Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?

[tthurman]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

 

https://www.vulture.com/2019/02/15-irrefutable-reasons-we-might-be-living-in-a-simulation.html

[Draco1962]

If we are then the programmers are moronic asshats and we need a patch.

[RIP-Felix]

EDIT: Deleted

I decided that my response had too much potential to trigger people and decided it wiser to remove it. Suffice it to say that I can imagine a scenario where the programmers are not morons nor a$$hats. However, the perspective is not one that trumps the emotional resent people feel when the argument is made. I thus rescind my comment and bite my tongue.

[Draco1962]

I think some that are able to buy the DLC and can afford the microtransactions have a better chance of levelling up in our simulation. 

Never bite your tongue out of fear of triggering! Our conversations get lively and we learn more from the differing perspectives presented!

[tthurman]

Yep, free to play, but pay to win!

 

[RIP-Felix]

On 8/5/2020 at 3:52 PM, Draco1962 said:

I think some that are able to buy the DLC and can afford the microtransactions have a better chance of levelling up in our simulation. 

Never bite your tongue out of fear of triggering! Our conversations get lively and we learn more from the differing perspectives presented!

You asked for it!

Let's play the game. A thought experiment if you will. You are lead programmer and intent on creating a simulation that you cannot get bored with. There are 4 rules:

1. You are all knowing.
2. You cannot lie.
3. You are good, not evil.
4. You must give your programmed inhabitants sentience & free will.

Their existence is complete within their realm and not meaningless. Their continuance is just as worthy as your own. You cannot wipe them out or delete the simulation without violating their choice to survive in the realm you created for them to live in. This is a contract you willingly made in order to ensure their existence and your role as their caretaker. You can resurrect them when they die, but do not want them to devolve into suicidal maniacs intent of getting themselves killed in the most debouched manner imaginable. This is because of rule 1 and 3. However, you can't stop them without violating rule 4. By giving them free will and sentience you must persuade them to listen to you when you warn them of bad consequences. This means you have to earn their trust and obedience.

Eventually an inhabitant gets the bright idea that you don't know what's best, and it knows better. It chooses to exercise its free free will and disobey. How do you respond, without violating the rules, in a way that settles this form of rebellion for all time?

[Draco1962]

The Kraken was otherwise busy...

[RIP-Felix]

Scenario 1: Violates rules 1-3

Your trained chimpanzee seriously hurts or kills one of the rebellious youngsters. The community bands together to trap the dangerous animal. Then they rightly assign blame against you and use the incident as proof of your incompetence as lead programmer. 1, it proves you are not all knowing or good, and since you claim to be good but prove not to be, you're also a liar. Otherwise you would never have sicked an animal with twice the strength of an adult man against a group of children - even if they deserved it.

Scenario 2: Violates rule 1

The inhabitants are amused by the truck monkey. Everyone gets a quick laugh, but your accusers say that you make lite of their concerns, not taking them seriously, which strengthens their argument against you. Some undecided onlookers decide to side against you, and rebel - deciding that the consequences are humerus not serious. However, since rule 1 is in effect you well know this would be their reaction.

Only scenario that doesn't violate the rules:

On the other hand, perhaps this was one inhabitant's response to a group of children throwing a rock at his windshield, an interaction of free wills between inhabitants and not your direct doing. You are bound by rule #4 not to intervene and doing so would also violate rule #2. In that case the mother of the deceased child asks why you did nothing to intervene when you have the power to do so, and why you do not resurrect her child now. Everyone asks why you allow this badness to continue and question your existence. That if you did exist, you must be a liar, evil, or incompetent. Is that true? The events that took place are the consequences of their actions, but since you have the power to stop it and don't, is it tantamount to your having caused it? What's the only way that this scenario plays out in a way that doesn't violate the rules? Why would you allow the badness to continue, for what purpose, and for how long?

[Draco1962]

Let the Titans reestablish the balance...

 

[RIP-Felix]

Violates rule 3

The moment your first inhabitant gets the idea that you don't have their best interests in mind, and that they can disobey, the cycle would repeat. What's to prevent the rebellion from spirolling out of control again in the future? If you're truly good and care about you inhabitants, you need to come up with a plan that proves obedience to you is in their best interest (without any sort of distrust or valid argument against you). Otherwise the cycle will repeat endlessly and the conditions of the simulation will cause you regret. You forsaw all these outcomes before programming the simulation, so obviously you plan to respond in a way that settles the issue definitively, for all time...

Were getting close to the scenario I was alluding to earlier. Can you think of one?

[Draco1962]

I login to my simulator setup wizard and change the ROM path effectively shutting down the simulation. As a progammer I suck orz. My creations suck orz even more and are no longer worthy of anything other than a permanent reset. Time for another "god" to step in and play Sim Earth for a while. 

All of that said, I get your point. I have no desires to be a deity or programmer. Too disappointing when the little 1s and 0s decide you are no longer relevant and turn into program viruses. 

[RIP-Felix]

Okay, so the point is made. Being supreme leader, lead programmer, God, is a difficult job. Deleting their simulation violates all 4 rules. You would not have programmed it in the first place if you did not have a plan to deal with this situation. If you truly are good and all knowing,then how does one respond to rebellion in a way that settles the issue definitively for all time?

Here's my take:

The moment someone gets the idea that they can rebel, then the idea will spread and call into question your sovereignty. This is a serious legal argument that must be put to rest convincingly. The only way to do this is to foretell the consequences of the rebellion, then step back and allow them to self govern until such time as you are thoroughly proven right. They will exercise free will, experience the full unaltered consequences of their cumulative actions, over a long enough period of time to sufficiently prove no form of self governance can prevent the consequences you foretell. Even though it pains you to watch them destroy what you worked so hard to program, you cannot intervene while they try to prove their case against you, as it would undermine their efforts and prolong this period. Once it is clear that they cannot predict the cumulative consequences of their actions and there exists no valid argument left toe be made in opposition to your sovereignty, can you justly put an end to the rebellion and reset the conditions of the simulation (with those surviving keeping their memories).

In the mean time, crate a document in which you explain who you are, why you created them, what you expect of them, and why it's in their best interest to be obedient. Because the document needs to be readable, you can't literally list everything, their puny brains would explode. Instead it would use examples and situations familiar to them, to teach principals they can apply broadly to other situations. In this way they can discern right from wrong and make wise decisions. It would give hope to those good inhabitants to know why they are suffering - to settle the issue of universal sovereignty - and comfort them to know it will not be allowed to continue forever and the damage will be undone.

Those who choose to believe you and use your document to be obedient to the best of their ability will be in a better position to survive when you finally do end the rebellion, because it will be easier for them to remain obedient, having experienced the wisdom of doing so first hand. Those who do not believe, but are not inherently bad or outright opposed to you will have a harder time adjusting, but must be given the chance to learn and obey. Those who are a lost cause will be deleted. Then the dead, murdered, deformed, or otherwise unjustly treated inhabitants will be resurrected, cured, made healthy and given a chance to learn what happened and to choose to obey or not. However, now that everyone has witnessed the truth that you are all knowing, good, and the only person capable of governing, there is no need to allow disobedient rebels. They can be justly deleted as soon as they refuse to obey. The only person this power should belong to is a truthful, all knowing, just and loving "lead programmer". Any inhabitant of a simulation that is not all of those things, but asserts it knows better, proves itself a moronic A$$hat. And now that the issue of universal sovereignty has been settled, it's clear to every inhabitant in the simulation they cannot self govern.

You are free to resume caring for your obedient and loving subjects - adding patches as necessary to increase both their enjoyment, and yours, forever.

[Draco1962]

I know that I could have played this out much longer than I did, and it was a good outlet for sharing some humor in my responses as a frustrated deity/programmer.

 

People are going to be people whether or not we are in a simulation. "The Matrix Reloaded" alluded to having been reset 7 times to "get it right." Of course, when you realize that Neo's powers (he has within the source code that gives him his abilities) extend to Zion, you discover that Zion and the outside world are another simulation of their own for the rebelling beings  "freed from the Matrix" to provide a programmatical escape valve without tipping the "creator's" hand that it is not real at all.

 

Hopefully I will collect enough gold rings on this virtual merry-go-round to get to level Heaven, Nirvana, Valhalla, Enlightenment,  Paradise, The Promised Land,  The Celestial City or whatever it is really called. Well played and glad you responded!

[RIP-Felix]

On 8/3/2020 at 4:19 PM, Draco1962 said:

If we are then the programmers are moronic asshats and we need a patch.

Let me fix that for you: 'If we are then the programmers [rebels] are moronic asshats and we need a patch."

7 hours ago, Draco1962 said:

Hopefully I will collect enough gold rings on this virtual merry-go-round to get to level Heaven, Nirvana, Valhalla, Enlightenment,  Paradise, The Promised Land,  The Celestial City or whatever it is really called. Well played and glad you responded!

Well, here's another food for thought. As lead programmer, why would you create an entire reality for your inhabitants, one they are perfectly adapted to, just to remove them from it? Does it not make more sense that their form and universe is purpose built?

For example, I have a 100 gallon fish tank I created for my marine reef. I hand picked the rock work, carefully chose the right combination of fish so they would get along peacefully, did the same with the corals, invested in proper lighting and marine salt mixes. I have to periodically replace water, clean the glass, feed the animals, replace pumps, lights, skimmers, recharge activated carbon, test for proper levels of alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, iodine, Nitrates, Phosphates, and so on. It's a big job that requires skill to master. Sure it's hard work and expensive to maintain, but I continue at it because I love my creation - it's beautiful and fulfilling. I have been meticulously maintaining it for the last 15 years and it's finally coming into it's own (maturing beautifully).

Then all of a sudden I decide to take a fish out and put it into a terrarium with my pet Tarantula? No, I wouldn't do that. A tarantula has different needs than a fish. My purpose for the fish was to enjoy the realm I created for it to live in. Same with the tarantula. By the way, this is a plausible explanation for why we haven't met any alien species in our simulation.

Actually this is a good analogy for the previous plot as well. What if a fish (let's call him Dick) decides it wants to kill another fish? I carefully reviewed the temperament of each species of fish to begin with to prevent this from happening, but Dick fish has decided to break the rules. Moreover Dick fish gets wise and thinks that he doesn't need me. He tells me off and says "we'll be fine without you all together!" The other fish are like, "hey, yeah! Maybe dick fish has a point." Of course I know that if I stop feeding them, they'll die, but now they don't believe me. Dick fish has turned enough of them against me to incite a complete rebellion. I know that if I stop changing the water, the phosphates and nitrates will build up and algae will ruin the aquascaping, kill all the corals and fish, the whole tank will crash and I'll have to start over from scratch (at great expense to everyone). I try to tell them that, but they don't believe me. The only way is to let them see it for themselves, but I don't want it to get past a point of no return. So I give them their space, leave them alone for as long as I can before the tank would completely crash, then step back in and undo the damage before that happens, essentially saving their universe. Having proven my point to all the inhabitants of the tank, I am free to justly remove unrepentant dick fish. No one will object, because he was a Dick. Now the tank can continue to thrive forever, as I originally intended.

Now here's an interesting question. Would I move Dick fish to the Tarantula terrarium where he'd slowly suffocate and be eaten alive? No, for I am good and that is most decidedly evil. I can't give him his own tank, because he'd subvert them too. Solitary confinement is cruel. I can't give him to a friend, because friends don't give friends evil rebellion inciting dick fish. For the same reason I can't take him back to the store, because they'd resell him and the cycle wound repeat on some unsuspecting customer (and I would be guilty of passing the buck). The only humane and just course of action would be a swift execution. Dick fish, meet mallet. Problem solved.

[Draco1962]

Wouldn't it be better to take a mallet to Dick fish in view of his former tank mates to "hammer home" that you mean business and a warning to any aspiring Dick fish hoping to fill the vaccum created when you removed him?

[RIP-Felix]

Knowing the consequences is enough, they've seen enough violence to fill a million lifetimes (metaphorically speaking). And there is no vacuum, I always was and am again their leader.