in a debate, your response is that they are random non academic nobodies! At first I wanna hate but then I realize you’re an comic genius! You’re the winner of the accidental comedy of the year award! I salute you sir! Nigerian chess player (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Oh so academic peer review now is a guarantor of logical consistency? Lol I love you man no homo, you’re hilarious ! “We know this is is your opinion, and therefore we know it that it fails to align with the facts” lol you do you even know what an opinion is? An opinion isn’t a priori false as you imply here, you can’t argue that something is an opinion therefore it is false, something could be both an opinion and a fact. In your case , an opinion and a falsehood! But you’re funny so I love you! “I suspect no one here” well that’s an opinion too, and its one that is totally irrelevant. But you’re desperate so you resort to personalized underhanded insults. Don’t get me wrong, we own our insults but all in self defense and good fun my dude. Anyhow, is this what you spend all your precious time doing? I thought you’re busy saving the world and all, didn’t know we are major players in the drama lol Nigerian chess player (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Langan, we know your blood pressure , is high and all, we don't want to hassle a feeble old man, but for Nigeria’s sake, do you seriously believe that Bostrom and all these other “simulation theory” academics were arguing for an infinite regress simulation? Or better your own paradoxical self simulation? You can’t be serious! You must be a comedian! Pretty sure it isn’t the latter , because then they would’ve either beaten you to the punch, plagiarized you or you them, or independently reached similar conclusions, it’s obviously not the former because no one in the article argues for an infinite regress! So what now? So you got yourself in a bind here, buddy! As to appealing to the article to bolster your point, perhaps practice what you preach read the article, it says the argument started with Rene Descartes over 400 years ago, what now? Now is the time to do a switcheroo and say they’ve gotten it all wrong! Well then, if Wikipedia isn’t credible for you why waste time trying to gain its favor? Sounds a bit paradoxical and pointless , no? Perhaps its a “self resolving paradox” lol I am self resolving too, we mock and own your ass, but we love you too! Our mocking topologically contains our love which descriptively contains our mocking and so on, thus effecting full Nigerian self containment! Nigerian chess player (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Back to the original comment: I do not believe that the suggested addition to the article of CTMU would be a worthwhile change. That theory has little to no scientific backing, and is basically a WP:FRINGE theory. I would need to see a reliable independent scientific source which points to Langan's paper as the first example of the concept of simulated realities. Mention has already been made here of Gibson's Neuromancer and The Matrix, but a significant portion of the word of Philip K. Dick deals with reality as a simulation, and that goes back further. Granted, science fiction is not a scientific paper, but simulated reality is basically a conjectural concept which has not yet been manifested, so fiction is a legitimate source of information. (Unless, of course, Dick and The Matrix are correct and someone has actually created an artificial reality in which we are all living, which might, now that I come to think of it, explain some of the tremendous weirdness of the past 5 years or so).
  So, to reiterate, I oppose the addition suggested by Chis Langan as not supported by reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in this field has "scientific backing", as you clearly imply when you write that "simulated reality is basically a conjectural concept which has not yet been manifested." If that's true, then nothing in the field enjoys scientific support, i.e., empirical evidence. A little ring of mutual citation is the best one could do, and it would imply nothing but referential closure (which is irrelevant to content).

A "fringe theory" is defined here as "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." First, this does not apply to the 1989 paper, which uses standard concepts from mainstream computation theory in the context of the Simulation Hypothesis itself. The paper involves no deviation or departure from the mainstream apart from its originality. Secondly, not even Bostrom's work enjoys mainstream consensus, which means that it (and not the 1989 paper) is a "fringe theory". Moreover, it came along 14 years after my original paper, and far from doing anything to develop the Simulation Hypothesis, it's about something else called the "simulation argument". Yet there it is, dominating the article.

As for your desire to "see a reliable independent scientific source which points to Langan's paper as the first example of the concept of simulated realities", my 1989 paper is the first paper of its kind which has been presented here. Moreover, it could easily be augmented with another such application if and when it emerges - if you find one, you're certainly welcome to post it right alongside my own. (We could, after all, issue the same request regarding any paper here - e.g., "I want to see a neutral third party source say that this paper by X wasn't preceded by another paper that says something similar!" - and simply wait for someone to come up with it. Clearly, this is not a legitimate reason to avoid mentioning the paper by X.)

Of course, I never referred to "the first example of the concept of simulated realities" - the phrase I used was "the first detailed application of the Simulation Hypothesis to an outstanding philosophical problem, namely, Newcomb's Paradox", which is very different. Specifically, it is relevant to the title of the proposed "Applications" section.

In sum, the 1989 paper exists, it is highly relevant to this article, it does not rely on any "fringe theory" (it uses standard concepts from mainstream computation theory), and it has been linked from Wikipedia for many years. If anyone thinks that a prior application exists, it is obviously incumbent on him or her to produce it. My only responsibility is to produce the papers I'm citing.

Certainly there has been plenty of time for prior applications to emerge if they actually exist. While it is often impossible to prove that no instances of a class exist, proofs of existence are much easier - all you have to do is show us the prior application you suspect might exist.

Lastly, science fiction does not equate to scholarly nonfiction or vice versa, even where the nonfiction is as "conjectural" as the Simulation Hypothesis itself.

But thank you anyway for your input. Chris Langan (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Your statement "my 1989 paper is the first paper of its kind which has been presented here" is not in any way sufficient to support the info being added to the article. First, you are obviously a WP:PRIMARY source, second, you obviously have a collosal WP:COI in regards to your own work, especially considering that you appear to like to cite yourself. What we need is an independent WP:reliable source that says something on the order of "Langan's 1989 paper is the first known instance of blah blah bah." We have nothing like that, and until we do, we cannot even consider adding information about your paper to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scientific, scholarly, or academic encyclopedia, it is a popular or semi-academic encyclopedia, and we regularly discuss the appearance of various subjects in our culture. It is also the case the many subjects which later became "scientific" were at one point complete fantasy that could not be supported by the science of the time, and these are significant in tracking not the scientific course of the subject, but the course of the subject in our culture. So, no, science fiction is not science, but, yes, science fiction is very much appropriate to discuss when it is properly contextualized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, Beyond My Ken. You're making a fine effort here. You're really trying, and I'm sure we all appreciate it. But first, let's get the following important facts out of the way.

First, I'm not just a reliable primary source, but a cultural figure - that's why I attract hit pieces in rags like "the Baffler" - and the fact that I authored a given theory or paper is enough to lend it cultural interest regardless of academic citation. That's why I'm able to run several CTMU interest groups with thousands of members throughout the world. That's the thing about culture, you see; it's not a mere function of certified celebs let alone professional academics cloistered in their ivory towers. It has a popular "grass roots" aspect, and the CTMU is widely known among the hoi polloi. Why? Because it was authored by someone reputed by the media to have a very high level of intelligence, and many of the "little people" like it. Culturally, that's the long and short of it.

Secondly, you appear to have repeated Roxy the dog's unkind remark regarding my alleged penchant for self-citation as though it's a matter of sheer preference. Actually, my higher-than-usual self-citation is necessitated by two facts:

(1) I'm a seminal theorist in this field who literally originated its (proper) theoretical structure. The fact that I'm excluded from academia means that even though I publish my work in a well-reputed peer-reviewed academic journal along with some real scholastic heavyweights, the majority of academics probably don't yet know about it. Hence, they haven't written all that much of which I can make use, and had written almost nothing of relevance in 1989. (My latest paper does, however, cite Bostrom.)

(2) I'm also an ex-bouncer and rancher who lives in the wilds of North Missouri and cannot afford to jet around to academic conferences or avail myself of academic libraries or grease the crowd at academic powows. At the time the 1989 paper was written I was totally dependent on the public interlibrary loan program to access any paper whatsoever. (It took up to a couple of months per paper.) Not my fault, and the right thing for you and Roxy to do is to adapt yourselves to the unavoidable difficulties involved in the writing of the 1989 paper. If anyone but I had been writing it, it might never have been written at all.

Thirdly, I agree that "science fiction is very much appropriate to discuss when it is properly contextualized." But that's not the issue. The issue is whether scifi storytelling like "The Matrix" constitutes a proper application of hypotheses regarding the structure of reality. In logical terms, reality and storytelling occupy disjoint domains. So no, you cannot substitute science fiction for more serious exercises pertaining to logical or empirical reality. The 1989 paper applies to the logical structure of reality into which Newcomb's Paradox was designed to tap, whereas science fiction exists for purposes of casual entertainment. I'm sure you can understand this if you try.

Now let's look at the big picture. Any "encyclopedia", no matter how one chooses to redefine the term, must strive for a proper balance between impact or cultural weighting and theoretical content. Several of the people mentioned in this article apparently have weight in the culture of academia - their fellow academics talk about them and pump up their ideas. But unfortunately, academic culture is not popular culture, and their importance is not quite as clear when it comes to theoretical content.

I gather from your statements that the self-definition of Wikipedia has been morphing like mad over the last 15 years. Back in 2006, when my work was excluded here on false pretenses, Wikipedia was being represented as "a Better Britannica". Back in those days, content and accuracy were primary here. In 2006, when my work was being widely mentioned in the news media and was therefore unquestionably notable, Wikipedia cancelled it on the false pretense that it was "intelligent design creationism" and therefore crankery. In other words, its "notability" and citations in popular culture and the mass media were ignored in favor of weird and obviously mistaken delusions regarding its content. Now, however, you're flipping it around and claiming that it should be excluded because academics and/or celebrities haven't caught the buzz, even if this skews the content of the article.

In reality, Wikipedia is about both content and (cultural) context, as you seem to acknowledge when you call it "a popular or semi-academic encyclopedia". The problem is that you're pushing things to the limit where insisting on celebrity citations has the effect of improperly defining the content of the field. With regard to theoretical structure, the field has thin content at best once my work is amputated from it. (Meanwhile, Wikipedia actually has an article on the notorious crank theory "Time Cube", to which my work was snidely compared by various ignoramuses and dissemblers here for purposes of cancellation.)

Just as measurement disturbs state according to the uncertainty principle, you're interpreting Wikipedia policy in such a way as to disturb key elements of the article you're editing. That, you see, is the real test of COI. Whereas I'm merely giving readers the opportunity to bypass the ivory tower circle-jerk to access material that has all kinds of grass-roots notoriety and has already been linked from Wikipedia for years, those trying to exclude that material are depriving the reader of the opportunity to know what the field is actually about, and they are clearly doing it in furtherance of their own poorly reasoned negative opinions.

I know this has probably been an unwanted history lesson for you, and I don't expect you to like it. But I'm not merely trying to lecture you. This is a very special case we're talking about here, Wikipedia has long been on the wrong side of it, and you can't justify exclusion by observing that "many subjects which later became scientific were at one point complete fantasy that could not be supported by the science of the time." The CTMU and the 1989 paper from which it developed passed peer review, their logic is impeccable (much more so than almost anything else in the article), they are essential to the theoretical integrity of article, the public deserves encyclopedic access to them, and as you've already noted, the simulation hypothesis is "scientific" only in the conjectural rather than the empirical sense.

Incidentally, I know that you've advocated the inclusion of Justin Ward's poison penmanship in my biography article and are not as disinterested as you might like people to think. But I'm not making an issue of it here. I merely ask that you strive for a clearer picture of what's actually best for Wikipedia and its readers in this particular case given its past errors (and yes, even Wikipedia sometimes makes errors).

Have a nice evening! Chris Langan (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Chris Langan, we cover CTMU in the article on you. To include it here gives it undue weight. Sure, science is biased against unfalsifiable grand theories of everything, pretty much by design. We reflect that but it's not our job to fix it even if we wanted to.

I've looked for mentions of your "Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox", the only mentions I can find in anything approaching peer reviewed literature do not suggest it has any degree of acceptance or even discussion. Example: I found one in an MDPI journal (red flag) where it's mentioned in "The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics " because you contacted the authors after their preprint went live and asserted that, basically, "I thought of it first". They explain that, no you didn't.

As to the comparison with Time Cube, an incomprehensible set of circular conspiracist rambling by the self-described "wisest man on Earth", I have no idea why anyone would draw that parallel. Guy (help!) 11:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Guy. Of course I'll be happy to address your concerns.

The 1989 paper - that is, the application we're discussing here - does not depend on the CTMU. Rather, the CTMU developed from the 1989 paper. Technically, the CTMU is irrelevant to the inclusion of the 1989 paper in this article. I mention the CTMU only because I see a potential repetition of the mob-driven debacle of 2006 - you might even remember it - and because moving beyond the 1989 paper requires familiarity with the CTMU.

As for your mention of "an MDPI journal (red flag) where [the CTMU] is mentioned", I think I may know what you're talking about. After Klee Irwin and his "Quantum Gravity Research" group tried to claim priority for something they call the "Self-Simulation Hypothesis" on an elite email distribution including over 60 intellectual and media heavyweights from John Gribbin and Stuart Hammeroff to Deepak Chopra and Tucker Carlson (and of course, me), I immediately initiated a plagiarism dispute with Mr. Irwin and provided ironclad proof of my own priority for that idea to the list. Mr. Irwin and his coauthors quickly agreed to insert a couple of CTMU citations in their paper. (As I'm not sure that Mr. Irwin and his coauthors would like to see this plagiarism dispute blow up in their faces even after being compelled to cite me, perhaps you should check with them before making an issue of it. As it now stands, I'm simply trying to be considerate. And by the way, lest we forget - unlike me, Klee Irwin is not deemed notable by Wikipedia.)

As regards your puzzlement regarding "Time Cube", I understand your surprise. That's because I myself was very surprised when, after certain badly confused Wikipedians misleadingly (or deceitfully) compared my work to "Time Cube" and "Intelligent Design Creationism" in order to cancel it from the pages of Wikipedia back in 2006, I bumped into the Wikipedia "Time Cube" article! This hardly seems to square with arguments to the effect that the CTMU fails to make the grade here, does it.

Incidentally, could you please direct us to the exact statement in which I called myself "the wisest man on Earth", along with its media sourcing? People have been making such bizarre attributions for years, and I'd like to know exactly where these attributions originate if not in their imaginations. Please bear in mind that my credentials have been carefully researched by numerous mainstream outlets from ABC, NBC, and CBS to Malcolm Gladwell. I don't need to rely on baseless hyperbole, and generally don't.

Meanwhile, thanks for your very interesting response. Chris Langan (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Chris Langan, as I said, the operative policy here is WP:UNDUE. You need to show substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. In an article on a scientific topic, those need to be in the peer-reviewed literature. This is not a special rule made up to suppress your theory, it's how Wikipedia works. Unless you have sources, we're into WP:NOTFORUM territory here. Guy (help!) 17:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Why would the simulators live in our universe?

I was surprised when I read the article that it seems to presuppose that the potential simulators would live in the same universe as ours, kind of assuming that our universe is real, even if we lived in a simulation. That presupposition doesn't make much sense to me, because if our entire reality is simulated, the entire universe as we experience it would be simulated too, including all physical laws, properties etc. Therefore it would be completely made up by the simulators and have no real basis in their reality. It would only be real to us. So assuming that the simulators live in the same universe seems odd, and frankly somewhat unrealistic, even illogical. It's a bit like saying the programmers of a video game lives somewhere in the video game, just perhaps in another "time" in the video game. I would assume that the potential simulators would live in a completely different reality, a completely different universe, likely with completely physical laws from ours, likely even beyond our potentially simulated capacity to comprehend.

I didn't read the entire article in detail, as I was only searching for the "other universe" way of looking at it and not really interested in the "same universe" presupposition, as I find it unlikely. But while skimming, I failed to find any mention of the other universe, and I find that odd.

So I'm thinking we should mention that the hypothesis mentioned in this article is specifically about a simulation made by potential simulators in an exact copy (or similar copy) of our universe, but of course outside our universe in an entirely different realm.

It does seem like, though, that Bostrom actually argued that our potentially simulated descendants in our potential simulation are simulating our reality, and therefore they must live in the same simulation as ours, just at a later time in the simulation, but yet they are also the creators of our simulation, meaning that they themselves live in the same simulation as ours, the very simulation that they themselves created. That seems like a snake living off of its own tail, and to me it doesn't make any logical sense.

Note that I have no prior knowledge about this subject, and I haven't read other articles about it. I'm just coming here as a layperson trying to understand the article and make sense of it (which is what Wikipedia is about), hoping to perhaps make it more sensible for other readers in the future by asking here what's going on.

Am I missing something? I must be, since the theory of simulation by simulators in the same universe and even by our own descendants seems so odd and nonsensical...

--Jhertel (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Jhertel, I think you didn't get it. Even if the simulators were recreating a historical time from their own reality, that wouldn't mean that they are living in the simulation they created, only that they created a simulation based on some old period that had already happened in their reality. Still, different planes. This seems pretty obvious. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Try to remember that this is a nonsense hypothesis, and doesn't have to be logically consistent. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it really is a nonsensical hypothesis, which I agree it does seem like, shouldn't we write that explicitly then from the beginning? And shouldn't we also explain why an Oxford philosopher even bothered spending time on it? What's the purpose? It seems to make no sense from the beginning. I mean, why would anyone, more specifically a somewhat renowned Oxford philosopher, even write a story about a snake living happily off its own tail, except as a silly children's story? Our articles on Wikipedia should be logically consistent and answer obvious questions, even when the articles talk about something illogical, so we can't just leave nonsense here without clarifying the nonsense. I mean, it's totally concievable that we're living in a simulation created by some creature in another completely unrelated universe, so a simulation hypothesis in itself makes full sense, but it doesn't make sense that the potential simulators would in any way be related to us or this universe. Unless, again, I'm missing something. --Jhertel (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jhertel: Sorry for the late response, I just wanted to mention that WP:RD/S might be a better place to discuss the topic, but the way I understand it even a full universe simulation would run from machines and energy of the simulator's universe (and would not be a "true universe") so it'd theoretically be in the simulator's universe. If the circumstances in that parent universe no longer permit to run the simulation, it of course ceases to exist (or at least, to run). If the machine and information are completely lost, there remains nothing of the simulated universe (or of any nested simulations inside). Simulated universes don't develop complete independent autonomy. (Note: and I'm not saying that it's plausible that we live in a simulated universe, there are various reasons why it isn't). —PaleoNeonate – 18:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"if it really is a nonsensical hypothesis" -- that's a baseless claim. One should not take troll comments seriously. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate or analyze philosophical issues. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about the issues, not what editors think about the issues. Any challenge to the arguments presented in the article must come from external sources, not from the minds of editors.

Aside from that, you're misinterpreting and mischaracterizing the arguments here ... the simulation only exists in the same universe as the simulators in the sense that a simulation program running in a computer exists in the same universe as the programmers, manufacturers and users of the computer, etc. The entities being simulated, OTOH, "exist" in a different ontological space--the world created by the simulation. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Video games vs Bostrom's AIs "understanding human behavior"

Bostrom talks about simulations but I prefer the term "video game" (even if that term is just used occasionally). The "further reading" section also includes:

Virk, Rizwan. The Simulation Hypothesis: An MIT Computer Scientist Shows Why AI, Quantum Physics, and Eastern Mystics All Agree We Are In a Video Game

Apparently a possible purpose that Bostrom gives for the simulations is to "understand" human behaviour better... I think it is more likely that they will just be video games though some could be "serious" video games (which exist now as well). Some video games could have magic, etc, but ours seems quite "realistic". I think that it could be like the "Roy" game in Rick and Morty where the player forgets their real identity then remembers some or all of it after death. (that episode could also be mentioned in the article)

About Elon Musk's ideas: "I've had so many simulation discussions it's crazy"

"...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality is one in billions"

I think Elon's argument shown here is better than Bostrom's.

Note in video games you don't need to simulate everything perfectly. You just need to fool the observers. You can use "level of detail" and the machine learning that Flight Simulator 2020 has. Legowolf3d (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What terms editors prefer and what arguments they think is better are not relevant topics for discussion on this page. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathematical Contradiction

Mathoverflow.net, a forum for advanced mathematics research, says the Simulation Hypothesis is: "The name for an assumption made for the sake of contradiction" in response to a question asking whether there is any indication in mathematics that bears on the hypothesis. The question was removed from the website. This is hardly RS, but it is important to find RS statements from mathematicians. For example, it would be interesting to know the reason for "unreal solutions" to the Schroedinger equation for the Hydrogen atom. An example from pure mathematics, perhaps logic, would be even better.Charles Juvon (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Forums don't say things, individuals say things on forums. Forum comments by such individuals are indeed not RS, so their statements are irrelevant. The comment is also irrelevant because the quoted claim is obviously false.

The simulation hypothesis is an empirical claim, so pure mathematics and logic have nothing to say about it. Talk about the Schrödinger equation and hydrogen atoms is physics, not pure math. Some of the arguments and statements in the article are from mathematical physicists.

If you have relevant material from reliable sources addressing "interesting" points that aren't already covered, you're welcome to add it. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We need a new header

Right now for criticism, we have "Criticism of Anthropic reasoning" and "Criticism from within the Trilemma..." Plenty of arguments and critics don't fall into either category, such as empirical arguments, and arguments against the feasibility of simulation. I have placed two examples as best as I could of such arguments from Physicists Wilczek and Gleiser. I'd like to add more. The article is currently written without regard to the fact that there is currently no clear answer to the question of whether or not it is possible in principle to create digital simulations that are self contained and capable of producing phenomenal consciousness. See Massimo Pigliucci argue that you can simulate photosynthesis on your computer, but you won't get any sugar. What's more, the Sims analogy is bad, because the Sims is a game that projects images to us. We see simulations of a world on a screen. This not at all the same as the digital avatars themselves on the screen having perceptions or even consciousness. There seems to be a general confusion between Virtual Raality (brain in a vat) and a simulated universe (substrate independent consciousness). Anyway, I suggest we add a category "Empirical and Other Criticism" DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"See Massimo Pigliucci argue that you can simulate photosynthesis on your computer, but you won't get any sugar" -- you get simulated sugar. Likewise, with a simulation of people, you get simulated people. This is the case relative to the ontology of the simulators--the world outside the simulation. But relative to the ontology of the simulation--the world inside--you get sugar and people. So Pigliucci's argument is silly.

The issue about "phenomenal consciousness" is indirectly addressed by the section on prominent dualist David Chalmers' arguments, where he suggests that mental states can be simulated separate from the physics. Even if mental facts don't supervene on the physical in our world, mental facts do exist. An argument that mental facts cannot be simulated would be worth presenting, if someone has made such an argument.

"This not at all the same as the digital avatars themselves on the screen having perceptions or even consciousness." -- this is a tendentious assertion. First, the Sims game is trivial and simplistic, but the Simulation Hypothesis entails the assertion that sufficiently detailed and rich simulations to simulate all of the physical facts of out world do have perceptions and even consciousness (relative to the ontology of the simulation). Second, you're misreading the article--the term "Sims" refers to "simulated ancestors"; it does not refer to or have anything to do with the game. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticism: it's a mere displacement, not an answer

(and that's a very common form of displacement of a problem)

• The universe isn't based on a self-caused multilayered connectome of self-interactions which probabilistically give existence to the universe, multilayeredly encompassing it like a Russian doll, with each superordinate layer/cladding contributing less and less to the central wave function in an Everettian (many-worlded) manner.
  • The universe is the result of a computer simulation. Thus the universe isn't based on fundamental laws which are a complete self-causal mechanism. The computer is based on a higher order computer, and that layering never stops like a Russian doll. The computer simulation hypothesis is nearly tautological to the self-causal multilayered self-interaction group; but the self-interaction (ontic renormalization) multilayering answers the first cause question, whereas the multilayered simulation hypothesis does not.
• Life originated from a Russian doll layering of space aliens, but because the age of our universe isn't infinite... this theory is necessarily wrong. (Even in a cyclic universe, big bangs kill all the residual life. Each particular subuniverse has a finite lifespan.)
• René Descartes displaced the thinking organ from the brain to the soul (nothingness isn't compartmentalizable, procedural, attributable, able to be in different states, etc.) but he never analyzed the specific mechanisms/procedures/processes of thought. Even if thought were immaterial based (that also causes problems with deep causality), the laws of information theory are unavoidable.

delete article

This article could be deleted, as its pseudoscience, has no evidence behind it, and is less testable (probably not testable at all) than other theories which have been recently deleted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker8 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

While I agree it could be deleted for all the reasons you say, I rather think it is well categorized at the moment, as low-importance philosophy, and mid-importance science fiction. Wikinetman (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Silly suggestion, please keep up. In this simulation the article gets to stay. For its deletion see the universe next door. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Hello. This page seems to be missing the common "Criticism" type section often present on pages for hypotheses and theories. Multiple criticisms of the theory are mentioned throughout the article, but are never compiled into a central section. This gives the appearance that the hypothesis is universally accepted or free from critique, which is far from true. You can see an example of the section I am describing in the "Arguments for/against" section on the page for the Reimann hypothesis, or on the Alvarez hypothesis page. 72.195.255.219 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

just pointing out the implications of the theory

I tried to edit this to point out that this is no more than creationism for atheists but it was reverted. Why? How is it more reasonable to have a simulation (creation) with a simulator (creator) than the alternative? Stephen W. Houghton II 70.18.2.226 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danksr20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why the 'Simulation hypothesis in physic' section should be removed

The simulation hypothesis in physics section seems to be a recent addition that is based mainly on speculation coming very close to pseudoscience and I believe the original inclusion of it was not for purposes of sharing knowledge but for the purposes of the editor.

First of all, the assumptions made in the section seem to be of original research, they are sourced yes but they don't directly agree with what has been written (I'm especially talking about the limitations section). Not only does it read like original speculation, the speculation itself is a leap in logic and treats the simulation hypothesis as God of the gaps. Something we can't explain, simulation did it. That is a very uncritical and borderline pseudoscientific way of thinking about things that I think is overall harmful to the article.:

Secondly, the reason for it's inclusion of this section is dubious. It was all added on the 15th of April by user Hamiehs. If you look at their contributions, they only have this article and their sandbox, their sandbox is of an unheard of mobile game with a "scientific message" of simulating real worlds. If you look at the references, the only source is Salah Hamieh which, coincidentally, is the name of the user. Now this brings me to my next point, if you look at the original final revision of this article by Hamiehs you can see that references 17 and 36 are from none other that Salah Hamieh. Let me remind you that this whole section was exclusively added by this one person 2 days after the account was created. Since then, source 17 was removed but source 39 is still a reference to the users mobile game that they wrote about in their sandbox.

This section seems to have had an agenda of the user and it was slyly included without much notice of the intent, the section seems to be a way of justifying the scientific message of the mobile game that the user worked on and that's just wrong to be included here. None of the sources directly agree with what has been written in the section and instead it was just inferred by, I presume, Salah Hamieh. This is why I believe this section should be removed as it adheres to pseudoscience and the intention of the editor were very dubious.--144.32.240.39 (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't remove in part or whole until the discussion evolves. Much of the section seems fine, and the intro paragraph and other text are sourced, so a trim at some point seems more reasonable than complete removal. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I see, sorry about the blanking. The section are sourced but the sources don’t directly agree with what has been stated, the part where it says how certain aspects of the real world may be “limitations” of a computer don’t have direct sources and then it open up the whole ‘of the gaps’ logic that I talked about, not to mention that it goes right pat Occam’s razor as well as creating a putting us in confusing position where the laws of physics in the “real world” would be vastly different. It seems like ad hoc.144.32.240.129 (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Plus it’s proposing unfalsifiable philosophical explanations for real scientific phenomena, which seems like a category error and, again, pseudoscience.144.32.240.129 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

On top of that the section is very pro simulation hypothesis, it doesn’t contain any rebuttals are hints of skepticism which violates the neutral POV. The philosophy section has criticism but this section is just pushing the idea. This section needs to be removed or heavily altered.144.32.240.129 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Was waiting for further editors to comment. Some minor removals to align with the sources seem fine but the initial section seems important to the topic as physics plays a large role in the hypothesis. The second section, "Proposal of the Universe Evolution within the simulation hypothesis", does seem to merit a large trim or removal. It's not the editors fault or responsibility that it's all pro-theory, please add neutrality from these or other sources if needed (the benefit of a collaborative encyclopedia). And as the hypothesis itself is still unproven the first section provides a good concise background and information to the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, the addition seems to have been due to the editor's own agenda, the editor seems to have wrote about the simulation hypothesis, pro it, and is now adding to the article, in fact they add sources that they wrote (look at the last 2 edits). This doesn't abide by the neutral point of view and it promotes a pseudoscientific way of thinking about this.144.32.240.146 (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

www.scirp. org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=108316 This is the source that keeps being added by hamieihs. It was written on the 9th of April, the user's account was created on the 13 of April and this big section was added on the 15th of April, seems the user just wanted to add this to make their paper more credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.240.146 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

scirp.org is a predatory publisher. Avoid. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I started trying to clean up this section and ended up pruning it quite heavily. The section "Proposal of the Universe Evolution within the simulation hypothesis" appeared to be pure original research. It identified itself as such by starting with "the authors hypothesize...". It cited lots of sources, but lacked reliable sources that actually made the proposal that was being advanced. Many of the sources seemed not even to support the statements being made, or appeared to be only peripherally related. The citation supporting the proposal that the driving force of growth is "the force of love" was particularly amusing: link. I didn't find anything in that subsection that I could save.--Srleffler (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This text was also a WP:SYNTH grab-bag of "hey, that shit sounds cool", run through several cycles of misunderstanding. Don't learn your physics from podcasts, people. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: for the simulation in respect to physics, it should be clarified that it’s all speculatory

The physics section is very biased towards the simulation hypothesis, from looking around the page, talk page and history, it seems like it was added by someone with an agenda.

Not only is that bad enough but the whole thing is very odd scientifically speaking. Yes, you could assume all those things but in comparison to what? In order to make a statement about the limitations of the “our physical world”compared to the “outside world” we would need the outside world as a comparison. Without it, it’s just speculation based on very little.

It needs to be clarified that that is not the case, as reading that section made it seem like that’s accepted by science (which it really isn’t)

Again, the section seemed to have been put in there because of a user‘s agenda, doesn’t that violate the Neutral point of view? 92.7.11.8 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge from Digital physics?

Should Digital physics be merged into this article?--Srleffler (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe? It seems an older and somewhat different flavor of weird. Fredkin et al. were more about the universe being identical with a computer, rather than simulated on a computer. But perhaps that distinction is not too big for article-organization purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Strong No. Doing so would perpetuate a common misperception about what a "computer" is; that computers are necessarily digital. There is no reason to assume the simulation is running on a Turing machine. For example, present-day "quantum computers" are not "Turing machines", nor will they ever be; the states of a Turing machine are finite (barring the infinite-length tape), the states of a quantum computer are uncountably infinite measures on complex projective space. See, for example, quantum finite automata. The generalization thereof is the "geometric finite automaton" which runs on any homogeneous space. For all we know, the "simulation" of the simulation hypothesis is an automaton running on SU(42) and that's distinctly not digital. The simulation hypothesis does not speculate as to whether the simulation is digital or not. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Strong No. Agree with the previous author’s speculation. I think it’s important to allow room for existence of digital physics for it is a variable ensuring theoretical consistency and controlling if the simulation hypothesis can be tested. Masterial (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong No. Aside from the nerdfest shown by Masterial and 67.198.37.16 (do you even get a vote if you're not a registered user?), they are not equivalent. Digital physics (or 'philosophy' -- hardly! I digress) does not imply the simulation hypothesis and vice-versa.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 13:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No. I agree with the three No-answers above. Simulation hypothesis says there is someone "outside" running the simulation, while digital physics/calculating space just says that reality looks like its performing only computations - operations that can be described by shuffling numbers around. One implies something like a god exist, while the other does not. (And, both suffers from the problem of describing qualia.) · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge Simulated reality?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. - car chasm (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

---

These appear to both refer to the simulation hypothesis as popularized by Nick Bostrom. If not merged, perhaps we should discuss the scope of each article to make sure we don't have a WP:CFORK as much content seems to be duplicated on both pages. - car chasm (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support Both articles are about the same thing. I recently came across the simulated reality article separately and thought to propose a merge, then saw there was already one going on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, both are full pages and not the same topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  This was open for two weeks, I've now done the merge. Almost all the material was duplicated and you've given no arguments otherwise. Even if you had commented before i closed the discussion i would have kept it. - car chasm (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blog post and PowerPoint lecture notes in lead?

In the lead we have this sentence: The hypothesis popularized by Bostrom is very disputed, with, for example, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who called it pseudoscience[6] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint" and that "protagonists seem to have confused science fiction with science. Late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory."[7]. The first one is cited to a Blogspot URL, and appears to be the personal opinion of the person mentioned. The second one, likewise, looks like a PowerPoint slide deck of lecture notes, and not an actual publication. While the opinions of these people seem reasonable to me (and surely the people themselves know what they're talking about), are we sure that these are appropriate citations? jp×g 23:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Those should both fall within WP:RSOPINION, since they're both notable people and they're talking about the hypothesis and not Bostrom himself. - car chasm (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)