The 'Simulation Hypothesis' is Just Daft! Here's Why!

[Snsl153]

Riiiiiiight... I don't think so.

You've almost certainly come across this idea before, in one form or another, but in case you haven't the basic gist of the idea is that our reality isn't what it appears to be. In fact, the very notion of "reality" is itself misleading, because all that we know of and observe is nothing more than the end result of a complex artificial programme designed by God-knows-who or what, for purposes unknown.

Now, before your eyes start to glaze over and you move on to something you think will probably be far more interesting to read about here on GAG, consider this disturbing thought: many otherwise reputable people (ex. James Gates, no relation to Bill - see photo below)

James Gates, mathematician, physicist

are actually taking this silly nonsense seriously, because apparently they can't seem to see some of the concept's obvious, inherent flaws.

1. Far Too Many Baseless Assumptions Underlie the Hypothesis

If you've ever had to endure the rather lengthy and tortuous reasoning put forth by any of its proponents (ex. Elon Musk), then you have my sympathies, because what they come out with just doesn't add up. They'll often say something like,

"If we assume any amount of further growth and investment in A.I., no matter how minuscule, and if we make the assumption that we won't destroy ourselves soon, and we accept the notion that human intelligence and self-awareness is replicable, and that the mind is merely computation, and that we don't have souls, and we will never come across any issues or problems that will specifically rule out our ability to recreate a reality to the requisite level of fidelity, and if we assume..."

You get the picture. Their arguments for the apparent inevitability of their imagined technotopia (the so-called Singularity), which they use to justify their faith-based belief in our reality being one gigantic fraud, are pitiable to say the least. Trying to use one idea (the apparent, inevitable arrival of A.I.) to justify another (the belief we're living in a simulation) just doesn't work, at least not in this instance, because using simple extrapolation in computer science to support an unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) hypothesis just isn't at all convincing, on any level.

2. It Merely Adds an Entirely New Level of Complexity to Reality as We Understand It

Claiming that the reason why we're here at all, and why things are the way they are, is due to the tinkering of some 'Grand Programmer' just shifts the possibilities to an entirely new (and again, unfalsifiable) level, a level that is simply not at all of any use to us. I mean, wouldn't it just be safer, and make more sense, to simply assume that what we experience is actually real until such time we have reasons to believe otherwise?

3. The Hypothesis is Unfalsifiable, and Therefore Unscientific

By this I mean that any possible contrary evidence could simply be brushed off as being part of the deception, that the programme was designed thus in order to confuse us, to keep us from finding out the truth. There are no possible tests that could be carried out that could ever convince us the idea was wrong. That is a problem, a BIG one that there appears to be no solution to.

4. The Abandonment of the Copernican Principle

In order to accept the idea, one has to finally abandon one of the very few guiding philosophical principles that have thus far worked just fine - the Copernican Principle, which is basically the notion that our position and importance in the grand scheme of things isn't central, but peripheral. Named after the famous Polish astronomer who first tried to convince people that the Sun and not the Earth was at the centre of the Solar System.

5. It's Extremely Egotistical and Anthropocentric

Once again it's all about US. We are the reason why the universe exists, why there is anything at all. I mean... really? Seriously? Are people really so insecure, desperate for meaning and conceited? If so, why? I just don't understand it.

Anyway, I could go on listing other reasons why I believe the 'Simulation Hypothesis' is just silly, but once again it's late, I'm tired, and I just wrote all of this on impulse because I felt like it.

See Ya! :)

One final image.

False dichotomy fallacy in all its glory.

[zeitgeist057]

You keep saying that something unfalsifiable is unscientific. Maybe it is, depending on your definition of scientific, but that doesn't make it daft. It's just one of many, many unfalsifiable hypotheses for our existence. The "truth" is, we don't and can't know the truth, as you illustrate. Actually, I think you had another question on here about God and the nature of reality or something, which is similar to this theme.

The simulation hypothesis is possible/plausible, and unfalsifiable. It's just another hypothesis, which may or may not be true. It may seem silly, but there's plenty of silly ones out there. I think my pick for top silliness is solipsism. I remember reading Berkeley in college and thinking, "How is this guy for real right now? I mean, I get it, this is possible, but it's also just super wack/silly.". Yet there it is, a famous philosophy taught at universities across the planet. I think this is just yet another brick in my all encompassing hypothesis that humans are unable to know a true, objective reality.

[Snsl153]

There are other reasons why I don't like the idea, and I list a few. I don't believe the simulation hypothesis actually is possible, if only because I don't believe that it's possible to simulate a mind. While advances in robotics have been impressive, that's not the case with AI. We still don't even understand why we're conscious; we don't even know what consciousness is.

[zeitgeist057]

Belief vs. logic, you can believe or disbelieve whatever, but the Sim. Hyp. is no more or less plausible than monotheism, polytheism, solipsism, or any other unfalsifiable hypothesis. The fact that they are hypotheses means they are absolutely possible, though. Even if we think they are ridiculous or unlikely.

When you say " I don't believe that it's possible to simulate a mind." do you mean now, in 2022. Or are you saying "it is not now, and will never be at any point in the future, possible to simulate a mind or create artificial intelligence."?

[TallAnon]

A much more enjoyable hypothesis I've coined before, let me know if anyone else had thought about this, is that all of the known universe is just a tiny part of a much bigger world. Just like the higgs particle is almost untraceable to us, our entire universe might just be the higgs particle in the water of a small puddle of a much larger world. We are just unable to see the whole picture.
Baseless folly, but certain something different to think about.

[nawtee_me]

The Matrix… which pill do I need to believe?

[Snsl153]

Yes, that film has a lot to answer for.