2 Answers

  1. Judging by the comment, the author read something like https://www.bbc.com/russian/vert-earth-37621894�and I was impressed. Probably because I haven't read much science fiction.

    First of all, the author confuses several completely different types of “simulations” that have little in common with each other.

    .

    1. Consider a simulation in which at least one object is AWARE of itself as a living, intelligent, and sentient being (other people and animals can play the role of scenery, or also be aware of themselves). In principle, our world and our consciousness (who has it at the level of self-perception) may well be a similar simulation, arranged by some kind of super-civilization. And, yes, the creators of such a simulation can, in principle, arbitrarily change both the “world” around us – up to changing the fundamental physical laws, and the “self-aware” characters. Memory, character traits, knowledge, habits, body, etc. It can be both about radical changes, and about “running” options on the topic of changing reactions and actions when the situation changes. Of course, with the subsequent erasure of the recent part of the memory before repeating the experiment.
    2. Further, a simulation is possible, where the characters act as self-aware individuals, although in reality they are not aware of themselves. In other words, external behavior is simulated, but not the inner world that the character is aware of. This is clearly not our case, because it contradicts my self-perception (if you are willing to take my word for it, and not consider it just a decoration that does not realize itself, but only pretends). And the self-perception of those readers who have a sense of self – perception at all: real or simulated-it does not matter.
    3. In addition, the text on the link above referred to the initiation of our Big Bang by beings from another universe. This is no longer a simulation: here we and our world are real. In addition, it stipulated the absence of any contact with the ancestral universe after the appearance of our own. In this scenario, no superintelligent beings from another universe can manipulate us. We should only be wary of our neighbors in our own Universe, who are exactly the same result of an in-universe experiment as we are.
    4. Finally, in the same text, it was said that the world is “information”, “algorithm” , etc. They meant the basics of physics, not intelligent experimenters who developed the” algorithm ” and can change it at any time. Of course, such experimenters are possible, but in this case we are again in option number one. And only the option where there is an “algorithm”, but there are no “experimenters” (there never was, or no longer is) deserves its own separate category.
      Of the four possible types of simulations, the author's fears are related only to the first one. Where, at the whim of unknown experimenters, she can undergo various tests, get injured, get sick, turn from a girl into an old woman, a boy, or a crocodile on the green sand under the lilac sun. Or just disappear without a trace and unnoticed by yourself.

    Well, if you can't tell the difference between stimulation and reality, all you have to do is act as if you believe in the reality of reality. Because if you don't eat, you'll be hungry. And if you stick your finger in the fire, it will hurt. And not the fact that the experimenters will help out: even if they are. In principle, the situation is no different from the situation of a person who believes in gods or a god (especially if a person does not prescribe any properties to the gods in advance). Or-a supporter of Plato's views that we see only shadows of certain real events taking place somewhere else (outside of Plato's “cave” or our simulated world).

    .

    Now for the “proof” of the high probability of the unreality of the world in the text on the link at the top. They say that there are many civilizations, everyone simulates something there, and there are many variants at once, etc. And if so, then the probability of being part of such a simulation is supposedly higher than the probability of being part of reality.

    In my opinion, this is a baseless judgment, probably just false. Simulations of type 3 and 4 are no worse than “natural” reality. Type 1 simulations are interesting only for studying psychology and the inner world. To simulate a society or universe, option 2 is sufficient, saving resources with the same quality. And this dramatically reduces the likelihood of “being in a simulation”.�

    .

    Last. Regardless of the opinions and fantasies of individual (or many) scientists, only a potentially refutable assumption can become part of scientific knowledge. The hypothesis of some ideal simulation is indistinguishable from reality and cannot be tested and refuted. Accordingly, it is not interested in science and is cut off by Occam's razor. And individual scientists may well like it, why not.

  2. I am not a physicist, I will try to say from the point of view of the humanities. of course, the creators of the simulation can create anything. but any action must meet certain conditions, be expedient, purposeful, have meaning and logic. otherwise, it will be absurd and clowning. you can imagine a world of people, each of whom has several consciousnesses, but can such a society function normally? after all, each person, in accordance with the” duty ” personality, would need an appropriate comfort zone (a separate family, a separate job, a social circle, etc.), and in any other case, everything should be interconnected and form a single system, and if some element does not fit into this system, the system will either not be vital, or will try to get rid of this element.

Leave a Reply