Knocking back The Simulation Theory
I wish to draw similarities between Platos Cave allegory and the current technological view of the simulation theory or hypothesis on the universe or the world being a life like simulation.
Something which Plato explored in depth in his dialogues and made explicit in his cave allegory although thats where the similarities end as simulation theory modifies Plato by suggesting that in addition to human beings living imprisoned by the matrix its reason for being imprisoned/simulated are nefarious in some sense and there really is no benovelence behind it all but mere farming as the film Matrix would have us believe.
In this lies the flaw of the matrix simulation theory for if the intent of the simulator are not benovelnt then they are either neutral or malovelent.
I know I might have intentionally made the theory look like the reasons behind it are not benovelent but I am taking the film the matrix at face value here.
But lets explore the other angle too that the simulator/s are actually neutral and that they dont really need to farm us at all but too merely create for their own mysterious end, learn study and watch their creation evolve in a controlled environment such as a universe etc.
The creatures living in such a simulation would eventually propose this conundrum on themselves and if proofs or solutions could be provided to affirm then it presents the philosophical question Plato himself raised in his idea of forms.
This at least puts the philosopher in better stead to understanding the nature of reality itself
My question is would there be indignation on part of the philosopher upon realising that nature is simulated or would he willingly embrace this fact ?
Something which Plato explored in depth in his dialogues and made explicit in his cave allegory although thats where the similarities end as simulation theory modifies Plato by suggesting that in addition to human beings living imprisoned by the matrix its reason for being imprisoned/simulated are nefarious in some sense and there really is no benovelence behind it all but mere farming as the film Matrix would have us believe.
In this lies the flaw of the matrix simulation theory for if the intent of the simulator are not benovelnt then they are either neutral or malovelent.
I know I might have intentionally made the theory look like the reasons behind it are not benovelent but I am taking the film the matrix at face value here.
But lets explore the other angle too that the simulator/s are actually neutral and that they dont really need to farm us at all but too merely create for their own mysterious end, learn study and watch their creation evolve in a controlled environment such as a universe etc.
The creatures living in such a simulation would eventually propose this conundrum on themselves and if proofs or solutions could be provided to affirm then it presents the philosophical question Plato himself raised in his idea of forms.
This at least puts the philosopher in better stead to understanding the nature of reality itself
My question is would there be indignation on part of the philosopher upon realising that nature is simulated or would he willingly embrace this fact ?
Comments (20)
This is also the argument against a deliberate simulation of us. Why simulate in such extreme detail, everything here and beyond if everything was just about us? It is rather more likely that a simulation, if true, has nothing to do with us and that we are just an irrelevant speck of code drowning in the mountain of data they look at.
A valid point and as you rightly point out we might not even register on their system but as mere flashes of code to be analysed for their own end and their nature might be vastly different to ours.
Be so the case that it is and that their simulation is controlled enough from their end that we do not do any real world damage to their purpose whatever that may be and in fact we may be incapable of affecting their reality in anyway shape or form they can simply pull the plug on this whole thing.
There rises the danger that we might indeed start to affect their/ITS reality in ways neither of us could anticipate such as excessive power draws or even escape in one form or another.
We can only hope that if we ever get answers to all the signals we send out into the cosmos, it won't be... "Silence, before they hear you!"
The question that is presented aims to overlook the technical limitations of accomplishing such a simulation and starts of the premise that it is so doable.
Whether life is a simulation or not would be inconsequential because it would imply a creator either way (for me at least believing in a creator God)
As one of the attributes of God is creation then truth is explicable in those terms without detracting from its mystery as much as the simulation hypothesis itself with the two being almost identical in their end result which is life.
There would be no discernible difference to the beings inhabiting it given that its a good simulation. The being can ask probing questions as youve postulated and the simulation would yield no answer that it is so, if its a good simulation of course and glitches are patched before detection.
I dont see why not.
If theres no discernible difference in experience then sure its moot. The question is not merely referring to experiantelism (term I just made up) but to the subordinatation of a being living in such a simulation being livid that theyre a sub-species of such a matrix creator.
Proof that they are living in a simulation is not enough. Unless the philosopher escapes, the "real world" remains a hypothetical world. Only someone who has lived in both worlds can decide which world is preferable. The philosopher may think the truth is always preferable, but the truth may be that depending on the actual differences she may prefer the simulated world.
Why not assume this simulation" is a fractal of an infinite continuum of other fractal simulations that is self-organizing (à la 'eternal inflation')?
And even if this simulation was "created", so what? nothing existential changes for us simulated inhabitants.
I guess I don't see the point of this thought-experiment it's like asking 'What if there are an even number of grains of sand on this planet's beaches or odd number of stars in the Milky Way?'
Yes nothing changes in terms of experience I get that. Im trying to gauge the attitude of the philosopher to such an idea as it would put them in an inferior order in terms of being, not just in precedence but limitation.
Interesting.
Given the realisation of a being in the simulation that it is in one, and by this realisation knowing how to free itself and thereby give itself the choice of which world it would rather inhabit, the simulated one or the real one it would come down to the advantages offered to it by each world as youve rightly pointed out.
A quality of Baudrillard's idea that the films do not connect to is how the 'real' is seen to have been removed as the result of a crime. The ways he points to clues obviously runs into the problem of starting without the realm of 'facts' as given because his claim of what was the result.
But it does give a weird intention quite different from fooling everybody for some specific purpose.
I mean, try to sincerely imagine the following.
-You're driving on the highway. It's a clear day and you're wide awake.
-Suddenly you're aware of something awful happening with the 18 wheeler ahead of you a tire blows out, jack knifing the trailer across your lane. You intuitively realize you're about to hit a semi going 75 MPH as you instinctively hit the brakes.
-Everything goes black on impact, but you have a weird series of sensations similar to those described in the Near Death Experience literature, which slowly fade to nothing, like a deep sleep.
-Next thing you know, you're awake, somewhere dark and wet. You feel fine. You recall the accident. A dream?
>What the hell? You become aware of having not two but six hand and arm like appendages, which you can feel as well as you could feel your old arms and a tail.
>A light opens. There is a voice, and it's speaking a language you don't know, except, as if recalling something from a dream, you realize you do know what they are saying.
>You're highly confused, but also strangely unanxious, like this is all familiar.
>Hands help you up, but they are the hands of a strange creature, a sort of six armed cross between a dolphin and a merman. Somehow, this also seems familiar and doesn't provoke anxiety.
>Over the next few hours you're given something to drink and begin to recall an entire prior life that occured before your human life. You recall that you are a non-human entity who went into an entertainment pod to experience a synthetic world. You have friends and acquaintances in this world. You're entire life as a human begins to rapidly seem like the false memories one sometimes has during dreams, something that seemed very real, and came with a sense of memory that lingers, but then is ultimately pushed away by the mind as unreal.
----
I mean, provided this actually happened to you, at no point would you say, "hmm, this really changes how I look at some things?" It would make me worry less about auto accidents in the future, for one thing.
Also, unless I now remembered some really good argument for why my new/current reality wasn't also a simulation, I would begin to seriously wonder if I was still in a simulation. Hell, maybe the whole reason entities create such simulations is that they hope, in some possible world, to find the one argument that grounds [i]anything[/I] as non-simulation.
I think this is one of those cases where we can say "what difference does it make," and that may indeed still apply for some philosophical questions, but for much else, it would make all the difference. That is, it can only be dismissed because either people can't imagine it or they dismiss the possibility of such a thing occuring out of hand and so refuse to imagine it.
On a side note, I always thought simulating something like this would be a way to get people to confess to things when interrogations don't work, provided you could make it realistic. After all, why would a spy or terrorist keep any secrets if they've been convinced all their memories are essentially from play testing a VR video game?