Could you know you were living in a simulation if it had errors or exceptions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Meatbot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Errors Simulation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the concept of living in a simulation and the implications of potential errors or exceptions within that simulation. Participants consider various scenarios where the simulation may not perfectly model reality, leading to questions about perception, reasoning, and the nature of consciousness. The conversation touches on philosophical implications, the reliability of sensory experiences, and the nature of consciousness itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if a simulation has inaccuracies, it might be difficult to detect those errors, especially if the simulation manipulates sensory experiences from birth.
  • Others argue that if the simulation is designed to prevent detection, it would shape reasoning faculties, making it impossible to recognize one is in a simulation.
  • A participant questions the traditional conception of consciousness, suggesting that consciousness may not be solely based on chemistry and electrical signals, and challenges the idea that one could be part of a simulation.
  • Some express skepticism about the possibility of consciousness as computation, arguing that a simulated entity could not truly replicate an individual's consciousness.
  • There are discussions about the implications of being simulated, including the validity of rational thought and belief in external realities.
  • One participant suggests that quantum physics may imply a limited resolution in our universe, proposing that this could be interpreted as evidence of a simulation.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of living part-time in a simulation, questioning the nature of reality and the existence of a "real world."
  • Concerns are raised about the progress of the discussion, indicating a lack of consensus or direction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of consciousness, the possibility of detecting a simulation, and the implications of living in a simulated reality. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of consciousness, assumptions about the nature of reality, and unresolved philosophical questions regarding the implications of simulation theory.

Meatbot
Messages
146
Reaction score
1
Let's assume we live in a simulation, but for whatever reason the physics of it are not modeled perfectly. Perhaps the computing power is insufficient to reproduce everything with 100% accuracy. Let's say that as you look at smaller and smaller things, the simulation begins to give approximations instead of doing the mathematically rigorous calculations needed. Could you tell that something was wrong? Is there any way you could realize what was really going on? Would you just assume your theory needed more work? When could you ever give the simulation answer as the most likely explanation?

What if the programmers used realistic physics but made exceptions here and there for their amusement, or to see how you would react? What if their physics says that everything operates according to the consistent set of rules EXCEPT for this one star which will be 1,000 light-years wide, bright green and emits gumballs along it's equator. It goes totally against the known laws of physics for no apparent reason. Assuming you didn't just assume you were insane, what would be the thought process? What if it was more subtle than that, like a star that had higher gravity than it should?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the simulation itself is just manipulating your senses (brain in a vat) then in fact you might reason that something was off. The amount of time depends on when you 'entered' the simulation, though (at what age) as it perhaps might be able to sufficiently fool your reasoning abilities from the first day you were alive. We're talking a physical brain hooked up to the simulation for this purpose. It also depends on the personal interests and peculiarities you hold because a great number of people walk through life without ever questioning anything at all in the philosophical sense and would be blind to this sort of skepticism/doubt.

If you are part of the simulation itself--which I believe to be impossible for a variety of reasons--but if it were possible then the simulation itself would model/shape your reasoning faculties and there would be no possibility for you ever 'detecting' it were a simulation *if* the simulation/programmers never wanted you to find out.
 
singleton said:
If you are part of the simulation itself--which I believe to be impossible for a variety of reasons--
Why do you say that? It wouldn't be the traditional conception of consciousness based on chemistry and electrical signals but could we rule it out?

singleton said:
but if it were possible then the simulation itself would model/shape your reasoning faculties and there would be no possibility for you ever 'detecting' it were a simulation *if* the simulation/programmers never wanted you to find out.
Agreed. They could also make you see a problem where there was none.
 
Meatbot said:
Why do you say that? It wouldn't be the traditional conception of consciousness based on chemistry and electrical signals but could we rule it out?

Can we rule out Thor?

Anyways:

1.) I for one do not accept the 'traditional conception of consciousness based on chemistry and electrical signals'.

2.) I absolutely do not accept consciousness as a computation -- while a programmer (or team of programmers) could instantiate something that is *like* me in the behavioral aspect, I do not believe it possible to *be* me.

3.) If I was to submit to any contemporary thought on consciousness it would have to be on the basis that matter is an important part of the process for it to occur. You virtualize it as a computation and I do not believe it possible.

4.) Being part of the simulation itself would make you subject to the original argument Putnam put foward against 'Brain in the Vat' thought experiment (NOTE: I realize Putnam was talking about a consciousness external to the simulation, but the argument against it remains valid IMO). That argument being semantic externalism. I suppose you could say that the programmers have sufficiently programmed you to reference entities in the 'outside' world but then we're grasping for anything.

5.) If I was really 'simulated' then there would not be necessarily any reason to trust rationality anyways, would there? We could not trust belief or justification for the possibility of the simulation argument. You could say that you were programmed rationally but then why not believe that Descartes Demon controls us? I find the irrational supernatural concept of Descartes Demon more tenable than the simulation argument. At least the Demon has supernatural powers :smile:

6.) Last: If it was possible then why would the the simulators themselves not be simulated? Could this go into an infinite regress?
 
Meatbot said:
Let's assume we live in a simulation, but for whatever reason the physics of it are not modeled perfectly. Perhaps the computing power is insufficient to reproduce everything with 100% accuracy. Let's say that as you look at smaller and smaller things, the simulation begins to give approximations instead of doing the mathematically rigorous calculations needed. Could you tell that something was wrong? Is there any way you could realize what was really going on? Would you just assume your theory needed more work? When could you ever give the simulation answer as the most likely explanation?

...0.0...
Hey, why not assume that we do live in a simulation, according to quantum physics we do live in a universe with limited resolution. Plank Length anyone? ... Plank Time? ..., no? Maybe quantum physics is just weird because it's only approximation of "real" physics. Maybe the random number generator just "decides" for the simulator beyond a certain point. I think that interpretation is a lot more fun than Many Worlds, or Copenhagen Interpretation.

It would appear that we would prefer to explain the results of a low res simulation by creating more elaborate and confusing theories, that maintain our "reality."

(hmmm it might be fun to start believing this, but unfortunately I don't think I'll let myself)
 
Meatbot said:
Let's assume we live in a simulation...
Let's assume we live PART-TIME in a simulation, another part-time in a more or less real world...
Let's assume the "real world" is just a PERFECT simulation, created by God for our poor and needy souls.
Let's assume there is NOTHING for us in the world except one or another simulations.
 
Last edited:
This thread is not progeressing.
 

Similar threads

Should the public know what you are thinking and concluding?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Amadeus Live: Inverse Karaoke at Eugene Symphony
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Building a solar system simulator
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
New Idea/Twist for a Time Travel-Like Story
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Undergrad Physical Universe vs. Simulated Universe
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad New Hubble Paper On Lensing In Galactic Clusters
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate What is the most complex structure you can simulate at home?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
ABC reference frame synchronous generator modelling in Ltspice
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Uncertainties on Bayes' theorem
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad Deceleration formula for movement simulation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K