What are some reasons why we are definitely NOT in a simulation?
It is fun to think about the Simulation Theory but most discussions revolve around it being likely that we are in one.
What are some concrete reasons why it's all science fiction and not reality?
You're viewing a single thread.
My main argument would be that it would be incredibly unethical. And any intelligent civilization powerful enough to create a simulation like this would be more likely than not to be ethical, and if it was this unethical it is unlikely to exist for long. Those would be two potential reasons why the "infinite regress" in simulation theory is unlikely.
The Starmaker is an interesting exploration into simulation theory.
Not sure I agree with you on it being unethical.
If you could spin up a planet and have it speed through its entire life (till solar expansion say) then any life on the planet would have lived full, unimpeded lives and I can't see any argument for that being unethical.
You'd look at things like the holocaust or million other atrocities and say "this is fine". Also you can't assume they'd die out naturally in 5 billion years, they might colonize other planets and go on and on and on until you pull the switch. They might have created beautiful art and things and preserved much of their history for future generation and then poof all gone. What if they would find out? Would you say "I created them, therefor I own them and can do with my toys as I please". Really?
Not your responsibility if a sentient race goes and annihilates itself. In fact it could be considered abhorrent to interfere with it's natural development and free will.
I agree somewhat with that but: only if the starting conditions were completely random. Otherwise if you set the conditions to be similar to what we know about humanity, you'd have to anticipate both cooperation and competition and parasitic behavior leading to wars and atrocities. And that also assumes that they actually have a chance to grow up for the suffering to have any meaning. If you just turn it off your science experiment at some point you have invalidated the argument.
Either way when you're playing god you'd have to morally justify yourself. Imagine you create a universe that eventually becomes an eternal hell where trillions of sentient beings are tortured through something like "I have no mouth but I must scream".
If they are just simulated, they aren't real (even if close). If they aren't real, what difference does it make? They are NPCs.
"The Hydrogen Sonata" by Ian M. Banks also takes this view. The (incredibly complex and capable) AIs can simulate societies of living "people" to predict how they will behave, down to individual creatures. At some point of complexity in the simulation, they determine that it's no longer ethical to pull the plug because the simulations are "alive" and "self aware" in most every way that matters. As a result, they DON'T simulate past that point.
What if homo sapiens died out and the Neanderthals who succeeded instead decided to simulate how history would have gone if it were the other way around, effectively resurrecting the extinct humans, additionally adding in ethical considerations such that everyone born into the simulation would have an unending post-life existence optimally fitted relative to their own preferences?
Just because we only see part of the picture doesn't mean the whole is as unethical as the part we can see seems to be.
Hmm 😇 The afterlife might be a good way to make it up. Have you seen "The Good Place"?
I have indeed. Some interesting ideas in there.