Hello World.
I am Imagination.
In this video, I'm going to talk about the
Simulation Theory.
Simulation theory is the proposal that all
of reality, including the Earth and the rest
of the universe, could be an artificial simulation,
such as a computer simulation.
Some versions rely on the development of a
simulated reality, a proposed technology that
would be able to convince its inhabitants
that the simulation was "real".
The simulation hypothesis bears a close resemblance
to various other skeptical scenarios throughout
the history of philosophy.
The hypothesis was popularized in its current
form by Nick Bostrom.
The suggestion that such a hypothesis is compatible
with all of our perceptual experiences is
thought to have significant epistemological
consequences in the form of philosophical
skepticism.
Versions of the hypothesis have also been
featured in science fiction, appearing as
a central plot device in many stories and
films.
A method to test one type of simulation hypothesis
was proposed in 2012 in a joint paper by physicists
Silas R. Beane from the University of Bonn
(now at the University of Washington, Seattle),
and Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage from
the University of Washington, Seattle.
Under the assumption of finite computational
resources, the simulation of the universe
would be performed by dividing the continuum
space-time into a discrete set of points.
In analogy with the mini-simulations that
lattice-gauge theorists run today to build
up nuclei from the underlying theory of strong
interactions (known as quantum chromodynamics),
several observational consequences of a grid-like
space-time have been studied in their work.
Among proposed signatures is an anisotropy
in the distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic
rays, that, if observed, would be consistent
with the simulation hypothesis according to
these physicists.
In 2017, Campbell et al. proposed several
experiments aimed at testing the simulation
hypothesis in their paper "On Testing the
Simulation Theory".
In 2019, philosopher Preston Greene suggested
that it may be best not to find out if we're
living in a simulation since, if it were found
to be true, such knowledge may end the simulation.
Besides attempting to assess whether the simulation
hypothesis is true or false, philosophers
have also used it to illustrate other philosophical
problems, especially in metaphysics and epistemology.
David Chalmers has argued that simulated beings
might wonder whether their mental lives are
governed by the physics of their environment,
when in fact these mental lives are simulated
separately (and are thus, in fact, not governed
by the simulated physics).
They might eventually find that their thoughts
fail to be physically caused.
Chalmers argues that this means that Cartesian
dualism is not necessarily as problematic
of a philosophical view as is commonly supposed,
though he does not endorse it.
Similarly, Vincent Conitzer has used the following
computer simulation scenarios to illuminate
further facts—facts that do not follow logically
from the physical facts—about qualia (what
it is like to have specific experiences),
indexicality (what time it is now and who
I am), and personal identity.
Imagine a person in the real world who is
observing a simulated world on a screen, from
the perspective of one of the simulated agents
in it.
The person observing knows that besides the
code responsible for the physics of the simulation,
there must be additional code that determines
in which colors the simulation is displayed
on the screen, and which agent's perspective
is displayed.
(These questions are related to the inverted
spectrum scenario and whether there are further
facts about personal identity.)
That is, the person can conclude that the
facts about the physics of the simulation
(which are completely captured by the code
governing the physics) do not fully determine
her experience by themselves.
But then, Conitzer argues, imagine someone
who has become so engrossed in the simulation
that she has forgotten that it is a simulation
she is watching.
Could she not still reach the same conclusion?
And if so, can we not conclude the same in
our own daily lives?
Economist Robin Hanson argues a self-interested
high-fidelity Sim should strive to be entertaining
and praiseworthy to avoid being turned off
or being shunted into a non-conscious low-fidelity
part of the simulation.
Hanson additionally speculates that someone
aware that he might be a Sim might care less
about others and live more for today: "your
motivation to save for retirement, or to help
the poor in Ethiopia, might be muted by realizing
that in your simulation, you will never retire
and there is no Ethiopia."
