Infinitely Regressive Simulation Hypothesis

[d023n]

This is a rough summary/sketch of my philosophy. Nick Bostrom got me looking. Eric Steinhart comfirmed some thoughts I'd been having. And Brian Whitworth has neat ideas. Aside from the influence of these individuals, I came up with what I've got here on my own.

 

I'm curious what other people think. I understand that the simulation hypothesis is nonscientific since it's unfalsifiable (but so is any claim about the finite/infinite size of reality), and I definitely understand that infinite regression isn't popular. I guess what I'm asking are these 3 questions. Who else thinks like this? Who has problems with this, and why? What other possible (not nonsensical) options are there (as to the nature of reality)?

 

Thanks!

Ray.

 

~~~

 

"Regression," in the sense herein, is the idea of considering a previous state.

 

"Fullness" is the idea of computational size (rather than simply spatial size); information potential.

 

“Subsumption” is the idea of a fuller system being responsible for containing/supporting some given system. For example, “concrete subsumption” is the idea of a more concrete system holding a concrete system, like the brain holding the mind or a console holding a game.

 

The infinitely regressive simulation hypothesis is a variant of the regressive simulation hypothesis, and the simulation hypothesis states:

 

Our “concrete” universe, the Cosmos (3D space, galaxies, cells, atoms, etc.), exists as some amount of information processing and is occurring on (by way of) some logical, “sub-concrete” device, which exists within a subsuming universe, which is necessarily fuller, faster, and older than our Cosmos but could have an entirely different physics.

 

Our Cosmos is “abstract” within a greater, subsuming universe.

 

The regressive simulation hypothesis applies the simulation hypothesis to our Cosmos, to our subsuming universe, and perhaps to further subsuming universes.

 

The infinitely regressive simulation hypothesis applies the simulation hypothesis to every subsuming universe of our Cosmos, which means:

 

The simulation hypothesis applies to our Cosmos and to any universe, necessarily leading to the endless description of ever fuller, faster, and older universes.

[labmath2]

This sounds a lot like ontological argument.

[d023n]

This sounds a lot like ontological argument.

 

Could you explain further, please?

[A4E]

Not sure what all these words mean, but this has been a part of my thinking for years. I guess that is a consequence of absorbing certain movies, cosmology, and quantum physics.

 

My take however, is not something I have absorbed. I use probability. Considering the vast amount of simulations we are already running here on earth, such as offline games, online games, scientific simulations. I even read that some scientists actually started a simulation of a universe similar to our own. Have not seen any updates on that, but I doubt they would be able to include any significant amount of information. Still it might be a very simplistic simulation of a universe.

 

And if what we call life would develop in a more advanced simulation, (imo it will eventually), then we have proof right there that we should at least give this theory respect. The creator perspective is probably irrelevant. For example, maybe our universe is a persistent and dynamic playground created as a service for other beings to play around in. Or perhaps a simulation to study the formation of galaxies and stars. What we do or think regarding any creator will then be meaningless, just as it appears to have been for a long time.

 

My thought is that if there is only one real universe, then the probability of us being part of a simulation is near 100%. Sure we could be really narcissistic and act like we are in the real mother universe, but we know where that kind of thinking had us trapped scientifically in the past.

[Will Torbald]

 

This is a rough summary/sketch of my philosophy. Nick Bostrom got me looking. Eric Steinhart comfirmed some thoughts I'd been having. And Brian Whitworth has neat ideas. Aside from the influence of these individuals, I came up with what I've got here on my own.

 

I'm curious what other people think. I understand that the simulation hypothesis is nonscientific since it's unfalsifiable (but so is any claim about the finite/infinite size of reality), and I definitely understand that infinite regression isn't popular. I guess what I'm asking are these 3 questions. Who else thinks like this? Who has problems with this, and why? What other possible (not nonsensical) options are there (as to the nature of reality)?

 

Thanks!

Ray.

 

~~~

 

“Subsumption” is the idea of a greater system being responsible for containing some system. For example, “concrete subsumption” is the idea of a more concrete system holding a concrete system, like the brain holding the mind or a console holding a game.

 

"Fullness" is the idea of computational size (rather than simply spatial size); information potential.

 

The infinitely regressive simulation hypothesis is a variant of the regressive simulation hypothesis, and the simulation hypothesis states:

Our “concrete” universe, the Cosmos (3D space, galaxies, cells, atoms, etc.), exists as some amount of information processing and is occurring on (by way of) some logical, “sub-concrete” device, which exists within a subsuming universe, which is necessarily fuller, faster, and older than our Cosmos but could possess an entirely different physics.

 

Our Cosmos is “abstract” within a greater, subsuming universe.

 

The regressive simulation hypothesis applies the simulation hypothesis to our Cosmos, to our subsuming universe, and perhaps to further subsuming universes.

 

The infinitely regressive simulation hypothesis applies the simulation hypothesis to every subsuming universe of our Cosmos, which means: 

 

The simulation hypothesis applies to our Cosmos and to any universe, necessarily leading to the endless description of ever fuller, faster, and older universes.

 

 

You shouldn't waste your time with this idea. Because it is a waste of time, and a very bad idea. Also, it's nothing new. It's as old as dinosaurs. Finally, infinite regression isn't just unpopular, it's wrong.

[WasatchMan]

What is the null hypothesis?

 

What explanatory power does this hypothesis have?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

You shouldn't waste your time with this idea. Because it is a waste of time, and a very bad idea. Also, it's nothing new. It's as old as dinosaurs. Finally, infinite regression isn't just unpopular, it's wrong.

 

If you're not making an argument, and you're telling people what they should do, you're removing credibility from your statements even if they end up being true.

[Will Torbald]

If you're not making an argument, and you're telling people what they should do, you're removing credibility from your statements even if they end up being true.

 

If telling someone that a mathematical error is wrong removed my credibility, I would endorse your comment. If the answer to 2 + 2 were Infinity, it would be wrong. Since the answer to his disertation is Infinity, I believe it to be certain that it is wrong. If his comments were about a fluid, subjective, aesthetic, or any other matter of opinion, I wouldn't dare tell someone they were mistaken as there is not even a chance to be right.

[rosencrantz]

Lets assume for the sake of the argument that both theories have equal merit. There could be a way to tell if you are in a simulation or not and that has to do with game engines. If you have ever played a game you will have noticed that almost any game engine has a version of physics, rudimentary as it may be. To save processing power it is condensed and can lead to switches. In addition, events are monocausal there is no multiple chains of events that lead to an outcome, but it is mono-linear: action -> reaction. In our world you have both granularity down to elementary particles and multi-causal events. You would need a very complex computer to simulate our current universe which seems highly unlikely.

[dsayers]

Since the answer to his disertation is Infinity, I believe it to be certain that it is wrong.

I believe the point Matthew M. was making is that what you posted here is different from

 

You shouldn't waste your time with this idea. Because it is a waste of time, and a very bad idea. Also, it's nothing new. It's as old as dinosaurs. Finally, infinite regression isn't just unpopular, it's wrong.

Which does nothing to explain why it is all the things you say that it is.

[Jot]

You shouldn't waste your time with this idea. Because it is a waste of time, and a very bad idea. Also, it's nothing new. It's as old as dinosaurs. Finally, infinite regression isn't just unpopular, it's wrong.

Not only what the guys above have said but you are in fact making illogical statements.

 

You don't get to decide what is a waste of time and what is not...

 

"It is a waste of time" this is an illogical proposition. "waste of time" is not an objective standard. It differs form person to person because value is subjective. What you perceive to be a waste of time might be a gold mine for someone else.

 

Maybe it is not a waste of time for him because thinking about this gives him the opportunity to exercise his reasoning abilities or improve his knowledge of the world or who knows...there might be an infinity of possibilities. 

[Guest Gee]

Do the authors claim originality? Because this is a digital Decartes demon.

[d023n]

Lets assume for the sake of the argument that both theories have equal merit. There could be a way to tell if you are in a simulation or not and that has to do with game engines. If you have ever played a game you will have noticed that almost any game engine has a version of physics, rudimentary as it may be. To save processing power it is condensed and can lead to switches. In addition, events are monocausal there is no multiple chains of events that lead to an outcome, but it is mono-linear: action -> reaction. In our world you have both granularity down to elementary particles and multi-causal events. You would need a very complex computer to simulate our current universe which seems highly unlikely.

 

particularly: "You would need a very complex computer to simulate our current universe which seems highly unlikely."

 

((((thing to remember: the relationships among the to-be-mentioned universes are not about spatial size even though i do mention it. but universe A is not 3D-inside of universe B, it is being processed abstractly in universe B.)))

 

imagine that our universe, the 3D web of galaxy cluster filaments, has a finite diameter of 50 billion lightyears, where if you went in a straight line far enough in any direction, you'd end up where you started. the calculated diameter of 93 billion lightyears just means the stars have come full circle, but we just haven't been able to tell yet. dark matter is real, but dark energy is just an optical illusion (for the sake of this argument). anyways, this is huge, in terms of information content. godzillions of events are happening simultaneously and have been doing so for a relatively long interval of time.

 

now imagine that the universe simulating us happens to have a physics very similar to ours, in fact, they made us while trying to learn about their own physics. so they're 3D and are made of matter and energy, etc. however, they could only manage to run a 50 billion lightyear diameter universe simulation that's dense with events to the amount we are. their universe, by comparison, is 10 trillion lightyears in diameter and, in addition to the massive computer processing us, is dense with events to an incredibly greater degree. spatial size aside, their universe would necessarily be "bigger" than ours because they operationally contain us. also, their "planck rate" when compared with the processing speed of the simulation we're in, would be necessarily faster just as nothing in our universe can exceed our planck rate (the speed of light). entanglement speed is attributable to the fact that the device running our simulation could have a vastly quicker processing speed.

 

for the sake of it, imagine that the yet greater universe simulation that's running the 10 trillion diameter lightyear universe is also similar to ours for the same reasons, but their universe is 8 trillion trillion lightyears in diameter and is dense with events to such a degree that the 10 trillion lightyear diameter universe simulation is considered insignificant to them; like a game of pong to us.

 

this trend of greater and greater, as well as older and older and faster and fater, simulations would necessarily continue without limit. i know this is infinite regression, obviously, but that's the point. i can't accept "something from nothing" or an inexplicable basis like gods or flying spaghetti monsters. i also cannot accept that our 3D universe is spatially infinite. of course, whether or not reality is infinite or finite is unfalsifiable in either case, but saying it's finite is simply stopping the search. i //prefer// an infinite reality, and i prefer that infinitude to be based on nested information processing.

 

i guess what i'm saying is that it /is/ possible. for us to be a simulation in an infinite hierarchy of simulations. but i also understand that the basis for this is just personal choice. if you want to disagree, go for it. just make sure you really want to think that reality exists the way you think it does.

[d023n]

Do the authors claim originality? Because this is a digital Decartes demon.

 

What exactly do you mean?

[Armitage]

This is a good philosophical start, but you need to make the logic jibe with physics a bit more. Physics can convert all universe's variables to energy or to each other, such as matter, space, time, information, etc. For example, the expansion of space is powered by "dark energy". Hence space is convertible to energy.

 

There is a budget to universe's energy, a lower universe can't contain more energy than the higher.  So when you talk about the greater sub-universes, you actually talk about universes which are more energetic. 

As we regress back, the physical variables change in a way that permits them to contain more energy. There is no infinite regression, because infinity is a very simple thing, it is infinity of energy only, all other variables get converted to energy. It is the only singularity, a point of no space, no time, only energy.

 

The greater mystery is, how does an infinite singularity transit into a finite universe?

Firstly, it is the only thing that a singularity can do - collapse into Big Bang.

Secondly, I think fractal mathematics describes transition from infinity to finity. Felix Hausdorff would know. Or maybe holography knows that. There are more details to this, but I've made my point.

[Donnadogsoth]

What happens if two separate but functionally identical computers run the same simulation at the same time?  Doesn't this violate the principle of identity of indiscernibles?

[Armitage]

What happens if two separate but functionally identical computers run the same simulation at the same time?  Doesn't this violate the principle of identity of indiscernibles?

No. Why should it? The identity of two computers is two computers  

But if you want a smarter answer, for starters, two identical computers occupying different spaces are not identical. They are subject to different qualities of space, i.e. different relative position in Earth's or sun's fields, different space radiation impacting them, or even different virtual particles emerging in them. 

Also, their mass/energy is not somehow deductible or reducible from each other. 

[sb23rd]

This might appear like a disjointed first post, but I felt like writing something after lurking for months. I've found reading the forums to be immensely insightful and helpful, an added bonus on top of  Stefan's work. You, the collective forum community have my gratitude.

 

I recently came across a decent and kind chap who would openly tell when I asked of his abusive mother and haughty sister, the former no relations for years and the latter heading in a similar direction and he'd briskly brush it off as though its of no consequence to his being, he 'forgave' them long ago. My mistake was not in asking his upbringing and childhood from the onset instead of around the middle of me knowing him.  We'd engage in philosophical conversations (later I realized both of us where midstream philosophizing, I suck hard balls debating or arguing and getting my thoughts in order in social settings), where he would say things like, "you see this table, it's doesn't exist until i observe it", or "language is subjective it's what people agree it is" and only later I realized he would use the fallacy of ambiguity often whenever he used the words 'aware of'. He was a strong advocate of the simulation hypothesis to explain reality with Tom Campbell as his to go man. Such were the topics of our frustrating  conversations, only later in the comfort of my privacy I'd reflect and try to piece things together, going through in my head mock arguments to be presented at the next opportunity. I surmised later, at least  it would appear to my simple mind, that he accepted uncritically assumptions conforming to his unresolved trauma and did not know what first principles were to give as an added example.

 

I would struggle to get anywhere with him even though he showed great insight into some topics which was hard to identify as he would use words like 'oneness' or spiritual ideas not realizing his preferences took over and reason took a back seat. What was great is he didn't give two shits and spoke his mind with people usually in the vicinity. He's the type of person that speaks with raised voice when the situation or location does not call for it, done obviously as to be preachy but in a modest diplomatic way. 'It's a fact' or 'science has proven' were used regularly. Not to start carping on, but I find encounters like these improve my self knowledge even when done vicariously. 

[Armitage]

I would struggle to get anywhere with him even though he showed great insight into some topics which was hard to identify as he would use words like 'oneness' or spiritual ideas not realizing his preferences took over and reason took a back seat. What was great is he didn't give two shits and spoke his mind with people usually in the vicinity. He's the type of person that speaks with raised voice when the situation or location does not call for it, done obviously as to be preachy but in a modest diplomatic way. 'It's a fact' or 'science has proven' were used regularly. Not to start carping on, but I find encounters like these improve my self knowledge even when done vicariously. 

I know the type of a guy. It's a hypertrophy of reason and spirituality. Imagine an above-average IQ as a nerve electric energy, or fluid that can not be compressed. In healthy families, people first develop more or less physically, then emotionally and then intellectually (overlapping of course). 

In dysfunctional families, the "nerve energy" is not allowed to play out in social and emotional areas, and physical or sports interests are often pretty weak too, since they require a lot of cooperation with people. These brain areas are overloaded, associated with fear and pain, shut down and abandoned. The nerve energy must play itself out elsewhere, it builds a lot of new synapses of its own. And that is a deliberate, conscious process, not healthy instinctive stuff like with relationships. So it is all thrown into developing simulatory capacities - intellect and spirituality. It's like when people with bound feet develop abnormally strong hands to move around on a wheelchair.

 

It just happens so that reality is built in an equivalent way - through simulatory capacities. There is actually no other, simpler way to define reality, not according to Occam's razor, not without many theoretical loose ends and infinite regressions. (of course the computer stuff is more of a metaphor or a special case of what reality is like) So people who have this hypertrophy are naturally inclined to understand that deep, non-obvious aspect of reality. It's the concrete basics that they are lacking, the logic of love and relationships.

 

There is an even more sad case of this hypertrophy, when the IQ was not too high to begin with and so the person doesn't rub off the veneer of reality, but instead becomes fossilized in academic science and concrete evidence. 

 

Where do I come in? Well, the intellectual and spiritual hypertrophy can not go on forever. I trained myself in philosophy, discovered things that I could (stuff like Tom Campbell pretty much) and then took on Stefan's challenge. Stef basically says, one who wants to say weird things should go through therapy first or Stef won't believe a weird word that he says. Stef implies, be like Caesar of the self, after conquering the far-off Gallia with all its strange customs, turn back, cross the Rubicon and conquer the home base of Rome as well. 

[sb23rd]

I know the type of a guy. It's a hypertrophy of reason and spirituality. Imagine an above-average IQ as a nerve electric energy, or fluid that can not be compressed. In healthy families, people first develop more or less physically, then emotionally and then intellectually (overlapping of course). 

In dysfunctional families, the "nerve energy" is not allowed to play out in social and emotional areas, and physical or sports interests are often pretty weak too, since they require a lot of cooperation with people. These brain areas are overloaded, associated with fear and pain, shut down and abandoned. The nerve energy must play itself out elsewhere, it builds a lot of new synapses of its own. And that is a deliberate, conscious process, not healthy instinctive stuff like with relationships. So it is all thrown into developing simulatory capacities - intellect and spirituality. It's like when people with bound feet develop abnormally strong hands to move around on a wheelchair.

Emotion overlapping with intellect aptly describes that fellow. He would tell me with a smile without realizing the subtleties of his body language and such told a different picture. I'm still astounded to this day guys brushing off their parents violence (in this fellows case, knife throwing) as just 'one of those things' like it's no big deal. I'm only a novice student of psychology, but the mechanisms you describe behind the symptoms I outlined on this poor dude I concur but with a reservation regarding 'simulatory capacities' as the foundation of reality.