The Matrix ... but not quite

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

The Matrix ... but not quite

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

I didn't see any other thread about this, so I decided to start one up. This is concerning an article in the New York Times Science Times yesterday (Tuesday August 14). The text of the article can be found here.
Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else’s hobby. I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims.

But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else's computer simulation.

This simulation would be similar to the one in “The Matrix,” in which most humans don’t realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom’s notion of reality, you wouldn’t even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.

You couldn’t, as in “The Matrix,” unplug your brain and escape from your vat to see the physical world. You couldn’t see through the illusion except by using the sort of logic employed by Dr. Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford.

Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or “posthumans,” could run “ancestor simulations” of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.

Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle of this century, but it doesn’t matter for Dr. Bostrom’s argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years. If civilization survived long enough to reach that stage, and if the posthumans were to run lots of simulations for research purposes or entertainment, then the number of virtual ancestors they created would be vastly greater than the number of real ancestors.

There would be no way for any of these ancestors to know for sure whether they were virtual or real, because the sights and feelings they’d experience would be indistinguishable. But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world.

The math and the logic are inexorable once you assume that lots of simulations are being run. ....
Am I the only one who thinks this is quite literally the stupidest thing I have ever read? This guy Dr. Bostrom created a scenario that can't possibly be disproved (the answer to any question about the so-called simulation is that whoever created it is really advanced). Furthermore, the article continuously throws around that it is a "mathematical certainty" that we are in someone else's simulation without bothering to explain how you can possibly quantify such a theory.

Honestly, this whole thing sounds like Intelligent Design, but with advanced supercomputers in place of a God.
User avatar
Boyish-Tigerlilly
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3225
Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
Contact:

Post by Boyish-Tigerlilly »

It certainly sounds similar to Solipsism.

What he's saying is that it's possible we could all be part of an elaborate entertainment or research scheme and we might not really exist, but rather are part of software. Woa. It's been said before.

I don't think it's all that plausible, and even if it were true, who cares? It doesn't affect our perception or study of reality as we know it. It's a modern spin on Solipsism.
User avatar
Boyish-Tigerlilly
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3225
Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
Contact:

Post by Boyish-Tigerlilly »

Edit: Sorry for double posting. I went to this guy's homepage, and it seems to be hit or miss. He has other bizarre shit. For instance, on his ethics sub-page, he has an article that somehow links cosmology to ethics, claiming that aggregative ethics (such as Utilitarianism) is somehow hurt or "seriously challenged" by cosmological theory.

Cosmology shows that we might well be living in an infinite universe that contains infinitely many happy and sad people. Given some assumptions, aggregative ethics implies that such a world contains an infinite amount of positive value and an infinite amount of negative value. But you can presumably do only a finite amount of good or bad. Since an infinite cardinal quantity is unchanged by the addition or subtraction of a finite quantity, it looks as though you can't change the value of the world.
Bizarre. I think he's straining to relate completely unrelated fields to make sensational articles. Even if we assumed his premise, it doesn't imply that such ethics are harmed at all on a local level. But like the OP, this is one of the many outlandish things he's writing.

It makes me feel bad that people like this get such high positions when there are sane philosophers who look bad because of them.

He also claims to have: "a background in physics, computational neuroscience, mathematical logic, and artificial intelligence." He seemingly is a "Jack of All Trades" :)
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Wow, a layperson publication butchering science? Say it ain't so!

The worst thing about shit like this is the fact that for the average person, a newspaper is far more authoritative than an actual scientist.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Boyish-Tigerlilly
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3225
Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
Contact:

Post by Boyish-Tigerlilly »

I will make it a point to read the original publication in the Philosophical Quarterly when I get home, but I went to New Scientist, where there's a different article on this buy this guy, and it seems just to be wishy washy. It's a very long article talking about the original paper, which says absolutely nothing other than "this might be true, I don't really know which proposition is true."

Well, that's thoroughly useless for a huge multi-page paper that doesn't actually prove anything. You get to the end and it's as if he said nothing at all.
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Post by Molyneux »

This sounds reminiscent of Descartes in his more boneheaded moments...
Yes, we can never be sure that we're not in some bizarre simulation rather than actual reality (though confirmation that we are would be simple - something completely obvious, like, say, a giant MENU bar popping up across the sky)...so the burden of proof rests on the position that COULD be proven.

The default assumption is that we are in real life, unless something happens to convince us otherwise.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
User avatar
Boyish-Tigerlilly
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3225
Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
Contact:

Post by Boyish-Tigerlilly »

I got a laugh from page 2 of the news article. One fellow colleague seems to defend the paper by claiming it's not really saying much other than it's possible, and if it were, it's just another "metaphysical explanation of reality."

So essentially, not only does the paper say nothing really, even if it did say this were true, it would be another explanation. He doesn't mention that this "alternative metaphysical explanation" adds literally nothing but unnecessary assumptions that complicate it, since they admit you can't tell the difference anyway.

It has no real explanatory power to compensate for being more complicated.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

This is a classic application of Occam's Razor. Such a concept is not useful in any description of the universe, therefore it is illogical to assume that it exists. If only more people understood what Occam's Razor is; most people think that it means the theory which can be expressed in fewer words wins.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Dooey Jo
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3127
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:09pm
Location: The land beyond the forest; Sweden.
Contact:

Post by Dooey Jo »

It's too bad he forgot that Occam's razor is also part of logic. One could probably use similar reasoning to conclude that any kind of solipsism is "probable". Indeed, if the simulation argument is true, would it not be easier for a computer to just simulate one mind (ie., your own), and have all others be "bots"? There's no way to know, without knowing the purpose of the simulation.
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:He also claims to have: "a background in physics, computational neuroscience, mathematical logic, and artificial intelligence." He seemingly is a "Jack of All Trades" :)
Actually, apart from physics, those fields are largely interconnected.
Image
"Nippon ichi, bitches! Boing-boing."
Mai smote the demonic fires of heck...

Faker Ninjas invented ninjitsu
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Dooey Jo wrote:
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:He also claims to have: "a background in physics, computational neuroscience, mathematical logic, and artificial intelligence." He seemingly is a "Jack of All Trades" :)
Actually, apart from physics, those fields are largely interconnected.
Yes, but when you say "I have a background in ...", anyone who has experience reading inflated resumes knows that it means almost nothing. Unless you describe specific recognized credentials in those fields, it could mean as little as "I took an interest in the subject and read a couple of websites."
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Boyish-Tigerlilly
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3225
Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
Contact:

Post by Boyish-Tigerlilly »

I wonder what type of background he actually has in them, though. He's not really specific if he has any real scientific credentials. All I can see from his own description is that he has a Philosophy doctorate from the University of London School of Economics.

He's just vague on it. I said jack of all trades because, on his home page, he said he dabbles in each area, but he never said he had any real expertise in it.
User avatar
Feil
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1944
Joined: 2006-05-17 05:05pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Feil »

Peh. At least solipsism is marginally plausible. If the universe is a computer simulation, where does the infinite hard drive and infinite RAM come from? Didn't the world give up on Matrix Theology back in 2003?
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Feil wrote:Peh. At least solipsism is marginally plausible. If the universe is a computer simulation, where does the infinite hard drive and infinite RAM come from? Didn't the world give up on Matrix Theology back in 2003?
I don't think anyone gave up on it because they understood what was wrong with its reasoning. They gave up on it because the sequels sucked so badly that it was embarrassing to be connected with them.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
rhoenix
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 2006-04-22 07:52pm

Post by rhoenix »

Darth Wong wrote:I don't think anyone gave up on it because they understood what was wrong with its reasoning. They gave up on it because the sequels sucked so badly that it was embarrassing to be connected with them.
Speaking of which, wasn't the script for the first movie written by someone else, whereas the two sequels (suck-uels?) were written by the directors?

I remember (and Google gives me a few hits as sources, such as this or this) that the original name of the first script was "The Third Eye," by Sophia Stewart?
User avatar
AMX
Jedi Knight
Posts: 853
Joined: 2004-09-30 06:43am

Post by AMX »

Feil wrote: If the universe is a computer simulation, where does the infinite hard drive and infinite RAM come from?
Bad argument.
There's no need to actually simulate an infinitely big universe, provided the simulation has a finite runtime and enforces the lightspeed limit.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

AMX wrote:
Feil wrote: If the universe is a computer simulation, where does the infinite hard drive and infinite RAM come from?
Bad argument.
There's no need to actually simulate an infinitely big universe, provided the simulation has a finite runtime and enforces the lightspeed limit.
Also, the simulation doesn't actually need to be real-time. If we're all simulations ourselves, how would we know if it's running at 1/1000th speed? This is not a particularly good way to attack the idea. Hell, the simulation could be entirely stopped for upgrades, then restarted again, and we wouldn't know.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Feil
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1944
Joined: 2006-05-17 05:05pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Feil »

I may be wrong (it's a distressingly common occurrence) but would not this computer need a byte for every quantum event?
User avatar
Boyish-Tigerlilly
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3225
Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
Contact:

Post by Boyish-Tigerlilly »

I did find something about his credentials if anyone's interested.

Nick Bostrom
Oct 1996-Jul 2000

PhD in philosophy at the London School of Economics: “Observational Selection Effects and Probability.” Dissertation was selected by Robert Nozick, Pellegrino Professor at Harvard University, for inclusion in the Routledge series Outstanding Dissertations. Also courses in astrophysics and general relativity at King’s College, University of London.
an 1996-Sep 1996

MSc-thesis in computational neuroscience at the mathematics department at King’s College, University of London. The thesis was especially “noted as an excellent piece of work” by the examiners.
Aug 1994-Jan 1996

MA in physics and philosophy at the University of Stockholm.
Feb 1993-Aug 1993 and Oct 1993-Aug 1994

BA at the University of Gothenburg. Three and a half full-time programs simultaneously, in Philosophy, Mathematics, Mathematical Logic, and Artificial Intelligence.
Who knows if he's making up the comments about them being "a record" or "exceptional work" according to his peers and reviewers. I don't understand why someone who was apparently capable of such "exceptional" work would peddle this, though.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Feil wrote:I may be wrong (it's a distressingly common occurrence) but would not this computer need a byte for every quantum event?
Maybe the quantum events are the limit of resolution of the simulation, which is why they behave so oddly ;)
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

Old idea. Hell, it's the computer age's analogue to Plato's Cave.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Zwinmar
Jedi Master
Posts: 1098
Joined: 2005-03-24 11:55am
Location: nunyadamnbusiness

Post by Zwinmar »

Or maybe people going apeshit are bugs in this simulation?
User avatar
Dooey Jo
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3127
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:09pm
Location: The land beyond the forest; Sweden.
Contact:

Post by Dooey Jo »

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:
Feb 1993-Aug 1993 and Oct 1993-Aug 1994

BA at the University of Gothenburg. Three and a half full-time programs simultaneously, in Philosophy, Mathematics, Mathematical Logic, and Artificial Intelligence.
Waaaait a minute. Did he get a BA in all of them? In less than two years? Ten years worth of studies in less than two years? There's something really fishy about that. I don't think you're even allowed to do that.
Image
"Nippon ichi, bitches! Boing-boing."
Mai smote the demonic fires of heck...

Faker Ninjas invented ninjitsu
User avatar
Boyish-Tigerlilly
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3225
Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
Contact:

Post by Boyish-Tigerlilly »

I don't know. It's vague and confusing on his website. He's trying to say he set a Swedish record. He has a BA in apparently those, but also a MA in multiple fields, and then a PhD in philosophy.
User avatar
Drooling Iguana
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4975
Joined: 2003-05-13 01:07am
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Post by Drooling Iguana »

Feil wrote:I may be wrong (it's a distressingly common occurrence) but would not this computer need a byte for every quantum event?
Assuming that the simulation was made for our benefit, it would only need a byte for every quantum event directly observed by humans. It could fudge things with less granular algorithms when we're observing things macroscopically.
Image
"Stop! No one can survive these deadly rays!"
"These deadly rays will be your death!"
- Thor and Akton, Starcrash

"Before man reaches the moon your mail will be delivered within hours from New York to California, to England, to India or to Australia by guided missiles.... We stand on the threshold of rocket mail."
- Arthur Summerfield, US Postmaster General 1953 - 1961
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12267
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

Leaving aside the fundamental problems with his argument, it seems like his invocation of probability reduces to absurdity (well, duh) anyway, or at least infinite regress. Suppose he is correct, and we are simply a simulation of an advanced civilization. Who is to say that the simulators are not themselves simulated? By his own argument, the simulators are probably a simulation; and so on and on and on.

Debate-wise, though, this is a poor way to attack the argument. It would be better to simply hammer on the fact it's essentially solipsistic.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
Post Reply